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

The letter, addressed to all members of Colorado’s congressional delegation, was written and signed by Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, along with 38 other Republican Representatives and Senators from across Colorado.  It calls on the delegation to reject what the Republican lawmakers have characterized as a “dangerous amendment” to House Resolution 4899 offered by Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin.

Citing economic considerations, the letter states that the proposed amendment would cause more harm than good to Colorado’s precarious economy.  Gardner defends the assertion made in the letter, saying that now is not the time to fiddle with the equilibrium currently maintained between labor unions and government.

“Particularly with all of the uncertainty currently surrounding the economy, now is not the time to be making radical changes to the balance between labor unions and local governments,” said Gardner. “The amendment that has been attached to this bill will cause further harm to our economy and hinder our economic recovery.”

One Democratic lawmaker, Sen. Lois Tochtrop of Thornton, doesn’t buy the argument made by the Republicans that collective bargaining would have a negative effect, and said she wholeheartedly supports the concept.

“I would support any amendment that would that would help in the process of collective bargaining whether in government, or in the private sector.  I do not see any economic harm in allowing employees to have a place at the table,” said Tochtrop.

Collective bargaining for government employees is a topic Tochtrop is familiar with. In 2009, she successfully saw the passage of Senate Bill 180 which would have allowed firefighters to engage in collective bargaining only to see it vetoed by Gov. Bill Ritter Jr.  In 2010, Tochtrop, along with Rep. Sara Gagliardi, D-Arvada, offered Senate Bill 84, creating a “peace officers bill of rights,” addressing due process considerations, one of those considerations being collective bargaining.  That measure did not make it off the Senate floor.  Tochtrop said the she will try again next year with the premise of SB 84.

“It’s coming back next year.  We’re going to look at it and change some of the verbiage and we’ll see what happens. “

Meanwhile, Gardner remains focused on the federal government’s involvement with collective bargaining in Colorado.

“Legislators from across the state signed this letter because they are just as concerned as I am that this overreaching mandate could be on its way from Washington to Colorado,” said Gardner. “I hope our congressional delegation agrees and joins with us in opposition to this amendment.”

House Bill 1200, sponsored by Rep. Dickie Hullinghorst, D-Longmont, is part of Governor Bill Ritter’s 2010-11 budget-balancing package, eliminating certain tax credits and tax exemptions.  The credit addressed in HB1200 is currently offered through the Colorado Enterprise Zone Program, specifically the Investment Tax Credit (ITC).  The credit equals 3 percent of a qualified investment.  HB1200 places a cap on the credit in 2011, and defers the credit in subsequent years.  Estimates suggest passage of HB1200 would generate around $11.8 million in FY2010-11 and $24.6 million in FY2011-12.

Hullinghorst told House members that the passage of HB1200 is necessary to balance the budget—the budget already approved by lawmakers and sent to the Governor earlier this month, known as the “Long Bill.”

“If we don’t find that $11.million we need to find another spot to balance that.  If we don’t pass this, it’ll be difficult for the governor to sign the long bill,” said Hullinghorst.

GOP members questioned Hullinghorst on the necessity of eliminating a portion of the ITC credit to balance a budget that has already been submitted to the governor.  Hullinghorst said that the budget is not based on actual spending and revenue, but rather on anticipated future spending and revenue, and that the $36.4 million will ensure that the budget is balanced.

“We balance the long bill based on projections,” replied Hullinghorst. ”The long bill is a dynamic document.”

Republican Rep. Brian Del Grosso of Loveland pointed out to Hullinghorst that there is also a dynamic at play in business that he believes would be harmed if the measure were to become law.

“Based on a hypothetical, we’re going to ask businesses once again to pony up–almost 12 million dollars–increas[ing] the cost of doing business, and cost jobs,” said Del Grosso.

Democratic Joint Budget Committee Chairman Jack Pommer of Boulder, who oversaw this year’s budget process, said that the nexus between the tax exemptions and jobs just isn’t there and supports the measure as the prudent thing to do to ensure a balanced budget.

“The idea that this is going to throw anybody out of work is just plain goofy,” said Pommer, “There’s been this tendency to make this false equation between these special tax breaks and jobs, and there’s no connection between them whatsoever.”

Pommer believes that the extra $36.4 million (over two fiscal years) will help provide a “margin of error” in the budget if projections are wrong considering that the governor’s projections are slightly underbalanced, and the legislatures projections are slightly over balanced.

Yet Rep. Cory Gardner, a Republican of Yuma, believes that tinkering with the ITC will do more harm than good for Colorado’s overall economic health, regardless of how well the budget is balanced, saying elimination of the ITC could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

“Taxes have been increased on businesses by over $100 million this year.  Enterprise zones do create jobs,” said Gardner. “If this bill passes we’re simply pushing a boulder down a mountain that’s already falling.”

The bill passed a voice-vote today, and is now on the calendar for a full roll-call vote on Tuesday.

Sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, House Bill 1347 is designed to tackle the problem of repeat offenders by placing the punitive phase up front, followed by a mandatory probationary phase afterward that zeroes in on preventative measures.

“It (the bill) is intended to impose the kinds of conditions that will stop people from going out and repeat-offending,” said Levy.

