ATLANTA (AP) — From her earliest campaigns in California to her serving as President Joe Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris has honed an aggressive but calibrated approach to debates.

She tries to blend punch lines with details that build toward a broader narrative. She might shake her head to signal her disapproval while her opponent is speaking, counting on viewers to see her reaction on a split screen. And she has a go-to tactic to pivot debates back in her favor: saying she’s glad to answer a question as she gathers her thoughts to explain an evolving position or defend a past one.

Tuesday’s presidential debate will put the Democratic vice president’s skills to a test unlike any she’s faced. Harris faces former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, who will participate in his seventh general election debate since 2016 for an event that will be seen by tens of millions of viewers just as early voting in November’s election starts around the country.

People who have competed against Harris and prepared her rivals say she brings a series of advantages to the matchup, including her prosecutorial background juxtaposed with Trump being the first U.S. president convicted of felony crimes. Still, Harris allies warn that Trump can be a challenging and unpredictable opponent who veers between policy critiques, personal attacks, and falsehoods or conspiracy theories.

“She can meet the moment,” said Marc Short, who led Republican Vice President Mike Pence’s debate preparation against Harris in the fall of 2020. “She has shown that in different environments. I would not underestimate that in any way.”

Julian Castro, a Democrat who ran for president against Harris in the 2020 primary, said Harris blended “knowledge, poise and the ability to explain things well” to stand out during crowded primary debates.

“Some candidates get too caught up with trying to be catchy, trying to go viral,” Castro said. “She’s found a very good balance.”

Balancing narrative and detail

A former Harris aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk about her approach, said the vice president views the events like a jury trial she would have led when she was district attorney in San Francisco or querying a judicial nominee on Capitol Hill as a U.S. senator. The idea, the former aide said, has always been to win the debate on merit while leaving more casual or piecemeal viewers with key takeaways.

“She understands that debates are about the individual interactions themselves but also about a larger strategy of offering a vision for what your leadership and style looks like,” said Tim Hogan, who led Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s 2020 primary debate preparation.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a political communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said Harris makes deductive arguments but folds them into a broader narrative — the same way she would talk to jurors.

“She states a thesis and then follows with fact, fact, fact,” Jamieson said.

Jamieson pointed to the 2020 vice presidential debate in which Harris hammered Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy, and to her most memorable 2019 primary debate when she skewered Biden for how he had talked about race and institutional racism. She weaved her critique of Biden’s record with her own biography as a young, biracial student in the early era of school integration.

“That little girl was me,” Harris said in a widely circulated quip that punctuated her story about court-ordered busing that helped non-white students attend integrated schools.

“Most people who are good at the deductive argument aren’t good at wrapping that with an effective narrative,” Jamieson said. “She’s good at both.”

Landing memorable punches

Castro said Harris has a good feel for when to strike, a quality he traced to her trial experience. In 2019, as multiple Democratic candidates talked over one another, Harris sat back before getting moderators to recognize her.

“Hey, guys, you know what? America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we’re going to put food on their table,” she said, taking control of the conversation and drawing applause.

When Harris faced Pence in 2020, it was a mostly civil, substantive debate. But she got in digs that framed Pence as a serial interrupter, as Trump had been in his first debate with Biden.

“Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking,” she said at one point, with a stern look. At another: “If you don’t mind letting me finish, we can have a conversation.”

Finding traps in policy

Debates have sometimes put Harris on the defensive.

In the 2020 primary matches, Tulsi Gabbard, who this year has endorsed Trump, blitzed Harris over how aggressively she prosecuted nonviolent drug offenders as a district attorney.

That fall, Pence made Harris sometimes struggle to defend Biden’s positions. Now, her task will be to defend not just Biden’s record, but her own role in that record and what policies she would pursue as president.

Short, one of Pence’s top aides, noted that Republicans and the media have raised questions about more liberal positions Harris took in her 2020 primary campaign, especially on fracking, universal healthcare, reparations for slavery and how to treat migrants who cross the U.S. border illegally.

“We were surprised that she missed some opportunities (against Pence) when the conversation was centered around policy,” Short said.

Timing, silence and nonverbal communication

One of Harris’ earliest debate triumphs came in 2010 as she ran for California attorney general. Her opponent was asked about his plans to accept his public pension while still being paid a salary for a current public post.

“I earned it,” Republican Steve Cooley said of the so-called “double-dipping” practice.

Harris looked on silently, with a slightly amused look as Cooley explained himself. When moderators recognized her, she said just seven words – “Go for it, Steve. You earned it!” — in a serious tone but with a look that communicated her sarcasm. The exchange landed in her television ads within days.

“Kamala Harris is quite effective at nonverbal communication and knowing when not to speak,” Jamieson said.

The professor said Harris often will shake her head and, with other looks, telegraph her disapproval while her opponent is speaking. Then she smiles before retorting, or attacking, in a conversational tone.

“She defuses some of the argument that Trump makes that she is ‘a nasty woman,’ that she’s engaging in egregiously unfair behavior, because her nonverbal presentation is actually undercutting that line of attack,” Jamieson said.

Meeting a new challenge with Trump

For all of Harris’ debate experience, Tuesday is still a new and massive stage. Democrats who ordinarily tear into Trump instead appeared on Sunday’s news shows to make clear that Harris faced a big task ahead.

“It will take almost superhuman focus and discipline to deal with Donald Trump in a debate,” said Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, yet another of Harris’ 2020 opponents, on CNN. “It’s no ordinary proposition, not because Donald Trump is a master of explaining policy ideas and how they’re going to make people better off. It’s because he’s a master of taking any form or format that is on television and turning it into a show that is all about him.”

Castro noted that Trump is “a nasty and crafty stage presence” who makes preparation difficult. And with ABC keeping the candidates’ microphones off when they are not speaking, Harris may not find it as easy to produce another viral moment that hinges on viewers having seen or heard Trump at his most outlandish.

“The best thing she can do,” Castro said, “is not get distracted by his antics.”

Voters in November will decide whether to ban the practice, along with the trapping of bobcats. That prospect has set off a deluge of competing claims about what will happen if big-cat hunting ceases.

People supporting the ban say that mountain lion populations are self-regulating and will stabilize at a level supported by their available habitat and food resources. Those opposed to Initiative 91, meanwhile, say a hunting ban would induce a rapid increase in the number of big cats, which in turn would pose a significant threat to deer and elk herds.

The truth is likely a mix of the two, according to studies and experts.

But beyond biology, the statewide ballot measure is asking Coloradans to consider deeper questions about the future of Colorado’s wildlife, both opponents and supporters said.

State wildlife managers now set hunting limits on the number of mountain lions that can be killed while still maintaining a lion population, said Samantha Miller, the manager of the Cats Aren’t Trophies campaign. The ballot initiative’s proponents want wildlife managers to focus instead on how to foster the best and healthiest population possible for the intrinsic value of having the animal roam the landscape.

