Despite slipping to a 32-33 minority in 2010, Colorado House Democrats have nevertheless enjoyed an extremely successful legislative session. They have a lot to be proud of, but the centerpiece of their accomplishments is the many successful Democratic bills to create jobs:

OED Small Business Navigator – HB1209, Rep. Matt Jones (D-Louisville) will provide a single point of contact for small businesses to aid them in diagnosing problems, streamlining referrals, and cutting through red tape so they can grow.

Extension of Bioscience Grants – HB1283, Rep. Jim Riesberg (D-Greeley) extends the successful bioscience grant program, which provides matching grants to turn promising Colorado research into good paying Colorado jobs.

Colorado Innovation Investment Tax Credit – HB1045, Rep. John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins) extends a successful pilot program from 2010 which has helped create 21 different businesses in 13 cities across Colorado.

Third-party Air Quality Air Modelers – SB235, Rep. Sal Pace (D-Pueblo) will allow third party engineers, chosen by CDPHE to ease backlogs and encourage companies to use their own money to pay for the third party to carry out the inspections, helping companies meet their growing demand and saving and creating jobs.

Creative Districts – HB1031, Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-Denver) promotes a growing sector of our economy by allowing local governments to set up “creative districts” within their jurisdiction and have them certified in order to help attract artistic industries and to market their unique businesses.

House Democrats were also active on other key issues, and they passed successful legislation to improve schools and crack down on bullying, boost transparency and accountability, and help struggling families avoid foreclosure.

For the full list of highlights, be sure to visit the Colorado House Democrats’ blog.

A repeat of the 2000 presidential election results – in which the top vote-getter nevertheless lost the Electoral College vote – becomes less likely with every state that signs on to the National Popular Vote campaign. And according to John Gramlich at Stateline, the latest state to take that plunge is Vermont:

Under the bill, all three of Vermont's electoral votes would go to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, even if Vermont voters themselves did not opt for that candidate. The system would go into effect only when it has been agreed to by enough states to ensure that 270 electoral votes — the minimum needed to become president — have been committed to the plan.

Vermont will become the seventh state to agree to the proposal, according to the Burlington Free Press. It joins other mainly Democratic states that are typically not very competitive during presidential election years: Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington.

National Popular Vote still has a long way to go. With Vermont, only 72 electoral votes will be accounted for, leaving 198 to go before National Popular Vote laws nationwide go into effect.

Interestingly, the Census and reapportionment had some effect on the National Popular Vote campaign’s progress. Three NPV states will lose one congressional seat (and with it one electoral vote) each, but Washington gained a seat, for a net loss of just two NPV electoral votes. The addition of Vermont more than makes up for that loss.

[Update: The District of Columbia has also previously enacted a National Popular Vote law, adding three electoral votes to the NPV total to date.]

Iowa Tea Party extremists have a new top target for 2012: DLCC Chairman and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. Ever since November, Gronstal has been using his office to keep the state’s focus on jobs and economic growth, which hasn’t left much room for the GOP’s attacks on the judiciary, its plans to dismantle public education, or for the GOP’s divisive social agenda that should rightly take a back seat to getting the economy back on track.

In response, the Tea Party and its GOP legislative allies have pledged to turn Pottawattamie County, home to Senator Gronstal’s Council Bluffs-based district, “into ground zero in 2012.”

Mike Gronstal, take notice: The Iowa Tea Party is out to get you.

Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat who is the majority leader in the Iowa Senate, was targeted during a "Stop the Stalemate" rally Saturday. (…)

"We're looking to put Mike Gronstal out to pasture," said Jeff Jorgensen, chairman of the Pottawattamie County Republican Party. "I'm here to tell you money is not going to save him in this election. Pottawattamie County is going to be ground zero in 2012 because of Mike Gronstal."

Their “ground zero” metaphor may be in poor taste, but it very aptly describes the priorities of Iowa’s Tea Party Republicans, who clearly don’t care about what’s best for struggling families in Iowa and are instead pouring all their energy into satisfying political vendettas.

Meanwhile, Senator Gronstal and his Democratic Senate colleagues will continue focusing on what their constituents really want: more jobs, better schools for their kids and grandkids, and real plans to make Iowa a destination for innovation and new industries.

The Republican agenda is to dismantle all such efforts, and that’s what’s made Senator Gronstal such a thorn in the Tea Party’s side. But so long as leaders like Senator Gronstal are willing to stand up against extreme special interests, well-financed smear campaigns are the inevitable response.

And we’ll be ready for those attacks.

There is ongoing debate about what this November’s results really turned on – was it the economy, or frustration with the slow pace of change, or is it altogether unrealistic to claim that any one single issue is responsible for the results we saw?

What is beyond dispute is that whatever voters’ reasons were for their decisions this year, those decisions will have consequences across a range of issues where Republicans are growing increasingly out of step with the broader American public.

One of those issues is equal rights. The last two years saw incredible progress at the state level on equal rights, and with a few critical exceptions, it seems likely that progress can be protected:

California: Equality supporters scored a symbolic victory in Democrat Richard Pan’s Assembly victory over Proposition 8 author Andy Pugno in a conservative-leaning GOP open seat. The nature of the district and the GOP candidate’s close identification with the anti-equality movement sent a clear signal that even in a Republican year, voters do not want to be governed by right-wing ideologues.

Thanks to Dr. Pan’s win, California Democrats increased their majority in the Assembly by one seat and held their margin in the Senate. With these majorities and the Democrats’ gubernatorial victory, further progress on equality appears likely in the coming years.

Connecticut: Democrats suffered minor losses in both the state Senate and state House, slipping barely below veto-proof majorities in both chambers. But a Democratic gubernatorial win means the returning Democratic majorities are more than sufficient. Connecticut already became a marriage equality state through a 2008 court decision and legislative action in 2009, but progress on other equal rights issues is still possible.

Delaware: This state passed its first anti-discrimination law in 2009, and it was another state where Democrats increased their state House majority, picking up three seats to take a 26-15 majority. They lost a seat in the Senate, dropping to 14-7, but both majorities are now over the 3/5 margin needed to overturn vetoes. Regardless, with a popular Democratic governor elected in 2008, further progress on equal rights seems likely.

Hawaii: Site of the cycle’s last major battle over equal rights – a civil unions bill ultimately vetoed by the Republican Governor, thus breaking her earlier promise – Hawaii Democrats lost only two state House seats and captured one of the GOP’s only two state Senate seats. Both chambers remain the most lopsidedly Democratic in the country, and incoming Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the civil unions bill if passed again.

As an added bonus, Democratic state Rep. Blake Oshiro, the driving force behind last year’s civil unions bill, was re-elected in a landslide, ensuring that equal rights will continue to have a strong champion in the legislature. Further progress on equality appears extremely likely.

Illinois: Democrats retained their majorities in both Illinois legislative chambers, while the gubernatorial election delivered a popular mandate for the state's incumbent Democratic Governor. Following those results, legislators passed the state's first law providing for same-sex civil unions, which will be signed early this year.

Iowa: Despite losing the state House, Iowa Senate Democrats led by DLCC Chairman Mike Gronstal have maintained their majority in the state Senate. As Senate Majority Leader, Gronstal has the sole authority to decide which bills are brought to a vote, and Senator Gronstal has already reiterated his 2009 promise that he will “Never” allow a vote on a constitutional amendment repealing civil marriage equality.

This adds at least another two years to the timeline for any state constitutional amendment in Iowa – even if Republicans re-take the chamber in 2012, the first election after redistricting, the earliest an amendment could reach the ballot would be 2015. With a Republican House and Governor, further progress on equal rights appears unlikely, but thanks to Senator Gronstal, backsliding looks all but impossible.

As an added bonus, openly-gay Senator Matt McCoy was re-elected despite enduring an outrageous smear campaign by his GOP opponent, who labled McCoy the Senate’s “chief sodomite” and accused him of trying to spread HIV through handshakes (which, by the way, is medically impossible). Bigotry may not be gone, but it was certainly dealt a setback with McCoy’s landslide re-election.

Maine: Democrats were dealt major setbacks in Maine, losing control of both the state House, state Senate, and the Governorship. But the state House margin is an extremely narrow 72-78-1, and since Maine voters already narrowly approved a ballot measure repealing the state’s marriage equality law in 2009, it’s unclear how aggressively Republicans will go in seeking to repeal other laws important to the LGBT community, such as the state’s civil unions law, its law permitting joint adoptions, or its hate crimes statute. This is a state of concern.

