Joseph Shelton

I am deeply concerned about a proposal being discussed in District 11 that would remove certain middle school students from their home schools based on testing scores and academic performance. According to information shared at a recent SAC meeting, students who remain in the “red” on CMAS or STAR assessments, or who are struggling in Math or English, could be reassigned to a separate program called “Catalyst Middle School Academy” beginning in Fall 2026. Some students would reportedly be sent to North Middle School and placed in portable trailer classrooms, while others could be relocated to Russell Middle School. Let me be clear: students who are struggling absolutely deserve support, intervention, and resources. Every student learns differently, and schools have a responsibility to help students succeed academically. But I question whether removing students from their neighborhood schools, separating them from their peers, and placing them into isolated learning environments is the right solution. Many parents and community members are asking important questions: Where is the research showing this model improves outcomes? How will this affect student confidence and mental health? What impact will this have on friendships, school connection, and stigma? Why are we not focusing on bringing additional support directly into the schools students already attend? Students are not numbers on a spreadsheet. They are children navigating academic pressure, personal struggles, family challenges, disabilities, mental health concerns, and countless other obstacles we may never fully see. Struggling students should not feel labeled or pushed aside because they need additional help. Parents deserve transparency. Students deserve dignity. And our community deserves thoughtful solutions that uplift students instead of separating them.

Dude... you guys literally went after Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger, and Bill Cassidy, and Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and now even Lauren Boebert for not standing behind Trump. At least we are holding people accountable to the values they were elected upon, your doing... whatever you're doing... because these people didn't fall in line and do as Trump commanded.

@KyleClark The Democrats love to eat their own if they don't fall in lockstep with the left's ideology. Hmmm that sounds like something the Nazi soldiers were well trained in.

NEW: The Colorado Democratic Party has formally condemned and censured Governor Jared Polis for granting clemency to Tina Peters. Polis is hereby banned from speaking or being honored at party events. 90% of CDP central committee members voted to reprimand Polis.

Dude... you guys literally went after Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger, and Bill Cassidy, and Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and now even Lauren Boebert for not standing behind Trump. At least we are holding people accountable to the values they were elected upon, your doing... whatever you're doing... because these people didn't fall in line and do as Trump commanded. Really wanna talk about a cult?

@KyleClark Proof, once again that the Democrat party is a cult. Don’t toe the party line and they punish you.

Criticizing politicians is fair game in a democracy, but facts and context still matter. Biden was investigated over classified documents and cooperated fully with investigators, unlike others who refused subpoenas. The Afghanistan withdrawal was chaotic, but it was also the result of a deal negotiated before he took office. Inflation hit countries around the world after COVID, not just the U.S., and it has since significantly cooled. As for border security, both parties have failed for years to fully address the issue. And accusations involving Hunter Biden have produced years of investigations without evidence proving Joe Biden personally profited from wrongdoing. We can disagree on policies without spreading half-truths or pretending only one side has controversies.

Biden did this: • Retained and stored sensitive docs insecurely in garage and offices. • Afghanistan withdrawal: Chaotic 2021 exit ignored warnings, abandoned base/equipment, left Americans behind, 13 troops killed. • Hunter pardon: Family received $20M+ from foreign entities; meetings/calls with Joe while Hunter on boards like Burisma. • Border policy: Denied crisis early on amid record crossings, encounters, and fentanyl deaths. • Inflation claims: Called it “transitory” despite multi-decade highs hitting Americans hard. • Tactile behavior: Multiple pre-presidency complaints of unwanted touching/kissing making women uncomfortable. • Covid lockdown • Pardons son and family and members of gvmt that would face charges.

Imagine if Biden: • Created a $1.8 billion slush fund to hand out to rioters who assaulted police officers • Banned the IRS from auditing him, his family, and his companies • Accepted a $400 million luxury jet from a foreign monarchy Pardoned hundreds of people who assaulted police officers • Openly promoted his own meme coin while in office • Had family members cutting international business deals while he was in office and directly profiting from them • Repeatedly “joked” about staying in office past two terms • Repeatedly praised Xi, Putin, and Kim Jong Un The outrage would never end. The fact that people are becoming numb to this level of corruption is insane.