After a second DUI or DUWI offense, there will be a minimum sentence of 10 days and up to one year of confinement.  After a third offense the minimum increases to 60 days of confinement.

A key provision of the measure, said Levy, is in the mandatory, two-year probation, during which time the court may require an ignition interlock device, which is attached to the vehicle to detect alcohol use and prevents the vehicle from being driven.  Other available options include periodic court appearances and monitoring of alcohol and drug use.

The tools at the disposal of the judge are, “basically whatever it takes to separate an alcoholic or a drug abuser from their vehicle,” said Levy.

Earlier this year, House Bill 1184 was sponsored by Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, from Yuma, to make a third DUI offense a felony, but that measure was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee, citing budget constraints.

Levy’s bill must first garner a majority roll-call vote before it moves over to the Senate for consideration.  The final House vote may occur as early as Monday.

The measure, House Bill 1094, would have allowed the use of deadly force without fear of prosecution on the part of a business owner, manager, or employee under certain conditions.   Current law already gives immunity to homeowners who are defending themselves against intruders under the state’s Make My Day statute.

House Judiciary Chair Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said that the measure is too simplistic and may offer businesses too much wiggle room, essentially becoming a license to kill someone unjustifiably.

‘The language of this bill is very simple. If you’re concerned that there might be the use of force, no matter how slight, you get to shoot to kill,” said Levy. “It would be a shield against prosecution.”

Yuma Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, sponsor of the measure, said his bill would act as a deterrent to would-be criminals by letting them know that business owners, like homeowners, have the right to protect themselves.

“People have the right to protect themselves and … we ought to give law-abiding citizens the tools they need to do so,” said Gardner, noting crime rates have declined since 1985, when the original Make My Day law went into effect for homeowners.

“The last thing that ought to be going through a person’s mind as they are trying to defend their life is, ‘Gee, am I going to get prosecuted for protecting my life?’  This bill says don’t worry about that as long as you are within the law,” Gardner said.

Dan Brennan, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, told the committee there are too many variables, such as what would constitute unlawful entry into a business.

“Homes are not open to the public.  Businesses want people to walk through their front doors,” said Brennan.  “Unlawful entry may mean different things to different people.”

A representative of the Colorado District Attorneys Council also testified against the measure.

“Our concern is losing the discretion of the DA in not being able to make the determination of whether or not it is appropriate to prosecute,” the organization’s Mark Randall told committee members.

Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden, who came to speak for the County Sheriffs of Colorado, disagreed with both the police chiefs and district attorneys. For Alderden, the measure is simply a victims’ rights bill that empowers the victim.

“I’m probably one of the few people here who has looked down the wrong end of a handgun,” said Alderden. “I will tell you that in that circumstance time stops– it slows down and in those moments I shouldn’t have to stop and think about whether or not I’m going to be prosecuted.”

Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, the lone committee Democrat who voted in favor of the bill along with committee Republicans, said the proposal made sense to him.

“There are sufficient protections around the bill,” said Pace. “Everyone should have a right to defend themselves.”

“Wind energy is a growing industry here in Colorado, especially in the Eastern Plains,” said Yuma Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, the bill’s sponsor.  “Colorado should be a welcoming place for wind energy, but we also need to keep in mind the rights of property owners.”

His House Bill 1158 seeks to do just that.  Under current law, space above land and water belongs to the surface owner, but the owner can sell mineral rights, giving access and rights to, for example, drill for oil–called severed rights. However, the law does not specify whether wind is part of the space above land and water and remains unclear on whether the property owner may sell or transfer “wind rights” to another while retaining ownership of the surface land.

Some Colorado landowners are already forging ahead, separating wind rights from their property, and they are using voluntary agreements to determine the right of a developer to install wind turbines on their land.

Gardner is concerned that in the absence of clear and defined wind rights, property owners may be entering into agreements that may or may not be upheld in a dispute.

“Right now, landowners are already severing their wind rights without any guarantees that their contracts will hold up in court,” said Gardner.

House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee chair Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, agreed on the need to clarify the parameters of the ad-hoc agreements, citing his concern that a developer, who had negotiated wind rights with a previous landowner, could come in and set up wind turbines without a new owner being aware of the prior agreement.  However, he said he was hesitant to support the measure until the issue was more thoroughly vetted in light of the precedent the measure would set.

“We need to be a little more thoughtful on how we approach this very complicated issue with a clear understanding of rights and responsibility regarding wind as a renewable resource,” said Fischer. “There definitely needs to be clarity if people are starting to do this sort of thing.”

After some discussion, the committee decided to lay the bill over until after the session–effectively tabling it for this year–so that a comprehensive study could be done on the wind rights issue by the legislature’s research staff.

“It’s important to understand that this was the first bill of it’s kind in the nation, so hopefully this study will give us more guidance as we move forward,” said Gardner.

Last week, Gov. Bill Ritter, made a rare appearance before another legislative committee to testify on behalf of a bill to raise the minimum amount of renewable energy that investor-owned utilities in Colorado must use in generating power–from the current standard of 20 percent by 2020 to 30 percent by that year. The proposal, House Bill 1001, accelerates a key component of Ritter’s signature New Energy Economy but is drawing criticism from minority Republicans, who say it’s a potentially costly and overreaching policy that ignores the advantages of cheap and reliable coal power.

