Alfred--Colorado "written" election laws are not vague. The statue specifically states:
"According to election law, a candidate must live in a district for 12 months prior to an election date to qualify to run in that district."
There is nothing in written law--which could be considered "vague." If this were not the case--we could have people who "intended" on moving to Colorado running for elected office that lived in New York City.
Alfred thank you for your link: I did look at it--and there is nothing as to how this organization compiles their ratings. For instance we know for a fact--that Larry Liston never supported any tax hike--and I'll take the President of Americans for tax reform, Grover G. Norquist's, word for it.
Mr. Norquist identifies in the below linked letter the Owen Hill's claim that Liston supported Ref. C as "patently false" and also states this in his letter.
"Furthermore, as the only Taxpayer Protection Pledge signer in the race to represent Senate District 10, you are currently the only candidate in the race who has committed to opposing any and all efforts to raise taxes." That comment gets an A+ rating in my book.
I really would not encourage people to back a candidate who has consistently misrepresented himself. Mr. Hill signing sworn affidavits of where he resides is false--his campaign has launched false allegations toward his opponent, Larry Liston, and apparently he also has building department problems--in which a deck he was building was red tagged by the building department has he obtained no permit to build it. It all adds up to a character of a man that is unfit for elected office. A person that lacks honesty and integrity.
To Alfred--go to that page you're referring to copy the link and then paste it-on this thread-I am not getting it.
To Lana Warcorkz--would you please give us a link to the conservative ratings you just gave? I looked and cannot find anything other than the main page of the Colorado union taxpayer page.
I would also suggest to you that any politician that starts off on the wrong foot--by purposeful misrepresentation has some serious ethics issues going on. An impending FELONY charge is very serious. I don't think you would want a whistle clean democrat jumping on the campaign bandwagon here for the general.
It's very important that all elected officials are honest with their constituents--otherwise they have no business what-so-ever running for elected office.
I guess we can all be thankful that Owen Hill doesn't work for Google Maps--or a GPS tracking system.
It sounds to me like Mr. Owen Hill is more crooked than a dog's hind leg. I especially enjoyed reading Mr. Luis Toro's-of Colorado Ethics Watch notes,-( statement who is apparently capable of reading Owen's Hills mind or intent)-when he stated this:
"As Luis Toro of Colorado Ethics Watch notes, that doesn't exactly mean that a candidate must physically live there — just the "intention" of living in that district can be enough.
"Residency is very vague; it depends on intent," says Toro. "[Hill] has a story that sounds plausible."
I really don't see anything that could be considered "vague" in written Colorado election law that states: "According to election law, a candidate must live in a district for 12 months prior to an election date to qualify to run in that district." Maybe Mr. Toro should actually read election law in the future before making such a ridiculous comment?
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation