Colorado Editorial Roundup

The Denver Post, Oct. 17, on Rep. Jovan Melton needing to withdraw from election:

Rep. Jovan Melton’s character and his credibility are in serious question after The Denver Post reported last week that Melton, the Democratic majority deputy whip in the state House, pleaded guilty to harassment in 1999 after Boulder police arrested the then-20-year-old University of Colorado student for domestic violence related charges.

Melton should withdraw from the election so a Democratic vacancy committee can appoint a candidate who doesn’t have a scandal impeding his or her ability to effectively represent House District 41 in southwest Aurora.

The victim in the 1999 case, Melton’s former girlfriend, told police that night and later wrote in a request for a permanent restraining order that Melton had previously pushed her down so forcefully it broke her tailbone in two places.

Also in that restraining order the woman, whose name is not being reported because of the nature of the case, reported that Melton had twice sexually assaulted her.

Melton denies the accusations and said the woman’s tailbone was broken during consensual sex.

Nearly a decade later, in 2008, Denver police arrested Melton on a misdemeanor assault charge after a different girlfriend told police at the scene of an accident that Melton had hit her while she was driving causing the crash. That charge was later dropped.

We are sympathetic to the fact that Melton was still a college student when he pleaded guilty to harassment, and that the justice system in this state and across the nation has failed men of color; Jovan Melton is black. It’s reasonable to assume that a white man in a college town would be exceedingly less likely to have been arrested and charged in 1999 under similar circumstances.

But Melton’s denials of these well-documented events are not credible. A neighbor, who called the police, and a roommate in 1999 both corroborated the victim’s story of domestic violence and verbal abuse.

Then there are Melton’s bewildering public statements. He has flat denied domestic violence in both cases, which means that he is accusing both women of lying, while he also is saying that he is “deeply committed to seeking the appropriate counseling to ensure that my emotions never fuel these types of events in the future..”

None of that adds up.

If Melton is re-elected in November, he would not only be a distraction at the General Assembly, where his colleagues would be forced to reckon with the fact that Melton didn’t disclose these incidents for the past six years he has been in office. Democrats ousted a member last session for credible allegations of work-place sexual harassment. Would they oust a member for a decades old guilty plea to harassment and allegations of sexual assault cited in a restraining order but for which an arrest was never made and no charges were ever filed? Is it the job of lawmakers to investigate such criminal allegations that are past the statute of limitations and where the victim did not come forward voluntarily?

We urge Melton to withdraw from this election and spare his colleagues and the women in these cases.

But also, we would like to emphasize that we don’t think Melton should be barred from all future public service. If he were to seek public office again, while being transparent about these issues in his past, and win voter approval, that would be an entirely different circumstance. Everyone deserves redemption and second chances and Melton has been a leader at the Capitol.

However, this election - just weeks away in a district that leans heavily Democratic - cannot be viewed as a referendum on Melton’s credibility.

That being said, if Melton refuses to withdraw, we have no choice but to urge those living in House District 41 to vote for the Republican on their ballot.

Because the Republican whose name is on the ballot - Dahlia Jean Weinstein - has withdrawn from the race, a vote for Weinstein is a vote for the very competent candidate, Lynn Myers, who was appointed by a GOP committee.

Myers is a former Arapahoe County Commissioner and realtor who is senior vice president of the Denver South Economic Development Partnership. She’s involved with two nonprofits and would be a fine representative even for constituents from the other party.

Voters should consider putting someone in office who they can unequivocally trust, even if it’s outside their party, over a candidate who hid these problems for years and has responded in a way that leaves us jumping through hoops to follow his logic and ultimately left with disbelief.

Editorial: https://dpo.st/2yoPYQY

___

(Colorado Springs) The Gazette, Oct. 16, on Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis conceding he may not deliver:

No, Virginia, Santa cannot withstand scrutiny. Neither can the platform of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis.

Visualize a debate moderator interrogating Santa Claus.

“Mr. Claus, Earth contains nearly 2 billion kids. If you deliver a gift to each in 1 minute - down the chimney, back up and onto the next - your distribution takes 38 centuries. You claim to do this in one night, sir, with a sleigh.”

Santa: “You know I’ve never really claimed I could do that. Not once.”

Santa sounds much like our friend Jared Polis in the Gazette/KOAA gubernatorial debate Saturday night with Walker Stapleton.

Polis, the Democratic nominee, came off as a kind, approachable, Santa-like figure eager to distribute a life-changing assortment of gifts. Free all-day kindergarten and preschool. Medicare for all. Energy from the wind and sun, and more. We applaud his benevolent intentions. If he can do all this, he might also give us wings to fly.

Stapleton, the Republican nominee, tried to keep things real - a more difficult means to win hearts, minds, and votes.

“There’s a reason Congressman Polis won’t level with you and tell you how to pay for his plans,” Stapleton said. “The only way to pay for them is by doubling your personal income taxes - that’s for his health care plan alone - or maybe tripling them, or tripling them on all businesses.”

