The non-partisan group Club 20 hosted debates last week featuring candidates for state and national seats.

COLORADO HOUSE DISTRICT 26

MEGHAN LUKENS & SAVANNAH WOLFSONN

Routt County residents Savannah Wolfson (R) and Meghan Lukens (D) are running for Colorado’s newly formed House District 26. The area comprises Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt and part of Eagle County. (NOTE: You can view the most up-to-date map of state house districts at https://bit.ly/3xF1UNc)

Candidate Meghan Lukens shared her background as a longtime Colorado resident and social-studies teacher in Steamboat Springs. “Education unifies us, so let’s send a teacher to the state legislature,” said Lukens. She said her priorities fit under three categories: “I’m running on what I call the three E’s, the economy, the environment and education.”

Economic issues Lukens said she would tackle include housing affordability, access to childcare and a workforce shortage. Environmentally Lukens said, “we must address our 22 year mega drought by supporting Western Slope water and advocating for wildlife wildfire mitigation and prevention efforts.” Under education she called rural schools dramatically underfunded and said they should be prioritized for more investment. Lukens emphasized her upbringing in the district as one that has allowed her to understand local issues and build connections she can leverage to benefit HD26.

Republican candidate Savannah Wolfson has lived in Oak Creek, Colorado, since moving there with her family in 2016. She made efforts to distinguish herself as a being more in touch with the district than her opponent, and said “ I am not running to be a politician.”

Discussing her platform, Wolfson also cited affordability as a big issue in the district, “I am fighting for kids on the Western Slope to inherit a state where they can afford to stay here.” She also spoke against increased taxes and inflation which she said is ruining people’s lives. Notably, Wolfson spoke about the rural/urban divide, stating, “Why should one part of the state have to defend itself from another?” Other issues listed by Wolfson include childcare, housing and Western Slope water.

POLITICAL DIVISION

Candidates answered four questions pertaining to representation of a diverse district, broadband access, natural resources/energy and legislative strategy. Both candidates spoke about working across the aisle. Wolfson returned to rural/urban divide topic by noting that “we need to be better advocates for ourselves and educate people on our way of life.” She also said “in the urban areas, they need to stop forcing their way of life on to us, and viewing us as inferior.” Lukens responded to Wolfson by speaking against polarization, noting that the key to resolving these divides is by focusing on local issues.

Wolfson explained that her political history will give her an advantage in the legislative process “as a former leftist, I am still completely willing to talk to my colleagues and I do it already,” said Wolfson.

Lukens also spoke about effective legislating as a function of Western Slope legislators working together, “instead of aligning with Democrat or Republican or a particular caucus.”

NATURAL RESOURCES/ENERGY

“Our economy is reliant on our beautiful environment and it’s imperative that we’re addressing climate threats while ensuring that we have access to energy opportunities” said Lukens. She said she supports an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that promotes new jobs in green energy and just transitions for existing energy workers.

Wolfson talked about the downstream impacts of lost economic activity due to coal plants shutting down, among other trends in the fossil fuel extraction industry. “Right now I cannot see that there’s a plan from the Colorado State leadership on these” said Wolfson in reference to communities left behind by climate-based policies at the state and federal level.

CLOSING

During cross examination, both candidates made efforts to avoid addressing each other’s questions. Lukens asked Wolfson “Do you agree with the laws in Texas and Alabama that we should fully ban abortion?” To which Wolfson said “Roe vs. Wade has no impact because abortion was legal here before.” She specified that she would choose to save the life of the mother, noting however that she said that she opposes abortions, beyond a certain, undefined point.

Lukens also asked “Do you believe that the elections in 2020 were free and fair?” Wolfson did not answer, indicating the issue was not relevant because her door-knocking efforts informed her that “people did not vote for Donald Trump here.”

Savannah Wolfson knocked her opponent repeatedly claiming “Lukens has no record of standing up for the Western Slope” during her time as Boulder County Vice Chair. Wolfson also said Lukens supported a ban on oil and gas in Boulder County, and claimed that Lukens has not lived in the district for 10 years. Lukens fired back by noting that her time away from the district was in earning her Master’s degree and traveling. She said “We want people who grew up in our rural areas to come back to and serve their communities that they grew up in” later adding “I returned with dedication to give back to my community as a social studies teacher.”

Wolfson wrapped up noting that “The Republican plan for affordability is cut taxes, cut fees, cut regulations, and reduce government spending.”

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 3

LAUREN BOEBERT & ADAM FRISCH

In her opening statement, Boebert focused her ire on “Nancy Pelosi’s con game” which she said included tactics like not being given enough time to review large bills before voting, and combining multiple pieces of legislation into larger bills. She emphasized her immediate focus in Congress to be voting out Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and opposing liberal extremism.

Democratic challenger Adam Frisch opened his remarks by stating, “I’m Adam Frisch. I’m not Nancy Pelosi.” He challenged Boebert’s record in office, pointing to her failure to get bills out of committee since being elected in 2020. “Is your argument for re-election that you’ll spend the next term the same as your first, batting zero for 78 when it comes to passing laws?” Frisch asked. He cited various votes Boebert has cast since 2020, including against federal infrastructure spending, a vote against the veteran healthcare access expansion (PACT act) and against funding for leukemia research, among others. “Colorado’s interests are getting steamrolled in Washington, D.C. and that’s because of you, Congresswoman,” said Frisch.