Maryland: Maryland Democrats actually expanded their majorities in both legislative chambers and re-elected the state's Democratic governor by a wide margin. Because of those results and some internal changes to the legislature's committee membership, equality advocates believe they are in a strong position to push for full civil marriage equality. Further progress here appears extremely likely.

Nevada: After overturning a gubernatorial veto to enact the state’s first civil unions law, Democrats maintained their majorities in both legislative chambers – a narrow 11-10 lead in the state Senate and a wider 26-16 lead in the state Assembly. But without their previous veto-proof Assembly majority and facing a larger, more conservative GOP Senate caucus, further progress will be difficult but not impossible.

New Hampshire: This state formed the tip of the spear for the Democrats’ 2006 rout, delivering major upsets and gains of 6 seats and 84 seats in the state Senate and House, respectively. That was again the case this year, except in the other direction, leaving Republicans with a 5-19 majority in the state Senate and a 102-298 majority in the state House, more than enough seats to overturn vetoes by Democratic Governor John Lynch.

That makes New Hampshire an area of extreme concern for equal rights, because the state’s marriage equality law was only enacted in 2009. And with so many GOP defections needed to sustain a veto, Republicans could potentially target any of the state’s laws that are important to the LGBT community, including adoption laws, hate crimes laws, and anti-discrimination laws. This is a state of concern.

New Jersey: The only competitive legislative election in New Jersey was a state Senate special election in which Democrat Linda Greenstein, a marriage equality supporter and frequent target of social conservative organizations, defeated a GOP appointee who opposes marriage equality. If there was going to be a backlash against the state Senate’s January marriage vote, which unfortunately failed, it would have been felt in this race. And while that bodes well for future votes on equality, the presence of a Republican governor will make further progress difficult.

New York: Republicans won control of the New York Senate by a single seat this year, and Senate Republicans unanimously opposed marriage equality in 2009. Nevertheless, it is believed that the returning Democratic caucus is more cohesive on Equal Rights, and the possibility of a more favorable Senate redistricting plan for 2012 make progress over the intermediate term much more likely.

Rhode Island: Despite losing a relative handful of legislative seats, Democrats retained their commanding majorities in both legislative chambers. And now that the state's GOP governor (who vetoed even a modest bill to grant funeral planning rights to same-sex domestic partners) has been replaced with an Independent governor calling for full civil marriage equality, progress on equal rights seems extremely likely here.

Vermont: One of several states to pass full civil marriage equality in 2009, Vermont re-elected overwhelming Democratic majorities in both state legislative chambers in 2010, as well as electing a new Democratic Governor. Further progress on equal rights appears likely.

Washington: Democrats have retained both of their legislative majorities in Washington, which passed a robust civil unions law in 2009. Equality opponents attempted to overturn the law through a ballot initiative, but the law was narrowly upheld. With Democrats narrowly ahead in both chambers and with a Democratic governor, further progress on equal rights is certainly possible, but after the close result of the civil unions ballot initiative, legislators are likely to give voters time to grow accustomed to civil unions.

Wisconsin: Wisconsin successfully passed a civil unions law in 2009, though previous state laws banning same-sex marriage (and imprisoning for nine months anyone who contracts a same-sex marriage out of state) remain on the books. Democrats lost the governorship and their narrow majorities in both legislative chambers in 2010, putting the civil unions statute and other laws important to the LGBT community at risk.

Overall, despite the Republicans’ strong national showing in 2010, they significantly underperformed in states that were at the forefront of the battle for equal rights in 2009 and 2010. There are at least 8 states where further progress on equal rights is unquestionably more likely because of the 2010 elections, and only three new states that are in legitimate danger of backsliding away from equal rights laws passed in 2009 and 2010. In terms of policy consequences, equal rights advocates at the state level may find that they dodged a major bullet this cycle.

Every year, the National Conference of State Legislatures publishes a list of the issues they expect to dominate the coming state legislative sessions. This year’s edition predicts that budget decisions will dominate the political scene in most states, as they have the past few years.

As NCSL explains, the end of economic stimulus funding and lingering effects of the recession will combine to produce another difficult year for policymakers:

Through Nov. 15 states have reported new FY 2011 budget gaps totaling at least $26.7 billion. This is on top of the $83.9 billion gap already resolved this fiscal year. More gaps loom as state policymakers prepare to craft their FY 2012 budgets. Although state revenue performance appears to be improving, the expected growth won’t be enough to replace federal stimulus funds that helped balance current budgets.

Many other items on the “Top 11 issues of 2011” list are directly related to the budget issues. For instance, issue #5 is higher education funding, which is often extremely vulnerable to cuts in deficit years. Issue #7 is reducing unemployment and repaying funds borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund. And issue #11 is building and maintaining needed transportation infrastructure – always an expensive undertaking.

Other top issues, like redistricting, may not directly impact states’ bottom lines, but they will nevertheless be contentious. Visit NCSL.org to read the rest of the list.

In a vote that was as suspenseful as it was significant for thousands of Illinois families, the Democratically-controlled Illinois legislature has approved that state’s first law granting same-sex couples the right to form civil unions:

The bill would give gay couples the chance to enjoy several of the same rights as married couples, ranging from legal rights on probate matters to visiting a partner in a hospital that won’t allow anyone but relatives into a patient’s room. (…)

Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, was one of many referencing Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as she urged colleagues to join her in “bending the moral arc of justice.”

“This is a legacy vote,” Steans said. “It makes a statement about the justice for which we stand.”

Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria, said he sees the issue “through the eyes of a father who has a gay child,” a daughter who “doesn’t have the same rights” as his other children.

The measure passed handily in the state Senate but was much closer in the state House, where it passed with just a single vote to spare. The law itself will take effect in June of 2011. Illinois’s Democratic governor, who literally applauded the final vote, has promised to sign the bill in a public ceremony shortly after the New Year.

It’s unclear whether this was the Governor’s intent, but delaying that ceremony until next year will make it an excellent symbolic gesture, proving that many states’ dramatic progress on equal rights will continue far beyond 2010.

Maine’s new Republican-controlled legislature hasn’t even been sworn in yet, but GOP leaders are already crowing about their plans to abolish a public health insurance plan that was once considered a potential model for a national public option:

Before there was a federal health care overhaul, and before there was a Massachusetts law to use as a model for the national plan, there was Dirigo. That’s what Maine called its first-in-the-nation attempt at achieving universal health coverage when Democrats approved the plan back in 2003. (…)

[Incoming GOP Governor Paul] LePage, a Tea Party favorite, has called Dirigo “a costly failure.” He claims taxpayers have spent more than $160 million to cover just 3,400 uninsured Mainers under the program. Baldacci’s administration disagrees with that portrayal, arguing that since it began, Dirigo has covered more than 32,000 people without using any general fund dollars to pay for it.

Under a complicated funding arrangement, Dirigo is funded 50 percent by the “savings offset payment” from private insurance companies. That’s the amount the state figures insurers are saving because the uninsured aren’t seeking emergency care they can’t pay for. The rest of the funding comes from premiums, the federal government and tobacco settlement dollars.

But the scope and efficiency of Dirigo Health aren’t the only areas where Maine Republicans are relying on distortions and outright falsehoods. They’re also lying about why they want to ax the program in the first place.

The GOP will likely claim it as a budget-cutting move. But in fact, abolishing Dirigo Health will actually worsen the state’s budget situation:

With Maine facing a nearly $1 billion budget deficit for next year, Michael Franz, a Bowdoin College political scientist, predicts Dirigo will be repealed “in the name of budget cuts.” But he questions the long-term consequences. “If health care services for the poor are scaled back for short-term budget balancing, this will shift more care into the ER, outside the health insurance system and run up costs in the long-run,” he says.

Trish Riley, director of Baldacci's Office of Health Policy and Finance, told The Portland Press Herald that if Dirigo is eliminated, the state will either have to cut 6,700 people off Medicaid, or the general fund would have to come up with the roughly $6 million.

In other words, Maine Republicans have found a way to simultaneously cut off health coverage for thousands of struggling families, increase the cost of everyone else’s health care, and waste millions of Maine taxpayers’ dollars – all in a single proposal.

If these are the kind of “ideas” Maine Republicans are bringing to the table, then progressive organizers had better dust off the state’s unique People’s Veto provision, because there are going to be a lot of crazy new laws to repeal between now and 2012.

Ever since Democrats won control of the Colorado Legislature in 2004, the state has become a leader in pushing for clean energy investment. And that leadership was recently recognized by U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who described Colorado as a model for national action.

Aldo Svaldi and Drew FitzGerald at the Denver Post wrote about Locke's remarks a few weeks ago:

The country could miss a key opportunity for growth if it doesn't soon follow Colorado's example in pursuing the new-energy economy, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said Monday. (...)

Colorado earlier this year required that utilities obtain 30 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, one of the nation's strictest mandates.

That was an increase from an earlier voter- approved requirement of 20 percent by 2020, and the mandate has helped the state attract thousands of jobs in wind, solar and other technologies.

Republicans in both legislative chambers voted near-unanimously against HB 1001, which established the new standard – presumably because they’d rather see more job creation in China, instead of Colorado and elsewhere in the United States.

As Secretary Locke explained, Republican intransigence on clean energy is already causing the United States to fall behind:

China, by contrast, is investing $9 billion a month in the clean-energy field, and not just to meet its own internal energy needs or improve emissions. The Chinese want to export the technology to other countries and reap the millions of jobs that could come from doing that, Locke said.

"If we don't act soon on an energy policy . . . we will wake up and say, 'How is it that Shanghai, China, or Berlin, Germany, have become the next Silicon Valley of clean energy?' " he said.

Colorado, of course, is hardly alone in the push for clean energy. 2009 saw a surge of activity in several states, almost always led and supported by Democratic lawmakers.

It’s an open question whether Republicans will eventually come around to supporting clean energy legislation. But no matter what they do, you can expect Democrats to continue making it a priority in Colorado and across the country.

It’s unusual to see broad-based action on an issue that rarely gets consistent media attention. But that’s why we’re so heartened by this year’s onslaught of legislation at the state level to combat human trafficking in America. The Washington Post explains:

So far this year, more than 40 bills have been enacted and roughly 350 introduced. That compares with just eight bills adopted across the country in 2006, according to the Polaris Project, an anti-trafficking group based in Washington. (…)

"We were the first state to start all of this," said [Washington] state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), the sponsor of much of the state's anti-trafficking legislation. "We've strengthened the law every year." In 2009, she said, the state forced employers who bring in foreign workers to notify them of all labor laws and allow them to keep their travel documents. (…)

"I represent a large number of immigrants and learned more and more about the issue of trafficking," said Virginia Del. Adam P. Ebbin (D), who sponsored one of the new laws. "By putting the code in place, I'm hopeful we can now combat it."

Just how big a problem is human trafficking? Huge. The U.S. State Department estimates that over 12 million people are currently the victims of human trafficking for the purposes of forced labor, bonded labor, or sexual exploitation.

And despite the issue’s low profile here, trafficking remains a systemic problem in the United States. From the Washington Post again:

Statistics documenting the problem are vague and vary widely. The government estimates that 14,500 to 17,500 victims of trafficking are brought to the United States each year. A study funded by the Justice Department found that almost 250,000 children fall into a category of trafficking victims because they are at risk of sexual exploitation.

Hopefully, the new laws at the state level will provide investigators and prosecutors with more effective tools to uncover and shut down trafficking rings in their respective states.

Last night, Republican Governor Linda Lingle broke a promise and dismissed the will of Hawaiian citizens as she vetoed HB 444, which would have allowed both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions with all the rights enjoyed by married couples.

Michael Sargeant, Executive Director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, issued the following statement in response to Governor Lingle’s veto of the civil union bill:

“We at the DLCC are disappointed in Governor Lingle for ignoring the will of Hawaiian citizens as expressed by the Hawaii legislature’s passage of this landmark legislation. Governor Lingle also broke her campaign promise not to veto a civil union bill if passed by the state legislature. She has denied Hawaii the opportunity to become the latest example of states leading the way on equality.”

Vetoing the legislation broke a promise Lingle made in her first campaign for governor in 2002.

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said [emphasis added].

Democratic legislators did their part and voted their conscience on “that legislation,” after a marathon 18 hours of earnest debate. But their work was undone by the Governor's broken promise.

And in breaking her promise, Governor Lingle denied hundreds of thousands of her own citizens a right she probably takes for granted.

The Governor’s veto is a sad setback in the ongoing fight for equality. But that fight continues.

One day, America will look back on the struggle for equal rights and wonder why it was so difficult. Governor Lingle will be one of the reasons.