DISQUS

Wendy Norris · 3 years ago

What say you? Do voters have the right to know whether an editorial letter-writer has a personal or professional interest in a race or is this simply a matter of expressing one's opinion as protected by the First Amendment?

RiverRunner · 3 years ago

First off, nice work Wendy Should they identify that they have a vested interest in the outcome of the race?  Ethically I'd think they should.  However, if they do, there is a downside.  Their argument looses some of its potency and luster, they would tend to be viewed as a bit of a partisan hack rather than the view that they're hoping for; that of a concerned citizen that happened to be a firsthand witness to good governance performed by their candidate.  Besides, no one will know that they work for the Assessors office...

shirah · 3 years ago

Scalia himself endorses the spoils system If you take a look at Scalia: The Spoils System Rocks!

[http://www.unbossed.com/index.php/www.dot.state.co.us/CTE/Documents/index.php?itemid=119], you will fine a history of this sort of abuse - and Scalia's endorsement of it in the case of Rutan v. Republican Party, 497 U.S. 62 (1990).

Rutan was a suit against Illinois Governor James Thompson who issued an executive order freezing hiring for all agencies, bureaus, boards, and commissions under his control. No one was allowed to hire, fill any vacancy, or create any new position unless it had Governor Thompson's express permission. That permission could only be granted if an applicant was a Republican operative. This could be shown by voting in Republican primaries, giving financial or other support to the Republican Party and its candidates, joining and working for the Republican Party, and having recommendations from officials of the Republican Party.

The Supreme Court majority struck down this spoils system.

Scalia wrote the dissent. He was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy and O'Connor.

The stunning irony of all this is that in the recent case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the majority held that an employee who blows the whistle on misconduct enters a free fire zone. An employee who deceives the public to curry favor with her boss gets rewarded.

Leslie Robinson · 3 years ago

Yes and..... I think government employees and their spouses/families should be able to voice political preferences as protected by the First Amendment. They should also expect the consequences of such: media interest, job insecurity and public scrutiny.

A political friend is married to a high profile state employee who was encouraged by her superiors to not voice any public political views. She told her husband that she was not permitted to put campaign signs out on the lawn, but her husband felt that was infringing on his rights.

So, they split up the "ownership" of the lawn: she owns the backyard and he's in possession of the front yard. This arrangement is well known by her superiors, political parties and the press. In hotly contested races, sometimes they even put a ribbon across the property to show the his/her territories.

Sandra Fish · 3 years ago

The media coverage One of the things i find interesting about this situation (and it's mirrored under different circumstances at newspapers elsewhere) is the lack of actual coverage of the race.

I searched the Coloradoan archives for assessor and came up with a primary advance including a brief mention of the race and a story about the race published in mid-July.

However, there are letters to the editor about this race virtually every day. That's an instance where it seems the reporting and editing staff should be asking themselves what's going on in that race, and write more stories about it.

Of course, primary coverage has been relatively scant in my own local newspaper (the Daily Camera). Each race appears to deserve a single story and maybe a short q&a; on issues. There's no link to a separate election coverage section from the home page, tho there's a small one if you scroll down the main news page. There isn't any additional info on the Web, at this point, where, let's face it, you have all the room in the world to provide more info about candidates, from audio to video and message boards.

Wendy Norris · 3 years ago

story in today's Coloradoan Headlining the web page (I have't seen the print edition yet) is Primary creates office divided. Staff at odds over who's best to fill assessor's post.

It appears to riff off of this post from Friday since it mentions and interviews the same staffers that I pointed out in my piece. Alas, no attribution to Colorado Confidential for breaking the story.