PPC Homepage

Statewide Survey Results Show Overwhelming Discontent With Incumbent Colorado Supreme Court Justices

by | 4:11 pm, August 18, 2010 | 8 Comments

The results are in from the first scientific, statewide survey on the Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the November ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice).

Survey Results Show Overwhelming Discontent With Incumbent Colorado Supreme Court Justices

ALL THREE JUSTICES REJECTED BY 78% OR BETTER

Made aware of the anti-taxpayer decisions of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the November ballot, an overwhelming majority of the state’s likely voters say they will opt against retaining the justices for another 10-year term. A survey conducted this week by Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies statistically validates the huge impact and overwhelming resonance of the Clear the Bench Colorado message of judicial accountability with the voters of this state. The Colorado Supreme Court justices up for voter retention are Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice.” The following are the topline results of an autodial survey of 874 likely general election voters in the state of Colorado, conducted the evening of 16 August 2010.  The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.31% at the 95 percent confidence interval, and was weighted based upon voter turnout demographics from the 2008, 2006, 2004 and 2002 general election cycles.

When asked, “Did you know that Colorado voters have the right to vote “NO” on retaining incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices in office?” voters answered 68% YES.

When asked, “Did you know that three Colorado Supreme Court justices, Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice, are seeking another 10-year term in office in the November election?” voters answered 65% NO.

When asked, “If you were to cast your ballot today, would you vote to retain incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice Michael Bender in office for another 10-year term?” voters answered 79% NO.

When asked, “If you were to cast your ballot today, would you vote to retain incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice Alex Martinez in office for another 10-year term?” voters answered 78% NO.

When asked, “If you were to cast your ballot today, would you vote to retain incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice Nancy Rice in office for another 10-year term?” voters answered 78% NO.

Colorado voters of all ages, ethnicities, gender, and party affiliation in all regions of the state (complete demographic breakdown and crosstabs of survey results available as a separate file) reject these three particular Colorado Supreme Court justices due to a consistent pattern of ruling against what the Colorado Constitution provides.  Thanks to the increased attention focused on the way that these ‘unjust justices’ have violated the public trust and enabled the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens to be set aside, the electorate is waking up to their right to vote “NO” on retaining these incumbents in office for another 10-year term. Clear The Bench, Colorado! http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org Survey Methodology This survey was conducted using automated telephone touch tone technology.  The sample was randomly drawn from a Colorado voter file among households with a representative mix of demographics (Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Political Affiliation) statewide.  The sample included 894 respondents, distributed as follows:
  • Gender: 53% Female, 47% Male
  • Age: 18-34 (12%), 35-44 (16%), 45-54 (23%), 55-64 (24%), 65+ (25%
  • Ethnicity: White (83%), Hispanic/Latino (11%), Black/African American (4%), Other (2%)
  • Party Affiliation: Republican (39%), Democrat (34%), Unaffiliated/Other (27%)
(Full crosstabs available as a separate attachment) About Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies Magellan CEO David Flaherty has extensive experience in survey research, and applying political data and technology to political campaign decision-making gained throughouthis18yearcareerat the Republican National Committee, the U.S. House of Representatives, and public affairs firms specializing in influencing public opinion. The Magellan team has extensive knowledge constructing and building voter registration databases, performing data analysis, applying GIS mapping technology, conducting quantitative live and automated survey research, predictive modeling analysis, and redistricting technology. Visit MagellanStrategies.com for more information. Be a citizen, not a subject - get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who’s retiring rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Category: Colorado Politics, Colorado Supreme Court, Featured, PPC, TABOR
Tags: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Comments

  1.   robert southwell
      August 19th, 2010 @ 6:52 am

    A majority of old white Republicans who still have a landline phone are ignorant of the Supreme Court’s composition and election cycles, but apparently think the anti-incumbent idea is pretty good.

    Here’s a fun scenario: this group turns out heavy on November (as history would tend to indicate) and vote out the Justices standing for retention. Hickenlooper is elected Governor, and gets to appoint replacements.

