That’s because the only Democratic challengers in Districts 3, 4 and 6, now held by Republicans, are all state legislators.  They are, respectively, Rep. Sal Pace, of Pueblo, Senate President Brandon Shaffer, of Longmont, and Rep. Joe Miklosi, of Denver.

None of them is willing, as of this writing, to give up his seat to campaign, although Pace just surrendered his post as House minority leader.

Abandoning your seat to campaign for a higher job is a time-honored tradition, and the three Democrats will probably be under increasingly heavy pressure to do so.

There are three good reasons to leave early.  First, sessions are time-consuming.  On the floor you have to sit through endless discussions on meaningless resolutions, as well as on legitimate bills. Equally tedious committee meetings will have you checking your watch, wondering if you can make it to a scheduled campaign event miles away.

If you skip the floor sessions or committees, the Republicans really won’t care—one less vote against them—but they’ll righteously publicize your absenteeism anyway.

Second, you have to vote on tough bills you’d just as soon vote “present” on, like Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate.  But “present” isn’t an option in Colorado.  And it’s not just bills.  GOP leaders will dream up bogus, no-chance floor amendments primarily for the purpose of forcing you to take awkward, recorded positions on issues you’d like to duck.

Third, and most important, you cannot legally raise money from lobbyists, or their clients, while the legislature is in session, even if you’re seeking another office. The 2012 session is expected to start Jan. 11 and end May 9, meaning you’ll have just six weeks to raise money for the primary election on June 26—the earliest ever.  You may not have a primary, and you can spend primary money on the general election, but you’ll have little time to raise it.

Let’s start with Republican Terry Considine.  Appointed to the state Senate in 1987 and elected to it the next year, he decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 1992.  He resigned his state Senate seat the opening day of the 1992 session to campaign.

Then there was Democratic state Sen. Penfield Tate.  He wanted to run for mayor of Denver in 2003 while keeping his day job.  But less than a month into the 2003 session he changed his mind, resigning from the Senate.

Next up: Democratic Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, of Golden, whose case most parallels Shaffer’s today.  She intended to run in 2008 for Congress from the 2nd District, which was being vacated by now-Sen. Mark Udall.  To give herself plenty of time to campaign, she resigned her Senate seat in November 2007.  Dan Gibbs was elected to her Senate seat and Peter Groff succeeded her as Senate president.

Finally we get to Democratic state Sen. Chris Romer, of Denver.  He wanted to be mayor of Denver and everybody knew it.  But he ran for a second four-year term in 2010 anyway, won the election—and resigned less than a month later, six weeks before the 2011 session began.

So you see what you’re supposed to do. . .

Hey, why are you tugging at my sleeve?  You say that all those candidates who resigned early ended up losing?

So they did!  Considine won the GOP Senate nomination in 1992, but was wiped out in the general election by Ben Nighthorse Campbell, then a Democrat.

Tate was one of six mayoral candidates who ended up losing to John Hickenlooper in May 2003.

Fitz-Gerald was wiped out in the 2nd District Democratic primary by Jared Polis, of Boulder, who spent $5 million of  his own money.  He won the general and was re-elected in 2010.

Chris Romer was obliterated by Michael Hancock in the recent Denver mayoral election.

Hmmm.  Maybe it’s not smart or even necessary to resign early after all.  Democratic U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, of the 1st District, didn’t leave her legislative seat in 1996 (although she gave up her post as minority leader, just as Pace has done).  Freshman U.S. Reps. Cory Gardner, of the 4th District and Scott Tipton, of the 3rd, both Republicans, completed their terms in the Colorado House in 2010.

Miklosi says he’s not leaving early because, “I made a commitment to the voters” to serve out the term.  Will he change his mind if former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, or someone else, emerges to challenge him in a primary? Republican Mike Coffman’s 6th District, after all, is seen by Democrats as the most vulnerable under the current map.

Meanwhile, state GOP chair Ryan Call is delighted that the three Democratic challengers aren’t quitting the legislature.  “The people of Colorado would do well to see them in action again, especially in an election year,” he said.  The GOP will play “a proactive role” in citing issues on which they might be vulnerable.

