Many people vote in the candidate races, such as US President and Senate, and leave some or all of the ballot issues blank. This “drop-off” can allow a small minority of people to get their agenda item in the state constitution. If you don’t know how you want to vote, you can always vote no and keep the status quo rather than not vote or vote for unintended consequences.
I hope this blog helps to educate voters and generates some conversation about the ballot issues. Warning: The descriptions below are very brief! Each ballot issue has its own blog entry if you would like more information or to make comments about the ballot issue. Please limit comments on this blog entry to general comments about the process or the election.
COLORADO BALLOT ISSUES
C = Constitutional (can only be changed by a voter-approved constitutional amendment)
- new = unwarranted constitutional amendment
- change = changing existing wording in the CO Constitution
S = Statutory (can be modified by the Colorado general assembly)
* = It is interesting to note that all the new tax measures have a de-Brucing clause to exempt future revenue from the TABOR (CO Constitution, Article X, Section 20) restrictions.
Initiatives
(Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.)
Amendment 46
Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Governments
Commonly referred to as the Anti-Affirmative Action Amendment.
(C – new)
NO
Amendment 47
Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues
Commonly referred to as the Right-to-Work Amendment.
Prohibits mandatory union membership.
(C – new)
no
Amendment 48
Definition of Person
Defines a “person” from the moment of fertilization.
(C – new)
NO
Amendment 49
Allowable Government Paychecks Deductions
Prohibits union dues from being deducted from payroll checks.
(C – new)
NO
Amendment 50*
Limited Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek
Allows gambling towns to increase bet limit from $5 to $100.
Major portion of increased tax revenue goes to community colleges.
(C – change)
lean no
Amendment 51*
State Sales Tax for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
Increase of $0.02 per $10 purchase by July 2010.
(S)
lean no
Amendment 52
Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Transportation
Reallocates some severance taxes from water projects to highways.
(C – new)
NO
WITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
Amendment 53
Criminal Accountability of Business Executives
Allows suits against business executives who know of a business failing to perform a legal duty.
(S)
lean yes
Amendment 54
Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors
The extended family and the leaders of any company or union which receives a government contract of $100,000 which had fewer than 3 bidders is prohibited from financially contributing to political parties or local and state candidates.
(C – new)
NO
WITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
Amendment 55
Allowable Causes for Employee Discharge or Suspension
Commonly referred to as the Just Cause Amendment.
(C – new)
no
WITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
Amendment 56
Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance
Requires employers with 20+ employees to provide health insurance for employees and dependents either directly or through a new state health insurance authority.
(C – new)
no
WITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
Amendment 57
Additional Remedies for Injured Employees
Allows injured employees to seek damages over workers’ compensation levels.
(S)
lean no
Amendment 58*
Severance Tax on Oil and Natural Gas Industry
Eliminates property tax credit for oil and gas producers.
Most of increased severance tax revenue goes to college scholarships.
(S)
yes
Amendment 59*
Education Funding and TABOR Rebates
Eliminates Amendment 23's automatic increase in P-12 education spending. Ends TABOR rebates, instead directing money to the State Education Fund. Creates a savings account for education and limits when its money can be spent.
(C – change)
yes
Referenda
(The general assembly put these on the ballot with a 2/3 vote.)
Ref L
Qualifications for Serving in the Legislature
Lowers the age from 25 to 21 for serving in the CO general assembly.
(C – change)
yes
Ref M
Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Relating to Land Value Increases
Provisions allow state to temporarily exempt trees from land value.
(C – change)
YES
Ref N
Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Relating to Alcohol beverages
Provisions have been superseded by federal rules and duplicated in state statute.
(C – change)
YES
Ref O
Citizen-Initiated State Laws
Increases the hurdles for constitutional changes.
Decreases the hurdles for statutory changes.
(C – change)
yes
BOULDER COUNTY BALLOT ISSUES
1A
Boulder County Clean Energy Options
Allows the county to take on debt in order to make loans to property owners wanting to make energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. Taxes would not increase.
YES
1B*
Worthy Cause 0.05% Sales/Use Tax Extension
To continue for 10 more years a tax paid since 2001 to fund capital improvements and equipment at local human services non-profits.
no
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUES
Tax Issues
201*
City Retention of Property Tax Funds
Allows the city to retain excess property tax funds up to .5 mills per year
for
202*
Sales and Use Tax Extension
Allows the 0.38% general fund city sales and use tax to continue indefinitely
FOR
Charter amendments
2A
City Council Compensation
Pays city council members $1000 per month instead of $174.31 per meeting.
for
2B
City Council Executive Sessions
Allows executive sessions if 2/3 of the council members present approve
lean against
2C
Amendment of Recall Election Procedures
Changes time from validation of recall petitions to election from within 40 days to 75-90 days
FOR
2D
Permit City Lease up to Forty Years
Allows city council to grant leases of 40 years rather than just 20 years
for
2E
Qualifications for Appointment to City Commissions
Allows people who are not city electors to serve on city commissions
against
OTHER BALLOT ISSUE SITES
Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_2008_ballot_measures
Bell Policy Center
http://www.thebell.org/
Ben’s Guide to the Colorado Ballot 2008
http://bendegrow.com/guide-to-colorado-ballot-2008/
Colorado Republican Business Coalition
http://www.smallbusinessrepublicans.com/issues/2008Ballot.htm
Colorado Index
http://thecoloradoindex.typepad.com/the_colorado_index/2008/09/updated-voters.html
Independence Institute
http://www.shakedowncolorado.org/issues-08/
League of Women Voters of Colorado (English and Spanish)
http://www.lwvcolorado.org/
League of Women Voters of Boulder County
http://lwvbc.org/
People's Press Collective
http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2008-colorado-ballot/
Your Colorado Ballot Initiatives Reference
http://www.coloradoballot.net/
COMMISSIONS ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE WEBSITE
http://www.cojudicialperformance.com/
Thanks to a reader for the website info above.
Information on retention of judges in your district is also in the hard copy of your "Blue Book" (aka 2008 State Ballot Information Booklet).
