Just after the November election, a chastened Cory Gardner told Fox 31′s Eli Stokols:

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in, is absolutely critical.”

So you’d think Gardner, who represents Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, would, over the ensuing six months, at least make room in the GOP tent for the children of undocumented immigrants, who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

You’d think Gardner would get on board with Colorado’s ASSET law, which allows colleges to offer these so-called “Dreamers” the normal in-state tuition rate.

But on Monday, the same day that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed ASSET into law, Gardner told KNUS’ Steve Kelley, that he still opposes Colorado’s new policy of granting in-state tuition to the Dreamers, because Gardner does not believe the U.S. borders are secure enough, and that’s his first priority.

Kelley: Comments on Colorado, now. The Governor, last Friday, rescinded a bill, repealed a bill on notification of illegals. This all ties together, by the way, the Boston bombings and all of these are connected. Obviously, you deal with these things on a federal level, but as a state, now, we’ve repealed this notification thing. And then, in-state tuition for illegals in Colorado, you must have a comment on that.

Gardner: I think we’re actually doing everything backwards. The solution has to come from the federal government on border security with an immigration policy that actually works to identify those who want to come into this country legally, who want to work here legally. But we can’t start putting in place in-state tuition, whether it’s other things that are being in placed [sic] by the states, without actually addressing the root problem that will only continue more illegal immigration into this country. And so, that’s why we’ve got to have a policy that actually works, and I believe it starts with border security.

Gardner, who’s long opposed ASSET, isn’t the only GOP muckety muck who promised to be nice to Hispanics after the 2012 election collapse. Who can forget former GOP lawmakers Josh Penry’s and Rob Witwer’s clarion call for a more loving Republican Party or a dead one. They wrote of the Dreamers: “These kids grow up in households where parents work hard and attend church on Sunday. These are American values. But yes, some of these kids — through no fault of their own — were not born American citizens.”

If Kelley won’t ask a guy like Gardner about the substance of his promise to open the GOP tent to Hispanics, I’m hoping real journalists won’t forget next time they’re standing in front of Gardner and others like him.

The National Journal reported last week that the National Republican Congressional Committee has released an ad attacking Democrat Andrew Romanoff for favoring “the strictest immigration laws in the nation” which Romanoff “passed as Speaker of the Colorado House.” Romanoff is challenging Rep. Mike Coffman, who’s seen as in danger of losing 6th Congressional District seat in Colorado.

The 2006 anti-immigration law cleared the Colorado Legislature with bi-partisan support, including the backing of Romanoff and Gov. Bill Owens.

But if Republicans attack Romanoff on immigration, reporters should obviously spotlight Coffman’s own record on the issue. the Journal’s Ben Terris did a pretty minimalist job of this, pointing out the following about Coffman:

When he first ran in 2008, one of his planks was to “deny amnesty and a path to citizenship to those who violate our laws. But this year, he had a change of heart and all of a sudden supports a path to citizenship.”

Terris should have written more about Coffman and immigration.

To begin with, Terris misleads us when he writes that Coffman supports a citizenship path. Coffman does not favor a path to citizenship for our country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, except for a subset of immigrant children who were brought here illegally by their parents. (Other reporters made the same mistake and corrected it.)

The truth is Coffman voted against the Dream Act, and based on his current position, he’d vote against it again. Coffman advocates a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants who enlist in the U.S. military, but not for those who graduate from high school or college. The Dream Act offers a military and education path to citizenship.

Coffman, you recall, introduced a bill mandating English-only ballots, even for areas with large numbers of Spanish-speaking voters who aren’t proficient in English.

Coffman has long stood with (and endorsed) Rep. Tom Tancredo, who symbolizes American extremism toward undocumented immigrants and immigration reform.

Coffman actually accused Obama in 2011 of rushing “illegal immigrants” onto the voting rolls to help Obama win the 2012 election, and Coffman has yet to provide evidence for this.

Coffman’s opposition to Obamacare, to common-sense tax policy (He opposed Ref. C.), and his hostility toward government assistance to the poor, like the expansion of Medicaid, are out of step with most Hispanic voters and are linked to the politics of the immigration debate.

To this day, the “On the Issues” section of Coffman’s website has this to say, and this only, about “immigration:” “Comprehensive immigration reform must first begin with the comprehensive enforcement of our immigration laws. We must secure the borders of the United States now.”

The list goes on, and reporters covering Coffman’s strange maneuverings on immigration should become familiar with it.