Longtime Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake now writes Thursdays for the Colorado News Agency. Contact him at pblake0705@comcast.net You may re-publish his work at no charge and without further permission; please give full credit to Peter Blake and www.ColoradoNewsAgency.com

For all of the fanfare and excitement surrounding the notion of an Interstate 70 “zipper lane” to reduce mountain traffic congestion, the Colorado Department of Transportation says the idea most likely won’t be implemented until the fall of 2011. It’s even possible the program may never come to fruition. Numerous studies still have to be completed, along with input from mountain communities along the affected corridor. Those studies would then allow CDOT to create a projected fiscal note.

However, the data from an initial survey already shows that the zipper lane could only feasibly be used eastbound on Sundays in the fall and winter.  Actually placing the barriers on the interstate to create the 3-lanes-versus-1 would take about 90 minutes, and CDOT says it must have a “lull” in the opposite direction of traffic in order to install the barriers.  Otherwise, reducing down to one lane would create major delays and other safety problems for those traveling in that direction. The survey data suggests that neither weekend summertime traffic nor Friday wintertime traffic provide the necessary “gap” in traffic flows to make placement of the zipper lanes feasible at those times. Only the Sunday mass-exit from the mountains provides the necessary time for traffic to realize the maximum benefit.

While the additional lane of eastbound traffic would significantly cut travel times out of the mountains (from an average of 79 minutes down to 40 minutes), an additional burden would be placed on westbound travelers. The study estimates Sunday westbound travelers would see their drive times jump from roughly 34 minutes to anywhere from 60 to 69 minutes, depending on whether or not trucks are allowed to use the single lane at the time.

The idea of installing a zipper lane isn’t new; they are frequently used in construction zones. But the notion of systematically installing 15 miles of zipper lane along a federal interstate would represent a remarkably unique, first-time experiment in the country of manipulating federal roadways in such a manner for the purpose of alleviating congestion in a mountain corridor environment for such a lengthy stretch of highway. For that reason, CDOT spokeswoman Stacey Stegman says the agency is “going cautiously.”

The study released by CDOT is the “Phase I” study which essentially studied traffic patterns to assess overall feasibility.  The Phase II study would have to delve into deeper issues of the zipper lane concept. Stegman added, “Phase II is where we’ll answer the really tough questions about issues related to snow removal, incidents, emergency response, etc.  We need these issues resolved before we can decide if this is something worthy of a major public investment.”

The idea for the zipper lane was proposed and passed in the last legislative session as Senate Bill 184 from State Sen.Chris Romer, who has long sought a creative solution to the I-70 “bottleneck” caused when people travelling into or out of the mountains create rush hour-like backups. Romer’s bill, however, does not compel CDOT to implement the zipper lane.

A formal request, as required by law, by the health department to add the disorder to the list of treatable ailments was submitted Tuesday to the Department of Regulatory Services, which has the authority to approve or deny the request. Tourette’s is a neurological disorder that causes involuntary motor or vocal “tics” that are repetitive and rapid such as blinking, twitching, or grunts.  Symptoms range from moderate to severe, and treatments vary.

The health department found the information submitted to department staff last March to be credible.

“Based upon both the information supplied by the petitioner and a review of the medical literature which shows some scientific evidence of efficacy in humans and no evidence of harm, the department is bringing this rulemaking action to add Tourette’s syndrome as a debilitating medical condition for which an individual could apply to the Medical Marijuana Program for a registry identification card,” read the request.

Colorado voters approved a citizens initiative in 2000 allowing the using of medical marijuana to treat a variety of ailments. State regulators wield the authority to fine-tune the list of allowable uses of medical marijuana.