For generations, high school graduations in District 11 — like many college graduations across the country — have followed a simple tradition: students are seated and recognized alphabetically, celebrating every graduate equally for reaching an important milestone in their lives. Recently, however, Superintendent Michael Gaal introduced a new graduation format in which students with a 3.75 GPA or higher are seated in the front row, wear distinct honor-colored gowns, and receive their diplomas before their peers. Graduation ceremonies should not be used as a political platform or a public relations opportunity to showcase how “successful” a district appears. Graduation is about celebrating every student who crossed that stage — regardless of GPA. Not every student’s journey through K-12 education looks the same. Some students faced family hardships. Others faced financial struggles, mental health challenges, housing insecurity, discrimination, or personal obstacles that made simply making it to graduation an incredible achievement. For many students, earning a diploma required determination, resilience, and perseverance that cannot be measured by a GPA alone. Creating a system that visibly elevates one group of graduates above another during the ceremony sends the wrong message. It risks diminishing the accomplishments of students who fought through immense challenges just to make it to graduation day. Every graduate deserves to feel equally celebrated at that moment. Every graduate earned their place on that stage. Shame on Superintendent Gaal for pushing this policy, and shame on the Board members who allowed it to move forward.

Warning: Long post, but lots of important information for D11 parents and families. School District 11 is in the process of finding a new attorney for the district. And, of course, it appears Brad Miller is putting his name in the ring and positioning himself as a top contender. D11 families should be paying attention. Brad Miller is not just another school attorney. His work has been tied to some of the most controversial school district fights in Colorado, including battles over public funding for religious schools, anti-transgender student policies, book bans, and high-profile lawsuits. Chalkbeat reported that Miller helped launch Riverstone Academy, described by supporters as Colorado’s “first public Christian school,” as part of a legal test case over public funding for religious schools. [1] In Montezuma-Cortez, the RE-1 school board recently voted unanimously to move away from Miller’s firm and hire new legal counsel. KSJD reported that critics say Miller’s work can pull districts into costly lawsuits and culture-war fights. [2] A Colorado Times Recorder investigation also reported that Miller drafted a letter urging CHSAA to ban transgender athletes, and that most of the signers had current, recent, or other professional ties to him. [3] Then, in the lawsuit connected to that same issue, a federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal, saying the districts did not have standing and noting that the districts’ policies could cut against the interests of transgender students and students who support inclusion. [4] This is not the direction District 11 should go. D11 needs legal counsel who will protect students, taxpayers, staff, and the district — not someone whose record is tied to political test cases, controversy, and expensive legal battles. Our schools need stability. Our students need focus. Our community needs trust. District 11 should choose an attorney who keeps the district out of unnecessary controversy, not one who brings the controversy with him. #D11 #ColoradoSpringsSchoolDistrict11 #CSSD11 #D11Schools #District11 #ColoradoSprings #PublicEducation #Transparency #StudentsFirst [1]: chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/… [2]: ksjd.org/podcast/ksjd-l… [3]: coloradotimesrecorder.com/2025/04/invisi… [4]: chalkbeat.org/colorado/2025/…

I want to offer an honest observation about the language candidates use. When someone refers to “my campaign,” it can unintentionally center the focus on the individual. In contrast, using “our campaign” reflects a shared effort and emphasizes the community behind the work. Words matter. Phrases like “support my campaign” can come across as highlighting personal ambition, while “support our campaign” reinforces the idea that progress is achieved collectively. Campaigns are most impactful when they are rooted in collaboration, inclusion, and the voices of the people they aim to serve.

This isn’t the contradiction you think it is; it’s comparing two completely different things. When King Charles III is in Washington, he’s there as a visiting foreign head of state. The motorcade, security, and ceremony aren’t about Americans accepting a king; they’re about standard diplomatic protocol between allied nations. The U.S. extends similar treatment to presidents, prime ministers, and, yes, monarchs, regardless of party. “No Kings” protests are about domestic power. The idea that in the United States, no leader is above the law or beyond accountability. They’re not protests against the existence of monarchies in other countries, and they never have been. If anything, history shows both parties follow the same playbook here: - Republicans applauded Queen Elizabeth II during her congressional address. - Democrats and Republicans alike participate in formal welcomes for foreign leaders, even ones they politically disagree with, because diplomacy requires it. So there’s nothing “interesting” or inconsistent going on, just the difference between protesting your own government and respecting an international guest.

🚨 NOW: King Charles has a PRESIDENTIAL-level motorcade rolling through DC right now We now have an ACTUAL king on our soil, but there are NO SIGNS of any "No Kings" protests anywhere in the nation right now. Interesting how that works!

