Hello, Colorado.

Have you voted yet?

Of the 4 million ballots that have gone out in Colorado, we're hearing around 500,000 have been filled out, returned.

And that's going to change by the minute.

By the hour, as we get closer to Election Day on November the 3rd.

I'm not sure if any of these people behind me have voted, but I do know that they are well versed on all of the things before us and are ready to share their insight and perspective.

Thank you for listening.

And as you figure out what is important going forward for Colorado.

So let's get started with this week's Colorado Inside Out.

Hi, everyone, I'm Kyle Dyer.

Let me get right to introducing you to this week's insider panel.

We start with Patty Calhoun, founder and editor emeritus at Westword.

Eric Swordsman, columnist with Colorado Politics and the Colorado Springs and Denver Gazette's Penfield Tate, Denver attorney and former state representative and state senator at the Colorado Legislature.

And Jimmy Sagan Burger, investigative columnist with the Denver Gazette.

With a little over a week until Election Day, several of Colorado's traditionally Republican districts are looking more competitive in Colorado Springs and the fifth Congressional District.

The race between Republican incumbent Jeff Krank and Democrat Jessica Killen has shifted from likely Republican to lean Republican, and both Larry Sabato, Crystal ball, and the Cook Political Report.

Sabato has also moved the fourth district race between Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert and Democratic challenger Eileen Bakker to lean Republican, while the CD8 race between Republican Congressman Gabe Evans and Democrat Manny Root Knoll is now listed as Lean Democratic.

Of course, these are all predictions, not outcomes.

So what is driving this competitive?

This?

No.

Is it the national political climate?

Is it the candidates themselves?

Is it the economy?

Is it people in Colorado kind of shifting what's important to them?

Patti.

Crystal ball it for us.

It's certainly not just Colorado.

We were talking earlier that Neil Bush, who did live in Colorado in the late 80s, was involved in the Silverado scandal, has just come out very eloquently for Talarico in Texas.

Imagine this is he's the brother of a president.

He's the son of a president.

He's a lifelong Republican.

Except probably not right now.

And he's willing to go on the record that he does not want to see Paxton in Texas.

So it's not just here.

That's kind of an echo of Ken Buck, but I think it's more significant in how things are happening.

People are willing to cross party lines.

We're seeing that for sure here in Colorado with this with the congressional races.

I'd love to see La Baker win in four.

I think it's leaning Republican is not leaning Democrat, but I still think there's time.

It's shifting.

It's possible.

I would really love to see Killen in the fifth, which looks like that could truly happen.

Everyone's always assumed the fifth would always be Republican, but really, people can make their own choices for character, for positions, for what's good for the state and aid.

Anything is going and aid and everything is going in a state where they are throwing ads at each other right now.

Evans it is ugly.

You can't miss the ads, but it seems to be fairly effective if we are now leaning Democrat.

That's not winning Democrat, but leaning I sort of have my list of the order of, I call it the tipping order in which these Colorado districts are likely to tip for, away from Republicans.

The first to go will obviously be CD8, that you only need a gentle breeze.

That's been a competitive district.

Whoever the incumbent's been since that district was created was tossed out two years later, and the likelihood is that that will happen again this time.

And it will.

It will swing and perhaps continue to flip back and forth with each election cycle.

I think the next to go is probably CD five, the one Patty referenced in Colorado Springs.

Jeff cranked Jessica Killing killing strikes me as running a textbook campaign.

That district is 54 years old now.

It's created after the 1970 census.

It's only had Republican representation.

I think there's a flip of the coin chance that that changes this time.

The next probably would be the one on the Western Slope.

Although Jeff Hurd, I think, has some advantages that Jeff Krank does not.

The last to go.

I mean, this is going to take a hurricane force kind of wind to do, Kde4 for the Lauren Boebert district, no matter how good a candidate.

Eileen Law, boxer might be, it is just such a red district is a plus 19 Republican district.

You know, for that one to tip Democratic would be the equivalent of the Colorado Rockies coming off of 400 loss seasons and winning the World Series a year from now.

You'd love to see it in some respects, but it's not likely to happen.

Okay, then.

You know, I agree with with much of what's been said and and I agree with Eric's listing up to a point.

I think what we're seeing is sort of a repeat of what we saw.

Colorado specific back in the 90s, where the religious right sort of took over.

The Republican Party started nominating very extreme candidates in the primary.

Then when they got the general, those candidates couldn't prevail.

The problem that many Republican candidates have now is they cannot distance themselves far away enough from Donald Trump.

It's not just the war.

It's not just the economy, but it's it's a barrage of repeated personal conduct and misconduct that I think just has people overwhelmed and disgusted to where they've reached their tolerance point.

So where I disagree with Eric is in the last two, I think it's more likely that, Lauren Boebert loses than than her does on the on the Western Slope because the problem with Boebert, I think, even though it's a heavily red district, is, I think her personal conduct and behavior too closely tracks and parallels Trump, where parallels Trump, where I think some of her voters are saying, you know what?

Enough is enough.

You know, we may agree with your politics, but at a certain level in Colorado, we think you ought to behave in a particular fashion that decorum matters.

Personal conduct and integrity matters.

And I think she may be on her way out.

But I agree with Eric on the other, prognostications.

Okay.

Jimmy, I would tend to lean in Penn Field's direction in terms of who is likely or than not.

In terms of the last two, I think Jeff Hurd has really outperformed as a candidate.

This was one of those districts we were talking early on was one of the most vulnerable in the country for Republicans.

Obviously, the eighth, of course, is a challenge for Gabe Evans because it was Democratic for two years than Republican for two years, then up for grabs at this point.

And it's certainly a challenge for him.

But when we do look at you have heard it is extremely impressive his staying power and that we're not hearing much about him as far as the chances of Republicans losing that seat, as certainly people in the third, or glad that Lauren Boebert, who was deeply unpopular in that district by the time she made the switch, is not the candidate there.

When you go to the fourth Congressional District, where I am now, Douglas County is becoming a bluer county.

It's certainly in the purple ish direction, and it will come down, I think, a lot to Republican turnout.

I'm not sure that Boebert will lose, but I think it will be a closer race than maybe it should be, in part for that reason.

And because Republican turnout isn't going to be as amped up as you might, want if you're a Republican.

And and that's where I think a lot of the ballot issues are sort of a saving grace that may motivate more Republican turnout than you might otherwise get.

Certainly, when you don't have the candidates at the top that are particularly inspiring on the GOP ticket.

Okay.

And I think the demographic demographic shift in Colorado generally that you mentioned is a huge factor, a huge factor.

And it's I think it's going to reveal itself this election cycle.

Okay.

Amendment 87 will remain on the ballot despite a last minute lawsuit seeking to have it thrown off after a ten hour hearing in several days to consider the arguments.

A judge dismissed claims that the initiative did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The lawsuit was brought by a voter who argued that some of the signatures shouldn't count because they were collected by petition circulators who aren't properly registered or trained.

We've talked a lot on the show about amendment 87, and that is the proposal to replace Colorado's flat income tax with a graduated system where higher rates for higher earners, lower rates for those who make less.

Eric, what do you make of this case and what it says about Colorado's citizen Initiative process?

Well, let me give you a two part answer.

First, in terms of the case, the judge made clear reference that this case is not over.

This is not decided.

It is staying on the ballot, but it could be litigated after votes have been counted, particularly if it, if it does pass, if it fails, then obviously there's no reason for further litigation.

There was a sloppiness.

I mean, yes, some of this is technicalities stuff, but technicalities matter.

And there was undoubtedly a sloppiness to the whole petition process, by the advocates of 87, but for now is on the ballot.

We will, count those votes here in ten days or so.

In terms of the race itself, I'm told that there's polling and a number of recent polls that show none of those polls show proposition 87, amendment 87, with over 50% of the votes.

So that puts it in a very precarious place.

I think a lot of people expected it to be more popular than it is.

I think there's some drafts and questions in terms of some of the particulars of how it was drafted, the lack of an inflationary clause so that as inflation kicks in and people ramp up into higher brackets, there's, no protection about that.

I find it to be one of the real interesting things on the ballot, and certainly one I'm going to be paying attention to, on election night.

Okay.

As our attorney at the table, take it away.

But, you know, Eric said the proponents of 87 sort of made a mess of the process by how they gathered signatures.

But the case was a bit of a mess because even the opponent withdrew and dropped some of their claims while the case was pending.

So what was at issue got narrower and narrower and narrower, where I think that at the end of the day, the court was asked to determine basically whether three parties, petition signature gatherers have been properly trained or certified.

And what the judge basically said is no, they fall within the parameters of the statute.

I think the judge made clear the statute and the rules and regs are a little bit ambiguous.

So I think we can expect to see some legislation this session to try to tighten some of those things up.

I'm going to step away now and go bigger picture and just get on my soapbox again.

I understand that there's a constitutional right to the initiative process, but this is part of what's wrong with our form of government in Colorado.

Eric's point was 87 is not particularly well drafted.

You know what a bunch of these things aren't particularly well drafted, which is part of the benefit of having some of these ideas distilled through the rigor of a legislative process I don't know what's going to happen with this measure.

I talked to a lot of people who love the idea of making rich people pay more, and I know a number of people who aspire to be rich, and they don't want to move up into those brackets.

It's their exit, whether it be inflation or other causes.

Okay.

To me, first, I think amendment 87 is one of the worst things on this year's ballot.

I think it is the graduated income tax is certainly not a progressive income tax.

It's regressive because it would take us back to the late 1980s, when we abandoned the graduated tax and went to a flat tax, even before the Colorado voters approved Tabor in 1992.

And I think when you see the way that the a lot of, people are lining up from Governor Polis and the Denver Post and the Denver Gazette and others opposed to amendment 87, that's because it would drive businesses out of this state and be disastrous economically.

But as to the question to the legal fight, I found it really interesting.

I'm not sure how likely, if it were to pass.

I don't think it will, but if it were to pass, how likely the case will continue.

But if it does, don't count it out.

Look to Virginia and the redistricting ballot measure from earlier this year, where a judge initially said, hey, I'm not going to throw this out, we're going to let it on the ballot.

But then it got to the Supreme Court in Virginia and they said there were problems, procedural problems, before it got on the ballot, even though the voters approved it.

We're tossing this out.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like that could happen in Colorado as well.

Okay, Patty.

Well, you know, I love the citizen initiative process and so do the people who can't seem to get people elected in the legislature to do what they want.

Hello, advanced Colorado.

So you see that there are options if your lawmakers are not doing what you want.

But the problem is that they're very they're very confusing.

And every time you go to remedy things, make it a single subject.

Different ways to use plain language.

The ballots can be the measures can be very, very confusing.

They take a lot of reading by voters.

It takes and you get confused up to the end.

Sometimes those things come out.

But I do love the citizen initiative process.

I wish people could be clearer about petitioning and about the fact that it's really easy now to pay a lot of money and get your petition through, and that's a problem we have to deal with.

But we've had this since 1910.

I think it's been great for Colorado, with a few exceptions, where I think people really didn't think it through.

But we do need to clean up these measures, and we will probably see this one cleaned up in court if it passes.

Okay.

That's the big F to other proposed amendments on Colorado's ballot would change how elections work in the state.

But in very different ways.

Amendment 84 would require voters to include the last four digits of their Social Security number or their Colorado driver's license number, or their ID number on the outside of their mail ballot envelope.

Amendment 85 calls for state and local ballot questions to be written in plain language.

At no more than an eighth grade reading level.

Both would amend the Colorado Constitution, so Penfield.

That means each needs 55% of the vote to pass to make it happen.

Right.

And the problem with each of them is, first, neither of them needs to be in the state constitution.

That's the number one.

The problem with 84 is, in my opinion, it is a continuation of the Trump election security fraud mess that's going on.

We don't do it now.

We don't need it in the future.

You don't need to put four digits of your Social Security number, your driver's license on a ballot, and most people don't want to have their ballot tracked that way to begin with.

So that's just unnecessary.

It is intended to suppress the vote, to discourage people from voting when there's no proven problem with widespread voting fraud.

With regard to the other amendment, I agree.

If you can require ballot measures be written as clearly and simply as possible, I'm off for that.

Doesn't need to be in the Constitution.

What I think is more important is to come up with the system, to make sure that the advert easements and the marketing of some of these proposals be in plain English and be verified and truthful.

I see different TV stations do fact checking.

It has become appalling how some of these ads, whether you're pro or con, they just flat out lie about stuff and that's disturbing and distressing because in the participatory democracy that we have accuracy, truth and facts are sort of what they depend on for the people to make good, rational decisions.

We don't have that anymore.

I think Penfield made a fair point about some of the disingenuousness to falsities that you can get from ads on either side.

However, I don't think government is particularly the rubric of deciding how and what, individuals and organizations should be putting in their ads.

That gets to me to being too much of a free speech, regulation.

Then we should have in our elections.

However, when it comes to amendment 85, I'll start there.

I think it is good initiative in particularly because we have so many ballot initiatives that do get confusing in and of themselves.

If you're at your kitchen table.

And thankfully, by the way, we have a mail ballot system where you can be at your kitchen table and you can do some research and take the time, as opposed to being in a ballot box and having to make a spur of the moment decision on 14 statewide initiatives and everything else.

But I think the this, the simpler and clearer that we can make these initiatives, including anything coming from the legislature, the better.

And that's why it needs to be an amendment, because that provides an added check as well for any legislative where the legislature puts an initiative onto the ballot.

As for amendment 84, we have one of the best, most robust, security systems for our elections in the entire country, in Colorado.

That doesn't mean that they cannot or should not be improved, and that this is necessarily a bad idea.

I think adding additional layers of security to make sure that those who are voting are legitimate voters.

I don't think that's a bad idea.

I'm favorable to amendment 84, particularly to add a little more confidence in our elections and add an additional security feature at the same time, you can support that and recognize that we have a really good system.

I don't think it will pass though.

Okay.

All right.

Patty, let me agree with Jimmy a little tiny bit, which is we have a very good election system.

92% of the voters in Colorado vote by mail.

I don't think 92% of them want to write their driver's license.

Last four numbers or their Social Security numbers on their their envelope when they return it.

We don't need it.

We don't have a problem.

It actually could inject more problems, because you would have to be checking them when they come in.

So I think 84 is a nonstarter.

Same thing for 85.

And every time I talk about this, I talk at a first grade level because I can't even figure out what an eighth grade level is.

And that's part of the problem.

Do we need to say what the eighth grade level should be in the Constitution?

I don't think we say what education level should be in the Constitution, what an eighth grader should know.

So we don't need that.

We do need clear ballot measures.

I don't think this one is particularly clear or useful.

I think both of these have a superficial appeal to them.

And I would not be surprised if either or both of them passed even with the 55% threshold.

And yet I'm going to argue against each one of them, somewhat agreeing with, Penfield and Patty with regard to 84.

It strikes me there's just there's a core cynicism here, which is the people of some of the people behind this amendment are affiliated with others who have spent all this time trying to erode the confidence in our the security of our system, even though the Colorado system is highly, highly secure and having eroded that confidence through all the election fraud, stolen election, garbage, they now come up with an amendment that says because confidence is eroded, we need this measure.

We need this extra layer of protection.

I think that's fundamentally cynical.

With regard to 85.

Yes.

Everyone wants ballot measures to be as clear as possible.

public policy can be complex.

And, yes, you want to boil it down to understandable terms, but I don't think you want to get rid of all the complexity out of complex issues.

Okay.

All right.

Ballot issue seven A is asking voters to approve a sales tax increase to help fund a passenger rail service known as the color of connector, or cocoa.

But before voters even decide, the measures for the Front Range passenger rail district is dealing with a bike.

The big mistake involving the ballots.

We've already talked about how issue seven was mistakenly included on ballots sent to 800,000 voters, including Jimmy.

I learned today, you're not eligible to vote on this sense at all.

What happened?

The district's designated election official resigned, and former Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder Pam Anderson was tapped to take over election responsibilities.

Now, Jimmy, let's start with you.

You've been looking into this official who resigned and his involvement in other troubled passenger rail projects.

Yeah.

It's a there's a lot here, so I'll try and distill it down as best I can, especially because my Friday column is on this subject as well as my Tuesday one.

First.

Yes.

I have seven on my ballot.

I'm not supposed to.

I'm voting no.

Anyway, also, I will say this, Pam Anderson, you can't get more qualified than her to take on the responsibility of cleaning up this mess.

The problem is, the damage is already done, and there's only so much that she's going to be able to do.

But more than that, this piece of the ballot blunder is really the least of the problems for seven A and for the Front Range passenger rail.

And I say this particularly because when you look at so many things, including Brant Butts, who is the now former designated election official and former general counsel for the rail district, he resigned on October 12th.

And what's interesting about that is the same week as the ballot blunder came out, that news, CBS California did a report that showed an inspector general investigation into a high speed rail program that hasn't laid down any track in many years of doing this in California.

Well, one of their, legal representatives is also Brant Butts and and the firm of NASA and LLP, which is Denver based.

but the biggest thing here, the crux of the matter is with so many things going on in this district and so many questions swirling about, they're asking for nearly $300 million in taxpayer money each year and nearly $600 million in borrowing power.

For this program.

And yet, while there's no guarantee that the project will actually be delivered, the only guarantee is that consultants will be paid.

And when you look into the amount of money and how the budgeting is worked, and even just on the legal bill, which for 2025, when an estimated 50% above budget just to Nasim, an LLP and general counsel, Brant butts in there are so many issues and red flags with this that we could do a whole episode just diving into it, and I think it could be the death knell for seven.

And it should be.

want to quote the old adage, is this any way to run a railroad?

Clearly, no.

And not how to run a railroad measure.

It started out well intentioned.

Everyone, I think, loves railroads.

So the idea of trains that are actually built and actually run, but it wouldn't take care of much traffic on that route, assuming it was even built.

It's exciting to see Pam Anderson's name again, because it would have been lovely if she had been elected Secretary of State when she briefly was up against Tina Peters.

But she it's too little, too late to save.

What is it?

Essentially a flawed measure, both by how it was structured.

Then the people brought in the the paying $2 million to influencers.

We need to influence it off the tracks.

Put it away.

Bring it back.

Sometime when Colorado isn't broke and can afford a boondoggle.

When we can.

Well, I agree with both, Jimmy and Patty and their words.

And first off, hats off to Jimmy.

The columns he's written.

I'll be anxious to read his Friday column here, but, he's doing a good job on peeling back this particular onion.

Pam Anderson again.

You can't get better than Pam Anderson.

I think she ran against not Tina Peters, but Janet Griswold.

But we know Latino was a teeny tiny ones in the primary.

You're right.

And then Jenna.

But, you know, if this wasn't such a, if the Republican Party in the state was more viable, she might have been the secretary of state, and we would have all been better off if that was the case.

But let's bid.

Be that as it may, this is too little, too late in terms of bringing Pam Anderson in now, why anyone would have the idea of hiring a consultant that had a major role, a foundational role in the California High Speed Project, which is a train to nowhere where no track has been built.

It was supposed to go from the Bay area to LA.

Now they're talking about maybe several hundred billion dollars later, connecting a couple of Central Valley towns.

The whole thing, is ridiculous.

There's another angle to this, and maybe Jimmy get into it at some point.

I call it, sir, the Coco Mander as paying off the idea of a gerrymander, which is this district went out and very carefully picked which voters they wanted in the district.

And so they drew the boundaries of the district where they thought the voters might be most inclined to say yes to this tax hike.

And that's why some parts of counties are in some parts of counties are out, the whole thing smacks of, maybe good intent on a macro level, but bad intent and bad faith on a micro level.

They call it coco.

I call it cuckoo.

All right, well, first off, hats off to Jimmy for for staying on top of this and keeping us apprized.

You know, I think Patty referenced it or someone did about everybody loves railroads.

I mean, I've been on the Winter Park train, the Royal Gorge train, the Cumbres and Toltec ridden on Amtrak around the country and, and high speed rail in Europe.

I love it.

It's one of the best ways to travel, but that doesn't mean that every rail project is a good idea.

And this one seemed problematic from the beginning in terms of, as Eric said, how they cherry picked who they wanted to vote.

And quite frankly, the the route that was chosen and then adjusted and altered.

I'm not convinced that where they ended up is actually going to serve the constituency or the number of people it needs to serve to make it viable on a long term basis.

But then this fiasco over the ballot in the if people can't get an election right, how can you trust them to run a train for the, you know, and and so it sort of boggles the mind.

I feel badly for a lot of good people who put a lot of effort into this, but not so badly for some people who put a lot of effort to this for all the wrong reasons.

So, I think I think Jim is right.

I think the measure fails on the ballot because it's just become, too untouchable.

I just want to say real quick that we don't know who the new firm is replacing them as general counsel in the home stretch of this election, and I asked it have not received answers to several questions, including that.

So I will say there are many more questions than answers now.

And that's not good.

Okay, maybe it's Thomas the Tank Engine.

I trust him more.

So do I. All right, let's go around the table.

Now.

Talk about some of the highs and the lows that we've witnessed this week.

We'll start on a low point.

And with that we're facing a big preservation act coming up in the Senate, which makes the destruction of the East Wing at the white House horrifying.

But also more horrifying is when you pay your dish bill.

Think about this.

Charlie Ergen just gave 25 million to Trump for his ballroom.

Oh, okay.

I know this is Colorado inside out, not Ohio inside out, but I'm going to go to Ohio for this one in the governor's race there.

I know politics is down and dirty.

We've seen some of that here.

But there has to even be a limit to the down and dirty.

There's an ad that Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican candidate for governor in Ohio, is running against his opponent, questioning the abuse that incredible, just gross level of abuse she suffered as a child, questioning the veracity of that.

It is a new low point.

I think it has backfired on Rama Swami and he couldn't deserve it more.

You know, to Eric's point, the nast ification of our politics just made up a new word, driven, I think, at large measure by the top of the ticket.

And Washington has just sunk to new lows.

There's nothing wrong with substantively disagreeing with your opponent, but when all of it gets personal, and then we just start making up stuff and lying about stuff, I, I fear for what's happening to our democracy.

Milo, is the fact that, unfortunately, the Republican Party, after eight years of Jenna Griswold as secretary of State, is incapable of putting up a serious, credible candidate for secretary of state, especially when we have issues like the seven day debacle that we're talking about and others, unfortunately, James Wylie, who is very young, he's unqualified.

He doesn't have any knowledge of how elections work and want to.

He wants to go to Hand-counting statewide, which is completely untenable, has dabbled in all kinds of election conspiracy theories, and is a big fan of Tina Peters.

Quite frankly, the only person worse than James Wylie that they could have put on the ballot to be Secretary of State would be Tina Peters herself.

Okay.

All right.

Let's talk about something good.

Patty.

All the people who are working in elections and taking lots of abuse, and especially the people in the legislature who worked on the Blue Book, Colorado's blue Book, it's you should have gotten it in your mail.

It is really a good assessment of both pros and cons.

Use it as your Bible over the next 9 or 10 days, and it's worth the $3 million, which I guess is what we had to pay for it.

Yeah, thanks to everyone who put work into that.

I'm going to go away from the election.

Our friend Krista Kafer at this table mentioned it last week.

I just want to put a ditto on the shout out to George Sparks, who is retiring at the end of the year as the president CEO at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

He's done just a yeoman's job with that institution.

Beyond that, George is just one of the good guys, the thoughtful, bright, intellectual, good guys in this city that make this city run.

And whatever his next chapter holds, we wish him well.

Okay, ditto George, but Denver hope springs eternal once again.

The Rockies are horrible.

The Broncos have you scared to death.

But the nuggets are beginning to open their season.

So we got an opportunity.

Okay, let me go for my hire the week perpetually continually always is the blues I do have my harmonica here with me.

One of them one of my for my case my briefcase full of blues.

The Jimmy Jr Blues Band is playing back to back gigs this weekend.

A Friday night show at Lincoln's Roadhouse in Denver.

Fantastic.

One of my favorite venues to play for Made to Midnight.

And then on Saturday night, we're debuting at Brothers Bar and Grill in Lone Tree from 7 to 10 p.m.

it's going to be a blast.

Awesome.

All right.

Good good good.

So my high is a Colorado 14 year old who won the National Civic Speech in Washington, D.C.. Congrats to ninth grader Peter Daniel from Stargate Charter School in Thornton.

We actually have already met him during our PBS 12 coverage at the local and statewide civic speeches earlier this year.

So, insiders, I'm going to put you to the test and ask you the final question that Peter face in the National Civic Space.

Ready?

All right.

What took place under George Washington's presidency over a tax about alcohol and other fermented drinks, all right, Patty, what do you think that is?

You know, that's certainly my beat, but I'm not sure I know it.

Eric.

Any guesses?

Pass.

Oh, an.

I have no clue.

I rise on the tip of my tongue because that's my favorite era.

I believe they're the oh, the Whiskey Rebellion.

Okay, let's find out.

Peter, what is your answer?

The whiskey rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion era.

Oluwole, let's come down.

What is your answer?

Shays rebellion, Shays rebellion.

The correct answer is Whiskey Rebellion.

You describe Not only did Peter win the Bill Daniels National Civics Award, but also $100,000 and at 529 scholarship fund for when he is headed to college in a few years.

We are so proud of you, Peter, and expect great things from you one day.

If you are already showing such great leadership and civic knowledge.

Way to go and way to go, Jimmy was the Whiskey Rebellion.

It was on top of my town.

Well done.

All right.

Thanks.

Thanks, insiders, and thanks for watching along with us our listening to our podcast.

I am Kyle Dyer.

I will see you next week here on PBS 12 Colorado.

Everybody make sure and look through your ballot if you haven't already, and make time to vote.

PBS's 12 believes in the power of original local programing.

Help us bring more shows like the one you just watched by donating at PBS's 12 Dawgs program Support today.