With an immigration-reform compromise coming soon, including some path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the question is, how willl the GOP base respond?

On the Democrats’ side, immigration reform moves their leaders more closely in line with their base voters.

But on the GOP side, if you recall the last GOP primary and the name Rick Perry rings a bell, things are different. The GOP base is in the Tancredo camp, for the most part.

Just a few days ago, on Friday’s KRMA-TV Channel 6’s “Colorado State of Mind,” you had Colorado State Sen. Ted Harvey trashing a path to citizenship:

Harvey: The problem is, we did that once. Ronald Reagan  did it in the 1980s. When he gave amnesty to about 10 million people, saying, “All right, this is the last time we’re going to do this. We’re going to stop the illegal immigration. And we’re going to allow this population to be normalized.

Well, that didn’t work. We now have upwards to 50 million illegal immigrants in the United States looking for help. And it is a tough situation. You know, a lot of these kids have been here a long time. They think of themselves as American. But if we do this, it’s just going to encourage an entire ‘nother generation. Just like the Reagan policy did. And that’s something that is not good for America. We are a country of laws.” (BigMedia emphasis)

So how will a guy like Harvey, and GOP activists who share his views, respond to fellow Republicans, like Rep. Cory Gardner, who told Fox 31’s Eli Stokols he’s reviewing an immigration compromise, despite Gardner’s history of opposition to proposals involving a path to citizenship?

That’s the story to watch for, as the immigration compromise unfolds. How will it be received by the GOP base?

If you’re a reporter, you’re naturally inclined to pay attention to your Secretary of State when he or she warns that possible legislation could lead to “dramatic” vote fraud.

But if it’s Colorado’s Scott Gessler, we’ve all learned by now, journalists can relax. Just relax. No need to race to get it up on Twitter. No need to rush anywhere, because it’s not news. He’s lost his credibility way more than Chicken Little.

So, I hope you didn’t get excited if you happened to be listening to Greeley radio station KFKA Monday morning and heard Gessler say this to host Tom Lucero:

“I’ve heard a lot of radical stuff coming out of the Legislature. We’ll see what actually happens.

“But one of the things that I’ve heard that they want to push is same day voter registration, where someone shows up on Election Day and registers immediately. And that creates all kinds of havoc in our systems, and it’s not secure at all. We’ve seen, you know, real, real, dramatic vote fraud in other states, especially urban areas that have used that same voter registration. So, I’m afraid that they’re going to push it nonetheless, and despite all our success in voter turnout, and despite our increased participation, I’m afraid that they’re going to claim that things are terrible nonetheless, and use that as an excuse to push for something that really opens us up to vote fraud.”

[Gessler said some other stuff about his work with the courts on other election matters, and you can listen here: Scott Gessler raises specter of voter fraud if election-day registration passes.]

But, please, we all know by now that if fraud were a real issue, the clerks would be worried. All of them may not be right all the time either, but they’re worth listening to.

And in any case, just for the sake of saying it, you don’t need to dig deep to find out that we can have safe election-day voter registration in Colorado. It doesn’t favor one party over another, which wouldn’t be a reason to oppose it, even if it did.

Bottom line for reporters: You can forget about this blog post and get back to real work.

New polling shows that eighty percent of likely voters are pro-choice, in the sense that they are pro-letting-women-decide-if-they-want-to-have-an-abortion. But they don’t necessarily want to be labeled “pro-choice.”

And half of the people who call themselves “pro-life” are actually pro-choice, if you start digging into what they really think.

The poll, from Planned Parenthood, raises the question, what to do if you’re anti-abortion and you want to get elected?

Anti-abortion activists in Colorado have designed ways for anti-choice candidates to run for office and mobilize support from anti-abortion voters, without disclosing to the wider public what they really think about abortion.

Here’s how they’re doing this.

Colorado Right to Life blogs on whether federal and state candidates are “100 percent pro-life.” This year’s determination was based on a nine-question survey, which asked for yes-no responses to queries on personhood (which defines life as beginning at conception), state funding for abortion, and abortion regulations.

The survey isn’t normally made public by CRTL, but this year, Weld Country freshman Republican Rep. Stephen Humphrey, who’s sponsoring a bill banning most abortion in Colorado, including abortions for rape and incest, published the CRTL survey on his website.

In a cover letter to Humphrey accompanying the 2012 candidate survey, CRTL wrote:

We realize there are a few districts, even Democrat primaries, where a ‘pro-life’ label might keep a good candidate from being elected. If you feel this is one of those rare cases, please answer our survey but clearly indicate that you would prefer back-channel conversations only. We would then want to talk with you over the phone or in person, and we can work out together how you could best be helped.

If you are concerned you don’t know how to properly ‘message’ your pro-life views to voters, we have a veteran political communicator who will volunteer to help candidates in this area–just let us know.