“I think it’s a fundamentally different question that we’re asking,” Miller said.

Mountain lion hunters represent about 1% of the more than 200,000 big-game hunting licenses the state sells every year. But hunters opposed to the measure fear it’s the first step in a slippery slope toward banning all hunting.

“You start taking out pieces of the puzzle and soon you don’t have a puzzle,” said Dan Gates, executive director and co-founder of the Colorado Trappers and Predator Hunters Association. He’s a leader in a number of groups opposing the ban, including Colorado Wildlife Deserves Better, Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project and Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management.

Self-regulation or out-of-control growth?

The number of mountain lions in Colorado is difficult to determine because of their elusive and solitary nature. Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists estimate between 3,800 and 4,400 adult lions live in the state and say the population has grown since the species was classified as a big game species in 1965.

State biologists do not have an estimate for how many bobcats live in Colorado, but they believe the population is healthy and may be increasing in some areas.

Neither mountain lions nor bobcats are listed as federally threatened or endangered species. An estimated 20,000 to 40,000 mountain lions live in the U.S., as do more than 1.4 million bobcats.

“Both informal and recently collected empirical data suggest Colorado’s lion population is strong and lions are abundant in appropriate habitat,” states a Colorado Parks and Wildlife pamphlet on the species.

In the 2022-2023 hunting season — the most recent for which CPW data is publicly available — 2,599 people bought mountain lion hunting licenses and hunters killed 502 lions, making for a 19% success rate.

Those with opposing views of the ballot initiative posit different futures should mountain lion hunting be banned. But the truth is likely a mix of the two, said Jerry Apker, a retired CPW wildlife biologist who worked as the statewide carnivore biologist for 17 years before his 2017 retirement.

Populations would likely spike in the first years after hunting ends before increased mortality rates temper that growth, Apker said. Eventually, mountain lion populations tend to reach a stasis and fluctuate based on what food and habitat is available.

The felines have larger litters with higher survival rates when more resources are available, but in times of stress, they have smaller litters and more mortalities.

A cessation in hunting would also likely increase human interactions and conflicts with lions, he said. The most hunted lions are typically subadults and young adults — the same lions still working to establish home ranges. More young lions on the landscape means they will eventually be pushed to subprime habitats as well as more populated areas.

There’s no way of knowing how many mountain lions would live in Colorado should hunting stop — there’s never been a statewide research study done on the question, Apker said.

“I think the statements of doom and gloom that they’re going to take over are a convenient argument, but that’s not true,” he said.

Apker opposes the effort to ban mountain lion hunting, but he said other opponents’ argument that the ban would decimate elk and deer herds is far fetched. While predation might increase, the largest impacts to deer and elk populations would come from human alteration of the landscape. Less habitat, the degradation of existing habitat and brutal winters are significantly larger factors that determine population change.

California comparison

Colorado and other western states have enacted various levels of restrictions on mountain lion hunting.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission earlier this year ended the state’s spring mountain lion season, instead restricting legal hunting to a single season that runs from November through March. The commission also banned hunters from using electronic recordings of other lions or distressed prey to lure mountain lions to an area.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in July voted in favor of stricter limits and shorter seasons for cougar hunting. It acted on a petition filed by a number of local and national conservation and animal rights groups.

California voters in 1990 chose to ban mountain lion hunting in the state permanently, though hunting of the felines had not been permitted since 1972 — when then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a moratorium. California is the only state with a full ban on hunting pumas, and it officially states that its aim is to instead conserve the species “for their ecological and intrinsic values,” according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

A study published in 2020 compared California’s lion population with those in 10 western states where hunting is legal, including Colorado. The authors found that California had similar cougar population densities and similar average deer densities as the other states.

California also had the third-lowest rate of cougar-human conflicts per capita, similar rates of cattle depredation and lower rates of sheep depredations.

“In sum, our analysis of the records obtained from state and federal wildlife agencies found no evidence that sport hunting of pumas has produced the management outcomes sought by wildlife managers aside from providing a sport hunting opportunity,” the authors wrote.

Charges of “ballot-box biology”

Proponents of the hunting ban say it is a way to address unethical hunting methods, like the use of dogs, and whether hunting is necessary to manage lion populations. Opponents say it is another example of “ballot-box biology” that lets the majority make decisions often left to wildlife managers.

Apker disagrees the initiative is “ballot-box biology” — he doesn’t think it’s about biology at all. Instead, the question is a broader referendum on hunting as a whole, he said.

“The bottom line is that there are people who think hunting is wrong,” said Apker, who has voiced his opposition to the ballot measure publicly.

Proponents of the ban say hunting for mountain lions is trophy hunting because hunters are allegedly seeking the thrill of the hunt as well as the skins and heads of lions — not the meat. The ballot measure, if passed, would ban trophy hunting, defined as hunting “practiced primarily for the display of an animal’s head, fur, or other body parts, rather than for utilization of the meat.”

Cougar hunters have said repeatedly that while they do often pose with their kill — just like elk and deer hunters — they also eat the meat and are not hunting solely for a trophy. Colorado law requires that mountain lion meat be prepared for consumption by hunters. Gates, from the hunters association, has made steaks, tacos and burritos from lion meat.

“Not only do people eat mountain lion, but they also cherish mountain lion,” he said.

But ballot initiative supporters express doubt — Miller, for one, says there’s no way to know whether meat is eaten. The campaign is not against hunting, she said, but opposes unethical hunting.

“There are plenty of other species to hunt that aren’t so problematic under hunting ethics,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project and a lifelong hunter, during a news conference last month in support of the ban.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

The legislature passed House Bill 1001 last week during its second property tax-focused special session in the past year. Polis called lawmakers back to the Capitol in mid-August to ratify the deal his office and legislative leaders had struck with Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy group, and Colorado Concern, a business organization backing Advance Colorado’s ballot measures.

The deal called for additional property tax cuts, on top of larger reductions passed in May, in exchange for Advance Colorado removing two ballot measures that would have cut taxes more steeply and capped property tax growth more stringently for local governments and districts.

“With this final piece, I think we have the predictability and stability we need to save homeowners money and do budgeting for schools and make sure we do not have the resurgence of the negative factor,” Polis said. He was referring to the budgeting mechanism that had chronically underfunded state schools for years, but which state officials ended in this fiscal year’s budget.

Polis had previously said he would not sign the bill into law until the two ballot measures — initiatives 50 and 108 — were formally pulled from the ballot. The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office confirmed Wednesday morning that both had been withdrawn.

The deal also included a promise from Advance Colorado not to pursue additional property tax-cutting measures for at least six years. No statutory requirement underpins that promise, but House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat and one of HB-1001’s sponsors, expressed hope during Wednesday’s ceremony that “this is the end of our conversations about property tax for at least the next six years.”

“It is unfortunate that we had to play defense — that we had to come forward and provide yet additional relief — because wealthy interests in this state continue to bring forward ballot measures that would ultimately undermine the stability of our communities,” imperil school funding and put budgets for local services like fire departments at risk, she said. Those risks elevated frustrations that had been prominent within her caucus last month.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican and another sponsor, called the legislation passed this year “the largest property tax cut in Colorado’s history,” though the impact of the special session bill is smaller than a companion bill passed by lawmakers in the spring.

“When you combine what’s going to happen with 2025, with 2026, it’s nearly $2.4 billion,” she said.

The bill signed Wednesday initially adds roughly $254 million in additional cuts to the $1.3 billion worth of reductions approved in May. The bulk of the latest cuts will benefit commercial property, according to an analysis by the Colorado Fiscal Institute, a progressive think tank.

Polis said those reductions should benefit commercial tenants — who, he said, typically foot the bill for increased property taxes.

For homeowners, the measure is expected to clip between $60 and $80 from a typical property tax bill in the 2025 tax year, plus roughly $179 the following year. That’s on top of an average $400 in savings from the measure passed in May.

For supporters in the legislature, the compromise meant accepting relatively modest additional tax relief in exchange for neutralizing two ballot measures that Democrats said would have “catastrophic” and “draconian” effects on state and local budgets.

“I believe today marks the culmination of at least six years’ worth of work,” said Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat and another architect of the deal. He was referring to the work undertaken to repeal the Gallagher Amendment in 2020 — and then grapple with the loss of that law’s tax-stabilizing protection for homeowners.

Twenty-two legislators out of 100 voted against the deal during its journey through the Capitol last week. Most were Democrats frustrated that it was negotiated behind closed doors with deep-pocketed conservative and business groups.

Critics repeatedly likened the situation to negotiating with hostage-takers, and some Democrats spent last week referring to Advance Colorado’s president, Michael Fields, as “Gov. Fields.”

Several legislators told The Denver Post last week that they doubted the armistice would last. That feeling was in part rooted in a lack of trust between the initiatives’ backers and legislators, many of whom thought that the measure passed in May was already a compromise.

On Wednesday, the deal’s architects struck a more optimistic tune. Polis said he hoped the deal would provide property tax stability for a generation, and his office — in its release announcing the bill-signing — heralded that “the property tax wars are over.”

Kirkmeyer thanked Advance Colorado and the initiatives’ proponents and said that though there had been “trust issues,” the proponents had kept their word.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Eric Joss, the Libertarian nominee in the 8th Congressional District, announced the armistice with Republican state Rep. Gabe Evans during a press conference Tuesday night. Evans, a freshman legislator from Fort Lupton, signed a “pledge of liberty” to secure Joss’ support.

The pledge includes promises to oppose “military adventurism” while supporting a peaceful end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and “fundamental reform” of the U.S. Department of Education, among other issues.

Evans said he signed the pledge after some changes were made, including removing language calling for the abolishment of U.S. intelligence services.

“Eric and I are united in our determination to rein in the size, scope, cost and corruption of government,” Evans said in a statement. “Beating big government starts with defeating” U.S. Rep. Yadira Caraveo, the Democrat who currently holds the seat.

Last summer, the state Libertarian Party agreed not to run candidates against Republicans in contested races if the state Republican Party backed “liberty-leaning candidates.” That deal came after the previous race for the 8th Congressional District turned on a tight margin: Caraveo won the seat in 2022, beating Republican state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer by 1,632 votes in the first election to represent the newly created district.

In that race, the Libertarian candidate, Richard Ward, garnered more than 9,200 votes.

On Tuesday night, Joss criticized Caraveo as a “rubber-stamp” on President Joe Biden’s agenda. During her nearly two years in Congress, Caraveo has pursued a moderate path and is one of the most moderate House members, according to the accountability and transparency website GovTrack.

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Caraveo campaign manager Mary Alice Blackstock accused Evans and Joss of making a “backroom deal.” Blackstock said Caraveo’s record “speaks for itself. Come November, voters will decide between a Congresswoman who has delivered real results and a political opportunist siding with the extremes.”

Colorado Secretary of State spokesman Jack Todd said Joss had not formally pulled his name from the ballot as of Wednesday morning. The deadline to do so is Friday.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Calvarese, a former speechwriter and labor activist, repeatedly attacked Boebert’s congressional record, including criticizing the Republican for voting against a larger bill that included provisions allowing the federal government to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. She defended President Joe Biden’s marquee Inflation Reduction Act and called for an end to the “offshoring” of American manufacturing.

Boebert, who is seeking a third term — and her first outside of the Western Slope-based 3rd Congressional District — defended her record. She hit on familiar red-meat issues for the Republican Party, saying she wanted to cut taxes, “take our country back,” “bring back prosperity” and “secure our southern border.”

At one point, she derisively referred to American citizens born to undocumented immigrants as “anchor babies” and said they should not receive certain tax-credit assistance.

The debate, co-hosted by Colorado Politics/the Denver Gazette and the Douglas County Economic Development Corporation at The Club at Ravenna, focused on the economy and business issues.

It was the first debate since Boebert cruised to a June primary win over a crowded Republican field. Amid serious challenges from both Democrats and Republicans in her home district, she had switched from seeking reelection to vying in the 4th after then-U.S. Rep. Ken Buck announced he wouldn’t run for the seat again in the November election.

Though Boebert is new to the district, she is the odds-on favorite to win. The Eastern Plains-focused 4th District is Colorado’s most conservative district, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than 2-to-1, giving her a greater advantage on paper than she had in her old district. The 4th takes in extensive farmland as well as south suburban Denver’s Douglas County.

On Tuesday, Calvarese sought to contrast her stated desire for partnership and compromise with Boebert’s approach, which Calvarese characterized as “defund, to cancel it, shut down the government if you don’t get your way.”

Despite being one of the most partisan members of a particularly partisan Congress, Boebert touted her own bipartisan efforts, including by pointing to her support for a bill backed by U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, a Colorado Democrat, that would allow federal land to be used for housing.

Here’s what else Boebert and Calvarese discussed Tuesday:

National debt

In response to a question about the growing national debt, Boebert said she wanted to go through spending individually, line by line. She said she wouldn’t support larger omnibus funding bills and instead wanted individual appropriations bills.

“I do not agree with Republican debt as much as I do not agree with Democrat debt,” she said.

Calvarese said she wanted to better tax corporations that hide “their money abroad” and repeatedly said that the “middle class needs a tax break.” She said the federal government should look for efficiencies, with help from artificial intelligence, to reduce unnecessary spending.

She also said she would support keeping the federal corporate tax rate at its current level, while Boebert said she wanted former President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts to be continued and the rates “lowered significantly.”

Those individual income tax cuts are set to expire at the end of next year. If they were extended for another decade, they would add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit over that time period, according to a nonpartisan fiscal analysis.

Veterans

The most extended scuffle of the debate came next. Calvarese accused Boebert of not supporting veterans, pointing to Boebert’s support for a bill that would have cut the Department of Veterans Affairs budget and her opposition to a bill that would’ve expanded health benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances.

“Don’t sit here and tell us … that you are somehow for veterans,” Calvarese said.

Boebert defended her support for veterans and her vote against the toxic substances bill. She said she wasn’t able to provide amendments and that she wasn’t willing to spend “a billion dollars forever because we couldn’t get a couple of pieces of language right in the legislation.”

As for the VA, she criticized the department’s responsiveness and then criticized some Democrats’ support for a universal health care system.

Economic lightning round

Boebert and Calvarese were peppered with several lightning round questions, including on whether they supported increasing the federal minimum wage, which currently stands at $7.25 an hour, about half of Colorado’s minimum. Boebert said she opposed increasing it. Calvarese said she supported increasing the minimum wage — including for tipped workers — to $15 an hour.

Both said they supported a policy backed by Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential race to end taxes on tips. Both also said they opposed privatizing social security benefits and would support legislation that would bar entities from foreign countries — like China or Saudi Arabia — from buying American farmland.

More debates?

In a brief talk with reporters after the debate, Calvarese called on Boebert to meet her again for at least two more debates, which would be televised.

“This was the beginning of what I think is a job interview for all of our constituents,” Calvarese said.

In a separate media gaggle, Boebert would not commit to additional debates and said Calvarese “had her debate today.”

“I debate Democrats on a daily basis,” she said. “It is my job.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The deadline to finalize the state’s ballot is coming Friday, but all of the citizen initiatives — meaning ballot questions pursued by members of the public, rather than the legislature — were finalized late last week. State election officials certified that the final ones had received enough petition signatures after clearing earlier regulatory hurdles.

Nine ballot measures from the public have been approved. But two of those — the property tax-related initiatives 50 and 108 — are both set to be withdrawn by sponsors as part of negotiations with the governor’s office and the state legislature, which on Thursday passed another property tax relief bill at the end of a special session.

The remaining seven citizen initiatives will join several questions referred to the ballot by the legislature, including one to excise an unenforceable anti-same sex marriage provision from the state constitution; another to institute a new tax on guns and ammunition; and a measure that would allow judges to deny bail to people charged with first-degree murder.

Here’s a breakdown of the citizen’s initiatives that will be on the ballot (minus the soon-to-be-pulled property tax measures):

Election overhaul

Proposition 131 — previously Initiative 310 — would change how Colorado runs elections for U.S. senators and congressional representatives; for governor, treasurer, attorney general and secretary of state; and for state senators and representatives.

It would institute fully open primaries for those seats, meaning that candidates from all parties and those who are unaffiliated would appear on the same ballot. And in the general election, it would create a ranked-choice voting system for those races in a process that’s also referred to as instant-runoff voting.

If more than four people run in the open primary, then the top four vote recipients — regardless of party — would advance to the November general election.

In a general election race that has more than two candidates, voters would rank the candidates by preference. For example, if there are four candidates, a voter would be asked to rank them from one to four.

In the first round of vote tabulation, voters’ first-place choices would be counted, with the lowest-performing candidate then automatically eliminated from contention. The votes of that eliminated candidate’s supporters then switch to the voters’ next-ranked candidate in the next tabulation round. The lowest-performing candidate is again eliminated, with their voters’ next-ranked active candidate getting those votes.

When two candidates remain, the top vote-getter wins.

If passed, the changes would go into effect in 2026 under the initiative. However, a late amendment to a law passed by the legislature in May has thrown a speed bump in front of that implementation runway, and if the initiative passes, lawmakers may wrangle further over how to implement the new law.

The measure is backed by Kent Thiry, the millionaire former CEO of DaVita. Thiry previously backed ballot initiatives to open Colorado’s partisan primaries to unaffiliated voters and to change how Colorado draws its congressional and state legislative maps, with a switch to independent redistricting commissions.

Abortion

Amendment 79 would elevate the right to abortion to the Colorado Constitution by prohibiting the government from denying, impeding or discriminating against a person’s ability to exercise that right. The initiative would also clear the way for state-funded insurance, such as Medicaid, to cover abortion services, repealing another provision of the state constitution that prohibits the use of public funds to pay for abortion.

Colorado lawmakers passed a bill two years ago that enshrined abortion rights in state law, though it didn’t affect the constitutional ban on the use of state money.

Because this initiative would alter the state constitution, it requires support from 55% of voters to approve it. The initiative is backed by abortion rights advocacy groups, including Cobalt and the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights.

School choice

Amendment 80, backed by conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado, would enshrine school choice — which includes “neighborhood, charter, private and home schools” — in the state constitution. Those options already exist under state law, but charter school supporters of the initiative told Chalkbeat that they want to ensure that doesn’t change via legislative debates at the Capitol.

Similar to the abortion measure, this ballot question would need 55% voter approval to pass.

Trophy hunting

Proposition 127 would make it illegal to trophy hunt or commercially trap mountain lions, bobcats and lynxes in Colorado. That includes killing, wounding, entrapping or pursuing the animals, according to the initiative, as well as discharging a deadly weapon at them.

The measure includes a few exceptions, such as killing the animals for self-defense or trapping them for legitimate research purposes. The initiative is supported by the coalition group Cats Aren’t Trophies.

Parole eligibility

Proposition 128 would tighten state sentencing terms, requiring people convicted of certain violent crimes to serve more of their sentences before they become eligible for parole. If the measure passes, anyone convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree burglary, felony kidnapping or other listed crimes after July 1, 2025, would be required to serve 85% of their sentences before they could be released. That’s up from 75% in current law.

The initiative would also require that people who previously had been convicted of two violent crimes serve their full sentence if convicted for one of those listed felonies. The initiative is also backed by Advance Colorado.

Veterinary professional qualifications

Proposition 129 would create a new veterinarian position in Colorado: a “veterinary professional associate.” People seeking that position would have to hold a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care (or an equivalent level of qualification as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine).

This new type of provider would have to be registered with the state board. The initiative is backed by the Dumb Friends League, the Denver-based animal shelter, which says it’ll help boost the veterinary workforce. Critics, though, argue the initiative would allow for substandard medical care.

Police funding

Proposition 130 — another backed by Advance Colorado — would require that the state add $350 million to a new “peace officer training and support fund.” That money would have to be on top of existing funds already going to law enforcement agencies.

The ballot measure does not establish a new source for that money, like a tax or fee, meaning the state would have to pull the money from elsewhere in its budget.

The money would be set aside for increased salaries, for the hiring of area- or crime-specific officers, for training, and for other related services. The measure would also require that $1 million be paid from the fund to the family of each law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty.