That argument only works if you ignore how Congress has always treated visiting dignitaries, regardless of party. When foreign leaders (including monarchs) address Congress, it’s standard protocol for members of both parties to stand and applaud as a sign of diplomacy, not personal allegiance. That’s not “bowing to a king,” it’s basic international decorum. A good example: when Queen Elizabeth II addressed Congress in 1991, she received multiple standing ovations from Republicans and Democrats. No one claimed Republicans suddenly supported monarchy; it was respect for an ally. Another example on the flip side: when Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress in 2015 (invited by Republicans), many Democrats still showed up and participated respectfully despite political disagreements. That’s how these events typically work. Even now, when figures like King Charles III are present in official settings, applause isn’t endorsement; it’s diplomacy. So the comparison between “No Kings” protests (which are about domestic political power and accountability) and the need to show courtesy to a visiting head of state doesn’t really hold up. One is about American governance; the other is about maintaining relationships with allies.

I think it’s hilarious that Democrats spent their political might and tons of money on "NO KINGS" protests just to give a standing ovation to the LITERAL King of England. You really can’t make this stuff up. Biggest bullshit artists of the century. 😂

I have seen your continual posts about how the King is so "powerful." I think there’s a mix of truth and misunderstanding in your take. Yes, it’s correct that bills passed by Parliament require approval from King Charles III, and that he’s involved in things like the Privy Council and representing the UK in foreign affairs. Those roles absolutely exist. But in modern practice, those powers are almost entirely ceremonial. Royal Assent hasn’t been refused since 1708, and by convention, the monarch follows the decisions of elected officials. The same goes for foreign policy and council business; those decisions are made by the government, not by the King independently. As for wealth, the situation is more nuanced. The Crown Estate generates revenue for the government, and a portion is returned to fund the monarchy. There’s a legitimate debate about whether that system is fair or outdated, but it’s not as simple as direct extraction for personal use. So while the structure you’re pointing to exists, calling it “real power” in the governing sense doesn’t really reflect how the UK actually operates today.

I hear the frustration in what you’re describing, and I agree with the core point you made at the end: everyone deserves a fair and accessible opportunity to vote, regardless of political affiliation. What you’re describing, if it happened the way it felt in the moment, raises real concerns. Election laws, both in Florida and elsewhere, generally prohibit electioneering (like handing out campaign materials) within a certain distance of a polling place entrance, and they also don’t allow anyone to mislead or turn voters away based on party. Those rules exist specifically to protect voters from pressure or confusion right at the point of voting. At the same time, situations like this can be complicated in practice; enforcement can be inconsistent, and what’s allowed (like campaigning outside the legal boundary) can feel uncomfortably close to the line. If something like that happens again, the strongest step is to report it in real time: - Poll workers on-site - The county Supervisor of Elections office - Election protection hotlines (like 866-OUR-VOTE) That creates a record and gives officials a chance to address it immediately. At the end of the day, the goal should always be the same, regardless of party: protect access, protect fairness, and make sure every eligible voter can cast their ballot without interference.

In 2008 I had difficulty voting because Corrine Brown was standing in the door way at the supervisor of elections in down town Jacksonville handing people cheat sheets for how to vote for her. Not up the road, at the front door and no one would do a thing. In the 2020 election the same office was covered in signs as close as under 6 feet from the building entrance with “republicans only voting location” and no one cared except the people turning democrats and independents away. Laws don’t seem to matter in Florida. Everyone should get a vote even if we don’t agree with them.

🚨Election Season Reminder: Respect Yard Signs🚨 As we move into primary and general election season, you’re going to start seeing more yard signs popping up in neighborhoods and along streets. No matter who you support, or don’t support, it is against the law in Colorado to remove, deface, or damage someone else’s yard sign. 📚Colorado Law📚 Under C.R.S. 1-13-113, it is illegal to “remove, deface, or destroy any lawfully placed… yard sign” or interfere with its distribution. Violations can result in misdemeanor charges and fines. Additionally, taking a sign that doesn’t belong to you may also be considered theft under C.R.S. 18-4-401, since it is someone else’s property. 👉Important Reminders • It does not matter who the candidate is • It does not matter if you disagree with the message • You cannot target or tamper with signs to influence an election ✔️What you can do • If a yard sign is placed on your property without permission, you may remove it • If a sign is causing a safety hazard, contact your local code enforcement • If you believe a sign is illegally placed, reach out to your county Clerk & Recorder ⚠️The key rule: You can only take action if the sign is on your property. Let’s keep this election season respectful, lawful, and focused on what matters, engaging in the democratic process the right way. 🗳️

I’d steer away from that. Removing those signs could land you in legal trouble, even if you strongly disagree with them. Under Colorado law, those signs are considered someone else’s property, and taking or tampering with them can be treated as both election interference and theft. The rule applies across the board, no matter the party or message. If the signs are improperly placed (like on public property where they’re not allowed, or creating a safety issue), the better move is to report them to your county Clerk & Recorder, local code enforcement, or even ask the library staff about them, so it’s handled the right way. The most effective response isn’t taking signs down, it’s making your voice heard by voting, organizing, and supporting the candidates and issues you believe in.