You can find information about the legislative session, the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Revised Statutes, etc. at the website http://www.leg.state.co.us/
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Amendment 46 -- Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Governments
This is commonly referred to as the Anti-Affirmative Action amendment. It would prohibit governments in Colorado from treating any individual or group differently in public employment, public education or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The measure provides exceptions to meet requirements for federal funding, for court orders and for bona fide qualifications (e.g. female prison guard for female inmates). The following government programs targeted at women and minorities would be eliminated under this measure: outreach, recruitment and training programs, scholarships, preferential treatment for women- and minority-owned businesses in public contracting.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Section 31 to Article II
Recommendation: NO
This amendment would eliminate many outreach, recruitment and training programs including efforts to increase the number of women and minority-owned businesses receiving government contracts. While it would eliminate 100 scholarships for women and minorities at CU-Boulder, it would still allow discrimination based on other factors such as being the child of an alumnus. It is easy to think that someone like you is more qualified than someone who is not like you. Affirmative action is an effort to encourage employers, university administrators, etc to consider hiring or admitting someone who is different from them. The goal is a truly integrated society at all levels and in all arenas. Meanwhile we should NOT add this to our constitution where it will be hard to tweak if problems arise.
Website for Yes side (Colorado Civil Rights Initiative)
http://www.coloradocri.org/
Website for No side (Progress Now Action)
http://www.votenoamendment46.com/
Amendment 46 (Approved ballot title below)
Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Governments
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting; allowing exceptions to the prohibition when bona fide qualifications based on sex are reasonably necessary or when action is necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funds; preserving the validity of court orders or consent decrees in effect at the time the measure becomes effective; defining "state" to include the state of Colorado, agencies or departments of the state, public institutions of higher education, political subdivisions, or governmental instrumentalities of or within the state; and making portions of the measure found invalid severable from the remainder of the measure?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Section 31 to Article II
Recommendation: NO
This amendment would eliminate many outreach, recruitment and training programs including efforts to increase the number of women and minority-owned businesses receiving government contracts. While it would eliminate 100 scholarships for women and minorities at CU-Boulder, it would still allow discrimination based on other factors such as being the child of an alumnus. It is easy to think that someone like you is more qualified than someone who is not like you. Affirmative action is an effort to encourage employers, university administrators, etc to consider hiring or admitting someone who is different from them. The goal is a truly integrated society at all levels and in all arenas. Meanwhile we should NOT add this to our constitution where it will be hard to tweak if problems arise.
Website for Yes side (Colorado Civil Rights Initiative)
http://www.coloradocri.org/
Website for No side (Progress Now Action)
http://www.votenoamendment46.com/
Amendment 46 (Approved ballot title below)
Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Governments
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting; allowing exceptions to the prohibition when bona fide qualifications based on sex are reasonably necessary or when action is necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funds; preserving the validity of court orders or consent decrees in effect at the time the measure becomes effective; defining "state" to include the state of Colorado, agencies or departments of the state, public institutions of higher education, political subdivisions, or governmental instrumentalities of or within the state; and making portions of the measure found invalid severable from the remainder of the measure?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Amendment 47 -- Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues
This is commonly referred to as the Right-to-Work amendment. In the private sector membership in a labor union and payment of dues is voluntary, but members of a labor union may vote to require all employees to pay their share of the collective bargaining cost. In the public sector the collective bargaining agreement sets forth requirements for labor union membership and payment of dues. This ballot measure would prohibit requiring an employee to pay money to or join a labor union as a condition of employment. Violation could carry a fine of between $500 and $5000. (Currently the Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943 http://www.coworkforce.com/lab/LaborPeaceAct.pdf governs labor-management relations. This amendment would considerably change those relations.)
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Section 16 to Article XVIII
Recommendation: no
This is the initiative that started the union vs anti-union fight. Because of this initiative, the unions retaliated with four amendments (53, 55, 56 and 57). Twenty-two states have right-to-work laws including all of Colorado’s neighbors except New Mexico, but only four of the states have Right to Work enshrined in their constitutions. Given the massive fight over this initiative, putting this in the constitution is worrisome, to say the least. In the early 20th century unions played an important role in improving working conditions. They continue to advocate for the worker and provide a balance to management. Opponents say that unions with fewer dues-paying members and therefore fewer resources would not be as effective in representing employees’ interests.
Website for Yes side (A Better Colorado)
http://www.abettercolorado.com/
Website for No side
http://thetruthabout47.org/
Amendment 47 (Approved ballot title below)
Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning participation in a labor organization as a condition of employment, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization and creating a misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person who violates the provisions of the section?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Section 16 to Article XVIII
Recommendation: no
This is the initiative that started the union vs anti-union fight. Because of this initiative, the unions retaliated with four amendments (53, 55, 56 and 57). Twenty-two states have right-to-work laws including all of Colorado’s neighbors except New Mexico, but only four of the states have Right to Work enshrined in their constitutions. Given the massive fight over this initiative, putting this in the constitution is worrisome, to say the least. In the early 20th century unions played an important role in improving working conditions. They continue to advocate for the worker and provide a balance to management. Opponents say that unions with fewer dues-paying members and therefore fewer resources would not be as effective in representing employees’ interests.
Website for Yes side (A Better Colorado)
http://www.abettercolorado.com/
Website for No side
http://thetruthabout47.org/
Amendment 47 (Approved ballot title below)
Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning participation in a labor organization as a condition of employment, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization and creating a misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person who violates the provisions of the section?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Amendment 48 -- Definition of Person
This ballot measure would define a “person” from the moment of egg fertilization. Nobody is hiding the fact that this is an anti-abortion measure, but it could have an impact on other reproductive issues.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Section 31 to Article II
Recommendation: NO
This is a roundabout and extreme way to try to outlaw abortion. It would require all the references to "person" in the constitution or the state statutes to be viewed in light of this amendment. Colorado's three Catholic bishops in the state must be aware of this as they are remaining neutral because of “serious questions” about the amendment’s “timing and content.” The ramifications of this proposal spill over to some forms of birth control, the care of a pregnant woman, miscarriages, in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research. Would death certificates have to be issued every time a woman has a miscarriage in her 5th week of pregnancy? Or perhaps the woman should be hauled off to jail on murder charges. You can see how ridiculous and scary passage of this amendment could be. This should NOT be in our state constitution.
