In a letter to the editor by Susan and John Yates, they accused State Senate District 8 candidate Matt Solomon of publishing “misleading” information. The three examples they offer misrepresent Solomon’s statements. 

First, they wrote, “In his first letter regarding the Colorado Option Health Insurance Plan, Solomon claims that the number of people insured by the plan are few.” Solomon did not write that. Solomon actually wrote that Roberts claimed the plan would reduce insurance rates, ignoring “the Colorado Division of Insurance and the hospitals in your district, who voiced concern that the legislation would cover less than 10% of the policyholders in your district and that it would put upward pressure on insurance rates.”

Second, they wrote “Solomon claims that Roberts’ campaign has engaged in negative attacks. That is not true” because “when you look through all of Robert’s campaign platforms there is not a single negative word” about Solomon. Of course there isn’t. Platforms characterize candidates, opponents. Pro-Roberts “soft money” groups have repeatedly attacked Solomon through electronic and print media, social media, mailers, and emails. The Yates letter says Roberts “pledged to run a positive campaign focused on the issues.”  Possibly Roberts has not personally said a “negative word,” but his allies certainly have.

Third, they wrote that Solomon had written that “Roberts co-sponsored a bill to decrease penalties for drug possession” and that Solomon’s statement is not true. The bill, House Bill 19-1263, was not formally co-sponsored by Roberts, but he did support it and it did decrease penalties for possession of hard drugs, including fentanyl. The issue is not whether Roberts “co-sponsored” HB19-1263 or whether reducing penalties is “decriminalization,” but whether he voted to decrease penalties for possession of hard drugs, and he did.

Voters who disagree with Roberts’ soft on crime approach should vote for Solomon.