“I wish we could afford the felony,” said the House Judiciary Committee chair, Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder.

This year’s budget gap–which lawmakers are still trying to close–along with another $1.3 billion shortfall looming for next year’s budget have lawmakers skittish about approving any bill that would require additional funding.  The felony conviction would have cost the state the equivalent of less than one-sixtieth of 1 percent of its operating budget, exclusive of funds set aside for education.

Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Spring, said he would like to see the state find a way to deal with drunken drivers in Colorado who are repeat offenders, and he said money shouldn’t be the final arbitrator.

“If we the state are going to get tough on DUIs, then we the state must figure out how to pay for it,” said Gardner.

Under current law, drunken driving is a misdemeanor until a driver has been convicted more than three times in a seven-year period and has been designated as a habitual traffic offender. Only then can a felony charge can kick in.  The measure under consideration, House Bill 1184, sponsored by Yuma Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, would have made the third offense an automatic Class-6 felony.

“We need to get repeat drunk drivers out from behind the wheel and into jail,” said Gardner, who pointed out that Colorado is one of only four states that doesn’t have a felony charge for a third drunk driving conviction.

With a felony conviction, the offender would face at least a year and up to four years in jail. The maximum sentence for a misdemeanor is up to a year in jail–and only under certain circumstances.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving executive director Emily Tompkins testified before the House Judiciary Committee  in support of Gardner’s bill.  She said the only way to deter a repeat drunken driver is to strengthen the penalty.

“The possibility of a felony conviction would serve as a strong deterrent and a stronger message,” Tompkins said.

Levy, who voted against the measure, said the she would rather see a more integrated approach to drunken driving that explores less costly ways than incarceration, and she said she will soon introduce a bill of her own that addresses drunken drivers without the cost of the felony charge.

Her fellow Democrats on the committee voted with Levy on the bill citing the budget as their primary concern.

All four Republicans on the committee voted for the measure.

House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, on Tuesday appointed Fort Collins Democratic Rep. Randy Fischer to chair the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee after the committee’s previous chair, Rep. Kathleen Curry, of Gunnison, bolted from Democratic ranks and became the only unaffiliated member of the General Assembly.

Fischer, who maintains he will keep an open mind on all issues, has a record on environmental  initiatives that is sometimes at odds with the views of rural lawmakers. Curry, on the other hand, is a rancher. GOP critics say the contrast is telling.

“Rep. Fischer’s record of hostility toward agriculture and the energy industry does not bode well for Colorado’s economy and job market this year,” House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said in a prepared statement issued shortly after Fischer’s apppointment. “Important policy decisions that will impact farmers, ranchers, miners, and oil and gas workers are now in the hands of a legislator who has actively opposed each of these industries.”

The GOP’s Rep. Frank McNulty, who served on the committee last legislative session, wonders why the speaker didn’t appoint a Democrat from a rural area who may have a better grasp of the needs and concerns of agriculture and ranchers such as Rep. Wes McKinley, of Walsh, who is a self-described “third generation cowboy”.

“This appointment just goes to show the lack of depth that the Democrats have regarding rural issues in Colorado,” McNulty said.

The Republicans point to a bill Fischer sponsored two years ago that would have imposed a $25 per horsepower fee on heavy-equipment vehicles that did not comply with stricter emission standards. The bill died in committee. Rep. Cory Gardner, a Yuma Republican whose family sells farm equipment in the northeastern Colorado farming community, said Fischer’s measure “would have devastated agriculture” had it become law.

Fischer counters that little if anything will be different under his leadership.

“I don’t really think it’s going to change much at all,” he said. “I learned everything I know about being a chair from Rep. Curry, and I hope to follow in her footsteps. I will definitely try my best to reach out to anyone that wants to meet with me and am committed to hearing everyone out and understanding their issues.”

Fischer says his proposed levy on horsepower–which GOP members dubbed a “tractor tax”–did not target farmers.

“It was never intended to have an impact on agriculture but was aimed at construction equipment in urban areas where the impact of air pollution is greater,” he said.

Don Coram a lifelong rancher from Montrose is worried about losing an advocate in Curry and believes that Fischer is not a good choice.

“It’s hard to make a living on a ranch right now and he (Fischer) hasn’t been a friend of agriculture and natural resources.  McKinley is well qualified. Why wasn’t he chosen?” said Coram.

The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association downplayed the changing of the guard.

“We are looking forward to a legislative session where we will be well represented and respected…we’ve always worked well with Fischer when he was vice-chair and we expect that to continue,” said the Cattlemen’s Executive Vice President Terry Fankhauser today after meeting with Fischer.

Fischer says he will be committed to running a fair and effective committee as collaboratively as he can once the 2010 session convenes next Wednesday.

“I hope to make the trip to the Capitol worthwhile for anyone who comes before my committee” he said.

Colorado’s agriculture and food industry supports more than 100,000 jobs throughout the state, according to the Colorado Department of Agriculture.