@JosephLShelton What if I remove those stupid "Republican Polling Location" signs people keep putting up around the library?

I really appreciate you sharing more context, and honestly, I think you just articulated the issue better than most people do. What you’re describing isn’t a borderline case. Multiple DUIs, someone seriously injured, child neglect concerns, ongoing legal issues, that’s exactly the kind of situation where people expect the system to step in more decisively. It’s not unreasonable to ask why stronger consequences haven’t already happened, especially when others are left dealing with the fallout. And I also want to acknowledge something important: you didn’t jump to “deport everyone.” You drew a line between a one-time mistake and a repeated, harmful pattern. That distinction matters. The frustrating part is that, in theory, current law already allows for serious immigration consequences in cases like the one you’re describing, especially when there’s a pattern of criminal behavior or harm to others. So when someone like this remains in the country, it often points less to a lack of laws and more to how those laws are applied, enforced, or proven in court (charges, convictions, plea deals, evidentiary standards, etc.). That’s where a lot of people land on this: - There should be strong consequences for repeat, harmful behavior like this. - But a blanket rule that treats every DUI the same removes the ability to distinguish between situations like yours and much less severe cases. You’re absolutely right to be frustrated about the harm caused and the lack of accountability, it’s valid. And at the same time, your point actually reinforces why many people are arguing for better enforcement and smarter policy, rather than just broader, one-size-fits-all penalties.

Thank you for your response. For starters. She isn’t a citizen, she’s a green card holder. She was arrested for public intoxication on the night of her green card renewal which was after her DUIs, fighting and while DCF had custody of her kid for child neglect. All that being said, I do agree that laws need updated but not at blanket events. Not every dui should be a deportation event, I get people trying to sleep it off in their car that has not been moved should not get a dui and if they do they should not be a deportation but events like her where a human was injured, required time in the hospital, the green card holder also did not have insurance or a job so the injured people has to deal with the consequences of someone else’s carelessness…

A reminder that CO Dems: Rep Crow Rep Pettersen Rep DeGette Rep Neguse Voted AGAINST a bill which would deport illegal aliens caught driving drunk. Doesn’t matter if they kill one of your children, CO Dems will protect illegal immigrants!

Here’s the thing: this argument leaves out a lot of important context. First, a single year of job fluctuation doesn’t automatically point to a failing economy or “Democrats driving jobs out.” State-level job numbers can shift for a variety of reasons: national economic cycles, interest rates, federal policy changes, population trends, and even industry-specific slowdowns (like tech or construction). One data point, without that context, doesn’t tell the full story. Second, Colorado’s economy under Jared Polis has also seen long-term growth in key sectors like renewable energy, aerospace, healthcare, and advanced manufacturing. Businesses continue to relocate to and expand in Colorado because of workforce quality, quality of life, and innovation, not exactly signs of an economy being “choked.” Third, the idea that “less red tape = more jobs” sounds simple, but it’s not always that straightforward. Some regulations exist for a reason, protecting workers, public health, and the environment. The real conversation should be about smart regulation, not just less regulation. Now, to give credit where it’s due, bipartisan efforts like those mentioned by Gabe Evans can be productive. Addressing wildfire-related penalties and streamlining permitting processes are conversations worth having. But framing the issue as purely partisan or blaming one level of government oversimplifies what’s actually a complex economic picture. Colorado’s economy isn’t perfect, no state’s is, but it’s also not collapsing. If anything, the focus should be on balanced solutions: supporting job growth while still protecting what makes Colorado a place people want to live and work.