Editor’s note: This story was updated Sept. 9, 2024, to include the official ballot titles for the initiatives.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

It is inevitable that the political frenzy surrounding the resignation of President Joe Biden as a candidate for re-election and the tribulations of former President Donald J. Trump, including his two impeachments by the House of Representatives, his subsequent acquittals by the Senate, and his criminal proceedings, is compared to that which existed in 1973 and 1974 with respect to Watergate.

The overall atmosphere of divisiveness is common to both eras, although few know or remember that President Nixon was never charged with a crime, was never impeached by the House of Representatives, and never was convicted by the Senate of an impeachable offense. He, as did President Biden, succumbed to enormous political pressure from both sides of the aisle “for the good of the country.”

What is the most important legacy of the Watergate experience on today’s events that are often declared by both political parties and the mass media to be the most dangerous and important in the history of the United States?  Was it the Supreme Court’s historic limitation of the application of executive privilege, the pressure by members of Congress that forced a president’s resignation, the confirmation that there are indeed terrible consequences for bad acts or that transparency in government is our ally not our enemy?

No, in my opinion, the most significant lesson of Watergate is the recognition that our form of government continues to have the strength and resilience to overcome the transgression of our leaders, political crisses, predictions, and warnings of national doom and government collapse.

Watergate has come to mean much more than a botched burglary by James McCord and four others on the night of June 17, 1972, at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate office complex on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The core issue of Watergate was whether President Nixon committed obstruction of justice by participating in a cover-up (plugging the leak) of wrongful actions committed by individuals (the Plumbers) who were associated with the White House.

I had the privilege of serving as one of the president’s lawyers on the Watergate legal defense team, reporting to Special Watergate Counsel James St. Clair, a tough Boston trial lawyer. The 20-lawyer White House defense team consisted of our group, the White House Office of General Counsel, including Our Watergate defense team included, among others, Loren Smith, later to become the chief counsel of the two Reagan presidential campaigns and the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claim. We faced about 200 lawyers employed by the Senate Select Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. Our team’s primary White House political contact was General Alexander Haig, the White House chief of staff, later the Allied supreme commander in Europe.

My service at the White House started in early 1974, soon after St. Clair took the reins as the principal Watergate defense counsel. I had responded to a notice that invited DOJ lawyers to apply to the new Watergate defense team; following, I was almost immediately interviewed at the Old Executive Office Building by Geoff Shepard, who has since authored fascinating in-depth books about Watergate. Upon receiving the job offer, I accepted it without calling my wife and resigned from my position as a trial lawyer in the general litigation section in the Civil Division at the Department of Justice.

I was then 30 years old and not that far away from my graduation from the William Mitchell College of Law in Minneapolis coincidentally the alma matter of then Chief Justice Warren Burger — a Nixon appointee.

Our team was close-knit, although as in real life, some were more equal than others — despite the fact that we were all lawyers. Make no mistake about it – Watergate was a political animal or a zoo of political animals. We worked day and night together to do what we thought was legally right, attending meetings of the judiciary committees, writing sections of court briefs, appearing at Grand Jury and court proceedings, and interviewing witnesses. We argued on behalf of the Office of the President for a strong presidential executive privilege. We were under an immense amount of pressure — pressure that remains difficult to describe in words.

I accompanied Jim St. Clair when he argued before the Supreme Court that Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor, was not entitled to enforce subpoenas that had been issued, in the context of a criminal trial against seven Watergate figures, for 64 specific taped recordings of presidential conversations. We lost resoundingly in the Supreme Court on July 24 on a 9-0 vote, the opinion of which was authored by Chief Justice Burger.

His opinion established that a claim of executive privilege is reviewable by a court and the claim of executive privilege by a president is not absolute. Nonetheless, in retrospect, we had helped to set the table for similar arguments and somewhat similar results a half-century later, in the now controversial Trump v. United States decision of July 1 of this year.

I have often thought about the impact of those times on my family and the country and occasionally relive those exciting, tumultuous times. The daily tension was palpable even without the presence of cell phones, computers, and social media. The daily developments were captured in detail in the pages of The Washington Post and hometown papers across the United States and shared in buses, bowling alleys, and cafes across the United States. There also were lighter days, such as our children Justin and Heather’s (ages 5 and 1) participation in the White House Easter Egg Roll, our excursion on the presidential yacht, the Sequoia, and very late-night dinners and conversations with Loren Smith about chasing UFOs.

Our future as a nation depends on our common sense and the vigorous exercise of the rights and obligations of each of the three branches of government, which were demonstrated during Watergate. It does not depend on personalities.

I am proud to have been an integral part of a historic legal team. We worked as your lawyers to help our country handle a major constitutional crisis. One is never the same after having such an experience.

Since then, most of the major figures of the Watergate era. including Richard M Nixon, Senator Sam Ervin , and Chief Justice Warren Burger, have passed. However, the United States has survived. I am a much better person for having stepped forward to help in 1974 and hope that my involvement helped. I would do it all over again, and without doubt there will be need again in the history of this great country.

Jim Prochnow is a principal shareholder in the Denver Office of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a global law firm. He is primarily a food, drug, and trial lawyer. He and his wife, Virginia, live in Denver. They moved to Colorado after Watergate to ski and for the Colorado sunshine. They have three children.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The song has been used in more than 8,500 TikTok videos since two independent music producers created it in July. Supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris have seized on it, wagging their fingers and swinging their arms to it, some hoping to create its official dance. It was also reposted by @KamalaHQ, the campaign’s official TikTok account. Videos with the sound have racked up more than 40 million views overall, according to Zelf, a social video analytics company focused on TikTok.

It’s a marquee example of a new genre of political memes finding an audience on the short-form video app, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance.

Politically minded Americans are increasingly embracing TikTok to make videos and trends out of snippets of songs and speeches in this election cycle. The app — a pandemic-fueled curiosity during the last presidential election — has since exploded its user base to 170 million Americans. About half of users younger than 30 say they use TikTok to help them keep up with politics and political issues, according to new data from the Pew Research Center.

“People are still doing dances to random songs, but now people are doing dances to remixes of rap with Kamala Harris speeches over it,” said Emma Mont, a digital creator and administrator of @OrganizerMemes, a liberal meme account.

While TikTok prohibits political advertising, unpaid political content is thriving on the platform — Vance, Trump, Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, each had verified accounts there as of last week. Users have also flocked to a remix of Harris quoting her mother in a speech last year, saying, “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?” and laughing, and to a clip that starts with Harris speaking and ends with a hip-hop song repeating, “Trump 2024.”

Seth Schuster, a Harris campaign spokesperson, said the team was tapping into viral trends both to “bring the conversation about the stakes of this election to the places a lot of our voters are getting their news from” and to expand its supporter network.

In response to the TikTok video, Taylor Van Kirk, a spokesperson for Vance, said: “Cringe.”

Song snippets and catchphrases from pop culture are a core part of using TikTok. Users can select from a library of popular sounds when they make TikToks and search for songs and sounds related to topics that they’re interested in. Searching “Trump” or “Kamala” in the app’s sounds yields dozens of results, which have been used in tens of thousands of videos.

