Today is Dec. 1, 2023, and here’s what you need to know:

As hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrators stood outside, Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday night unequivocally called on Coloradans – and, by extension, Americans – to stand behind Israel, which is at war with Hamas following the latter’s attack that killed 1,200 Israelis.    

“Our greatest strength is our ability to stand together to support the people of Israel in their time of need to be an example of hope and light that others can follow and to stand against hate,” the governor said.

Polis spoke at the Jewish National Fund-USA conference in Denver, which attracted thousands of attendees, and which, on its first night, also drew in hundreds of demonstrators, who banged on the windows and chanted, “Shut it down!” and “Free Palestine!” 

The nonprofit Jewish National Fund contributes heavily to Israel.

In his latest column, Ernest Luning explored the numerous presidential visits to Pueblo, which has attracted more sitting presidents than any other similarly sized city.  

After touring a wind turbine factory and delivering remarks about his economic agenda this week, Joe Biden can add Pueblo to Colorado cities he’s visited during his presidency, joining a long list of White House occupants who have made stops in Steel City.

By some accounts, the medium-sized industrial burg has attracted more sitting presidents than any other similarly sized city.

In the early years of the last century, that’s probably because Pueblo, a prominent union town and once one of the state’s largest cities, lay along rail lines, and that’s how presidents traveled. Since air travel took over, it’s remained a destination for many of the nation’s chief executives.

Presidents who have shown up in Pueblo over the decades include Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama – and, with his Nov. 29 visit, Biden.

Mere days after signing legislation that provides some respite from soaring property taxes, Gov. Jared Polis went on the offensive, calling on local governments to reduce their mill levies to offer more relief to homeowners. 

In a letter to local governments on Thursday, the governor effectively said the property tax relief adopted in the special session is insufficient.

“Now, it’s up to you – local elected officials – to do more, which is why I am urging you to reduce the tax rate (mill levy) in your district,” he said. 

Current and former officials who have been dealing with property tax issues for years appeared annoyed by the governor’s message. Some noted that taxing jurisdictions, in fact, have had that ability for years, effectively saying Polis’ suggestion – that they tackle the crisis – is not helpful.

Others said local governments, in fact, have responded. Several have already reduced mill levies or are seriously considering plans to.

Experts also noted that taxing jurisdictions face intense pressure to implement the provisions of the Democrat-backed property tax legislation, which created a new set of complications. 

Colorado’s second-highest court on Thursday declined to apply a major state Supreme Court decision retroactively and enable more people to challenge their criminal convictions.

In 2022, the Supreme Court issued Rojas v. People – a decision that eliminated a “troublesome relic” from the rules of evidence. Known as the “res gestae” doctrine, it enabled prosecutors to introduce evidence of a defendant’s other, uncharged misconduct. 

The goal of such other-acts evidence was to provide context for a person’s motive or plan to commit the offense they were on trial for. However, the doctrine instead became “a catchall for admitting all sorts of misdeeds and character evidence,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III in the Rojas opinion, with a danger that jurors would convict someone due to their “bad character.”

The question presented recently to the Court of Appeals was whether Rojas laid down a “watershed” rule giving convicted defendants the ability to challenge their convictions from years in the past, now that certain evidence would not be acceptable.

A three-judge appellate panel said no.