In The Denver Post over the weekend, former State Senate President John Andrews wrote that if Colorado has election-day voter registration, as proposed in the election-modernization bill winding its way through the State Legislature, Democrats would “presto” have “tilted the electoral playing field permanently their way. Republican chances for regaining power and repealing any of this stuff will fade.”

Presto? As in presto-change-o?

The “presto” part I get, because the new law would give people the opportunity to register to vote, presto, upon presenting themselves (and proper documents) at a polling center through Election Day. It would also give every voter the chance to, presto, vote with a mail-in ballot as well as the option of, presto, voting in person at vote centers.

But the “change-o” part baffles.

How is this going to change the political universe here? I looked, and I couldn’t find any evidence that election-day voter registration would make the electoral playing field go blue–or black with fraud.

So I was excited to hear about the evidence Andrews had to support his column.

“I have not done research on it,” he told me.

I was crushed.

But that doesn’t stop Andrews from saying: “Same-day registration is going to make the process of voting more emotion-driven and less reliably honest, and that favors Democrats.”

“Democrats are a lot better at finding people who sign up on that basis [with same-day registration], and some may be legal voters and some might not be,” Andrews said, adding that he doesn’t mean to “demonize anyone” because “people have different opinions.”

So, I asked Andrews, your view is based on your experience here in Colorado?

Yes, he said, along with his trust in Secretary of State Scott Gessler and former State Sen. Mark Hillman, who share Andrews’ “alarm.”

If you talk to Andrews repeatedly, as I have over the years, you know that he usually takes a conversation about a slice of public policy, like election-day registration, and broadens it to discussion about human motivations or political philosophy. It’s fun, but sometimes it scares you.

In this case, Andrews said he doesn’t think Colorado should go to “great lengths to turn everybody out to vote.”

“People who demonstrate what economists call ‘rational ignorance,’ I don’t want those people voting,” he said.

“I’m a believer that voting should be more deliberative.”

Democrats, he said, are more inclined to be “emotional” about a political campaign or “snowed by an ad campaign,” while Republicans, he says are more “fact-based.”

Thus he believes election-day registration favors Democrats, and my point that there’s no evidence to support his position didn’t seem to bother Andrews at all.

Michael “Heck’ve-A-Job” Brownie took to the airwaves Monday to slam Sen. Michael Bennet for promoting the immigration bill that Congress is currently considering.

On his KHOW show, Brown called the bill a “bologna bill” and said he’s “so tired of the BS” from Bennet and others, like Bennet’s statement in an email, quoted by Brownie, that the bill is “our best chance in a generation to fix our broken immigration system.”

Bennet “doesn’t give a rat’s ass about immigration,” Brown said, adding that the bill does “nothing to secure the borders” and “Boston ought to be telling them to secure the borders first, and do everything else later.”

Brownie overlooks the fact that, guess what, the bill stipulates that no one goes down the pathway to citizenship until the border is demonstrably secured, as Sen. Marco Rubio tried to explain to Brownie in an interview with Brownie Thursday.

Rubio told Brownie that the bill “creates a program whereby if the [Department of Homeland Security] doesn’t achieve 90% apprehension rate..then control goes to border state governors to finish the job.”

“I guess it’s my experience within the Department of Homeland Security,” Brownie said on air Monday, “I simply do not trust the system to work.”

Great. He doesn’t trust the system to work. So what’s his alternative?

“I don’t have all the answers,” he said Monday. “…it’s going to take some sort of radical action.”

OK. So when the Brownies of the world come up with their solution, even if it’s some sort of radical action, they should tell us about it. Meanwhile, we can assume they favor doing nothing.

I was glad to see an op-ed in The Denver Post this morning supporting the election-modernization bill winding its way toward Gov. John Hickenlooper’s office.

You recall The Post came out with a shallow editorial last week in favor of most of the bill, but arguing that officials should consider waiting “years” before implementing  election-day registration because it’s so dreadfully complicated for the 21st Century human mind to assemble the necessary technology.

But the Post failed to mention that Colorado’s country clerks are already, in effect, registering people on Election Day with existing technology, which can be used in the 2012 and 2013 elections. And the clerks’ experts say this technology can be upgraded for elections beginning in 2014.

You hate to see a newspaper siding with exclusion, when it comes to elections, based on flimsy evidence, because journalism is supposed to stand for giving everyone a voice. The newspaper should have gone the extra mile to do its homework on the election bill.