  2.   Val
      August 19th, 2010 @ 11:44 am

    It is time for a push poll.

  3.   John A
      August 19th, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

    @Robert: Note the demographics (61% non-republicans) of the participants seem to match the likely voters, so don’t understand your “old white republican” statement. Agree that, based on this pole, we’ll get a fresh bench whomever is the next Governor. Am looking forward to it!

  4.   robert southwell
      August 19th, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

    The demographics seem easy enough, John:

    OLD: 55-64 (24%), 65+ (25%) = 49% age > 55

    WHITE: (83%)

    REPUBLICAN (39%)

    The inherent problem with this autodial is that it does not include those who have gone wireless, an increasingly common state that was successfully exploited by Obama’s campaign and has yet to be embraced by pollsters. While there may be an “enthusiasm gap” at present we are still quite a way out from November and things can change.

    Understand that I am NOT disparaging your ideas and commitment, but I am concerned that premature optimism might be deleterious.

  5.   Jim
      August 31st, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

    IT is hysterical that some group is linking these three judges together as “liberals”. Judge Rice is anything but liberal. These three are good judges deserving to stay on the bench and are basically forbidden by the Colo. Constitution from “running” election or re-election campaigns. Do some research before you blindly vote No. Can you name three decisions authored or supported by any of these judges? How about the remaining four? Can you even name them? I doubt it.Hickenlooper or maybe even Ritter before Hickenlooper takes office, will name the replacements and the committee that screens and approves the submissions for new judges won’t be cowed by this cowardly “vote no” on everything attitude so prevalent on the right. The PPC is a joke; its “non-ideology” stance is betrayed by its tone and tenor. Who funds the PPC, will the PPC say? It doesn’t say on its website. What is its real corporate name, where are its corp records and funding sources? The PPC sounds like a bunch of cowards to me.

  6.   T.L. James
      September 1st, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

    I’d tell you who our donors are, Jim, but you wouldn’t believe me if I did (which, come to think of it, I did make public just last week). Besides, it’s a lot of fun to be on the receiving end of someone’s baseless, paranoid speculations. (Booga! Booga!)

    As for doing research about the justices up for retention, well, I couldn’t agree more with the suggestion that people do their research. All voters have to do to get a good education on some of the offending decisions the three justices in question were party to is pay a visit to Clear the Bench Colorado’s website and do some reading. Matt does a great job of summarizing these decisions and why they were bad decisions for the citizens of Colorado.

  7.   Jim
      September 2nd, 2010 @ 8:58 am

    It was hardly a paranoid posting. I asked a couple of questions. You failed to answer; instead attacked the messenger. You appear to be a single issue outfit: taxes. That’s fine but realize what a small % of judicial decisions are tax based. You also did nothing to refute the assertion that Hickenlooper or Ritter will appoint replacements. My main point is your site claims to be “non-ideological” and that is truly inaccurate. A brief review of the site shows it features an exclusively very conservative point of view and slant. Nothing wrong with that. Just say it and don’t try to hide it by claiming to be “non-ideological”. What are you afraid of?

  8.   T.L. James
      September 2nd, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

    The “paranoia” comment referred specifically to your question about our funding, and the roundabout implication that PPC is just puppets for some well-funded right-wing group…based on zero evidence. This sounded to me like the all-too-common presumption from the left that anyone who speaks up from the right is astroturf, a paid shill, or otherwise a tentacle of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s Buzz Machine™.

    If you expect your questions to be taken seriously, perhaps you should think about what questions you’re asking and how you’re asking them.

    As for “non-ideological”, it’s a fact — PPC does not have a single, specific ideology. PPC focuses on a few broad issue areas, but we don’t prescribe to contributing authors what they are to say or what ideological stance they are to take on any of those topics. The authors themselves represent a broad mix of perspectives across the center right…as you would know, if you paid close attention to their arguments and perspectives. They even disagree with each other — frequently — over the stances they take and which principles one another choose to focus on. Hardly the stuff of ideological conformity.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!