Douglas County special election weighs home rule
Douglas County voters are casting ballots ahead of Tuesday's special election to decide their preferred system of government.
Why it matters: The ballot language may sound trivial, but its implications are far-reaching, and emotions are running high.
State of play: The measure asks voters whether a commission should write a new charter declaring Douglas a home rule county.
If approved, a second vote on the charter's language would take place in November.
The intrigue: The all-Republican county commission referred the measure to the ballot — with little public input — to give itself more authority to push back against the Democratic-led state Capitol.
"We see every year the state legislature encroaching … on traditionally local issues with state blanket mandates," county commissioner George Teal told CPR News.
If approved, Douglas would become the third home rule county in the state, alongside Weld and Pitkin. (Denver and Broomfield exercise home rule authority as combined city-county governments.)
How it works: A home rule county ostensibly gets more control to adopt ordinances and avoid state mandates. All the cities in Douglas County have home rule powers.
Yes, but: It's not unconditional authority, experts say. How much power the county commissioners would wield under home rule status ultimately depends on how the charter language is written.
The big picture: Douglas County's leaders may be Republicans, but the county is far from the conservative bastion it once was.
Republicans lead Democrats in voter registration by 15%, but unaffiliated voters are the plurality at 49.4%, state figures show.
President Trump won the county by a mere 7 percentage points in the 2024 election.
What they're saying: "Anti-Trump sentiment in Colorado has driven unaffiliated voters away from Republicans since 2018, so 'home rule' proponents must be able to separate the merits of the issue from that political dynamic," writes Dick Wadhams, the former GOP state chair, in Colorado Politics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
FTC approves Omnicom, IPG merger but says they can't coordinate to bar ads based on politics
The Federal Trade Commission on Monday said it will approve Omnicom Group's $13.5 billion acquisition of rival The Interpublic Group, but only if the agencies agree they won't bar ads based on politics. Why it matters: A consent order that addresses the possibility of political collusion is rare, and speaks to the hyper-political climate facing the business community. The merger between Omnicom and IPG will create the largest global ad agency holding group by revenue. The deal is still pending approval from regulators in the U.K. Zoom in: The proposed consent order imposes restrictions "that prevent Omnicom from engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers' political or ideological viewpoints." It also prohibits agencies from accepting requests to direct advertising spend to a certain media publisher "based on political or ideological viewpoints or political content." Agencies are also prohibited from declining to do business with an advertiser based on their political or ideological viewpoints. Between the lines: Advertisers are still allowed to dictate where their ads appear. Agencies will need to act with caution to avoid accusations of collusion or bias when considering an advertiser's targeting requests. Of note: Earlier this year, the Trump administration fired the FTC's two Democratic commissioners. The remaining three commissioners are all Republican. The consent order passed by a 2-0-1 commission vote, with commissioners Andrew N. Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak voting in favor of the measure, while commissioner Mark R. Meador recused himself. It's unusual for orders to be passed by two votes within the FTC, but it's valid. Yes, but: The consent order also contains fairly standard provisions barring anticompetitive coordination over conditions such as pricing, ad placement, and sponsorships, as well as helping execute advertisers' ad campaigns. Axios previously reported that despite concerns around politics, most of the FTC's inquiries into the merger with ad professionals were apolitical. Reality check: Regulators rarely put in place merger provisions that specifically bar this type of coordination, but political pressure around allegations of ad groups penalizing conservatives has gained steam. Last year, House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent letters to the CEOs of Omnicom and IPG as part of an antitrust investigation into whether ad agencies had colluded with the World Federation of Advertisers and the now defunct industry coalition Global Alliance for Responsible Media to boycott conservative media. Amid the chaos in Congress, the probe moved fully to the FTC, Axios reported last month. Jordan's investigation came months after he led a Congressional hearing about complaints that alleged GARM was colluding with ad-buying giant GroupM (now WPP Media) to discourage clients from buying ads in the Daily Wire because of its conservative politics. Last year, X sued the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for defamation, claiming one of its research reports contributed to an advertiser exodus. The FTC is now investigating the group over the same issue. What they're saying: "Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation's commerce and communication," Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. "Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate."
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats set to target multiple Senate GOP tax provisions
House Republicans are aiming to slash funding for the nonpartisan watchdog for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government by nearly half in the next fiscal year, according to spending bill text released Sunday night. The House Appropriations subcommittee funding Congress and its support agencies, led by chairman David Valadao (R-Calif.), is set to mark up their fiscal 2026 measure Monday evening, with the full committee set to act Thursday. The Legislative Branch bill would provide $6.7 billion — $51 million below the current funding level, which was set in fiscal 2024. Per tradition, the House bill does not touch any Senate funding. 'Chairman Valadao's bill puts the American people first — in strengthening the institutions that represent them, protecting effective governance, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars,' said House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in a statement. The deepest cuts in the bill are to the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress that would see a $396.5 million reduction from current levels to $415.4 million. GAO has served as the nation's chief investigator of wrongdoing at federal agencies for more than a century, but has been fighting for months as Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have attempted to undercut its legal conclusions and independence. Now, they are attempting to shrink the agency into submission as it pursues nearly 40 investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding, or 'impounding,' money Congress had previously approved. Also tucked into the bill is a major policy change that would eliminate the GAO's ability to bring civil action against the executive branch over impoundments of funds. 'GAO's work makes it possible for the legislative branch to hold government accountable,' said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute. 'Congress needs independent expert advice, which is exactly what GAO provides.' Also on the chopping block is the Library of Congress, which is another legislative branch agency also engaged in a power struggle against intrusion by the Trump administration. The bill allocates $767.6 million for the Library of Congress, which is $84.5 million below the current funding level and $133.7 million below the FY26 request. 'This bill does nothing to safeguard against the growing levels of executive overreach into legislative branch agencies,' said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the legislative branch subcommittee. Some other key provisions in the GOP-written bill include: Capitol Police: The Capitol Police would see a $84.4 million boost to their funding under the bill, bringing the total to $891 million. Some lawmakers had asked for an increase in office funding for use for security, but the bill flat-funds the Members Representational Allowance, which can be used for some member security purposes. Member Pay: The bill would continue the member pay freeze that has been in effect since 2013, halting automatic cost of living increases that members of Congress are supposed to get under law. Gay marriage: The bill includes language that prohibits discrimination against any person who 'speaks, or acts' in accordance with a 'sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.'
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Was US Iran Mission Successful? - CNN This Morning with Audie Cornish - Podcast on CNN Audio
Was US Iran Mission Successful? CNN This Morning 48 mins This morning we explore the aftermath of the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The big question: Did they accomplish the goal of dismantling Iran's nuclear program? President Trump and his allies say yes. They're now warning Iran not to attack US forces.
