Bernie Buescher has gotten his wish and been appointed Sec. of State. The Rocky Mountain News offers this insight into Ritter's selection:

Some political observers say it was Buescher's close ties to Ritter that sealed his fate. Buescher and Ritter both advocated for Amendment 58, which would have closed tax loopholes for oil and gas developers, especially on the Western Slope. The amendment was defeated.

In the meantime, Andrew Romanoff will probably end up running for Senate even if he doesn't get the appointment. As for Ken Gordon? Well, he'll have to go back to spamming online polls.

ZVONEK FOR STATE HOUSE: Coffman campaign manager Dustin Zvonek is the leading contender to fill Mike May's seat in HD-44.

JOSHUA SHARF ON KEN GORDON'S SOS "CAMPAIGN": "Except that his 2006 loss to Mike Coffman was widely attributed to the fact that he based his campaign largely on his support for Referendum C and for undermining the Electoral College.  In short, issues completely irrelevant to the Secretary of State's office."

THE HEAVY TOLL OF GLOBAL WARMING: Denver sets new record low temperature (-15).

Bill Ritter has announced the Secretary of State finalists. They are Ken Gordon, Andrew Romanoff, and Bernie Buescher.

As I wrote several weeks ago, Ritter had a real opportunity here to appoint someone with real experience who would put the job before politics. By opening up the process to applicants, he offered a little hope that he was actually looking for someone based on qualifications and not cronyism. Several excellent (and yes, Democratic) candidates applied including Denver County Clerk Rosemary Rodriguez and former Denver County Clerk Sherry Jackson.

Instead, Gov. Ritter has opted to use the position to reward his political allies and has given us a list of candidates who are only going to use the office to advance their own careers.

This all begs the question: if Ritter was just going to give the appointment to one of his allies and ignore the qualified candidates, then why did he put on the charade of taking applications in the first place?

With just a hint of desperation, Ken Gordon has taken to urging his email list to converge on an online poll sponsored by ProgressNow measuring member opinion of the Secretary of State appointment. Here's an excerpt:

You may remember that I ran for this job in 2006 and came very close to winning it.  I received over 49% of the vote and would have gotten a few thousand more votes if Denver had not had an electronic poll book meltdown.  I have asked the Governor to appoint me to the position.
 
You could actually help.  Progress Now is doing an online survey to see the support for various candidates.  I would appreciate a vote. You can also forward the survey directly from Progress Now's website to other people you think may be interested in the Secretary of State appointment by clicking here.

Gordon also sums up his credentials with somewhat of a swipe at his competition:

If you want a person in the Secretary of State's office who actually cares about doing the job, who cares about democracy and citizen participation than I would make a good choice. [Emphasis mine]

Later in the email Ken Gordon plugs his baffling, underwater campaign video from the 2006 election. It's hard to tell what Gordon hopes to accomplish here. Online polls are fairly meaningless to begin with and are even more so when they're for an appointed position. Gordon is as lost as ever.

The New York Times is reporting that Ken Salazar is among the top three Republican targets in the 2010 Senate races:

Republicans have their sights on several Democrats in 2010, including Ken Salazar of Colorado, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Harry Reid of Nevada, the party leader in the Senate.

One thing is certain, Ken Salazar is going to have a fight on his hands to retain his seat. Whether it comes from a strong Republican challenger or a snubbed Democratic politician venting their rage at the party establishment remains to be seen.

Gov. Bill Ritter has an important choice looming on the horizon.

Mike Coffman unfortunately came under fire largely as a result of seeking higher office. By running for congress only two years after becoming Secretary of State he caused his attention to be divided between campaigning and focusing on his office's duties. Even more disruptive was the fact that by running for congress he had painted a giant partisan bulls-eye on his back, every Democratic group in the state was taking shots at him and making it even harder for him to get his job done. Do we really want to repeat this when Andrew Romanoff or Bernie Buescher decide to run for congress or when Ken Gordon gets an itch to run a primary against Ken Salazar?

Rosemary Rodriguez, Sherry Jackson, and Jessica Lovingier all have served as county clerks. While Lovingier, a Republican, is a long-shot; Ritter ought to give priority to Rodriguez and Jackson if he is serious about making sure the office is in competent hands.

If Ritter would rather engage in transparent political pay-back and naked partisanship then Romanoff, Bueshcer, or Gordon would be excellent choices.

By opening the process up to applicants as opposed to simply appointing someone, Gov. Ritter is at least offering a ray of hope that he is honestly looking for the most qualified candidate. Let's hope he follows through.

Democrat Ken Gordon continues to maneuver his way towards the Secretary of State's office should Mike Coffman win the CD-6 primary and resign his office prior to the November election. The Rocky Mountain News reports on the latest:

Veteran state lawmaker Ken Gordon will lead the Colorado Election Reform Commission, a new panel that will study voting systems and recommend changes to the state legislature.

Gordon, a Democratic state senator from Denver who is leaving office after 16 years in the General Assembly, sponsored the bill that establishes the commission and has led numerous legislative efforts related to voting issues in recent years.

"A lot of what we're going to do is going to relate to how the 2008 election goes," Gordon said Friday.

"We'll look and see what kinds of problems there are and that will inform what we do."

Republicans are rightfully concerned that Ken Gordon could be a problem during the 2008 election given some of his more "progressive" views on voting (IRV, anyone?). The most perplexing thing to those within the party opposed to Mike Coffman's plan to resign from the SoS should he win the CD-6 primary is his rationale that remaining Secretary of State would constitute a conflict of interest. Why would his position be a conflict of interest only in the general election and not during the primary election or when Coffman's Secretary of State office validated Coffman's congressional primary petitions?

If Coffman is indeed the victor in CD-6 next week, he should at least be consistent and hold on to his position until after the November election.

The Senate Democratic Caucus locked a Republican staffer out of a caucus meeting in violation of state law. The Senate Minority Office issued the following statement:

A Republican staffer was ejected from a Senate Democrat caucus meeting today at an eatery near the Capitol, raising concerns by Republican leaders that the ruling party might be debating public policy in private--a violation of state law.

By law, when two or more members of the General Assembly meet to discuss legislative business--regardless of the location--other members of the public cannot be refused entry. There are no exceptions for members of an opposing political party or the news media.

Sen. Ken Gordon's attempts to explain away the incident only serves to make this look even more like a deliberate attempt to hold private meetings on legislative affairs. Gordon responded to Politics West:

When Van Winkle walked in Tuesday, Gordon said he didn’t recognize him and gave a hand gesture telling him the room was occupied. Gordon said a Democratic staffer misinterpreted that gesture as a signal to tell Van Winkle to leave.

“I didn’t know he was a Republican staffer,” Gordon said. “I just didn’t recognize him.”

Republicans said earlier in the session Gordon stopped a Democratic caucus meeting one morning when Van Winkle entered, telling Van Winkle, “Why don’t you go get some breakfast?”

Gordon says he understands that staffers from the opposite party can sit in on caucus meetings, but he said the caucus often decides not to discuss important issues if they do.

Gordon's statement that Senate Democrats choose not to discuss matter of importance if members of the opposing party or public are present is a clear violation of the intent of the law.

Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402 All meetings of two or more members of any state public body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.

That law was intended to give the public access to meetings on public policy. Sen. Gordon is stating in no uncertain terms that the Senate Democrats do not want the public to have access to the process by which they decide on "important issues."