If users like a particular sound, TikTok is likely to serve them additional videos that include it — which is how it can seem that the entire internet is suddenly using a phrase like “very demure, very mindful.” (That meme sprang from a TikTok creator’s playful descriptions of how to behave in a variety of places, from work to drag shows.)

The “never Trump guy” song was created by Carl Dixon and Steve Terrell, two 34-year-old music producers with a company called House of Evo. They regularly make sounds on TikTok, including a popular remix of an evangelical sermon about margaritas last year, but they hadn’t dabbled much in politics until now.

Dixon, also known as Casa Di, and Terrell saw the footage of Vance’s comments in a post on the Harris campaign’s TikTok account that compared them with newer footage of him expressing support for Trump.

The two found Vance’s manner of speech “sort of melodic in a sense,” Terrell said. Dixon said, “We were like, what if we put this to a catchy beat or something?” The process took the pair under three hours, they said.

Their video started with footage of a member of the Harris campaign staff saying, “So this is really who Donald Trump chose as his running mate?” A different voice then says, “Drop the beat,” after which a sample of Petey Pablo’s “Freek-a-Leek” plays, remixed with Vance saying, “I’m a never Trump guy” and “I never liked him.”

“When Kamala decided to start running, me and Steve were figuring out ways to encourage people to vote or be aware of what’s going on,” Dixon said. “This is our first time doing something as politically charged,” he added.

Sounds like this one allow people to profess their political opinions, or share what they view as the stakes of the election, without having to formally expound on their beliefs, Terrell said.

TikTok is one of the few social media sites showing a sharp increase “in the percent of adults getting news there and an increase in just the newsiness of the platform,” said Elisa Shearer, a senior researcher at Pew. “A lot of that is opinion- and humor-based,” she added.

Sasha Khatami, a 24-year-old digital marketing coordinator from Alexandria, Virginia, said she had come across the song while browsing popular sounds on TikTok in July, soon after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.

“Sounds are the number-one way to express your opinions,” Khatami said. “I don’t think people are sharing their feelings anymore. I think they’re making TikTok sounds and TikTok dances.”

Khatami, who said her earlier videos on TikTok typically received between 300 and 1,000 views, made up a dance to the “never Trump guy” song — and was startled and thrilled to see her post rack up hundreds of thousands of views as TikTok’s algorithm served it to other users.

Since then, she has performed the dance in front of iconic locations in the nation’s capital, including the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, and has been tickled to see other TikTok users perform their own version of her shimmy.

While Khatami has been enjoying her newfound success on TikTok, she has been surprised by the volume of angry comments from supporters of Trump and Vance on many of her videos. She said she had sought to “turn that backlash into motivation,” like when a commenter declared, “Can we find this ladies dad so he can teach her about what the consequences are for what she’s doing?”

She put text from that comment onto a separate TikTok featuring her father and boyfriend, who had also learned the dance, posting it with the caption: “My dad is a never Trump guy.”

Khatami, who recently made her first political donation to Harris, said she planned to canvas soon, too.

“I feel so inspired by her campaign and what her being president could mean that I feel like I have to get more involved,” she said.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter.

The legislation now goes to Gov. Jared Polis for his signature — and is expected to prompt the conservative and business backers of the ballot measures to withdraw them.

The Senate approved the compromise bill, House Bill 1001, handily on a 30-4 vote on the special session’s fourth day. Polis celebrated the bill’s passage late Thursday morning, saying it would provide predictability, stability and relief to property owners — without the risks posed by the ballot measures.

“Fundamentally, the people of Colorado have had their concerns addressed: Long-term relief, a reasonable cap (on tax growth), and over 4,000 entities funded by property taxes, including every school district, (will) have the stability that they need to plan and budget,” Polis told The Denver Post in an interview. “ … With all the sort of chaos of the last few years, it’s been very hard on our fire districts, schools, library districts. I think we will all benefit from the stability.”

He expects to hold a signing ceremony next week, once some necessary legislative steps happen — and the ballot initiatives at the center of the fight, initiatives 50 and 108, are officially pulled from the ballot by Advance Colorado and Colorado Concern.

That has been a minor controversy, with Michael Fields, the chief proponent of the ballot measures, saying he would pull the initiatives once the bill was signed. Fields said Thursday he was working on the scheduling with the governor’s office.

“Today’s vote marks a huge win for Colorado taxpayers, who have been hit with 30 percent average property tax increases,” said Fields, the president of the Advance Colorado Institute, in a statement. “For two years, we have said the solution taxpayers need is to cut taxes significantly and then put a cap in place so Colorado can avoid this crisis in the future. This bill gets that job done.”

The bill will cut property taxes by about $254 million statewide and builds off an earlier $1.3 billion cut signed into law in May. One analysis, by the Colorado Fiscal Institute, a progressive think tank, estimates the average homeowner will see a modest additional property tax decrease of $62 in the next tax year, and about $179 in the 2026 tax year. That analysis also estimates that 62% of the relief in the bill will go to nonresidential property.

The earlier relief bill in the spring had significantly more impact. But the special session measure offered the ballot measure proponents an additional victory in exchange for their agreement to back off their initiatives — which, by CFI’s projections, eventually would have saved the average homeowner more than $500 a year, while taking a financial toll on state and local government budgets.

In the Senate’s Thursday vote, Sens. Mark Baisley, a Woodland Park Republican, and Democratic Sens. Nick Hinrichsen, Sonya Jaquez Lewis and Lisa Cutter opposed the legislation.

On Wednesday evening, before the Senate took an initial voice vote on the bill, Hinrichsen, from Pueblo, said “working class Coloradans have been a pawn of this process,” echoing concerns voiced by other Democrats in recent days about state officials’ negotiations with the initiatives’ supporters.

The ballot measure drove the special session. Legislative leaders, Fields and the governor’s office crafted the deal over the summer before unveiling it to the state’s property tax commission earlier this month. House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, affirmed earlier this week that the proposal was “to play defense” against the measures.

It nonetheless led to ample criticism from Democrats who felt they were being called into a special session at the behest of special interests that were threatening to gut state and local budgets if the legislature didn’t pass laws to their liking.

At a pre-session caucus meeting open to the public, Rep. Steven Woodrow, a Denver Democrat, referred to the deal as being driven by “Gov. Fields and Mr. Polis.”

Asked about the criticism Thursday, Polis pointed to the nearly 200,000 signatures Fields had to gather to put the measures on the ballot to begin with. He praised the bipartisan work to give Coloradans additional relief.

“Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans put their name on petitions for property tax relief,” Polis said. “I think the legislature found a better way to address that than risky and divisive ballot initiatives.”

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat and architect of this bill and several other property tax measures in recent years, said the deal had been the culmination of nearly a decade of work to change the state’s property tax code. He repeated his objection to charges the special session was driven by a backroom deal.