Website for Yes side (Colorado for Equal Rights)
http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/
Website for No side (Protect Families Protect Choices)
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org/
Amendment 48 (Approved ballot title below)
Definition of Person
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person" to include any being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Section 31 to Article II
Recommendation: NO
This is a roundabout and extreme way to try to outlaw abortion. It would require all the references to "person" in the constitution or the state statutes to be viewed in light of this amendment. Colorado's three Catholic bishops in the state must be aware of this as they are remaining neutral because of “serious questions” about the amendment’s “timing and content.” The ramifications of this proposal spill over to some forms of birth control, the care of a pregnant woman, miscarriages, in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research. Would death certificates have to be issued every time a woman has a miscarriage in her 5th week of pregnancy? Or perhaps the woman should be hauled off to jail on murder charges. You can see how ridiculous and scary passage of this amendment could be. This should NOT be in our state constitution.
Website for Yes side (Colorado for Equal Rights)
http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/
Website for No side (Protect Families Protect Choices)
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org/
Amendment 48 (Approved ballot title below)
Definition of Person
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person" to include any being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Amendment 49 -- Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions
This ballot measure lists the allowable payroll deductions for any employee hired by the state or its political subdivisions. Many standard and legally required deductions are listed, but labor union dues are noticeably absent.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Article XXX
Recommendation: NO
This proposed constitutional amendment is more extreme than the “Ask First” measures that have been on ballots in some Colorado communities. Under “Ask First” an employer must have advance authorization before deducting union dues from a paycheck. Under this initiative state and local government employees would be prohibited from having their union dues and other professional organization fees deducted from their paycheck. Just as many people sign up for automatic billing, the automatic payroll deduction is a convenience (which people have the option to cancel), and this proposal wants to forbid a convenience through a constitutional amendment! This initiative would affect teachers, firefighters, police and other state and local public employees.
Website for Yes side (Ethical Standards Now)
http://www.ethicalstandardsnow.org/
Website for No side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Amendment 49 (Approved ballot title below)
Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning deductions from governmental payroll systems, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a governmental payroll system from payroll deduction from any government employee except deductions required by federal law, tax withholdings, judicial liens and garnishments, deductions for individual or group health benefits or other deductions for pension or retirement plans or systems, or other savings or investment programs, charitable deductions?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL change -- ADDS Article XXX
Recommendation: NO
This proposed constitutional amendment is more extreme than the “Ask First” measures that have been on ballots in some Colorado communities. Under “Ask First” an employer must have advance authorization before deducting union dues from a paycheck. Under this initiative state and local government employees would be prohibited from having their union dues and other professional organization fees deducted from their paycheck. Just as many people sign up for automatic billing, the automatic payroll deduction is a convenience (which people have the option to cancel), and this proposal wants to forbid a convenience through a constitutional amendment! This initiative would affect teachers, firefighters, police and other state and local public employees.
Website for Yes side (Ethical Standards Now)
http://www.ethicalstandardsnow.org/
Website for No side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Amendment 49 (Approved ballot title below)
Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning deductions from governmental payroll systems, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a governmental payroll system from payroll deduction from any government employee except deductions required by federal law, tax withholdings, judicial liens and garnishments, deductions for individual or group health benefits or other deductions for pension or retirement plans or systems, or other savings or investment programs, charitable deductions?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Amendment 50 -- Limited Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek
In 1990 Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing limited gambling in three mountain communities. This ballot issue would allow the communities to raise the maximum single bet from $5 to $100 and allow expanded hours and gaming options. The expected tax revenue increase would go toward community colleges (78%) and the affected towns and counties (22%).
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 9 of Article XVIII
Recommendation: lean no
I find it ridiculous that we have gaming limits spelled out in our state constitution. I’d vote in a minute to have the entire gaming portion of the constitution changed to statute. Meanwhile, community colleges in Colorado are underfunded, but, aside from the constitutional vs statutory question, I don’t like the proposed solution for the following reasons. During your education and especially if you study probability, you learn that gambling is a losing proposition. What kind of signal are we sending students by using gambling taxes to fund education? In addition, as long as bet limits are $5, one could argue that money spent in the gaming towns is more a form of entertainment than serious gambling. Some say that we should let grownups decide for themselves if they want to gamble (and they certainly can gamble any time on the stock market), but this proposal wouldn’t affect just individuals. It would affect whole communities. At least this proposal would allow the residents of the affected communities to determine their own fate.
Website for Yes side (Coloradans for Community Colleges)
http://sayyeson50.com/
Website for No side
http://keepvegasout.com/
Amendment 50 (Approved ballot title below)
Limited Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS TO LIMITED GAMING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ALLOWING THE LOCAL VOTERS IN CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK TO EXTEND CASINO HOURS OF OPERATION, APPROVED GAMES TO INCLUDE ROULETTE AND CRAPS OR BOTH, AND MAXIMUM SINGLE BETS UP TO $100; ADJUSTING DISTRIBUTIONS TO CURRENT GAMING FUND RECIPIENTS FOR GROWTH IN GAMING TAX REVENUE DUE TO VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN GAMING; DISTRIBUTING 78% OF THE REMAINING GAMING TAX REVENUE FROM THIS AMENDMENT FOR STUDENT FINANCIAL AID AND CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STUDENT ENROLLMENTS, AND 22% FOR LOCAL GAMING IMPACTS IN GILPIN AND TELLER COUNTIES AND THE CITIES OF CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF INCREASED TAX REVENUE FROM VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN EACH CITY OR COUNTY; AND REQUIRING ANY INCREASE IN GAMING TAXES FROM THE LEVELS IMPOSED AS OF JULY 1, 2008 TO BE APPROVED AT A STATEWIDE ELECTION, IF LOCAL VOTERS IN ONE OR MORE CITIES HAVE APPROVED ANY REVISION TO LIMITED GAMING?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 9 of Article XVIII
Recommendation: lean no
I find it ridiculous that we have gaming limits spelled out in our state constitution. I’d vote in a minute to have the entire gaming portion of the constitution changed to statute. Meanwhile, community colleges in Colorado are underfunded, but, aside from the constitutional vs statutory question, I don’t like the proposed solution for the following reasons. During your education and especially if you study probability, you learn that gambling is a losing proposition. What kind of signal are we sending students by using gambling taxes to fund education? In addition, as long as bet limits are $5, one could argue that money spent in the gaming towns is more a form of entertainment than serious gambling. Some say that we should let grownups decide for themselves if they want to gamble (and they certainly can gamble any time on the stock market), but this proposal wouldn’t affect just individuals. It would affect whole communities. At least this proposal would allow the residents of the affected communities to determine their own fate.