However, policy makers in state and local government have been trying to rein in the proliferation over the last year of medical-marijuana dispensaries that have popped up in larger cities. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

Two measures passed by the legislature curbing the herb’s use were signed into law this year by Gov. Bill Ritter after rigorous debate and considerable wrangling over the details. House Bill 1284, sponsored by House members Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Ken Summers, R-Lakewood, along with Senate members Chris Romer, D- Denver, and Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, put in place guidelines for medical marijuana dispensaries in the name of weeding out illegitimate dispensaries. Senate Bill 109 fine-tuned the doctor-patient relationship when medical marijuana is recommended, and was sponsored by Romer, Spence, Massey and Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver.

Spence said that she supports the addition of Tourette’s if the evidence points to the effectiveness of medical marijuana in treating the disorder.

“I don’t have a problem with Tourette’s being added to the list,” said Spence.  “I would defer to the experts though in making that determination, and I trust that the department will look at the research.”

A hearing is set for 10 a.m. on Sept. 15 at the health department and is open to the public.

In 2000, voters approved Amendment 20, which authorizes the use of medical marijuana for patients who might benefit from its use. But the amendment also left somewhat vague how the drug would be distributed. Since that time, the number of medical marijuana “dispensaries” – retail outlets that produce and dispense medical marijuana products— has grown exponentially.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 would have asked the voters to decide whether to stop the dispensary model and would have limited the distribution to a narrower definition of caregiver.  The resolution was a pre-emptive move that would negate House Bill 1284, sponsored by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, which creates a framework in which dispensaries can legally operate.

Jefferson County District Attorney Scott Storey told the Senate Judiciary panel members that the passage of Amendment 20 in 2000 did not authorize or even mention the notion of medical marijuana being dispensed through retail outlets and that the emergence of dispensaries has been premature.

“HB 1284 is putting the cart before the horse in my mind,” said Storey.

Prior to SCR 5 being introduced, HB 1284 was built on the premise that the dispensary model for distribution was inevitable and needed clarification and regulation by the state.

Renfroe wants to rein in the assumption that the voters approved the dispensary model in the legalization of medical marijuana and believes the prudent path is go back to the voters for the needed clarification in light of the issues that have cropped up with the dispensaries that are operating in a regulatory void.

“It’s time to go back to the voters,” said Renfroe. “The confusion has gone on long enough.”

Much of the confusion has been over the definition of “caregiver” authorized in Amendment 20 to dispense medical marijuana.  Renfroe thinks SCR5 will solve the problem.

“This simply defines what a primary caregiver is–and what it is not,” said Renfroe.  “It’s that simple.”

Romer did not support the SCR and said his measure, HB1284, will go a long way in taming the proliferation of dispensaries and will actually reduce the number of dispensaries by 50 percent, according to the Department of Revenue.

“ I don’t think we need to send it back to the voters statewide. I think that individual communities will need to decide,” said Romer. ”Let’s let the new rules be put in place and then look at this a year from now.”

Dubbed “Earn to Learn,” the measure would give low-income kids a financial incentive to improve their reading skills by reading more outside the classroom.

The reading incentive program will be available for first- through fifth-graders whose school is within the boundaries of a promise zone—a federally designated area with higher-than-average rates of dropouts and at-risk kids. The reward for reading a book outside of class time will be $2 per book–if the child successfully completes a quiz on the book.

Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Romer, of Denver, and Senate Minority leader Josh Penry, of Grand Junction, Senate Bill 210 is patterned after groundbreaking research that uses economic principles to incentivize kids to learn.

Romer said that he has been following the work of Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr., who tested and studied incentive programs for kids to close achievement gaps and found encouraging results pointing to successful outcomes. Romer wants to replicate that success here in Colorado. Romer said he called Fryer, and Fryer offered to help, if needed, to drum up support.

“I’ve always been intrigued with providing child-appropriate incentives for learning,” said Romer.  “In our world, the education world, anything that works with this kind of success is phenomenal.”

The Colorado program would be paid for out of the Read to Achieve Program, which Penry said hasn’t been utilized as well as it could be.

“Read to Achieve dollars are not serving a very high purpose right now and I’m open to new ideas and I’m very interested in this idea,” said Penry.

Penry said the innovative policy could produce positive results in ways that other programs have not.

“Market incentives work for big people and recent studies suggest that the same incentives will work for little people,” said Penry.