Hansen also argued that passing the bill would end the yearslong standoff over property tax policy.

“We have ended a cycle of destructive ballot initiatives,” Hansen said.

In a statement, Dave Davia, the CEO of Colorado Concern, a business-oriented advocacy group, said: “This bill is critical relief for struggling homeowners and small businesses caught in a cost-of-living crisis in Colorado. It shows the state can responsibly cut property taxes and cap future tax increases while protecting the local services communities rely on.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Re: “Peach pies: No, not the dessert; try the fruit on pizzas at these spots,” Aug. 16 features story

As a New Jersey transplant, I have suffered from a lack of decent pizza, bagels, and Silver Queen Sweet Corn since moving to Colorado. That indignity is offset by the really great Mexican food, surprisingly diverse seafood choices and the spectacular Palisade peaches.

However, my blood ran cold with your story on peaches on pizza. While this kind of blasphemy may not be illegal, it should be.

Agust Gudmundsson, Castle Rock

Election 2024: Buckle up and be kind

The next several weeks are going to be pretty awful politically (especially if you live in a swing state). I implore you to help keep things civil among friends and family. You may not understand why a friend or family member is rooting for one candidate or the other. But one thing you should understand is that most people all want the same thing in life: a good job to provide for themselves and their families, good friends, some meaning to their lives, and if possible, a bit of leisure time in which to have fun.

Don’t buy into the loud 10% at the extremes. You don’t have to hate someone who votes differently from you. They aren’t out to destroy our country. Chances are they are reading a whole different narrative about their candidate than you are based on their self-tailored news feeds. I do believe that facts, especially scientific facts, seem to have eluded the grasp of politicians (some more than others). But hasn’t that always been the case?

Just when I think the times we’re living in seem the most divided, I read about another time in the past that was the same or worse. We’ve been through all this before; it just seems like it’s on steroids now with 24×7 news and equal platforms for the extremes of society. So, good luck out there. Be safe. Be kind. Be understanding.

Mike Clinton, Longmont

News on wind energy brings hope

Re: “Wind beat coal 2 months in a row for generation energy,” Aug. 16 news story

Today could have started out with the depressing and desensitizing news of more ozone alerts.  Instead, I read that wind beats out coal two months in a row in the generation of energy. A headline of “Broncos beat Kansas City” couldn’t have made me happier.

This is a significant sign of hope for our vulnerable future. The article cited shifts in the economics of energy, federal tax credits and state mandates as having led to explosive growth in renewable energy in recent years. A thank you to Congress for passing the Inflation Reduction Act is in order.

Here is evidence that the Act and the innovation it spurred are working.

Lesley LeFevre, Centennial

Don’t underestimate municipal airport’s importance

Re: “Boulder’s airport is a subsidized waste of space,” Aug. 15 commentary

The other day, I was just sharing the amazing experiences I have had soaring in a glider over the Flatirons out of Boulder Municipal Airport. They are among the most memorable experiences of my life. Having access to small local airports is important for flying lessons, parachuting and gliding. It provides local access for ordinary folks like me. I don’t own a private plane, but I have had the opportunity to fly in small planes out of the Boulder Airport, and I am not alone. Lots of us have had our first experience in a small aircraft, thanks to Boulder Municipal Airport.

Boulder is just plain expensive and to think that developing every last corner of it will make it any less so is absurd. The developers must love Josh Joseph’s comments. I don’t. Leave the airport alone.

Christie McNeill, Englewood

Looking out for our grocery dollars

Re: “Kroger sues FTC over embattled supermarket merger,” Aug. 21 business story

If Kroger can afford to spend billions of dollars to establish a grocery monopoly in too many parts of Colorado and the country, then they can substantially lower inflation-causing prices, remove obstructive displays and product placements from along the sides of their too-narrow aisles, and reduce wait times by hiring additional checkout personnel.

The company that once boasted “our people make the difference” now tries to justify its monopoly attempt on the fact that its difference-making employees are unionized.

Give me a break! This is yet another example of inflation fueling corporate greed.

Thank you, Attorney General Phil Weiser, for acting to reduce inflation and protecting the economic interests of Colorado shoppers!

Dexter Meyer, Denver

It pays to be friendly on the trails

Re: “Grumpy Hiker: Doesn’t everyone else find small talk on hiking trails annoying?” Aug. 21 commentary

Wow. Yes, that is one grumpy hiker!  I’m surprised The Post wasted precious Op-Ed space for a non-story.  All the examples she used of her so-called trail small talk were friendly human interactions. I suggest Marjorie “Slim” Woodruff wears a big sign around her neck that says, “I hate people. Don’t even speak to me.”  Clearly, being in nature is not healing for her.

Krista Igoe, Littleton

I was appalled by this opinion piece by someone so ignorant, thinking the purpose of saying hello to other hikers is to engage in conversation. When passing someone on the trail, you check that they can respond because maybe they’re suffering from altitude sickness, dehydration, or many other things that can go wrong when hiking. They might not even know they’re becoming delirious until someone else observes their response.

All too often, on a hike, somebody needs help, and the next stranger coming along can help them or finish their hike down back to cell service and then call for help to get rescue patrol to head up. Just remember the next person who might need medical attention on a hike could be you, and you’ll be left out all alone unless you’re able to ask somebody to help. Hopefully, your slurred speech catches someone’s attention who can provide you with the necessary medical attention.

We all need to help each other out, so say hello, and be grateful strangers are checking on you as well.

Michael Wille, Denver

Investigating drug deaths

Re: “Matthew Perry’s assistant is among 5 charged in his death,” Aug. 16 news story

I see from recent reports that authorities have charged five people for complicity in Matthew Perry’s “accidental” death, including, as with the deaths of Michael Jackson and Prince, doctors. These charges demonstrate that catering to the whims of wealthy celebrities with no self-control is apparently a horribly egregious crime worth prioritization by prosecutors.

One could only wish the overdose deaths of the teenage dropout in the library bathroom or the Iraq veteran behind the dumpster in the alley were investigated with the same vigor, tenacity, and resources expended in the quest for Matthew Perry’s justice.

Paul Barnkow, Arvada

Israel isn’t the only one who shouldn’t be getting U.S. weapons

Although I support an arms embargo to end funding the genocide in Palestine, it isn’t going to happen. It is a slogan similar to “defund the police” which should have been “retrain the police.” Politics is the art of the possible and forgetting that means that nothing changes.

Instead of singling out Israel for an arms embargo, the question should be asked: Why should the U.S. fund the military of any country without conditions?  And since we give more money to Israel than any other country or countries combined, there should actually be more conditions. Biden pledged back in February that we would not fund countries that broke international law. Now that would be a great policy if it weren’t just meaningless words.

Let’s pressure Harris to act on that pledge.

Naomi Rachel, Boulder

Vail, doesn’t need a tunnel. Go electric.