Website for Yes side (Coloradans for Community Colleges)
http://sayyeson50.com/
Website for No side
http://keepvegasout.com/
Amendment 50 (Approved ballot title below)
Limited Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS TO LIMITED GAMING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ALLOWING THE LOCAL VOTERS IN CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK TO EXTEND CASINO HOURS OF OPERATION, APPROVED GAMES TO INCLUDE ROULETTE AND CRAPS OR BOTH, AND MAXIMUM SINGLE BETS UP TO $100; ADJUSTING DISTRIBUTIONS TO CURRENT GAMING FUND RECIPIENTS FOR GROWTH IN GAMING TAX REVENUE DUE TO VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN GAMING; DISTRIBUTING 78% OF THE REMAINING GAMING TAX REVENUE FROM THIS AMENDMENT FOR STUDENT FINANCIAL AID AND CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STUDENT ENROLLMENTS, AND 22% FOR LOCAL GAMING IMPACTS IN GILPIN AND TELLER COUNTIES AND THE CITIES OF CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF INCREASED TAX REVENUE FROM VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN EACH CITY OR COUNTY; AND REQUIRING ANY INCREASE IN GAMING TAXES FROM THE LEVELS IMPOSED AS OF JULY 1, 2008 TO BE APPROVED AT A STATEWIDE ELECTION, IF LOCAL VOTERS IN ONE OR MORE CITIES HAVE APPROVED ANY REVISION TO LIMITED GAMING?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Amendment 51 -- State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
Examples of developmental disabilities are mental retardation, autism, Down syndrome and cerebral palsy. This tax of 1 penny on a $10 purchase beginning in July 2009 and a similar increase in July 2010 would be spent on services for people with developmental disabilities. The new revenue would be exempt from TABOR spending limits and could not replace the current level of funding for developmental disabilities unless there was a declaration of a state fiscal emergency.
STATUTORY Change
Recommendation: lean no
I want this amendment to lose by 15 votes. I want to send a signal to the general assembly that we need to continue increasing funding for people with developmental disabilities (as we were able to do with Referendum C passed in 2005) but I don’t want an earmark that will tie the hands of our legislators.
Website for Yes side (End Colorado Waitlist)
http://endcoloradowaitlist.org/
Website for No side (No State Tax Hike)
http://www.nostatetaxhike.com/
Amendment 51 (Approved ballot title below)
State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $186.1 MILLION ANNUALLY AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2009, BY ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT IN EACH OF THE NEXT TWO FISCAL YEARS; PERMITTING THE STATE TO RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM THE NEW TAX, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE SPENDING LIMIT; REQUIRING AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NET REVENUE FROM THE NEW TAX TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE NEWLY CREATED DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES LONG-TERM SERVICES CASH FUND; REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE USED TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; AND PROHIBITING REDUCTIONS IN THE LEVEL OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS MEASURE FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
STATUTORY Change
Recommendation: lean no
I want this amendment to lose by 15 votes. I want to send a signal to the general assembly that we need to continue increasing funding for people with developmental disabilities (as we were able to do with Referendum C passed in 2005) but I don’t want an earmark that will tie the hands of our legislators.
Website for Yes side (End Colorado Waitlist)
http://endcoloradowaitlist.org/
Website for No side (No State Tax Hike)
http://www.nostatetaxhike.com/
Amendment 51 (Approved ballot title below)
State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $186.1 MILLION ANNUALLY AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2009, BY ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT IN EACH OF THE NEXT TWO FISCAL YEARS; PERMITTING THE STATE TO RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM THE NEW TAX, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE SPENDING LIMIT; REQUIRING AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NET REVENUE FROM THE NEW TAX TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE NEWLY CREATED DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES LONG-TERM SERVICES CASH FUND; REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE USED TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; AND PROHIBITING REDUCTIONS IN THE LEVEL OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS MEASURE FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Amendment 52 -- Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways
Severance taxes are paid by companies that extract nonrenewable natural resources (e.g. oil, natural gas, coal). The state and local governments equally split the revenue. This measure would cap future amounts going to current state programs, primarily water projects. Growth in the state portion of the severance tax revenue would go toward a new highway fund with a priority on congestion relief on Interstate-70.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 22 to Article X.
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: NO
In my humble opinion, water is a more vital need than highways. Also this would be the first mention of severance tax revenue in the Colorado Constitution, opening up a whole can of worms by having severance tax rules in both the Colorado Revised Statutes and the state constitution.
Website for Yes side (Better Roads Now)
http://www.betterroadsnow.com/
Website for No side (Responsible Colorado)
http://responsiblecolorado.com/
Amendment 52 (Approved ballot title below)
Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the allocation of revenues from the state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels other than oil shale that are extracted in the state, and, in connection therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the revenues to be credited to the local government severance tax fund and the remaining revenues to be credited first to the severance tax trust fund until an annually calculated limit is reached and then to a new Colorado transportation trust fund, which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 22 to Article X.
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: NO
In my humble opinion, water is a more vital need than highways. Also this would be the first mention of severance tax revenue in the Colorado Constitution, opening up a whole can of worms by having severance tax rules in both the Colorado Revised Statutes and the state constitution.
Website for Yes side (Better Roads Now)
http://www.betterroadsnow.com/
Website for No side (Responsible Colorado)
http://responsiblecolorado.com/
Amendment 52 (Approved ballot title below)
Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the allocation of revenues from the state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels other than oil shale that are extracted in the state, and, in connection therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the revenues to be credited to the local government severance tax fund and the remaining revenues to be credited first to the severance tax trust fund until an annually calculated limit is reached and then to a new Colorado transportation trust fund, which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
WITHDRAWN (Amendment 53 -- Criminal Accountability of Business Executives)
WTITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
Currently businesses may be found guilty of illegal conduct or of not performing required duties and individuals may be prosecuted for illegal conduct, but this ballot measure would extend criminal liability to business executives who are aware of a legal duty that the business has failed to perform. If an executive becomes aware of his or her business’s criminal conduct prior to charges being filed, disclosure to the attorney general of all facts may be used as a defense to criminal charges.