So it was a relief to see that The Post gave a Republican, Donetta Davidson (who’s the Director of the CO County Clerks Association), and a Democrat, Joan Fitz-Gerald (former State Senate President), space today to argue for the bill in its entirety. They wrote:

If you’re reading this, you likely voted by mail last November, and you’re in good company: Seventy-two percent of Colorado voters joined you. Mail ballots are a convenient, secure and private way to cast a ballot that is increasingly popular among Colorado voters.

HB 1303 answers the demand of these voters while providing ample options for voters who prefer to vote in person. It eliminates the “inactive-failed-to-vote” status that created confusion for voters. It creates a graduated registration system that scales down the demand on the system as Election Day approaches…

As former county clerks, we both understand the pragmatic, non-political approach to maintaining the public trust in elections. Technology has caught up with the needs of voters and taxpayers. The Voter Access & Modernized Elections Act will mean more people can take advantage of their right to vote, our local governments will save money and we all win.

This publication of this piece again shows the newspaper’s commitment to engaging in a full discussion of issues on its commentary page.

Here’s an audio recording of a panel at the National Conference on Media Reform, poorly moderated by yours truly, but, more importantly, addressing how journalists in Colorado are creating innovative journalism projects.

The participants were Laura Frank, Sam Fuqua, Ann Imse, Kurtis Lee, and Tony Shawcross. Click here to listen.

If you’ve been listening to conservative talk radio lately, you know most radio hosts on these shows don’t like the election-modernization bill working its way through the Legislature.

Though it might be hard to tear yourself away from Steve Kelley on 710 KNUS in the morning, you might give yourself a break and try Gloria Neal on AM 760. That’s “Colorado’s Progressive Talk,” which used to be hosted by author David Sirota.

Neal had a great conversation last week with Ellen Dumm, who’s a spokesperson in favor of the bill. It’s a great interview as she counters most of the misinformation you hear about the bill on the radio, like the lie it’s nothing more than a partisan trick by Democrats. (It’s been endorsed by 75% of the Colorado County Clerks Association, which includes Republicans.)

Lost in all the attacks is the history of how the bill came forward (from the Clerks) and why (to eliminate the confusion among some voters about how to vote as well as to make voting– and voter registration — more convenient for the rest of us, as well as less expensive for our government, while making sure our elections are secure.)

“What is does is very simple. It gets a ballot to every eligible voter, and they can choose to either vote by mail, which three-fourth of Colorado did in 2012. Or they can drop it off. Or they can vote in person. It’s their choice. We always say, it’s their choice and it’s their voice.”

Listen to Neal’s thoughtful interview here.

In an editorial yesterday, The Denver Post praised all the provisions of the election-modernization bill that just passed the State House, but the newspaper questioned the timeline on the implementation of election-day voter registration.

The Post Editorial stated that the “Internet technology specialist” in the Secretary of State’s office had an unspecified “problem” with the timeline proposed in the bill, which envisions offering election-day registration starting in the coordinated election this November and primary election in June.

The Post advised that “more time should be allowed for development and testing of same-day registration technology,” and the newspaper threw out the completely unsupported suggestion that “consideration” should be given to “disallowing voter registration very close to or on Election Day in the first years of using the technology.” [BigMedia emphasis]

It’s not clear what problem the Secretary of State’s internet expert has with the legislation’s timeline, or whether even he thinks it should operate for “years” before it would be trustworthy (somehow I doubt it), but, in any case, The Post should have offered more evidence to support its view. As it is, readers are left thinking The Post irresponsibly relied on just one opinion.  One expert, even a reputable one, shouldn’t carry the day, just because he happens to agree with the editorial writer.

And as it turns out, there’s more to the story.

For the next two elections, prior to the gubernatorial in 2014, the clerks will employ the exact same technology that they currently use to process “address changes” through election day as well as  “emergency registrations,” Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Hillary Hall told me.

In effect, clerks across Colorado have already processed thousands of same-day registrations on or before election day, using existing technology. Their system, which has been in use since 2008, was live (with backup systems in place) during the last election with all 64 counties participating, Hall said.

In the longer term, a “more seamless” interface is needed, because of the volume increase that’s expected in the bigger elections, but it’s not required for the next two elections, Hall said, adding that she’s confident, based on experience and technical advice, that the new interface will be ready for the 2014 election, which is about a year-and-a-half away. The congressional election would be a good test for the technology leading up to the 2016 presidential election, Hall said.

“It’s an ideal time to begin, as we’re building to the next presidential,” Hall said.

