Colorado & Denver News

by Raj Chohan
DENVER (CBS4) ― Reality Check is the name of a new set of special reports by CBS4 reporter Raj Chohan.

In the August 3rd Reality Check, Chohan analyzed Peggy Lamm's attack ad against Ed Perlmutter. His complete notes on the report lie below.

Reporter notes and sourcing:

The new "get over" ad by 7th District Congressional candidate Peggy Lamm against fellow Democrat and primary opponent Ed Perlmutter, is a powerful, attention-getting commercial that evokes the devastating crime of rape.

AD STARTS:

"ITS SOMETHING YOU NEVER GET OVER. YOU LIVE IN FEAR PRAYING YOUR ATTACKER IS CAUGHT."

"UNTIL RECENTLY, POLICE COULDN'T USE DNA EVIDENCE TO SOLVE RAPE CASES OVER TEN YEARS OLD."

"SO THE LEGISLATURE VOTED ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES."

So far the ad is accurate. The bill in question is HB 1344, passed in 2001. This bill eliminated the statute of limitations for most sexual assault crimes when DNA evidence is available.

Read wording of the bill.

Readlegislative action related to 2001 HB 1344.

AD CONTINUES:

"ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY. OUT OF 100 LEGISLATORS, ED PERLMUTTER WAS ONE OF ONLY THREE, TO VOTE NO."

Here's where the ad gets interesting. First off, there's no controversy on whether Ed Perlmutter voted against this bill.

The legislative record is clear and Perlmutter concedes he did in fact vote against HB 1344. The question is why? And this is where we have to sort out the spin.

In the ad, the Lamm campaign goes on to make an inference that is very controversial.

AD CONTINUES:

"MAYBE ED PERLMUTTER BELIEVES THIS IS SOMETHING, WOMEN DO GET OVER

I'M PEGGY LAMM, AND I APPROVE THIS AD."

The inference, as I read it, suggests Perlmutter doesn't care, or isn't responsive to violence against women, sexual assault, and women's issues in general. I think this is a more charitable interpretation of the Lamm position than the literal inference that "Maybe Perlmutter believes (rape)...is something women do get over". Its hard to believe Peggy
Lamm would actually hold the more extreme of these two positions. I asked Peggy Lamm through her campaign, to defend the ad, on camera, but she declined. Her campaign forwarded instead their documentation for the ad.

Whatever inference we conclude about the ad, it's clear that Ed Perlmutter strongly opposes it and feels its something of a cheap shot.

Perlmutter claims he voted against the bill because he thought it was poorly written, perhaps unconstitutional. He claims he has a strong record on victim's rights and women's issues.

Below are excerpts of Perlmutter's comments from an interview with me conducted Aug, 2, 2006

This is Ed Perlmutter's defense of his vote against HB 01-1344

The first thing we do when we take office, is we take an oath to uphold the united states constitution, and the united states, and i felt the bill that was before us was unconstitutional, it was retroactive, vague, it did not have any safe guards or any guidelines. And so I voted against it, probably wasn't politically correct thing to do, but our first obligation is to uphold the constitution.

I was on the victim's compensation and coordination committee, I have a strong record of helping women and children who've been victimized by crime, men who've been victimized by crime, i have awards for those kinds of things. So for her to take this kind of shot at me at this late date really shows how desperate she is. And right now she's running a scorched earth kind of political campaign.

Because there's no place where I think I'm stronger than with respect to the rights of victims, I've always gotten awards or thanks for being such a strong advocate of people who've been victimized by crime.

I received an equal access to justice award for carrying legislation that made it easier for women and children who've been abused to get into court.

(When I asked Ed Perlmutter what if anything he would do differently if he had it to do over, he said the following)

I might have worked with the sponsor to try to come up with some safeguards some guidelines, so that you don't trample on the constitution. Whenever there is a bill or law that gets close to any of the bill of rights, you want to make sure that even though on its face it may not effect the bill of rights, you want to have safeguards to make sure it doesn't, here there are no safeguards no guidelines and I might have worked with the sponsor a little more closely. In hindsight I probably should have worked with the sponsor to try to come up with some of those safeguards.

Commentary

Since Ed Perlmutter was only one of three legislators to vote against HB 1344, its worth trying to determine whether his stated reasons for voting against the bill are reasonable. Again he claimed the law was vague, poorly written and perhaps unconstitutional because of the retroactive feature in the bill.

I spoke with two law professors on this. One from CU who didn't want to be attributed, analyzed the law via email. The other is Karen Steinhauser from University of Denver, who I spoke with by phone. Both gave essentially similar responses. After reading, or in the case of professor Steinhauser, listening to the language of the law, both agreed it was not unreasonable to have constitutional concerns about the retroactive feature of HB 1344. The U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. These are criminal laws enacted after the illegal conduct has occurred, and designed to be retroactive. Whether HB 1344 could be successfully construed as an ex post facto law is another question. I checked with the appelate divisions in the prosecutor's offices of Denver, Douglas, Adams, and Jefferson counties. Not one could identify a case in which HB 1344 had been challenged. However, several told me that it's possible, and perhaps inevitable that such a challenge will eventually come.

Let's now look at Ed Perlmutter's record to determine whether the inference made in the Lamm ad is plausible.

