A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The (Grand Junction) Daily Sentinel, Aug. 5, on why judge who ruled on Proposition 8 should have recused himself:
Let’s assume, for the moment, that United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage is legally sound.
We aren’t endorsing his view or commenting on the merits of his decision concerning gay marriage. That’s grist for another editorial. Walker’s involvement in this case raises a different issue.
Let’s assume, in fact, that his decision is a model of legal and jurisprudential excellence. Let’s even assume that the decision to nullify Proposition 8, which was approved by a majority of California voters, is factually precise, comprehensive and accurate.
Let’s further assume that the United States Constitution ensures a fundamental right to marriage, even between people of the same gender. And let’s assume that denial of such a right not only violates the Constitution, but constitutes a moral wrong.
All of these assumptions may be correct about Judge Walker’s sweeping decision. But he never should have decided this case.
Judge Walker is one of two openly gay judges on the federal bench.
The proponents of Proposition 8 did not object to Judge Walker’s assignment to the case on the basis of his sexual orientation when they had an opportunity to do so. They believed he had demonstrated a record of integrity and impartiality, even in cases involving homosexuals.
Rather, Judge Walker, himself, should have made the decision to recuse. Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges—the ethics rules governing federal judges—provides: “A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.”
The comments to Canon 2 are significant:
“An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.”
The fact that Vaughn Walker’s signature appears at the bottom of this decision is a blow not only to the judicial system, but to the gay marriage movement itself.
The appearance of impartiality is the judicial system’s most important underpinning. Without it, courts’ decisions lose respect, and without respect, courts’ legitimacy can be questioned. The courts are our last check on a runaway executive, and sometimes, a runaway demos. That courts retain their power is fundamental to our system of government.
When an openly gay jurist decides a bellwether case involving gay rights, he invites skepticism about his personal bias. Indeed, Judge Walker’s sexual orientation flays open this decision to attacks on the judge’s interest, bias, temperament and integrity. And that serves nobody’s interest. Even gay marriage proponents must now attempt to defend the decision as not only legally correct, but also as the product of an impartial decision maker.
Editorial:
———
Canon City Daily Record, Aug. 5, on how incident with Shirley Sherrod is a lesson in fact-checking:
Last March, Shirley Sherrod, the Georgia state director of rural development for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave a speech before her state’s chapter of the NAACP, discussing how her views on race had evolved.
In her speech, the African-American woman told a story about her initial reluctance to help a white farmer whose property was being foreclosed.
And a blogger, Andrew Breitbart, who wanted to demonstrate racism in the NAACP, excerpted the couple of minutes of Sherrod’s speech that contained that story and noted on his website that the story was met with “nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement.”
But the rest of Sherrod’s story about the white farmer, which the blogger left out, related that she did help the farmer save his farm, making the point that she learned to stop stereotyping based on race after she realized that class is the greatest inequality in America today. “It’s about the people who have and the people who don’t. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race,” she told the Atlanta Journal Constitution after the edited clip was posted.
But not enough of the media who saw the edited posting bothered to ask for the full context.
Neither did the head of the Department of Agriculture, who demanded her resignation, nor NAACP officials, who said her conduct was unacceptable.
What happened to Sherrod was regrettable, but it should give everyone pause about how quickly someone’s reputation and career can be damaged when someone else posts an out-of-context comment online.
On Aug. 5, Sherrod said she will sue Breitbart. Whether or not she succeeds with that lawsuit, she may be remembered for providing the nation a lesson about checking the accuracy of what’s available online.
Journalists are taught to question facts and to get the full context of a story, but not all of them did so after first seeing the edited video clip of Sherrod’s speech.
President Obama talked about the case on “The View” on Aug. 5, asking people to not assume the worst of each other and to get the facts straight before they act.
In today’s world, not enough people take the time to gather all the facts they need.