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, praised Weld County Sheriff John Cooke recently for taking a “very strong stand on what he thinks the limits of the Federal government are.”

Speaking to Greeley talk show host Scooter McGee, Pratt, who’s in Colorado now to support the recall effort of State Rep. Mike McLachlan, said some sheriffs around the country are ready to arrest federal officials if, in the sheriffs’ views, they are violating the U.S. Constitution.

PRATT Well, I’m very encouraged by the number of sheriffs that–it’s at least pushing 400 now, that have said– there’s a spectrum. At a minimum, they’re saying they’re not going to cooperate with any unconstitutional gun grabs that the federal government might participate in. And at the other end of the spectrum, sheriffs are saying, “Not only will I not cooperate, but if the Feds are doing something unconstitutional in my county, particularly a gun grab, I’ll put them in jail.” But they’re also addressing other issues where the Feds act unconstitutionally and threaten to incarcerate citizens of their county, the sheriffs are interposing themselves and saying, “If you try to do that, you don’t have authority, and you’re not going to do that in my county, and if you try it, I will arrest you.” This has happened in confrontations with the Forest Service, BLM, the Food and Drug Administration, and of course, the ATF – the gun police.

In a column in the Cortez Journal Monday, Montezuma Country Sheriff Dennis Spruell echoed Pratt’s comments, writing that if sheriffs “think a state or federal law contradicts the Constitution, they are under no obligation to enforce it.”

It wasn’t clear if Pratt thought Cooke would actually arrest federal officials, or if Spruell would arrest them, if necessary to enforce their views of the U.S. Constitution, so I called Cooke and Spruell to find out. Cooke did not return my call immediately, but Spruell said, “I swore an oath to the Constitution, but there’s no law that says I can arrest someone who violates the Constitution.”

In his radio interview, Pratt went on to point to a specific example of a situation, in addition to stopping alleged gun grabs, when Sheriffs need to exert their power and arrest the feds–when the Department of Education sends in a SWAT team to collect student loans.

PRATT: Well, it can get pretty absurd. There was a case last year, a young woman looked outside and realized that her residence was completely surrounded by the Men in Black. And when all the commotion finally subsided, it turned out that that was the Department of Education SWAT team, and they were coming for her because she was delinquent on her education [loans]. McGEE: Oh, on her student loans! PRATT: Exactly. Now, the fact that in the past creditors were able to garnish your wages, put a lien on if you own your house, repo[ssess] your car–. Those are actually sensible, measured, equivalent responses to the problem. But now, if they have a SWAT team, they figure they got to use it, or else why do we ask the taxpayers to spend all this money on – McGEE: And, when it comes to budgets, remember we spent a hundred and fifteen thousand dollars last year and we increase the budget every year and we have to justify it by spending it, and using it and—oh, my god, Larry. You’re absolutely right, again. PRATT: So, off we go and the Department of Education is now using a SWAT team to collect delinquent student loans. Frankly, that’s where we need sheriffs. The sheriff needs to come in and say [affecting a ‘good ol’ boy, southern accent], “Boy, I don’t think you ought to be doing that.” And make sure that the boys understand that the sheriff is serious as a heart attack, that he is just talking smooth, and that he is not going to let them do that.

The Durango Herald will live stream a speech by Pratt in Durango today at 6:30 p.m.. He’s in Colorado in support of efforts to recall State Rep. Mike McLachlan.

Rep. Mike Coffman announced last week that he’s joining “No Labels’ Problem Solvers — a group of 56 Democrats and Republicans committed to meeting regularly across the aisle to build trust and talk about solving problems.”

Some labels, like the label of “citizen” for Obama, have bugged Coffman in the past.

But mostly he’s been as label-friendly as a politician gets in Colorado, labeling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” trying to add the label “forcible” to rape, labeling the flat tax as something that has “tremendous value,” labeling the expansion of Medicare under Obamacare as “very radical,” wanting to put the label of “president” of the United States on Gov. Rick Perry. (Conversely, Personhood USA labeled Coffman a “statesman” for standing firm against abortion for rape and for any other reason.)

All this heavy-duty labeling makes you wonder why Coffman would want to join a group called the “No Labels’ Problem Solvers.” Much less be able to get away with it, under scrutiny from the media.

I wondered if a journalist had challenged Coffman on it, and I found that almost nothing had been written about Coffman’s apparent decision to throw his sharp labeling skills out the window.

Some reporter has to call him on this. Coffman has built a reputation in Colorado for saying controversial stuff, often with serious partisan labels attached. What’s up?