Polis did not refute this analysis. Instead, he claimed he might not deliver this gift.

“As Walker Stapleton knows, the governor and the Legislature have no ability to raise taxes in our state,” he said.

Translation: Vote Polis if you want universal health care. Just don’t worry about the cost, because Polis would have no means to carry out the promise. This fact should allay concern about the cost.

Polis offered a similar answer when Stapleton and KOAA moderator Rob Quirk pressed him on his promise of 100 percent renewable energy.

Stapleton explained the sun does not shine 24 hours, and the wind routinely goes still. That means we cannot rely 100 percent on solar and wind anytime soon.

“And make no mistake, independent economists have said Jared Polis’s renewable plan will cost Colorado $45 billion. Our budget is $30 billion,” Stapleton said.

“The people who will pay that the most are the hardworking middle-class Coloradans who will see their utility bills go through the freaking roof.”

Again, Polis declined to refute the damning analysis.

“You know I’ve never supported a 100 percent renewable energy portfolio standard. Not once during the primary, or during the general. he’s attacking a straw man.”

Debate moderator: “So you haven’t said 100 percent renewable by 2040? Is that correct?”

Of course, Polis has said this. It is a key promise of the Polis platform. His website says: “I’m running on a plan to bring Colorado to 100% renewable energy by 2040, we can’t afford to wait.”

Polis makes an identical promise in a video on the website.

“Look. Absolutely. Absolutely,” Polis said in response to Quirk. “We’re not using any kind of top-down mandate to get there.”

In other words, don’t worry about the cost of 100 percent renewable energy because Polis won’t mandate it. That means he might not deliver it, in which case the cost becomes moot.

In debating transportation, Polis sounded like a fiscal hawk who would not pursue anything the state could not afford.

“If you’re going to fund something you have to figure out how to pay for it upfront,” Polis said.

On this, we agree. And that is why Polis should tell us upfront his plan to fund Medicare for all, all-day kindergarten and preschool, bicycle paths and more mass transit, paid family and medical leave, and more. Virginia wants to know. Is Santa Claus real?

Editorial: https://bit.ly/2Et13WM

___

Greeley Tribune, Oct. 16, on Proposition 109 offering the best fix for Colorado’s roads:

If you’ve spent much time on Interstate 25 recently or traveled through Greeley’s spaghetti junction at U.S. 34 and U.S. 85, you don’t need us to tell you something must be done about the state of Colorado’s roads, bridges and overpasses.

We’ve grown a lot recently, and we haven’t done much to ensure our network of roads that allows us to get from place to place has grown with us. Nor have we done much to maintain our existing roads.

While it is frustrating for many of us to sit in traffic in northern Colorado, the truth is it isn’t a problem that’s unique to this region. If you’ve tried to head west on Interstate 70 to the mountains recently, you know what we mean.

Across the state, there are simply too many vehicles on too few roads.

It’s time to address that problem. We’re not the only ones who think so.

A couple groups - the Independence Institute and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce - are pushing a couple ballot measures this year that would drive investment in transportation.

Proposition 109 - dubbed “Fix Our Damn Roads” by its authors at the Independence Institute - would allow the state to borrow up to $3.5 billion in bonds to go only for state road and highway maintenance and expansion. The money would not be part of the state spending limit and would have to be repaid without raising taxes or fees. The total repayment amount could not exceed $5.2 billion over 20 years.

The other measure, Proposition 110, calls for a state sales tax increase to 3.52 percent from 2.9 percent for the next 20 years to fund state and local transportation projects.

We’re throwing our support behind Proposition 109. We believe the state should invest in roads as a core function of government. And we think now is the time to act.

Though voters could chose to support both 109 and 110, we think Proposition 109 is better for Greeley, Evans, Windsor and northern Colorado. One big reason is the list of projects that would be considered for funding. Across the state, Proposition 109 calls for a list of more than 60 highway maintenance and expansion projects. In northern Colorado, the I-25 expansion project from Colo. 66, near Longmont, to Colo. 14 near Fort Collins, is on the list. That’s an important stretch of road that commuters and companies right here in Greeley, Evans and Windsor rely on every day. In Greeley, the junction of our two major highways, U.S. 34 and U.S. 85, is on the list for much-needed attention.

For its part, Prop 110 makes the Denver Metro Area a much bigger winner.

Perhaps most importantly, though, we like that Proposition 109 doesn’t include a sales tax hike. That’s important for communities like Greeley, which recently passed its own sales tax bump to support investment in local transportation projects. We worry that if sales taxes rise too much, when Greeley officials must ask voters again in the future to support local transportation projects, residents will be hesitant to do so, and our community will suffer as a result.

To be sure, Proposition 109 isn’t perfect. For example, it offers no long-term solution to the state’s overall budget challenges that have helped create our current transportation crisis.

However, something must be done, and Proposition 109 offers voters the best chance to immediately improve our roads and bridges across the state.

Editorial: https://bit.ly/2J3ckvC