Colorado lost over 11,000 jobs last year — something that usually only happens during a recession. Let that sink in. While the rest of the country grows, Democrats in Denver are choking our economy with their red tape and failed policies. @GovofCO is driving jobs OUT — plain and simple. That’s why we’re fighting back. My bipartisan FIRE Act protects Colorado jobs from unfair penalties tied to wildfire smoke we can’t control, and my bipartisan CERTAIN Act cuts the red tape that delays projects and investments. Less red tape = more jobs and a better economy. 🇺🇸

That claim doesn’t hold up when you actually look at how ballot measures and voter behavior work. First, the premise is flawed. Voters do approve tax-related measures, especially when they’re targeted, clearly explained, and tied to specific outcomes. For example: - California voters approved tax increases in 2012. - Massachusetts voters approved a millionaire’s tax in 2022. - Colorado voters have repeatedly approved measures that adjust revenue, particularly those affecting higher earners or funding specific programs. Second, Colorado is a TABOR state (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights), which requires voter approval for many tax changes. That means more tax questions appear on the ballot here than in most states. So it’s not surprising that Colorado has multiple voter-approved measures; it’s built into the system. Third, the measures you listed (like Proposition FF, LL, and MM) weren’t broad “raise taxes on everyone” proposals. They were narrowly focused, often reducing deductions or retaining revenue tied to high-income earners to fund things like education or public services. Voters are much more willing to support those types of policies when they see a direct benefit. Finally, alleging “Gold Standard Election Fraud” without evidence is a serious accusation. Colorado’s elections are widely regarded as among the most secure and transparent in the country, with bipartisan oversight, paper ballots, audits, and verification processes in place. Disagreeing with the outcome doesn’t make it fraudulent; it just means a majority of voters made a different choice. If we’re going to have real conversations about policy, it’s important to stick to facts instead of jumping to conclusions that undermine trust in the system without proof.

Here is a fun fact for you Colorado. Only 5 times in the 250 years of the United States has the public voted to raise taxes. 3 times have been in Colorado while Jena Griswold ran elections. The odds of this happening are near impossible! Nobody, even the whack job lefties, vote to raise taxes! This is Gold Standard Election Fraud! #copolitics #colorado @CivilRights • California — Proposition 30 (2012): Sales tax increase + high-income tax rates. • Massachusetts — Question 1 (2022): Surtax on income over $1 million. • Colorado — Proposition FF (2022): Reduced income tax deductions for high earners ($300k+). • Colorado — Proposition LL (2025): Retained excess revenue from prior high-earner deduction limits. • Colorado — Proposition MM (2025): Further reduced income tax deductions for high earners ($300k+).

There’s a lot in this post, but it relies more on slogans than facts. Let’s walk through it. 1. “Trump and the Republican Party are stronger than ever.” If that were truly the case, there wouldn’t be a push to change the rules mid-game. We’ve seen Republican leaders, including allies of Donald Trump, encourage states to redistrict early specifically to create more favorable maps. That’s not the behavior of a party confident in winning under existing conditions; it’s a sign of concern about losing ground. Also, claims about widespread voter fraud have been repeatedly investigated and rejected by courts and election officials, including Republicans. In Colorado, our elections are consistently ranked among the most secure and accessible in the country. As for Tina Peters, her situation isn’t about exposing fraud; it’s about being charged and convicted for breaching election system security. 2. “Corrupt NGOs are being starved.” This paints a misleading picture of how public funding works. Many nonprofits (NGOs) provide essential services, housing assistance, food programs, and healthcare access that governments alone often can’t deliver efficiently. Cutting funding broadly doesn’t “solve” homelessness or immigration challenges; it often removes the very infrastructure communities rely on to address them. Fraud should absolutely be addressed wherever it exists, but that’s very different from dismantling entire systems that serve vulnerable people. 3. “Colorado Democrats’ policies are a massive failure.” Colorado is one of the fastest-growing states in the country, with a strong economy, low unemployment, and consistent population growth, which signals that businesses and people are still choosing to come here. Challenges like housing costs and homelessness are real, but they’re also happening in states across the political spectrum, not just in places led by Democrats. Governor Jared Polis has seen both support and criticism, as every governor does, but broad claims that “everyone is waking up” don’t reflect the full picture of voter behavior in recent elections, where Colorado has continued to elect Democrats statewide.

Are you feeling hopeless? Is Colorado lost? Is there no hope? Nothing could be farther from the truth! Here are 3 phenomena you should consider: 1. Trump and the Republican Party are stronger than ever: Trump is shutting the open border, hunting criminal illegals and fentanyl, fixing education, and cutting waste so infrastructure actually works. In Colorado, he’s calling out Polis and Democrats on failed policies, voter fraud, and Tina Peters — giving regular folks a real chance to end one-party rule. 2. Corrupt NGOs are being starved: Trump and DOGE are slashing federal cash to unaccountable NGOs living off your taxes — while cracking down hard on Medicaid fraud. In Colorado, this cuts off the money propping up homelessness, immigration chaos, and failed social programs in Denver and beyond. The Democrats are starved of cash. 3. Colorado Democrats’ policies are a massive failure and everyone is waking up. Polis and one-party Dem rule delivered sky-high housing, businesses flee, Denver tent cities, rising crime & fentanyl, and attacks on TABOR. Even longtime Democrats are fed up — polls show Polis tanking as regular Coloradans demand real change. Voter fraud will be solved, the Colorado Republican Party will enter the 21st century and we will return Colorado to the great State it once was. Do not give up! Don’t listen to the news, stay healthy, speak up and own your freedom. Evil never wins and we are unstoppable!!!. #mcga #colorado

Representative Scott Bottoms, claims like this deserve to be backed up with evidence, especially when they undermine public trust in our elections. Colorado’s election system is consistently ranked among the most secure and accessible in the country. It includes bipartisan oversight, paper ballots, risk-limiting audits, and transparent verification processes. Courts, audits, and election officials from both parties have repeatedly found no evidence of widespread fraud or “rigged” outcomes here. It’s also worth remembering that the very voting systems being criticized today were implemented under Republican leadership, the same Republican leadership that lost re-election for Secretary of State of Colorado and still stood firmly behind the system we use today. That history matters. Saying voting machines “flipped” the state overnight ignores decades of demographic shifts, voter registration trends, and changing political priorities among Coloradans. People didn’t stop voting red because of machines; they made different choices over time. It’s also concerning to frame civic participation through a single religious lens. Voting is a right for all Coloradans, of every faith, or none, and our government is designed to represent everyone, not just one group. We should absolutely encourage people to vote. But we should do it with honesty, facts, and respect for the democratic process, not by spreading claims that erode confidence without proof. Colorado voters deserve better than that.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗳𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Broken, rigged, a shell game. 𝗪𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 until voting machines came in and flipped us blue overnight. But the truth is we are still a red state. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝟰𝟱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗳 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴? 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. Get out and vote. 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼. ScottBottoms.com #ReclaimColorado #ElectionIntegrity #ColoradoFirst 🌄🙏

I hear the emotion behind what you’re saying. No one can look at something like that image and not feel anger and heartbreak. What happened there is horrific, and the person responsible absolutely should face serious consequences. But that’s also where it’s important to separate extreme outcomes from policy design. The question isn’t “should someone who causes this be held accountable?” Of course they should. In cases involving serious injury or death, the law already allows for severe criminal penalties and deportation for non-citizens. There’s not really a gap there. The debate is about whether every DUI, no matter the circumstances, should automatically trigger deportation, even: - a first-time offense - no accident, no injury - someone who’s otherwise lived here for years, working, raising a family That’s a very different standard. On deterrence: it sounds intuitive that harsher penalties make people “think twice,” but in reality, DUI is often tied to impaired judgment in the moment. The people who make that choice aren’t usually weighing immigration consequences; they’re already making a bad, irrational decision. So the real question becomes: Do we design laws around the worst-case scenario, or do we allow room for proportionality and judicial discretion so that punishment fits the situation? Wanting accountability doesn’t automatically mean supporting a one-size-fits-all policy. It just means making sure the response is both serious and fair.

@JosephLShelton @cologop How many laws need to be broken before someone is sent home? Does this need to happen before deportation is justified? When the penalty is severe, you think a lot harder about whether you're willing to risk it. No one should be able to do this, even if they never have before.

I get what you’re saying, but that line of argument cuts both ways a little more than it seems at first. You’re absolutely right that DUI is already illegal and already carries serious consequences, and that non-citizens can already face deportation for more serious or aggravated cases. That’s actually part of why people are raising concerns about this bill in the first place. Where the disagreement comes in isn’t about whether DUI should be punished; it should. It’s about how far the punishment goes and whether adding a blanket immigration consequence for any DUI (including a first-time misdemeanor with no harm) is proportionate or necessary. On the “unnecessary legislation” point, some would argue this is an example of that: creating a one-size-fits-all federal mandate in an area where the law already allows for case-by-case judgment. Others would argue it’s about setting a stricter standard. That’s a legitimate policy debate. But framing it as “protecting drunk drivers” skips over that nuance. The actual question is whether removing discretion and treating every case the same leads to better outcomes, or just broader consequences without regard to context.

@JosephLShelton @cologop Great points; "DUI is already illegal and already punished. Non-citizens who commit serious crimes, including violent offenses involving DUI, can already face deportation. " I thought Republicans were against unnecessary legislation.