Mueh is a retired middle school science teacher and former president of the local teacher’s union, the Boulder Valley Education Association. She has served as a board member for the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and a trustee for the Public Employees’ Retirement Association, which manages the retirement accounts for public employees. Mueh said she came to Boulder in 1985 as a CU Boulder undergraduate and later earned a doctorate in from the university’s Biology Department.
Her major endorsers include Boulder County Commissioner Claire Levy, former Boulder Rep. Edie Hooton, councilmembers Tara Winer, Tina Marquis and Mark Wallach. She is also endorsed by teachers’ unions, Moms Demand Action and Safe Zones 4 Kids, a local organization that helped pass a ballot measure related to encampments of homeless people.
Her opponent in the Democratic primary is Junie Joseph.
Why are you running for the state legislature?
I’m called to this office because I’m devoted to public service, working collaboratively toward practical improvements in our systems and programs, and helping people gain access to opportunity. Through my career and my other passions, I’ve spent my adult life working toward these ideals. I’m running for this seat because I’m a consensus builder whose deep experience best fits what my community values. I’m running because the people in House District 10 hold a spectrum of opinions about the issues we face locally and at the state level, and I respect and value all as part of our collective HD10 voice. I’m called to represent HD10 because four of the biggest issues that Boulder cares most deeply about — science and the environment, reproductive health and justice, education, and the rights and well-being of current and retired workers — are the areas in which I’ve done decades of meaningful and dedicated work and the areas in which I hope to accomplish positive change. After recently completing over 30 years of teaching, this seat will be my next full-time endeavor. I’ve served my community for decades as a public school educator and engaged advocate, and I’m excited to begin this new chapter of service in the Colorado legislature.
What distinguishes you from your primary opponent?
I’m genuinely curious about, willing to listen to, and able to represent all of our HD10 voices instead of a subset of those.
I have a track record of hard work, leadership, and advocacy in science, education, labor, reproductive rights, and the long-term well-being of Colorado’s public servants. As our representative, it won’t be enough for me to just vote the right way or have my name included on a bill. I will offer perspectives borne of my boots-on-the-ground experience and deep understanding. My life in HD10 as an educator and an advocate has been about doing the practical work necessary to break down barriers for others, and I’ll continue that work as a legislator.
The issue of homelessness played a central role in Boulder’s municipal election in 2023. Yet, homelessness is influenced by factors outside a city’s control, such as the high cost of living and lack of mental health treatment capacity. What would you do at the state level to address homelessness in cities like Boulder?
It’s a multifaceted issue, and we have to look at components including policy, societal values, and resources. It’s not productive to lump all issues of housing instability into the big catchall of “homelessness.” A significant number of individuals among our homeless population have mental health or substance abuse issues, and adequate treatment options will help many in the long-term. This is largely an issue of resources, and while state funding for facilities would help, local governments also need to make treatment a priority. Larimer County has a new behavioral health facility, and Boulder County does not. State funding should be used to ensure Colorado cities, including Boulder, can adequately serve homeless populations, hopefully reducing the burden on places (i.e. Denver and Boulder) currently shouldering disproportionate responsibility. The high cost of living is indeed a factor for many Colorado families and individuals, and we should use state subsidies (e.g. money from Proposition 123 [use of income tax revenue approved by voters in 2022 to pay for affordable housing program] and other recently available funds) to incentivize communities to increase the supply of truly affordable housing and offer rental or mortgage assistance. We should also keep an eye on rapidly rising property taxes which undoubtedly have an effect on the ability of Coloradans to keep their homes.
In the 2023 city election, Boulder elected its mayor using a form of ranked-choice voting. Proponents of this voting method want to extend it to elect candidates for the Boulder City Council. They argue that to do this, state lawmakers must mandate the Colorado Secretary of State to establish new regulations enabling the city and county to conduct elections using a multi-winner form of ranked-choice voting. Would you support such legislation? Why or why not?
I would support Colorado legislation allowing a city or county to determine whether it wants to use a ranked-choice voting system. I see no difficulty if Boulder wants to determine the outcome of local elections via this system while Grand Junction does not.
As to whether I support ranked-choice voting, I’m still pondering that. I like policy that makes sense regardless of whether or not I like the outcome of any particular contest. In our recent mayoral election, the candidate with by far the most #1 rankings is not our mayor, and I question whether that outcome is understood as democratic by most Boulderites. [Editor’s note: Candidates needed at least 50% support to win under Boulder’s RCV system. Former Councilmember Bob Yates had 43% support in the first voting round, the most among the three candidates. When the second-choice votes were reallocated, Mayor Aaron Brockett won with 52% support.]
Would ranked-choice voting in our recent city council election have produced similar results where one candidate is defeated by someone with fewer #1 rankings? I’m not sure ranked-choice voting will have any significant effect on which candidates voters will choose, especially if there’s “slate” voting. We already have choice because we can vote for a number of candidates, and I’m not sure deep thought will go into whom to rank 3rd or 4th out of four candidates. Ranked-choice voting was initially interesting to me, but increasingly, it seems a system without significantly better or fairer results.
Earlier this year, lawmakers passed the “just cause” eviction bill, marking a significant legal change in renters’ rights. Some lawmakers want to further these protections by repealing a Colorado law that prohibits cities like Boulder from capping rent increases, a measure they believe would improve housing affordability. What are your thoughts on repealing this law?
I support taking action to limit rent increases, which might mean repealing or amending the state law. Private housing owners have little policy incentive to keep rental rates low, and it’s leading to serious societal problems. In the worst case, people who can’t afford rent are becoming unhoused. But many others are spending such a large percentage of income that they either can’t afford other expenses, or they can’t get ahead because they can’t save money for a down payment or education or other items. There’s no doubt that our housing imbalances, if left unregulated, will lead to wider wealth and income gaps. However, it seems likely right now that rent cap bills will be vetoed by Gov. Jared Polis, or killed in the legislature because of the threat of a veto. Some oppose rent caps because they might reduce the profit motive for new development. It’s a reasonable economic argument, but I think we’ll do better as legislators if we seek nuance instead of just either-or dichotomies. Beyond just repealing state law, we could look at differences between “rent caps” and rent stabilization, subsidies for rent-controlled units or housing assistance, or allowing local rent policy.
Last session, lawmakers introduced a bill that would have required state regulators to stop issuing new oil and gas drilling permits by 2030, in line with global commitments to zero out fossil fuel emissions responsible for global warming by midcentury. Gov. Jared Polis and many Democratic legislators were skeptical of the bill, and it was ultimately voted down in committee. What are your thoughts on restricting oil and gas drilling in Colorado for climate and public health reasons?
The 2019 bill on oil and gas regulations (SB 19-181) perhaps didn’t go far enough for some, but it was a major step forward at the time for allowing local control over oil and gas, and adding safety and environmental regulations. It was designed to address part of this very question — restricting drilling in given locations, partially for public health reasons. The 2024 bill that was defeated 5-2 in committee (SB 24-159) was a few steps too far, at least for some legislators’ comfort and for Gov. Polis. It had a relatively tight timeline for ending all new permits, and banning new drilling permits in Colorado wouldn’t mean consumers and businesses wouldn’t be burning fossil fuels from elsewhere. Carbon emissions are an undeniable factor in climate change, and it’s creating real problems in Colorado and worldwide. We might get better climate bang for the buck through many other actions — better transit, cleaner vehicles, smaller housing units, energy-efficient hardware — than we would with one state banning new permits. SB19-181 and later rulemaking are good examples of actions that might help minimize public health impacts.