But before reacting to information online, anyone should seek out multiple sources to ensure they get the full story.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Aug. 6, on why an international cycling race should not cost state taxpayers:
The Aug. 4 announcement that a major international cycling race would be held in Colorado sent a wave of excitement over the state’s cycling community and a surge of anticipation into the state’s business community.
The Quiznos Pro Challenge will take place Aug. 22-28, 2011, bringing riders from around the globe to ride the roads of the Rocky Mountains, possibly bringing a wave of tourism dollars along the way.
The event comes on the heels of the demise of the Tour of Missouri, an event viewed by many as wildly successful but was canceled this year due to a lack of funding.
That race’s cancellation raises an interesting quandary for the Colorado race, however.
Tour of Missouri organizers estimate the event brought in tourists from more than 40 states and had an economic impact of about $80 million in its three years. It also had $1.5 million in funding paid for by the state’s tourism department.
As excited as we are about the possibility of world-famous riders such as Alberto Contador or Mark Cavendish or even America’s Lance Armstrong riding in our state, it must be noted that our state is looking at having to cut as much as $1 billion from its budget in 2011-12.
The state could well benefit financially from this event, but right now the money isn’t there to sponsor it. That was the case in Missouri this year as well and was a major factor in the state’s questioning its financial commitment.
So yes, let’s all get excited about the Quiznos Pro Challenge and support the race, but the state should tread lightly when considering spending any state money financing the event. This should not be a publicly sponsored event.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Aug. 10, on why early voting by mail isn’t always necessarily better:
Tuesday wraps up one of the most active and contentious—primary seasons Coloradans have witnessed in years, and it seems clear that the expanded use of mail ballots has helped boost voter participation.
By late last week, many counties were reporting that turnout had surpassed primaries in 2006 and 2008, according to The Denver Post’s Karen E. Crummy.
But with the majority of counties relying completely on mail ballots, this primary season has shown both the advantages and disadvantages of their use.
On the plus side, we’ve no doubt that voter participation increased due to the ease of using mail ballots.
Yes, this is the first time in nearly 40 years that Colorado has seen two contested primaries for the U.S. Senate and one for the governor’s office.
Add to the mix significant voter discontent with the status quo in both major parties, and turnout was probably going to go up anyway.
But even given those dynamics, mail ballots no doubt boosted turnout. We’ve talked with a number of people who say that while they were happy to mail in ballots, they wouldn’t have bothered going to the polls.
On the other hand, mail ballots extend the period when voting takes place, meaning voters who mark their ballots early sometimes live to regret it.
Ballots were sent to registered affiliated voters three weeks ago, shortly after a plagiarism scandal soured some Republicans who intended to vote for Scott McInnis in the gubernatorial primary. But those who switched to Dan Maes woke up to a rude discovery only last week. Word that Maes believes Denver’s bike sharing program is a United Nations’ plot has made some voters regret they’d already mailed in their vote.
Late developments in the Republican Senate primary also may have changed opinions, depending on how voters reacted to candidate Ken Buck’s joke about high heels and his dismissal of “birthers” as “dumbasses.” His opponent, Jane Norton, certainly tried to exploit Buck’s words to her advantage. But of course those who voted early were in no position to reassess their choice.
Several late developments have also rocked the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, from Andrew Romanoff’s wildly unfair characterization of Sen. Michael Bennet as a corporate looter to last week’s front-page New York Times article that sharply criticized Bennet’s role in a debt offering he put together while superintendent of Denver Public Schools.
Also last week, Romanoff’s campaign signaled it would accept future support from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, though a central plank of Romanoff’s campaign is that he rejects money from special interests like the political action committees that heavily support the DSCC.
Twists like these make a clear argument for voters to be patient before marking their ballots.
Some county clerks urged voters to mail their ballots early, in order not to deluge election workers and delay the final tally.
Forgive us for seeing it the other way. We’d rather voters make the most well-informed choices possible—even if it jeopardizes the rapid reporting of results.
Editorial:
