sleepystork.com

No one in my family owned slaves, I used to say. It was a reasonable assumption based on family lore.

It is with the humility that comes with having been mistaken that I view the controversy surrounding Rep. Gabe Evans’ claims about his Mexican-born grandfather. On the campaign trail last year for Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, Evans described his abuelito, Cuauhtemoc Chavez, as a man who “did it the right way” when he immigrated to America.

The truth is more complex, an investigation by Colorado Newsline revealed. Chavez came to the U.S. illegally as a young child. He was arrested as a teen and subject to deportation proceedings. At some point in his youth he was arrested but not convicted of attempted burglary. He later served in World War II and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The article suggests that Chavez was granted citizenship, not because of his service to the nation as Evans has stated, but because a 1944 law made it so candidates for naturalization no longer had to show proof of lawful entry.

Did Evans’ grandfather become a citizen “the right way?” The answer is not black and white. He came here illegally but was ultimately naturalized through a legal process that is no longer available to immigrants who first arrive illegally.

As for my family, my dad’s kin emigrated from Germany and the Russian Empire decades after the Civil War. My mom’s family immigrated to Pennsylvania, one of the first states to abolish slavery, and Maryland from England and Central Europe beginning in the 17th century. My mom’s great-great-grandfather, Joseph Lopez, born Joseph Getward, deserted from the Royal Navy to come to the U.S. He later joined the New York Volunteer Infantry, was captured, and ended up at Andersonville, the notorious Confederate prisoner-of-war camp. Adding all this up, odds seemed good that my family lacked a connection to the horrors of human bondage.

That was until last weekend, when I learned that Joseph Lopez’s daughter-in-law (my great-great-grandmother) had a great-great-grandfather who owned slaves and with one of them fathered a son, her great-grandfather, my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. Guarding against the deeply racist attitudes of the day, my relatives of mixed ethnic heritage started a family rumor that their darker skin tone must have come from a Native American ancestor.

Turns out my assumptions about my family were incorrect. The truth is far more complex; my family tree includes at least one slaveholder and at least one slave. If I weigh in on a political issue like racial reparations and choose to invoke my family history, I cannot simply say “my whole family did it right.” In fact, if I searched further, I would find other slave owners and slaves even on my dad’s side. Pre-Christian Germanic tribes practiced slavery, too. It was an abhorrent practice throughout human history. No one’s family is a paragon of virtue.

It’s with that perspective that I can offer Evans grace for his mistake. Colorado Newsline produces some excellent investigative journalism, but as a far-left news organization, don’t expect any grace for Republicans from them. Rightwing media reacted the same way, accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of insincerity when she overstated her Native American heritage. How do we know she wasn’t relying on family lore? I have never met Evans, but it seems more likely he didn’t know the nuances of his grandfather’s case than that he deliberately misspoke. Knowing how I was wrong about my own family history, I’m going to give them both the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that Evans has been more circumspect in recent interviews suggests that once he knew the truth, he course-corrected. Give him credit for cosponsoring H.R. 4393, which would enable people working in the U.S. illegally to receive legal status and continue to work here, if they meet certain conditions. It would also speed up the asylum process and allow immigrants brought here illegally as young children and those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to obtain legal status. It is the kind of practical, humanitarian, compromise immigration reform we need. Similar legislation was blocked in 2024 by then-candidate Donald Trump, who wanted to keep the contentious issue bleeding throughout the election year. There is no reason it should not pass now.

But Evans should go a step further. He should use his unique family background to champion humane treatment of illegal immigrants, even though it risks the ire of the president and the far right. Every person, citizen or immigrant, here legally or not, deserves due process. Too few Republicans are willing to champion this constitutional guarantee. If Evans can lead on this issue, maybe others will follow.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday columnist for The Denver Post.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

As a former mayor of Colorado Springs, I know first-hand the overwhelming challenge faced by local leaders trying to balance the books while keeping the lights on at the firehouse, police station, library and every other essential service – all without raising the ire of the neighbors who elected you.

So I’m not without sympathy for the Palmer Lake Board of Trustees as it faces intense and often vitriolic public opposition to a proposal to annex land two miles outside the town boundary to make way for a Buc-ee’s gas station with 120 pumps, and 780 parking spaces.

But Buc-ee’s is not the magic bullet of tax revenue some in Palmer Lake, a town of just 2,600, hope. Rather than save the town, the massive travel center instead is likely to end up killing precisely what makes Palmer Lake and the surrounding Tri-Lakes region a unique Colorado treasure.

Even if you’re not a local, you probably are familiar with the vast Greenland Ranch open space that stretches from the mountains to the plains on either side of I-25 between Larkspur and the summit of Monument Hill. Greenland Ranch’s 40,000 acres is the only protected open space along I-25 between Fort Collins and Colorado Springs and is a crown jewel – a living and thriving reminder of the Front Range before the sprawl of urban development.

Buc-ee’s wants to build its massive travel mecca directly across a two-lane road from this ecological linchpin, adding thousands of cars every day, flushing millions of gallons of water down its famously clean toilets and casting an unnatural glow from its parking lot lights into a critical big-game migration corridor.

Over the past three decades, Coloradans have invested more than $100 million to preserve and protect the Greenland Ranch open space. It was a cause celebre for two governors – Roy Romer and Bill Owens – and Liberty Media founder John Malone played a crucial financial role in protecting the ranch from development. It is something the state rightly should be proud of and fierce to protect.

Nowhere should that be more true than in Palmer Lake because the open space commitment all Coloradans have made over the years insulates and protects the bucolic appeal of the town. I grew up in the Pikes Peak region and while my law firm has clients that oppose Buc-ee’s, my opposition is as a lifelong resident who has watched as the wild places that are the birthright of Colorado children are lost forever to inappropriate development.

What makes Buc-ee’s inappropriate is this location. Buc-ee’s is, by all accounts, a great place for weary travelers to grab a bite and take a break from the road. I oppose depriving landowners of their land without compensation (and, in fact, the owners have at least one backup offer to purchase and protect the property). All of us should reject a proposal that negatively impacts a resource the public paid – and pays – to protect while a private out-of-state corporation makes big bucks.

As a former local official, I know that strategic development builds the economic foundation of towns to provide vital community services. But development needs to make sense and fit the character of the town. In Johnstown, Colorado’s only other Buc-ee’s location, local officials have seen other businesses locate next to Buc-ee’s to offer complementary services and products. Those kinds of synergies are a lot less likely at the proposed El Paso County location. Why? Because the pine-studded property is bordered by a rural church, I-25 and the Greenland Ranch.

Palmer Lake’s land grab would let the town capture whatever ostensible revenue Buc-ee’s generates while dumping all of the inevitable downsides – traffic, noise, pollution and light – on citizens in unincorporated El Paso County who have no voice whatsoever in Palmer Lake elections.

In addition to not being very neighborly, annexation to make way for a Buc-ee’s is bound to change the entire region. Once up and running, Buc-ee’s would serve roughly four times as many travelers every day as Palmer Lake has residents, which would require hiring new police and fire personnel and new equipment while jamming thousands of cars onto country roads.

The Tri-Lakes region of which Palmer Lake is a part is a unique slice of Colorado as it once was. There are too few places like it left. Palmer Lake trustees may believe they are saving their town by welcoming Buc-ee’s, but if doing so requires sacrificing the elements that make Palmer Lake and the Tri-Lakes special, what, in the end, are they really saving?

John Suthers is the former mayor of Colorado Springs, former Colorado Attorney General and served as the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado. He is a shareholder at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Will the next “giant leap for mankind” be made by the United States — or by our rivals? The answer may come as Congress debates the federal budget.

The White House has proposed a massive 25% cut to the NASA budget, a move congressional appropriators have rejected in their recent funding proposals, but which still has the potential to dampen the U.S. economy and workforce, undermine national security, health and safety, and curtail American ambitions to shape the final frontier.

In Colorado, America’s second-largest aerospace economy, we know that losing global leadership in space is a gamble the United States cannot afford to take. As federal budget negotiations continue, I’m asking the public to contact their Congressional representatives and remind them of everything America stands to gain through robust investment in NASA.

NASA remains popular among Americans of all stripes. It served as a source of unity and pride as we won the first Space Race, enabled a massive aerospace-based economy that employs 2.2 million people across the nation, and undergirds much of our national defense and everyday well-being.

The administration’s proposal would cut NASA from about $24.9 billion to $18.8 billion — the agency’s lowest funding level in 60 years, when adjusted for inflation, and the largest single-year cut in its history. Despite proposed increases for human spaceflight to the moon and Mars, the proposal includes a 47% cut to the Science Mission Directorate, which oversees the agency’s scientific research. This research underpins the spectacular missions that inspire and delight us all.

At the University of Colorado Boulder, Purdue, Georgia Tech and many other universities across the nation that lead in aerospace and related fields, NASA research grants provide a dual benefit; they advance America’s space science and innovation, and they develop the skilled workforce ready to address the nation’s needs.