Perlmutter points to a number of awards, and recognitions that he claims proves his commitment to women's issues and victim's rights. These include a 100 percent rating from the Colorado Women's Agenda in both 2000, and 2001 for his votes on the issues the group supports.

Read the 2001 scorecard where you can read the issues the group follows and Perlmutter's votes.

Curiously the group did not follow HB 1344 in 2001. The group's executive director Tisa Anders tells me they don't have the resources to follow every issue, and that HB 1344 was clearly an oversight. Had they included it in their 2001 scorecard, she says it likely would have lowered Perlmutter's overall score a little bit.

Here are some other awards, cited on Perlmutter's website that pertain to victim's rights.

From Perlmutter's website

"Ed Perlmutter received 100 percent rating from the Colorado Women's Agenda in both 2000 and 2001 for his strong record on women's rights and has received numerous awards on behalf of his work for women and victims of crime, including being named Legislator of the Year by the Legal Aid Foundation of Colorado for his work on equal justice. Perlmutter also served on the Colorado Victims Compensation & Assistance Coordinating Committee, which is the State Board that oversees the funding of programs from the Violence Against Women Act and the Victims of Crime Act because of his leadership on these important issues".

Read the rest of the page.

Commentary

Here is a list of Bills Perlmutter supported pertaining to crime victim's rights while he served in the Colorado legilslature.

Bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Perlmutter

SB 97-034 allowed for families of murder victims to testify during sentencing of the perpetrator
HB 95-1153 required notification of prior restraining orders in domestic abuse cases
SB 97-073 authorizes the state court administrator to accept funds, grants, gifts, or donations on behalf of the state to implement access to justice by victims of family violence

Bills supported by Perlmutter's vote.

For Increasing Stalking Penalties

On Apr. 28, 1999, the Senate PASSED (34-1) HB 99-1168, which increased penalties for stalking. (Senate Journal, 4/28/99)

The crime of harassment by stalking is changed to the crime of stalking and the circumstances under which a person is considered to commit the crime of stalking are expanded. Under House Bill 99-1168, the crime of stalking is increased from a class 6 felony to a class 5 felony for a first offense and a class 4 felony for subsequent and aggravated stalking offenses. In addition, the crime of stalking is added to the list of crimes which present an extraordinary risk of harm to society and are, therefore, eligible for increased prison sentences.

For Increasing Sexual Assault Penalties

On Apr. 1, 1999, the Senate unanimously PASSED HB 99-1070, which increased penalties for sexual assault. (Senate Journal, Apr. 1, 1999)
In response to concerns over young adults who target teenagers for sexual relationships, House Bill 99-1070 alters the sexual assault statutes. A person who is at least 10 years older than the victim and who has sex with a victim who is between 15 and 17 years old commits second degree sexual assault, a class 1 misdemeanor under the bill's provisions.

For Increasing List of Sex Offenders Online
On May 2, 2001, the Senate PASSED (32-3) HB 01-1155, which expanded the list of persons convicted of unlawful sexual behavior whose identifying information and picture must be posted on the Internet. That list of persons includes but is not limited to: persons who were convicted as adults of two or more offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior or crimes of violence; and persons who are convicted of a felony as an adult who fail to register as sex offenders. (Senate Journal, May 2, 2001)

For Increasing Sex Offender Penalties
On May 4, 2001, the Senate PASSED (32-3) SB 210, which increased penalties for sex offenders who failed to register. (Senate Journal, May 4, 2001)

Under Senate Bill 01-210, sex offenders convicted of felony unlawful behavior who fail to register as sex offenders commit a class 6 felony. A second or subsequent failure to register as a sex offender is a class 5 felony. Failure to register as a sex offender is a class 1 misdemeanor if the person was convicted of a misdemeanor unlawful sex offense. Juveniles adjudicated for a misdemeanor sex offense and who fail to register as a sex offender must serve a mandatory minimum 30-day detention sentence. A juvenile who fails to register a second or subsequent time for a misdemeanor sex offense must serve a mandatory minimum 45-day detention sentence.
COMMENTARY

It seems clear to me that there's enough history here to conclude that Ed Perlmutter has a record of working for and supporting legislation that benefits women and victims of crime. Thus the inference made in the Lamm ad that "MAYBE ED PERLMUTTER BELIEVES... (Rape)... IS SOMETHING, WOMEN DO GET OVER" apears to be misleading at best and a political cheap shot at worst.

Clearly Perlmutter seems to wish in hindsight he handled HB 1344 differently. See his comments on what he now says he would have done differently.

"I might have worked with the sponsor to try to come up with some safeguards some guidelines, so that you don't trample on the constitution. Whenever there is a bill or law that gets close to any of the bill of rights, you want to make sure that even though on its face it may not effect the bill of rights, you want to have safeguards to make sure it doesn't, here there are no safeguards no guidelines and I might have worked with the sponsor a little more closely. In hindsight I probably should have worked with the sponsor to try to come up with some of those safeguards." Source: Raj Chohan interview conducted 8/2/06.

But the fact is he did not attempt to change or modify the bill in 2001, and ultimately voted against it. That makes it fair game for the Lamm campaign to make an issue out of it. But the inference the ad concludes, based on the evidence, seems to be an unfair distortion of Perlmutter's record.

(© MMVI CBS Television Stations, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)