STATUTORY Change
Recommendation: lean yes
Part of the responsibility of being a business executive or a board member of an organization (even as a volunteer) is knowing the applicable rules and following them. Whistleblowers have been harassed in our society for doing the public good. Instead we should encourage everyone, especially those at the top levels, to be whistleblowers. I think this amendment lacks a clause allowing business executives 3 months to learn and understand the rules before being liable for criminal conduct, but since this is a proposed statutory change, the general assembly could modify the law.
Website for Yes side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 53 (Approved ballot title below)
Criminal Accountability of Business Executives
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes extending the criminal liability of a business entity to its executive officials for the entity's failure to perform a specific duty imposed by law, and, in connection therewith, conditioning an executive official's liability upon his or her knowledge of the duty imposed by law and of the business entity's failure to perform such duty; and allowing an executive official who discloses to the attorney general all facts known to the official concerning a business's criminal conduct to use that disclosure as an affirmative defense to criminal charges?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Currently businesses may be found guilty of illegal conduct or of not performing required duties and individuals may be prosecuted for illegal conduct, but this ballot measure would extend criminal liability to business executives who are aware of a legal duty that the business has failed to perform. If an executive becomes aware of his or her business’s criminal conduct prior to charges being filed, disclosure to the attorney general of all facts may be used as a defense to criminal charges.
STATUTORY Change
Recommendation: lean yes
Part of the responsibility of being a business executive or a board member of an organization (even as a volunteer) is knowing the applicable rules and following them. Whistleblowers have been harassed in our society for doing the public good. Instead we should encourage everyone, especially those at the top levels, to be whistleblowers. I think this amendment lacks a clause allowing business executives 3 months to learn and understand the rules before being liable for criminal conduct, but since this is a proposed statutory change, the general assembly could modify the law.
Website for Yes side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 53 (Approved ballot title below)
Criminal Accountability of Business Executives
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes extending the criminal liability of a business entity to its executive officials for the entity's failure to perform a specific duty imposed by law, and, in connection therewith, conditioning an executive official's liability upon his or her knowledge of the duty imposed by law and of the business entity's failure to perform such duty; and allowing an executive official who discloses to the attorney general all facts known to the official concerning a business's criminal conduct to use that disclosure as an affirmative defense to criminal charges?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Amendment 54 -- Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors
For any holder of a government contract valued at $100,000 or more which had fewer than 3 bidders, the officers, trustees, directors and major shareholders of the company or labor union and their extended families (e.g. grandparent, stepsister, niece, spouse’s child, domestic partner) would be prohibited from making any contributions to political parties or non-federal candidates for the duration of the contract and the subsequent two years. A database would be created and maintained at the state level to enforce these provisions. Financial contributors to ballot issues would be prohibited from entering into contracts related to the ballot issue. Any registered voter could file a complaint. Penalties include ineligibility to receive contracts for three years and removal of elected officeholders who received contributions. (Under current law, collective bargaining agreements are not considered no-bid agreements.)
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Sections 2 and 15-17 to Article XXVIII and AMENDS Section 13 (regarding the date the change would take effect) in Article XXVIII
Recommendation: NO
The provision that applies to the extended families is enough to make this proposal worthy of outright rejection. The penalties are severe, and free-speech rights are curtailed because affected people are so limited in their ability to make campaign donations. If it were to pass, it would either suppress financial involvement in politics or it would bring extended families together because you would have to know what almost all your relatives are doing in order to make sure that you were not violating the constitution. (This amendment brings back the bad vibes engendered by Amendment 41 -- passed in 2006 -- which applied to giving “gifts” to any non-federal public employee or a member of his or her family and whose violations were solely complaint-driven.)
Website for Yes side (Clean Government Colorado)
http://www.cleangovernmentcolorado.com/
Website for No side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Amendment 54 (Approved ballot title below)
Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning restrictions on campaign contributions, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the holder of contracts totaling $100,000 or more, as indexed for inflation, awarded by state or local governments without competitive bidding ("sole source government contracts"), including certain collective bargaining agreements, from making a contribution for the benefit of a political party or candidate for elective office during the term of the contracts and for 2 years thereafter; disqualifying a person who makes a contribution in a ballot issue election from entering into a sole source government contract related to the ballot issue; and imposing liability and penalties on contract holders, certain of their owners, officers and directors, and government officials for violations of the amendment?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Sections 2 and 15-17 to Article XXVIII and AMENDS Section 13 (regarding the date the change would take effect) in Article XXVIII
Recommendation: NO
The provision that applies to the extended families is enough to make this proposal worthy of outright rejection. The penalties are severe, and free-speech rights are curtailed because affected people are so limited in their ability to make campaign donations. If it were to pass, it would either suppress financial involvement in politics or it would bring extended families together because you would have to know what almost all your relatives are doing in order to make sure that you were not violating the constitution. (This amendment brings back the bad vibes engendered by Amendment 41 -- passed in 2006 -- which applied to giving “gifts” to any non-federal public employee or a member of his or her family and whose violations were solely complaint-driven.)
Website for Yes side (Clean Government Colorado)
http://www.cleangovernmentcolorado.com/
Website for No side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Amendment 54 (Approved ballot title below)
Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning restrictions on campaign contributions, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the holder of contracts totaling $100,000 or more, as indexed for inflation, awarded by state or local governments without competitive bidding ("sole source government contracts"), including certain collective bargaining agreements, from making a contribution for the benefit of a political party or candidate for elective office during the term of the contracts and for 2 years thereafter; disqualifying a person who makes a contribution in a ballot issue election from entering into a sole source government contract related to the ballot issue; and imposing liability and penalties on contract holders, certain of their owners, officers and directors, and government officials for violations of the amendment?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
WITHDRAWN (Amendment 55 -- Allowable Reasons for Employee Discharge or Suspension)
WTITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
This would prohibit private employers not participating in a collective bargaining agreement from firing or suspending full-time employees except for incompetence, substandard performance or neglect of job duties, repeated violation of work policies, gross insubordination or misconduct, conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, employer bankruptcy or documented adverse economic circumstances affecting the employer. An employee who believes he or she was fired or suspended improperly may sue the employer.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 13 to Article XVIII.
Recommendation: no
Montana is the only state in the US with a “Just Cause” law. It was enacted into state statute in 1987. It seems to me that having a just cause for firing someone is a laudable goal, but putting this proposal in the constitution is a concern. I’m not worried about having Colorado be only the second state with a just cause law. I’m worried about being the first state to put it into our constitution.
Website for Yes side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 55 (Approved ballot title below)
Allowable Reasons for Employee Discharge or Suspension
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning cause for employee discharge or suspension, and, in connection therewith, requiring an employer to establish and document just cause for the discharge or suspension of a full-time employee; defining "just cause" to mean specified types of employee misconduct and substandard job performance, the filing of bankruptcy by the employer, or documented economic circumstances that directly and adversely affect the employer; exempting from the just cause requirement business entities that employ fewer than twenty employees, nonprofit organizations that employ fewer than one thousand employees, governmental entities, and employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that requires just cause for discharge or suspension; allowing an employee who believes he or she was discharged or suspended without just cause to file a civil action in state district court; allowing a court that finds an employee’s discharge or suspension to be in violation of this amendment to award reinstatement in the employee's former job, back wages, damages, or any combination thereof; and allowing the court to award attorneys fees to the prevailing party?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
This would prohibit private employers not participating in a collective bargaining agreement from firing or suspending full-time employees except for incompetence, substandard performance or neglect of job duties, repeated violation of work policies, gross insubordination or misconduct, conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, employer bankruptcy or documented adverse economic circumstances affecting the employer. An employee who believes he or she was fired or suspended improperly may sue the employer.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 13 to Article XVIII.
Recommendation: no
Montana is the only state in the US with a “Just Cause” law. It was enacted into state statute in 1987. It seems to me that having a just cause for firing someone is a laudable goal, but putting this proposal in the constitution is a concern. I’m not worried about having Colorado be only the second state with a just cause law. I’m worried about being the first state to put it into our constitution.
Website for Yes side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 55 (Approved ballot title below)
Allowable Reasons for Employee Discharge or Suspension
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning cause for employee discharge or suspension, and, in connection therewith, requiring an employer to establish and document just cause for the discharge or suspension of a full-time employee; defining "just cause" to mean specified types of employee misconduct and substandard job performance, the filing of bankruptcy by the employer, or documented economic circumstances that directly and adversely affect the employer; exempting from the just cause requirement business entities that employ fewer than twenty employees, nonprofit organizations that employ fewer than one thousand employees, governmental entities, and employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that requires just cause for discharge or suspension; allowing an employee who believes he or she was discharged or suspended without just cause to file a civil action in state district court; allowing a court that finds an employee’s discharge or suspension to be in violation of this amendment to award reinstatement in the employee's former job, back wages, damages, or any combination thereof; and allowing the court to award attorneys fees to the prevailing party?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
WITHDRAWN (Amendment 56 -- Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance)
WTITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
This would require private employers with at least 20 employees to offer health insurance to both employees and their dependents either directly or through paying premiums to a health insurance authority set up by the state of Colorado. The employee may pay at most 20% of his or her coverage and 30% of the dependent coverage. If this ballot issue is approved by the voters, the legislature would define the minimum components of the required health care coverage.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 16 to Article XVIII.
Recommendation: no
This amendment is clearly born out of frustration with the lack of health care action at the national level and unhappiness with the results of the 208 Commission established to come up with a solution for Colorado. This amendment continues to tie health insurance to employment status, which I think is a mistake, while putting such a change into the constitution where it would be very hard to change. I would prefer that such a far-reaching amendment be placed in the Colorado Revised Statutes. If the general assembly were then to tinker with it to the disappointment of citizens, we could revisit the constitutional amendment idea. This amendment excludes employees of small companies, contract labor and any public employees. It does include part-time employees, a provision which could adversely affect small businesses such as restaurants.
Website for Yes side (Coloradans for Middle Class Relief)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://ufcw7.canvastoolbox.com/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 56 (Approved ballot title below)
Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning health care coverage for employees, and, in connection therewith, requiring employers that regularly employ twenty or more employees to provide major medical health care coverage to their employees; excluding the state and its political subdivisions from the definition of "employer"; allowing an employer to provide such health care coverage either directly through a carrier, company, or organization or acting as a self-insurer, or indirectly by paying premiums to a health insurance authority to be created pursuant to this measure that will contract with health insurance carriers, companies, and organizations to provide coverage to employees; providing that employees shall not be required to pay more than twenty percent of the premium for such coverage for themselves and more than thirty percent of such coverage for the employees' dependents; financing the costs of administering the health insurance authority and health care coverage provided through the authority with premiums paid by employers to the authority and, if necessary, such revenue sources other than the state general fund as determined by the general assembly; directing the general assembly to enact such laws as are necessary to implement the measure; and setting the effective date of the measure to be no later than November 1, 2009?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
This would require private employers with at least 20 employees to offer health insurance to both employees and their dependents either directly or through paying premiums to a health insurance authority set up by the state of Colorado. The employee may pay at most 20% of his or her coverage and 30% of the dependent coverage. If this ballot issue is approved by the voters, the legislature would define the minimum components of the required health care coverage.
Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Section 16 to Article XVIII.
Recommendation: no
This amendment is clearly born out of frustration with the lack of health care action at the national level and unhappiness with the results of the 208 Commission established to come up with a solution for Colorado. This amendment continues to tie health insurance to employment status, which I think is a mistake, while putting such a change into the constitution where it would be very hard to change. I would prefer that such a far-reaching amendment be placed in the Colorado Revised Statutes. If the general assembly were then to tinker with it to the disappointment of citizens, we could revisit the constitutional amendment idea. This amendment excludes employees of small companies, contract labor and any public employees. It does include part-time employees, a provision which could adversely affect small businesses such as restaurants.
Website for Yes side (Coloradans for Middle Class Relief)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://ufcw7.canvastoolbox.com/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 56 (Approved ballot title below)
Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning health care coverage for employees, and, in connection therewith, requiring employers that regularly employ twenty or more employees to provide major medical health care coverage to their employees; excluding the state and its political subdivisions from the definition of "employer"; allowing an employer to provide such health care coverage either directly through a carrier, company, or organization or acting as a self-insurer, or indirectly by paying premiums to a health insurance authority to be created pursuant to this measure that will contract with health insurance carriers, companies, and organizations to provide coverage to employees; providing that employees shall not be required to pay more than twenty percent of the premium for such coverage for themselves and more than thirty percent of such coverage for the employees' dependents; financing the costs of administering the health insurance authority and health care coverage provided through the authority with premiums paid by employers to the authority and, if necessary, such revenue sources other than the state general fund as determined by the general assembly; directing the general assembly to enact such laws as are necessary to implement the measure; and setting the effective date of the measure to be no later than November 1, 2009?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
WITHDRAWN (Amendment 57 -- Additional Remedies for Injured Employees)
WTITHDRAWN - Will appear on ballot, but votes won't count.