At CU Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, the world’s only academic research institute to send instruments to all eight planets and Pluto, NASA funding helps employ more than 250 undergraduate students and nearly 100 graduate students annually, integrating them into mission teams and training them to operate multimillion-dollar satellites. These students become the engineers and scientists who will drive continued American dominance in space for the next 40 years.

NASA-supported, hands-on training ensures graduates are well-prepared for jobs at BAE, Lockheed Martin, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, the U.S. military, scientific labs, and the impactful startup companies of tomorrow. They are the backbone of American greatness.

America will continue to have the world’s greatest rockets and space stations only if we continue to have the human resources provided by an adequately funded NASA.

You don’t have to be an aspiring astronaut or scientist to reap the benefits of publicly funded space research.
Research and development on space domain awareness, hypersonic systems, radio frequency communications are critical to safeguarding the public from threats foreign and domestic, natural and man-made. Prior wars were won based on dominance on land and by air; future conflicts may be decided by the countries that control space.

Researchers here have successfully used NASA funding to develop, build and operate weather satellites to improve forecasts. They are using it to observe space weather that can cripple our power grids, threaten GPS service, and ruin Midwest planting seasons. CU Boulder’s BioServe Space Technologies conducts biological research in space that aids in development of anti-cancer drugs and osteoporosis treatments.

Furthermore, the proposed budget cut would force the termination of missions far along in development or already operating, throwing away billions in taxpayer investments on projects that are on-budget and producing results for the American public.

Taxpayers have already invested $85 million toward the CLARREO Pathfinder, which will provide the world’s best measurements of reflected sunlight, improving the accuracy of government and commercial satellite sensors. This instrument is sitting in a laboratory in Colorado, ready to launch to its permanent destination, the International Space Station. Why would we throw that away?

Since Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, American curiosity and ambition have led us to wonder what’s next. Perhaps space tourism, mining the moon for precious resources, or human habitats on Mars.

Those aspirations are catalyzed in projects like MAVEN, designed to measure radiation and solar storms in space at Mars — a critical element for human exploration — that is also at risk in the current NASA budget. If MAVEN is cancelled, the United States will cede leadership in Mars exploration to China and rely on Europe and Russia for all future telecoms at Mars. Do we want a future based on independence or reliance on other countries?

NASA’s successes are some of the best examples of American ingenuity, persistence and imagination — part of our national identity as pioneering explorers. It’s up to all of us to ensure these values continue to drive federal policy and our collective future.

Justin Schwartz is the chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The Denver Police Department is quietly rolling out a significant change in how officer misconduct is handled, and the public has never seen the policy or had a chance to weigh in. Under this new approach, called education-based development (formerly discipline), officers accused of wrongdoing could be diverted into coaching or retraining instead of facing formal consequences. While this may seem reasonable at first, a closer look reveals concerning flaws.

This policy wasn’t developed with the necessary transparency, nor was it shaped through meaningful community input.  Initially, the Office of the Independent Monitor wasn’t even given an opportunity to review the draft policy, as is required by city ordinance. Even now, the community has yet to see any actual policy language. That’s a problem.

More than two decades ago, Denver voters created a clear, community-driven oversight structure with the city’s police discipline ordinance. The system centers on the Office of the Independent Monitor, community input, and a formal disciplinary matrix. But education-based development could bypass all of that. The current proposal estimates that up to 85% of misconduct cases could be diverted outside this structure, circumventing the independent oversight that voters demanded in 2004.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t a minor adjustment to the disciplinary matrix; it’s a fundamental change in how police accountability works in Denver. What’s more, it’s being pushed through without a public vote, hearings, or any formal opportunity for the community to weigh in.

In a recent public meeting, Chief Ron Thomas claimed there is “overwhelming support” for this change. However, this “support” is based on an incomplete understanding of the policy, as the chief has yet to release the full details to the community. During select meetings with public safety organizations, concerns have been raised about shifting the focus from accountability to training.

What’s more troubling is the lack of evidence supporting this approach. There’s no clear research showing that education-based discipline improves outcomes for cities or communities. The model is loosely based on a program in Los Angeles County, known for poor police conduct, and smaller communities like Pasadena, California, which use education-based development but do not replace traditional discipline. In Denver’s case, however, the plan is to shift the majority of disciplinary cases into this alternative track.

The city deserves better than a rushed, loosely copied model implemented behind closed doors. Police discipline reform is a serious issue that requires careful planning, evidence, and, most importantly, community trust. That trust is already fragile, and the process by which this change is being pushed forward only weakens it further.

We’ve seen this before: changes made in the name of efficiency, without regard for long-term consequences. In the context of public safety and civil rights, the consequences can be profound. Decisions about police conduct need to reflect community values, not just internal departmental preferences. Meaningful community involvement in significant changes provides legitimacy and community buy-in, and should not be bypassed just because it’s inconvenient.

