This year is my first experience at an election-year session. I am observing some fairly disquieting behavior I had not anticipated. Since term limits have opened up many previously unchallenged seats, the political positioning is impacting even the most mundane of bills. With over three-quarters of the General Assembly (all of the House and half of the Senate) being up for grabs, it appears that many scofflaws perceive this session as the battlefield for political jousting for impending elections regardless of the merit of the legislation. Both parties stand accused.

Take, for instance, the smoking bill that would have placed the same limitations on the Capitol as all other state buildings. This common-sense measure brought by Rep. Sue Windels (D-Arvada) would eliminate smoking in the two remaining areas of the Capitol that have been carved out over time — the unvented cloud room in the basement (right next to the cafeteria) and in the Senate meeting-rooms hallway where all of the reporters and lobbyists puff up.

The basement location becomes the meeting place for all of the surrounding state buildings' smoking exiles who don't want to stand outside and smoke. I can tell you that some mornings my third-floor office smells so badly of cigarette smoke that it taints my clothing. Anyway, Rep. Windels' bill was attacked on the grounds that such legislative action should be accomplished through resolution, never mind the fact that such attempts have failed multiple times over the years. Several members came to me saying, "We can't give her this bill." I thought the bill was for the inhabitants of the Capitol and its visitors! We will see if this was indeed a partisan attempt at keeping Rep. Windels from accomplishing any election-year legislative victories when my House resolution to eliminate smoking in the Capitol comes to the floor later this year.

On Friday, another example of partisan maneuvering came to light. Regardless of where one stands on the issues regarding guns, Friday's orchestration on the floor was eye-opening.

The House proceeded as scheduled on second-reading debate (the second step in the process after committee hearings.) Bills were acted upon as they are listed on the calendar. Normally we finish debating bills around noon and then "rise and report" the daywork in the Committee of the Whole. Friday, the Majority Leader ended the debate at 11:15 a.m.

After the vote to adopt the Committee of the Whole report of the morning's work, the Majority Leader moved that the House proceed out of order for consideration of special orders, specifically House Bill 1289. This bill would not normally have been acted upon until late next week, if then. Many members looked dumbfounded as this motion brought to the floor a very controversial gun bill.

Moving this bill ahead of all others meant that the minority party and others opposed to the bill would not be prepared for the floor debate and that their amendments could not be introduced because they were not on the desks 24 hours previous. While such maneuvering is well within the rules, absolutely no one anticipated this procedural gem and the bill was pushed through.

These are just two examples of how election-year politics are affecting legislators. I have been asked not to support a certain bill because so-and-so was carrying it and we certainly would not want that person to gain any ground, especially since that person would be running against another member in the Senate or House.

There are promises being made that similar bills are coming through the Senate or later in the House with more "acceptable" messengers. Political capital is being spent with the same reckless abandon of a child in a candy store. I have stood firm when such partisanship is proposed, refusing to play that game. I will continue to vote on the merit of the legislation according to constituent input, how it impacts Southwestern Colorado and my personal core values.

Fortunately, both of Southwestern Colorado's legislators live by this precept.