Senate Bill 184, sponsored by Democratic Senators Dan Gibbs of Silverthorne and Chris Romer of Denver, would allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to create a “zipper” lane along I-70 — a reversible lane utilized to accommodate overflow traffic in either direction.

Gibbs said the zipper will allow the flow of mountain rush-hour traffic to increase by fifty-percent, also noting that studies he has seen indicate for every hour traffic is at a standstill correlates to $1 million in lost revenue for Colorado’s tourism industry.  Gibbs also stated that contrary to popular belief, the busiest months for the corridor are July and August, not the winter months.  On average, 500,000 vehicles travel through the Eisenhower tunnel monthly.

Romer emphasized that this is bill is only a temporary fix.

“This is a common sense way to put a down payment on a long term solution,” said Romer.

Republican Minority leader Josh Penry of Grand Junction said he supports the measure because it gives CDOT the flexibility to apply the zipper as needed at a relatively low cost.

“This allows us to take a big step forward and do it through innovation rather than asking for more money,” said Penry.

Although there wasn’t any opposition to the measure, a couple of lawmakers reminded their colleagues that while the zipper seems like a good idea, it could ultimately bring back the traffic jams it is intended to cure.

“In reality what’s going to happen is more people will travel to the mountains–of course it’ll be good for the tourism,” said Rep. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs. “But it’ll be jammed again within a couple of years.”

Dovetailing Shultheis’ observations, Rep Joyce Foster, D-Denver, said she agreed with Schultheis, and lamented that the traffic issues weren’t addressed years earlier when discussions first emerged in the 1970’s about building a rail line.  For some, like Foster, a rail line is inevitable as a long-term solution

This state has to make a commitment to the trains sooner than later and unfortunately it’s going to be much later,” said Foster.

SB184 is on the calendar for 3^rd Reading Wednesday for an up or down roll call vote.

The measure has taken several river-like twists and turns since it was introduced in the House, stirring up consternation and emotions over what has been acknowledged as an “uneasy truce” between rafters and property owners over the years.

Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, offered today’s pivotal amendment approved by the full Senate, asking the Colorado Water Congress to weigh in on the issues regarding Colorado’s rivers pertaining to rafting through private property.  The Water Congress is made up of voluntary members with the purpose of “providing key leadership on key water resource issues and to be the principal voice of Colorado’s water community.”

“This is a difficult and complicated issue that does need to be worked out,” said White.

Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, rejected the idea of deferring the issue and urged his colleagues to dive into the issue head on and to resolve the lingering questions in this year’s legislative session.

“Folks, the people are asking the government to do something. So, let’s man up, and woman up, and do something,” said Romer.

Bill sponsor Sen. Mary Hodge of Brighton agreed with fellow Democrat Romer but focused her comments on the study and the need for a more immediate resolution.

“A study gets us nowhere” said Hodge. “The status quo isn’t working or we wouldn’t be here.”

Those that wanted to resolve the issue rather than send it off for further study argued that the river rafters and property owners need the clarification that the measure would provide and that they needed it sooner rather than later due to rampant confusion and misconceptions.

“This puts into law what everyone already thinks is common law,” said Hodge.

Avid river rafter Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Denver, who said he has logged over 1000 miles as a rafting guide, thinks that clearing up the ambiguity would serve the state well for the sake of Colorado’s summertime tourism industry, which Gibbs says is driven by rafting.

“Lets have a reality check here,” said Gibbs. “Tourism is one of our leading economies. If we do not pass this bill I think we’ll be in a world of hurt.”

Gibbs went on to mention one particular property owner who some say has stirred up the “uneasy truce” and happens to be from Texas. This prompted Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas to weigh in, highlighting the competing interests of rafters and property owners that has been at the heart of the bill.

“Colorado’s rivers should be for Coloradoans, we shouldn’t let folks from out of state influence this bill. Come on folks, I mean who are we representing down here? Millionaires from Texas?” asked Gibbs.

Kester responded to Gibbs, saying, “I think we should be representing the private property rights of Colorado citizens who own property along the river.”