This surprised me, I have to say, because, love them or hate them, the folks at Colorado Right to Life don’t seem to play politics much–or they don’t play politics very well. They’re motivated by their issue. They seem to tell their version of the truth, and take the political fallout.

But does the “back-channel” caveat mean Colorado Right to Life would lie on its blog about a candidate’s position on abortion, calling them, for example, supporters of Roe v. Wade when they are not?

If CRTL doesn’t lie about candidate positions, what does the phrase “work out together how you could best be helped” mean?

I tried to get a response from CRTL, but I was only able to reach former CRTL Vice President Leslie Hanks, who told me she was “utterly confidant that no he/we wouldn’t lie.”

But how does the “back channel” work? Hanks didn’t say, but Colorado Right to Life should explain it ASAP.

Otherwise, you can’t help but wonder: do we have stealth personhood supporters in our midst at the State Capitol? Secret Planned Parenthood haters? And when will they reveal who they really are?

On Tuesday, the Colorado Senate passed a resolution:

That we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, agree to conduct ourselves at all times in a manner so as to reflect credit on the Colorado General Assembly and its two houses and to inspire the confidence, respect, and trust of the public in the laws, the Colorado General Assembly, and democratic government.

There was more to it, and you can read it here, but you get the idea.

You’d think a “no” vote by seven Republican Senators, including Senate Minority Leader Cadman, would catch the attention of the Capitol press corps.

What’s up with a no vote on a bipartisan civility resolution?

The No’s were: Scheffel, Baumgardner, Brophy, Cadman, Crowder, Grantham, and Lambert.

YES 28 NO 7 EXCUSED 0 ABSENT 0

Aguilar Y Guzman Y Kefalas Y Roberts Y Balmer Y Harvey Y

Kerr Y Scheffel N Baumgardner N Heath Y King Y Schwartz Y

Brophy N Hill Y Lambert N Steadman Y

Cadman N Hodge Y Lundberg Y Tochtrop Y

Carroll Y Hudak Y Marble Y Todd Y

Crowder N Jahn Y Newell Y Ulibarri Y

Giron Y Johnston Y Nicholson Y President Y

Grantham N Jones Y Renfroe Y

Among numerous reports on the Democrats’ news conference at the State Capitol yesterday announcing the introduction of a bill offering in-state tuition to illegal-immigrant students, only Rocky Mountain Community Radio reporter Bente Birkeland found a Republican lawmaker willing back the “concept.”

That would be freshman Sen. Larry Crowder, who reiterated his support not only for reduced tuition but a path to legalization, which is abhorred by many Colorado Republicans. Berkeland reported:

“I do support the concept. I believe that if an individual has went through our school system for a period of 6,8,10 years, we already have that investment in him for public education. It’s an issue here where we want people to become legalized.”

Berkeland also quoted Republican Minority Leader Bill Cadman, who opposes the measure.

Other reporters covering yesterday’s news conference quoted Republican legislators’ opposition to ASSET.

KMGH 7’s Marc Stewart found GOP Sen. Ted Harvey continuing his opposition:

“I think they’re being honest with the voters. Last time, they mini-subsidized (tuition) if you will. This time they’re going to completely subsidize it,” said Sen. Ted Harvey, a Republican from Highlands Ranch.

The Associated Press’ Ivan Moreno quoted Rep. Brian DelGrosso, who felt the measure is unfair to out-of-state kids but, in other interviews, he saw some merit in it.

“You got a lot of students who come here to Colorado [from out of state] to go to college, and they’re paying the high, out-of-state tuition fee. And they’re like, ‘Why should I not get the same benefit as some of these other students?’” DelGrosso said.

He also said he disagrees with the notion that Republican opposition to the bill hurts the party’s courtship of Latino voters, who have largely favored Colorado Democrats. He said Latino families who have gone through the process for legal residency feel like it undermines their efforts.

“I don’t think that the entire Latino community is a hundred percent behind this. It’s unfair to say that it’s us against the Latino community because we have definitely heard from several folks in the Latino community that quite frankly don’t want us to go this route,” he said.

House Republican Leader Mark Waller, told the Associated Press’ Kristin Wyatt that a path to citizenship should come before reduced tuition:

“Let’s define a clear path of citizenship for these kids,” Waller said. “Because giving education without citizenship does nothing to providet opportunity for them.”

Wyatt should have pointed out that Obama has granted undocumented students the ability to get work visas.

Reporters were right, obviously, to quote GOP opposition to reduced tuition for undocumented students, but there’s a small minority of Republicans who are behind it, and they should be heard.

But, as they present this view, Reporters should note that the vast majority of the GOP remains opposed.

On KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Jan. 9, State Senator Ted Harvey said he likes to refer to “same-day voter registration” as “same-day voter fraud,” and, he added, “it’s a disaster for the Republican Party.”

Hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley, didn’t ask Harvey for his evidence that that same-day voter registration results in increased fraud. Maybe because they know there isn’t any, and they didn’t want to embarrass themselves and Harvey.

Also, contrary to Harvey’s assertion, same-day voter registration, allowed in eight states last year, does not favor Democrats over Republicans.

SENATOR TED HARVEY: Election reform. They will do same sex – [correcting himself]—same day voter registration. I call it ‘same day voter fraud’ because you’re going to have people registering to vote all over the state multiple times, and voting multiple times. It’s a disaster for the Republican Party. You’re going to see same – you’re going to see all–mail ballots, in all elections. So that even in partisan elections, you’re going to get all-mail ballots. I have a problem with all-mail ballots for primaries because of the potential for fraud. I really have a problem with all-mail ballots in general elections because people can—a lot of people are worried about the fraud that we saw in the last election when we had ballot booth voting. You’re going to see a lot more of it if you have all-mail ballots, I think.

Talk-radio hosts, even the good folks a Grassroots Radio Colorado, shouldn’t throw out accusations of election fraud without evidence to back them up.

And if they have an elected official on the show, they should raise the bar for rational discourse above the low level where it normally rests in the studio.

Don’t we all want elections that are as fair and inclusive as possible? Allowing Harvey to promote hyperbolic and unsubstantiated accusations of potential election fraud won’t help get us there.

Listen to Sen Harvey on KLZ Radio Jan 9 2013

The headline of a Dec. 6 Pueblo Chieftain article, titled “Senator-Elect Has New Idea on Pinon Canyon,” should have actually been, “New Lawmaker To Be First GOP Senator to Support State Version of Dream Act.”

The Pueblo Chieftain’s Peter Strescino began his Dec. 6 story with freshman state Sen. Larry Crowder’s idea, which isn’t so new, for the state to purchase property at Pinon Canyon from the Army.

But the real news, given Republican obstinence to lowering tuition for undocumented college students, was Crowder’s promise not only to buck his fellow Republican Senators’ position on lowering tuition rates, but also his advocacy of a path to citizenship for undocumented students:

The Chieftain reported:

“Crowder also advocated a version of the so-called Dream Act, which would allow lower college tuition rates to children who were brought to the country illegally, have been in Colorado schools systems a number of years and are college eligible academically. 

“If they agree to choose and participate in a path to naturalization, I say, help them with the tuition.”

A path to naturalization! Plus lower tuition! Jackpot!

“A path to naturalization.” I wrote it again to help you appreciate that it’s not a phrase that flows from the mouth of a Republican very often, and hence the news value of Crowder uttering it.

You hear murmurs of support from GOP state  lawmakers for lowering tuition rates, proposed as part of ASSET legislation last year, but when was the last time you heard a Republican at the State Capitol stand up for giving any current undocumented immigrants, even children, the same citizenship opportunities our country gave Italian immigrants, for example, who came to America illegally in the past.

Reporters should find out if Crowder plans to work with President Obama, who supports a path to citizenship, and if Crowder will get on the horn to his fellow Colorado Republicans in the House of Representatives, because they’re the ones who will be working on legislation that deals with the citizenship issue, since that’s obviously decided at the federal level.

And none of them supports any path to citizenship for the country’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

Reporters should be on the lookout for Republicans who try to make themselves sound like they support reducing college tuition rates for undocumented college students, but when it comes to specifics, they actually say nothing but gobbledygook.

Here’s an example of what not to do, from Rocky Mountain Community Radio reporter Bente Birkeland’s Dec. 31 interview with Colorado Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman about the upcoming legislative session:

Birkeland: One of the contentious bills that will be coming back is a bill that offers this lower tuition rate to students who graduate from Colorado high schools. In the past, the GOP in both chambers has not supported that measure. Do you see any movement on the issue?

Cadman: Sure. I think what we’re looking for is tuition equity [editor’s note: gobbledygook]. We’re looking for a solid formula that allows people affordable access to quality higher ed [editor’s note: gobbledygook]. What we need to do systemically is put something forward that shows an equitable access for everybody, not based on some specific criteria [editor’s note: gobbledygook].

Three things could be going on here, in light of the presence of the gobbledygook.

One, Cadman and fellow Republicans have opposed reduced tuition rates for so long that they can’t bring themselves to say they’ll support lowering the rates this year. They can’t get the words out of their mouths. (See Rep. Libby Szabo, “I don’t comment on anything I have not seen,” and CU Prez Bruce Benson, “I’m not going to tell you exactly how I feel.”)

Or more likely, Cadman still opposes helping undocumented students, but he doesn’t want to say it as directly as he used to (See below.), for fear of driving even more Hispanics away from the GOP, as seen in the last election. And he doesn’t think his indecision will further poison the Republican brand among Hispanics—because he doesn’t think reporters will call him out on it.