Re: “How Vail is keeping the dream alive to tunnel or bury I-70,” Aug. 19 news story

Concerning the continued discussion of tunneling or covering I-70 through Vail, I have a very simple solution: Time. The major complaints are two: noise and pollution. Both will be corrected over time.

The electrification of the nation’s surface transportation is happening relatively quickly, right before our eyes. Motor noises from cars, SUVs, and even large commercial trucks will soon turn into a soothing hum. Granted, other road noises exist (tire noise for one), but once all internal combustion vehicles are replaced by EV’s, most of the noise and all the pollution problems disappear.

I suggest the Vail town council begin studying how to provide convenient charging facilities for all these cars and large trucks. The slow but steady conversion of gas stations in Vail and surrounding towns could provide the space needed for this charging infrastructure. Providing charging for trucks could be similar to the chain-up areas at the beginning of steep grades in the mountains. Truck-rated chargers could be installed at these off ramps thereby eliminating the need for trucks to even enter the town(s).

Mark Edward Geyer, Denver

Patients need protection from Kaiser billing

Why is Kaiser the cheapest health insurance in the Denver Metro area? They make money with inflated and false billing. Both my charge dispute and appeals process with Kaisers resulted in a form letter saying you still owe the money and the charges are valid (I only realized this after my 3rd time going through this process in the last 10 years).

Filing a claim with the Colorado Department of Insurance and the Attorney General’s Office, only gets a response to bounce back and forth between the two because they don’t deal with provider billing, try the other one. What is a patient to do when they are billed for labs or procedures that they were not informed of and had no need for?

In the state of Colorado, doctors have to obtain informed consent from a patient for labs and procedures in a non-emergency situation. After 15 hours spent disputing billing, my conclusion is that patients aren’t protected in the State of Colorado… insurance companies like Kaiser are.

Angela Taylor, Denver

We should always root for the home team — our nation

Over the last few weeks, many of us cheered, yelled, and screamed as the USA Olympic team brought home 126 medals. We came together and took pride in our athletes, coaches, teams, anthem and the American Flag.

Why can we rally around the flag during the Olympics but not during the other 50 weeks of the year and during non-Olympic years?

No political party owns the American flag. It is OK to love America and simultaneously expect more from it. Why are we so divided along those two trains of thought?

I hope that we can come together and that we can root for each other, and root for our country to be its best for all people.

And I hope it happens soon because I am about to become divisive and root against the Kansas City Chiefs every week of the NFL season.

Jamie Lofaro, Lone Tree

AI may be ahead of its time

The early years of the internet are reminiscent of what seems to be happening to the new bright and shiny object: AI. The new capability is being showcased as the next big thing well before it is the next big thing. The dot-com bust in the early 2000s might just be where the current hoopla is heading.

I have no doubt that AI will one day warrant the current bravado, but that time has yet to peak much above the horizon. And the looming interval will very likely do just what it did before: punish those pushing this immature product on an unsuspecting market.

Caution is always warranted with new technology, and another bit of historically proven advice that has served us all well comes to mind: Let the buyer beware.

Robert Heath, Lakewood

Let local governments decide fate of overdose prevention centers

As an infectious diseases specialist, I care for hundreds of people who use drugs every year; I treat Hep C, HIV, Hep B, and complicated bacterial infections, yet I worry that all the strides my patients make in improving their health could become meaningless in a single moment from an accidental overdose. Fatal overdoses in Denver have tripled over just the past five years. Trends in overdose deaths are reminiscent of the early days of the AIDS epidemic when people were dying at alarming rates, and the response was heartbreakingly inadequate due to apathy and stigma and the lack of research, knowledge, innovation, and courage to find solutions.

If Colorado were to lift the statewide prohibition on local decision-making for overdose prevention centers (OPCs), we could attempt new ways to reverse these awful trends in overdose deaths and support access to healthcare resources. Published data shows OPCs to be safe and effective by offering an alternative to using alone or in places that lack social support or Narcan. There is no data (online or otherwise) indicating that OPCs increase crime in surrounding neighborhoods.

Support for OPCs is broad among medical and public health organizations. Even the American Medical Association has endorsed OPCs in the 2023 Overdose Epidemic Report: “The data shows that (overdose prevention sites) help reduce risky drug use behaviors, overdose and death while improving public safety and access to health care.”

Considering the possibility of OPCs would show that Coloradans value each life and are committed to working together to address this crisis.

Sarah Rowan, Denver

“A glimpse of the world as it was created”

Re: “Mountain bikers push to ride through America’s last protected wilderness lands,” July 24 commentary

On Sept. 3, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Wilderness Act. I have a worn-out Sierra Club T-shirt and an index card on my dining room table with Johnson’s quote that he made as he signed.

Many presidents have made memorable quotes on such occasions, but this one is my favorite: “ If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than with sorrow, we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we got through with it.”

Thanks to Kevin Proescholdt from Writers On The Range, who addressed the attack by all those who continue to assault the original premise of the Wilderness Act.

Bruce Luer, Evergreen

Kudos to Denver Animal Rescue

Recently, I came upon two aggressive, abandoned adult dogs tied to a park bench with three newborn puppies in a tote bag on the bench — no food, no water. We feared for the puppies’ lives, being in the sun and heat and unable to nurse! We were unable to rescue the puppies as the adults were so protective.

Officer A. Dailey from Denver Animal Protection responded to my call and was wonderful! Within 10 minutes, she was able to calm the aggressive adults, feed and water them, and get all five of them into her air-conditioned vehicle and to safety. I am so appreciative that Officer Dailey and this service are there for uncared-for animals in Denver!

Christine Schaefer, Denver

Development should complement Denver’s charm and styles

Re: “Developer, preservationists clash over fire-damaged buildings,” July 24 news story

At last, someone wants to do something about the eyesores on the 1600 block of Colfax Avenue.  The developer wants to demolish and build something new.  It is sad to see these magnificent buildings in such a sad state, but the time to do something about preserving them is long past.  At this point, I would guess it would be cheaper to demolish them and build them back using the original blueprints.

However, then you would have two beautiful, expensive houses that nobody who could afford them would want because, as the article states, this part of Colfax is now a very commercial area.  Face it, Colfax Avenue is a very different place than when these homes were built. It would make more sense to rebuild them elsewhere.

If the city officials were concerned about keeping Denver’s charm, they would stop approving grain bin-style apartment buildings and require new designs to complement the styles that made Denver, Denver. Imagine something like the buildings on the northeast corner of 17th Ave and Ogden or the new ones on the 8800 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd — apartment buildings with even larger ground floor front porches for outdoor dining at a coffee house or pizzeria or Irish tavern or even a traditional restaurant like we used to have with Tom’s Diner, Annie’s or Goodfriends.

But first, let’s give a proper eulogy and bid farewell to that blemish on Colfax that we have waited way too long to do something about.

Alan Sipes, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.