This would allow an employee injured on the job to file suit to seek compensation beyond that already allowed under workers’ compensation if the employee believes that lack of a safe and healthy workplace contributed to the injury. Only employers with 10 or more employees would be subject to such suits.
STATUTORY Change
Recommendation: lean no
Of the four amendments (53, 55, 56 and 57) petitioned onto the ballot in retaliation for Amendment 47, this one appears to have the least support from organized groups. Allowing damages over workers’ compensation levels might be a good idea, but I need to hear more before I'd be willing to change the current law.
Website for Yes side (Coloradans for Middle Class Relief)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://ufcw7.canvastoolbox.com/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 57 (Approved ballot title below)
Additional Remedies for Injured Employees
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a safe workplace for employees, and, in connection therewith, requiring employers to provide safe and healthy workplaces for their employees; restricting such requirement to employers regularly employing ten or more employees in the state; and enabling employees who are injured because of an employer's violation of this requirement to file suit in district court, with the right to a jury trial, to recover compensatory and exemplary damages, actual past or future pecuniary losses, and noneconomic losses including pain and suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, but prohibiting injured employees from recovering any damages for which the employee already received compensation pursuant to the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado"?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
This would allow an employee injured on the job to file suit to seek compensation beyond that already allowed under workers’ compensation if the employee believes that lack of a safe and healthy workplace contributed to the injury. Only employers with 10 or more employees would be subject to such suits.
STATUTORY Change
Recommendation: lean no
Of the four amendments (53, 55, 56 and 57) petitioned onto the ballot in retaliation for Amendment 47, this one appears to have the least support from organized groups. Allowing damages over workers’ compensation levels might be a good idea, but I need to hear more before I'd be willing to change the current law.
Website for Yes side (Coloradans for Middle Class Relief)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://ufcw7.canvastoolbox.com/
Website for No side (Coloradans for Responsible Reform)
http://www.nopoisonpills.com/
Amendment 57 (Approved ballot title below)
Additional Remedies for Injured Employees
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a safe workplace for employees, and, in connection therewith, requiring employers to provide safe and healthy workplaces for their employees; restricting such requirement to employers regularly employing ten or more employees in the state; and enabling employees who are injured because of an employer's violation of this requirement to file suit in district court, with the right to a jury trial, to recover compensatory and exemplary damages, actual past or future pecuniary losses, and noneconomic losses including pain and suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, but prohibiting injured employees from recovering any damages for which the employee already received compensation pursuant to the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado"?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Amendment 58 -- Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
This would 1) eliminate a state tax credit thereby increasing the severance tax paid by companies that extract oil and natural gas, 2) increase the number of wells subject to the severance tax, 3) tax companies earning $300,000 a year at 5% but eliminate severance tax for companies earning less than $300,000, 4) not constrain future severance tax revenue to the TABOR collection or spending limitations, 5) allocate future severance tax revenue as follows: 22% state, 22% local, and 56% Stabilization Trust Fund (60% college Colorado Promise scholarships, 15% for wildlife habitat, 10% for energy efficiency and clean energy, 10% for transportation, 5% for drinking water and wastewater with a set-aside for a reserve account ). A portion of the Stabilization Trust Fund would consist of a reserve account presumably with the transfers eventually going to the recipients outlined above. The expected increase in collections is estimated to provide the existing revenue recipients (50% state programs and 50% local governments) with approximately the same revenue over the next 4 years.
STATUTORY Change
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: yes
This amendment is an attempt to find more revenue for our state which has been squeezed financially since the economic downturn at the beginning of this decade. I would prefer that a large portion of the severance tax go to the general fund instead of more than half going to earmarks. The Blue Book draft analysis noted that Colorado has the lowest actual severance tax rate of the eight western states that are large oil and natural gas producers when exemptions, deductions, and credits are taken into account. This measure would raise the ranking to the third lowest.
Website for Yes side (A Smarter Colorado)
http://www.asmartercolorado.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for a Stable Economy)
http://www.voteno58.com/
Amendment 58 (Approved ballot title below)
Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $321.4 MILLION ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR TAXABLE YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2009, CHANGING THE TAX TO 5% OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE WHEN THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL GROSS INCOME IS AT LEAST $300,000; ELIMINATING A CREDIT AGAINST THE SEVERANCE TAX FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS AND INTEREST OWNERS; REDUCING THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION THAT QUALIFIES WELLS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX; EXEMPTING REVENUES FROM THE TAX AND RELATED INVESTMENT INCOME FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS; AND REQUIRING THE TAX REVENUES TO BE CREDITED AS FOLLOWS: (A) 22% TO THE SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND, (B) 22% TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE TAX FUND, AND (C) 56% TO A NEW SEVERANCE TAX STABILIZATION TRUST FUND, OF WHICH 60% IS USED TO FUND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLORADO RESIDENTS ATTENDING STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 15% TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT, 10% TO FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, 10% TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IMPACTED BY THE SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS, AND 5% TO FUND COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
STATUTORY Change
Amendment 52 and Amendment 58 have conflicting provisions on the allocation of severance tax revenue. If voters approve both amendments, Amendment 52 would presumably take precedence since it is a constitutional amendment.
Recommendation: yes
This amendment is an attempt to find more revenue for our state which has been squeezed financially since the economic downturn at the beginning of this decade. I would prefer that a large portion of the severance tax go to the general fund instead of more than half going to earmarks. The Blue Book draft analysis noted that Colorado has the lowest actual severance tax rate of the eight western states that are large oil and natural gas producers when exemptions, deductions, and credits are taken into account. This measure would raise the ranking to the third lowest.