Whether or not the issue will be looked at by the Water Congress will now be up to the House who will have the opportunity to have an up or down vote on the Senate version assuming that the bill is adopted by the Senate on a roll call vote as early as Monday.

The version approved by the House last month before it came over to the Senate gave Colorado’s commercial rafters greater leeway in running their excursions through private land, drawing fire from critics who said the move is an assault on property rights.

Minority Republicans, who have fought the rollback of tax breaks on business because they said the move would kill jobs, painted the new Democratic proposal as an about-face.

“The irony is still there.  The majority passed all these tax increases and Main Street businesses kept saying that the change in tax policy will cost jobs,” said the GOP’s Sen. Mark Sheffel, of Douglas County.

Democrats pushed back.

“I smell a party a little off message,” said Denver Democratic Sen. Chris Romer. Romer said he couldn’t understand why his Republican colleagues, generally in favor of tax credits, wouldn’t support his bill.

“This is a decision about Main Street Colorado,” he said. “It’s not about whether Coca Cola gets a special tax break. It’s about average people going back to work.”

The measure, Senate Bill 133, gives a one-time tax credit to businesses for each laid-off employee they rehire.  The employee must have worked for at least a year prior to the lay-off and work again for at least a year before the tax credit would be given.  Also, to receive the credit, the employer would have to sign an affidavit that states the rehiring was due to the passage of SB133.

The GOP’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, of Broomfield, said requiring the employer to sign an affidavit to receive a tax credit is manipulative.

“We should move away from finely sliced credits to broad-based tax credits such as a tax credit for all new hires,” said Mitchell.

Romer brushed off criticism that the bill doesn’t go far enough with an eye towards the prize he says the bill will give—jobs.

“I am pleased to have the only bill in the legislature that certifiably would rehire … 5,000 new people.  That’s 5,000 people in Colorado that are currently unemployed that would be able to go back to work as a result of this bill,” Romer said.

Fellow Democratic lawmaker and sponsor of the bill with Romer, Sen. Rollie Heath of Boulder, said the bill is needed to jump-start the rehiring process in Colorado by nudging businesses in the right direction.

“We’re trying to change the psychology. We want to change the conversation,” said Heath.

Heath said he understands what businesses are experiencing and wants to see the unemployed get their jobs back.

“As a former business owner, I know the pain businesses go through when they have to let an employee go,” Heath said. “If we can make it easier for these businesses to hire back some of their employees, and if we can get these employees back to work, we’ve done something very important for Colorado this year.”

Romer said he is pleased to have what he says is tax policy that works not for corporate interests but for the unemployed. He lauded last year’s controversial Colorado Supreme Court ruling that said a constitutional provision requiring tax increases to be put to a popular vote did not apply if the increased revenue didn’t exceed constitutional spending limits.

“This legislature, thanks to the Supreme Court decision, has the right to be back in charge of tax policy,” said Romer.

FASTER, championed and signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter, raises registration fees an average of $40 per passenger car to fund upgrades to structurally deficient bridges as well as to pay for road maintenance. A portion of the funds going to road maintenance is allocated to local governments under the measure. Denver Democratic Sen. Chris Romer’s push for a streetcar line, reported in Monday’s Denver Post, would be funded in part by the local share of the FASTER fee hike, using revenue from vehicles registered within a special district surrounding the streetcar route.

Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, who sponsored FASTER and shepherded it through heated, partisan debate last spring, says he would be OK with Romer’s idea so long as the state’s revenue share isn’t touched and the streetcar project conforms to local government’s permissible use of the money–which he doubts.

“Were going to stay true to what we passed last year and I don’t think this falls under either category,” said Rice who noted he hasn’t seen the bill because it has yet to be introduced.

Both Romer and Sen. Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, who will also sponsor the bill, believe that running a streetcar down Colfax will be a boon to the area in the long run and that it will help jump-start the local economy.

“I think it’s a very grand idea of reinstituting a way of transportation that we had in the past,” said Williams, adding that it would be an excellent way for people, especially employees, to get to the Fitzsimmons medical complex on East Colfax Avenue in Aurora.