WATER

Boebert countered accusations about failing to represent constituents when discussing water. “I often am asked what my top three issues are and I say water, water, water,” she said, noting efforts to secure funds for more water storage including the Wolf Creek Reservoir. She also said she led the charge to protect water in the San Luis Valley and noted federal funding appropriations to address invasive, water-guzzling species like Russian Olive, and $10 million “to address the deferred maintenance backlog for increased water storage projects.”

Candidate Frisch’s talking points on water also revolved around increasing storage in the state. “It’s imperative for us to figure out where we can find storage on the Western Slope and in southern Colorado,” said Frisch, noting he didn’t trust Rep. Boebert’s ability to effectively negotiate with other basin states in the event of a compact call on the Colorado River. He again challenged Rep. Boebert’s voting record by pointing out that she was one of nine members (out of 435) in the House to vote against the STREAM Act (HR-7283) which allows states to allocate federal funding for treating and abating acidic water releases from abandoned coal mines.

Boebert justified her vote as correct and described the legislation as “part of the con game” by Pelosi and the Democratic majority to “grab more money” after having previously funded $500 million to establish clean energy hubs on Abandoned Mine Land.

FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Candidates were asked how they would bring new federal infrastructure investment dollars into the district. “I will actually not only vote for infrastructure bills, but when the money shows up here I’m not gonna be passing out a flyer saying anything differently,” Frisch said, noting that Boebert claimed nine legislative victories from legislation she actually voted against.

By including only projects categorized as traditional infrastructure (roads and bridges, railroads, airports, ports) Boebert claimed “only 9% of the infrastructure spending was going towards ‘actual infrastructure.’” This claim is misleading, since approximately 18% of the bill is dedicated towards traditional infrastructure items defined by Boebert. That also does not include items commonly associated with infrastructure like power grids, water systems, public transit and broadband which make up another 20% of funding allocations in the infrastructure bill. All of these items and more were previously listed as “infrastructure projects” in a 2019 executive order by former President Donald Trump.

PUBLIC LANDS

Boebert cited forestry legislation she introduced as an example of her approach on public lands. She said the legislation would address “overgrown and poorly managed” forests by cutting back on trees per acre and removing standing dead trees. She also said she’d continue to oppose “land grabs” that designate more acres as protected wilderness areas.

Frisch agreed that forest management was important, contrasting his stance by noting that it would require more robust efforts and investments to get more out of the forest by clearing/harvesting deadwood to improve watershed quality.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Candidates were given an opportunity to ask each other questions at the end of the debate. Frisch asked Boebert why she has not held an in-person town hall meeting since being elected, why she has not participated in more debates, and why she voted against various bills, among other items.

Frisch also asked if Boebert thinks the 19th Amendment should be repealed, to which she responded in the negative. Frisch then asked if the Representative supports protecting abortion rights in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. Boebert responded with a question, “Does that have something to do with the 19th Amendment?” Pressured further, she said that she thought abortion rights should be decided by the states, adding, “I have a 100% pro-life voting record.” (NOTE: You can view Rep. Boebert’s full voting record at https://bit.ly/3BXdkyp)

Rep. Boebert responded to Frisch’s other questions by noting bills she voted against were more efforts by Pelosi to shoe-in bad legislation. She also defended her record of constituent engagement, citing roundtables, in-person meetings, office-hour calls and weekly newsletters.

During Boebert’s allotted questioning time, she asked Frisch about his record as an Aspen City Council member, accusing him of voting on a resolution to cut affordable housing dollars despite owning a property with an estimated value of over $9 million in Aspen. She also accused Frisch of pretending to be an independent, despite an alleged Democratic voter registration from the 1990s, and called him a “new deal extremist,” citing his efforts on the Aspen City Council to reduce car traffic on Highway 82.

Frisch responded to questions from Boebert — who spent most of her questioning time talking — by noting he recently completed payment on the affordable housing fee. He also noted that as a city council member he had no jurisdiction over Aspen’s airport, which Rep. Boebert used as an example of Frisch’s alleged hypocrisy.

CLOSING REMARKS

Rep. Boebert’s closing remarks revisited themes noted throughout the debate, citing both accomplishments and policies she opposes. Examples of accomplishments include “over $340 million in appropriations for our district” despite being on the record as opposing federal earmarks and voting against federal legislation where the funding originally came from. She also claimed “there are no moderates” in the Democratic party, including her opponent who she again called a “liberal extremist.”

Candidate Frisch repeated claims that his opponent has “consistently voted against common sense bipartisan legislation” to address issues in the 3rd CD like water, jobs, energy production, healthcare, etc. Frisch also referenced his family background in agriculture operations, and emphasized his position as a moderate or even conservative Democrat who would join the “problem solvers caucus.”

The entire debate can be viewed on Club 20’s Facebook page at https://fb.watch/fvjrgqDj_u/

The Boebert v. Frisch debate starts at 1 hour and 43 minutes into the video.

The HT will cover the Senate District 8 debate in next week’s edition.