Or Cadman doesn’t know what to say.

Or maybe a combination?

In any case, Birkeland should have asked him, specifically, if he’d vote for the reduced-tuition bill, if it came up in exactly the same form as last year.

Would he even consider voting “yes” this time, when he voted against the measure just nine months ago, telling the Colorado Statesman’s Peter Marcus in April:

Cadman: “You’re providing a benefit to someone who doesn’t legally deserve it.” [Note to reporters: All Republican state Senators voted against the bill last year. Also, no public funds would be provided.]

As it was, Birkeland let Cadman sound like he stands behind not only undocumented students but every single college student in the state of Colorado. That’s great, but what is he prepared to do about it? And, again, what about those pesky undocumented high-school graduates who grew up with our own kids? Should colleges have the option of offering them in-state tuition rates?

In an article summarizing a hearing Tuesday before the State Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, EdNews Colorado reported CU President Bruce Benson’s latest thinking on state legislation that would create a reduced tuition rate for undocumented students in Colorado.

EDNews: [Benson] said formally supporting such legislation is up to the Board of Regents, and “the regents are kind of split on these things.” Benson added that charging undocumented students high tuition “just doesn’t make any sense” but added “I’m not going to tell you exactly how I feel.”

But Benson, who was the Republican nominee for governor in 1994, did tell the Denver Post in June exactly how he felt about Metropolitan State University’s decision earlier this year to reduce its tuition rate for undocumented students.

Benson told The Denver Post at the time:

“There’s a building down the street from me with a gold dome on top of it,” Benson said, referring to the state Capitol, not far from his downtown office. “And they took a vote that, in effect, decided the state policy….”

“Federally, we have policies where we demand that things are done when kids are in K (kindergarten) through 12, but then we say, ‘the heck with you’ when it comes to higher ed,” Benson said. “If we have a federal policy for K-12, then we need one for higher ed too.

“But having said that, I wouldn’t have done what Metro did. If the legislature didn’t pass anything, then that’s it.”

State legislators on the JBC grilled Metro officials Tuesday, as they’d done in the Spring, about its reduced tuition rate for undocumented students.

EdNews reported:

“The actions you took broke federal law and broke state law” [Rep. Cheri Gerou] said, adding that Metro had violated correct processes in taking its action.

“I actually respectfully disagree with ‘violating process,’” responded Metro President Steve Jordan, adding, “I disagree with Rep. Gerou’s interpretation of federal law…”

Gerou replied, “Thank you gentlemen. I don’t agree with you, but that doesn’t really matter.” Referring to the issue’s prospects in the 2013 legislative session, she said, “I think we’re going to do something about that. … We need to make sure these students are successful. I don’t want to set them up for failure.”

EdNews should have pointed out that Gerou, a Republican, struck a more conciliatory tone this week than she did in June, when she said Metro’s decision could affect the University’s future funding from the legislature. And she said in June that the tuition issue was more of a federal problem than a state one.

A group of 10 Republicans, including House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, subsequently sent a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper informing him that “several state legislators have already begun drafting legislation to overturn the Metro State action and reaffirm legislative authority over tuition classifications.”

The status of this draft legislation, as well as Gerou’s specific thoughts on ASSET should have been reported by EdNews.

If you listened Tuesday to KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado (560 AM), you got to hear Republican State Sen. Scott Renfroe say that all potential gun-control legislation is so “crazy” and “un-American” that he won’t compromise on it at all, even though he later said Republicans always want to reach across the aisle.

Un-American? You’d think Renfroe was talking about an effort to wipe out the constitutional right to bear arms.

But no. He was referring to bills affecting “high capacity magazines, a “waiting period of up to 30 days to buy a gun,” “private sales,” and an unspecified “list of things we’ve heard as potential bills.”

Renfroe said he’d kill all gun-control legislation, if he had his way.

Renfroe: You know, the NRA has been at the table making compromises. So, unfortunately, we don’t put the best people forward from the Republican Party to stand for liberty, either. And we need to do a better job at that. And this issue is going to be at the forefront, and I’d rather try to kill everything we have and move forward, as opposed to rely on the next generation of elected officials to fix something that we do now.

Renfroe won’t compromise on gun legislation at all, but that didn’t stop him from saying later on the same radio show that Republicans are always ready to compromise.

Bemoaning potential Democratic opposition to his bill regarding photo radar and photo enforcement, Renfroe said Republicans are the ones who “always try and reach across the aisle.”

You’d think the good folks at Grassroots Radio Colorado, even if they don’t always do their homework before their show, would call out a guest when he completely contradicts himself during the course of one short interview.

Read a transcript of the segment and hear audio here.