While there is always an opportunity to offer officers additional training or learning opportunities, these should complement, not replace, a fair and transparent disciplinary process. Any significant deviation from the current disciplinary system must be done with full public transparency, clear evidence of effectiveness, and strong community involvement.

Right now, we have none of that.

We urge Mayor Mike Johnston, Chief Thomas, and the Department of Public Safety to pause the policy’s implementation and allow it to be brought into the open for a genuine community discussion. Let’s involve the Independent Monitor, the Citizen Oversight Board, the City Council, and — most importantly — the public. If we are going to change how police are held accountable, we must do it the right way.

Denver has led the way on police oversight before. We can do it again — but only if we follow the charter, the evidence, and the people.

Julia Richman is chair of the Denver Citizen Oversight Board. She wrote this op-ed on behalf of seven other members of the board: Vice Chair Tymesha Watkins, Karen Collier, Rufina Hernandez, Dawn Holden, David Martinez, Larry Martinez, and Alfredo Reyes. One seat on the nine-member board is currently vacant.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

While congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump enacted tax relief for overtime workers nationwide as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Colorado Democrats are using it as an excuse to squeeze those workers for higher state taxes.

Now that OBBBA has been signed and is the law of the land, over the course of the next year, governors and lawmakers in many states will be seeking to pass legislation that complements some of the changes that OBBBA made to the federal tax code.

In statehouses across the country, lawmakers will take action to provide the same year-one deductibility at the state level for business capital expenditures, along with research and development costs, that OBBBA restored federally. While state lawmakers will seek to conform with some of the changes made by OBBBA, they’ll also work to decouple from other parts, particularly the international provisions.

In addition to full business expensing, expect some state lawmakers to propose emulating OBBBA’s $25,000 tax deduction for tips and overtime pay by providing a similar state deduction. In fact, over the past year, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced legislation that provides some form of state tax exemption for tip income. That trend will likely continue following federal enactment of the tips and overtime exemptions.

Coming state legislation that complements or conforms with OBBBA will typically be done in a way that reduces state tax burdens, but that’s not the case everywhere.

Take Colorado, where Democrats who control state government have gone in the opposite direction, clawing back some of the federal tax relief that OBBBA provided to workers. Voters, however, may soon have an opportunity to undo that maneuver, which was designed to counteract some of the tax relief provided by OBBBA.

“In April, legislators added into House Bill 1296 — a bill that made several changes to state tax exemptions — a requirement for residents to add the amount of overtime pay excluded from their federal income tax revenue to their Colorado taxable income,” Ed Sealover wrote in a July 17 article for The Sum and Substance, a news site published by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. “This was a defensive move anticipating that Congress could exempt overtime compensation from federal tax income, as state officials said that mirroring federal law would cost Colorado $400 million to $600 million in annual revenue.”

A July 10 Colorado Springs Gazette editorial noted that “Colorado’s Legislature and Gov. Jared Polis decided to gut-punch Colorado workers,” by voting this spring to raise state taxes on overtime pay, “essentially taxing their hard-earned overtime wages.” That state tax hike, the Gazette editorial went on to add, “was buried in an obscure, wide-ranging bill innocuously titled, ‘Tax Expenditure Adjustment,’ which lawmakers passed this spring.”

Advance Colorado, an organization that has a record of running successful ballot measure campaigns, filed paperwork with the Colorado Secretary of State on July 8 to begin collecting the signatures needed to place a measure on the 2026 ballot. That measure, Initiative 119, would undo the provision in the Expenditure Adjustment Act that decoupled from the new federal exemption for overtime pay. What’s more, Initiative 119 would also prevent state taxation of tip income. In order to qualify for the 2026 ballot, Initiative 119 supporters must collect 124,238 valid signatures.

“If they would have done nothing,” Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, said about Colorado legislators, “people would have seen this reduction.” Fields added that when people find out about what the legislature did to ensure that enactment of OBBBA would not also result in a new state tax break for workers, “they are going to be upset that the state took a direct action to ensure higher taxes.”

It remains to be seen whether lawmakers in other states will follow Colorado’s lead, changing state tax law as a way to not provide state tax relief that is the same as what their constituents received from OBBBA. Even if Illinois, New York, Oregon, and other blue states follow suit, however, there is a good chance Colorado voters will end up undoing the state tax hike that served as a model for such proposals.

Patrick Gleason is vice president of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer group founded in 1985 at the request of President Ronald Reagan. 

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.