Romer, thinks that his idea will spur further development and will put a dent in Colorado’s unemployment numbers.

“In places like Portland, where they have put in the streetcar, economic development has been spectacular,” said Romer.  “What the baseball stadium did for LODO, a streetcar would do for Colfax. Hopefully we can get things going rather quickly and put people to work.”

Minority Republicans, who almost unanimously opposed FASTER and have derided it as a $250 million “car tax” on Colorado motorists, say Romer’s proposal suggests the proceeds could be squandered, too.

“Those who represent Denver need to quit coming up with ideas that takes money from the rest of the state to support their initiatives,” said House Minority Leader Mike May, of Parker.  “To have them siphon off of a tax—FASTER–that I didn’t even support, I’m sorry, I can’t support that.”

Another consideration that would make the streetcar idea viable is whether or not the proposed streetcar district can obtain federal stimulus money for the project, and Romer says that time is running out to apply for those funds.

“If the feds are giving away money, I’d get to the candy store fast,” said Romer.

Earlier in the day, a coalition of patient-advocacy groups had gathered on the Capitol’s west steps to express their concerns with the proposed legislation.

“We’re here to remind legislators that this is about patients’ rights as they consider a bill that would weaken the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship,”  said Brian Vicente, of the group Sensible Colorado.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, clarifies and defines the doctor-patient relationship when a physician recommends the use of medical marijuana.

Proponents point to what they say have been abuses of the law by some doctors who issue recommendations–which are not the same as prescriptions–on flimsy pretexts. Critics of the measure say it is a solution in search of a problem and could stand in the way of patients who truly need the therapy. Those testifying in favor of the bill, who have also been instrumental in outlining the provisions of the bill, came primarily from law enforcement.  Those opposing  the bill, making up the lion’s share of today’s crowd, were patients, providers and care givers.

Jason Ellingson, a medical-marijuana patient, told committee members the hurdles are already significant in procuring what he and others said is a life-giving source of pain mitigation.

“We have enough medical stuff going on as it is, and we shouldn’t have to add another piece to an already difficult situation,” Ellingson said.

He said the difficulty he and others are experiencing are both financial and logistical.  Federal laws preclude medical providers who receive federal dollars from recommending medical marijuana, and the Romer-Spence bill would further impede a patient’s ability to see a doctor with whom they have an established relationship, Ellingson said.

Proponents of the measure, however, said too many doctors are recommending medical marijuana without proper oversight, causing a proliferation of usage that may or may not be medically necessary and blurring the lines of legality. They said that makes it extremely difficult for law enforcement and the courts to do their jobs.

Romer, in defense of his bill, declared, “This bill marks an end of the wild, wild west.”

Although medical marijuana has been legal for a decade, dispensaries serving patients have popped up rapidly in several Colorado communities in the past year following a number of federal and state regulatory developments. Lawmakers have taken on the issue as a result.

The emotional nature of today’s testimony was not lost on the panel and particularly Romer, who spoke up after the committee heard from a cancer patient with chronic pain who said he has been unable to use medical marijuana because he is a parolee.

“We have to listen with our hearts because this is a tough issue,” said Romer, who noted that he wants a common-sense solution and is willing to look at ways to amend the bill as it moves forward to consider some of the concerns brought up in committee.

The lone “no” vote was cast by the committee’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R- Broomfield. Mitchell  expressed concern that the bill was arbitrarily singling out one kind of treatment for additional regulation, particularly when a judge would retain discretion anyway over whether or not a parolee could obtain a lawful remedy for pain.

“I find it odd that a judge would intervene in a medical decision in this instance but not in others,” said Mitchell.

Later in the session, lawmakers are also expected to consider legislation that could rein in–or even roll back–the recent proliferation of medical-marijuana dispensaries in Denver and other communities. Some cities, including Denver, already have enacted ordinances of their own that either curb or in some cases ban the dispensaries. That impending legislation is believed likely to spark an even testier debate than today’s measure.