Website for Yes side (A Smarter Colorado)
http://www.asmartercolorado.org/
Website for No side (Coloradans for a Stable Economy)
http://www.voteno58.com/
Amendment 58 (Approved ballot title below)
Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $321.4 MILLION ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR TAXABLE YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2009, CHANGING THE TAX TO 5% OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE WHEN THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL GROSS INCOME IS AT LEAST $300,000; ELIMINATING A CREDIT AGAINST THE SEVERANCE TAX FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS AND INTEREST OWNERS; REDUCING THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION THAT QUALIFIES WELLS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX; EXEMPTING REVENUES FROM THE TAX AND RELATED INVESTMENT INCOME FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS; AND REQUIRING THE TAX REVENUES TO BE CREDITED AS FOLLOWS: (A) 22% TO THE SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND, (B) 22% TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE TAX FUND, AND (C) 56% TO A NEW SEVERANCE TAX STABILIZATION TRUST FUND, OF WHICH 60% IS USED TO FUND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLORADO RESIDENTS ATTENDING STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 15% TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT, 10% TO FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, 10% TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IMPACTED BY THE SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS, AND 5% TO FUND COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Amendment 59 -- Education Funding and TABOR Rebates
This initiative would 1) set aside money up to a certain threshold in a savings account within the State Education Fund for preschool through 12th grade (P-12) education and limit when the savings account money can be spent, 2) allow certain transfers from the general fund to the State Education Fund after required transfers to the Highway Users Tax Fund are made, 3) eliminate the inflationary increase in P-12 education spending currently required by the Amendment 23 provision, and 4) eliminate TABOR rebates (when the state collects more money than is allowed) putting the money in the State Education Fund. The first two provisions listed above would take effect in the 2009-10 fiscal year, but the other provisions would only take effect in the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 17 of Article IX and ADDS a subsection to Section 20 of Article X
Recommendation: yes
Amendment 23 and the TABOR rebates have handcuffed the general assembly in its ability to budget for our state. This amendment would get rid of both of those handcuffs. It also allows the state to set aside money for education in an economic downturn. Because P-12 education is the biggest chunk of the state budget and we are taking away Amendment 23’s provisions of guaranteed funding, it is reasonable for the TABOR rebates to go into the State Education Fund. Although taxpayers might be unhappy about not getting future rebates, revenue collection (e.g. taxes) is still constrained by TABOR. Meanwhile, the hope is that the P-12 education system in our state will improve.
Website for Yes side (Savings Account for Education Initiative)
http://www.coloradosafe.org/
Website for No side (Strike a Better Balance)
http://www.strikeabetterbalance.com/
Amendment 59 (Approved ballot title below)
Education Funding and TABOR Rebates
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE FUNDS PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR THE 2010-11 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, REQUIRING THAT ANY REVENUE THAT THE STATE WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO REFUND PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING BE TRANSFERRED INSTEAD TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR THE 2011-12 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE STATEWIDE BASE PER PUPIL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE AND THE TOTAL STATE FUNDING FOR ALL CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS INCREASE ANNUALLY BY AT LEAST THE RATE OF INFLATION; CREATING A SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF THE STATE INCOME TAX REVENUE THAT IS DEPOSITED IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND BE CREDITED TO THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING EITHER A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR, IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH COLORADO PERSONAL INCOME GROWS LESS THAN SIX PERCENT BETWEEN THE TWO PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEARS, A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO USE THE MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT; ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT MAY BE SPENT; ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAY BE IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO TRANSFER MONEYS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND, SO LONG AS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ARE MET?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 17 of Article IX and ADDS a subsection to Section 20 of Article X
Recommendation: yes
Amendment 23 and the TABOR rebates have handcuffed the general assembly in its ability to budget for our state. This amendment would get rid of both of those handcuffs. It also allows the state to set aside money for education in an economic downturn. Because P-12 education is the biggest chunk of the state budget and we are taking away Amendment 23’s provisions of guaranteed funding, it is reasonable for the TABOR rebates to go into the State Education Fund. Although taxpayers might be unhappy about not getting future rebates, revenue collection (e.g. taxes) is still constrained by TABOR. Meanwhile, the hope is that the P-12 education system in our state will improve.
Website for Yes side (Savings Account for Education Initiative)
http://www.coloradosafe.org/
Website for No side (Strike a Better Balance)
http://www.strikeabetterbalance.com/
Amendment 59 (Approved ballot title below)
Education Funding and TABOR Rebates
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE FUNDS PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR THE 2010-11 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, REQUIRING THAT ANY REVENUE THAT THE STATE WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO REFUND PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING BE TRANSFERRED INSTEAD TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR THE 2011-12 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE STATEWIDE BASE PER PUPIL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE AND THE TOTAL STATE FUNDING FOR ALL CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS INCREASE ANNUALLY BY AT LEAST THE RATE OF INFLATION; CREATING A SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF THE STATE INCOME TAX REVENUE THAT IS DEPOSITED IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND BE CREDITED TO THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING EITHER A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR, IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH COLORADO PERSONAL INCOME GROWS LESS THAN SIX PERCENT BETWEEN THE TWO PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEARS, A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO USE THE MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT; ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT MAY BE SPENT; ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAY BE IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO TRANSFER MONEYS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND, SO LONG AS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ARE MET?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Referendum L -- Qualifications for Serving in the State Legislature
This referendum would lower the age requirement for serving in either house of the general assembly from 25 to 21 years.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 4 of Article V.
Recommendation: yes
Voters can easily understand this straightforward measure and can vote according to their personal philosophy. Even if the measure passes, Colorado may not see anybody younger than 25 in the general assembly for a long time. In 1998 Boulder lowered its age requirement for city council members, and although people under the age of 25 have run for city council, but none of them has won election. (I find it strange that Ref L, unlike the other referenda, is not posed as a question.)
Referendum L (Approved ballot title below)
Qualifications for Serving in the State Legislature
An amendment to section 4 of article V of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning the ability of an elector of the state of Colorado who has attained the age of twenty-one years to serve as a member of the Colorado general assembly.
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 4 of Article V.
Recommendation: yes
Voters can easily understand this straightforward measure and can vote according to their personal philosophy. Even if the measure passes, Colorado may not see anybody younger than 25 in the general assembly for a long time. In 1998 Boulder lowered its age requirement for city council members, and although people under the age of 25 have run for city council, but none of them has won election. (I find it strange that Ref L, unlike the other referenda, is not posed as a question.)
Referendum L (Approved ballot title below)
Qualifications for Serving in the State Legislature
An amendment to section 4 of article V of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning the ability of an elector of the state of Colorado who has attained the age of twenty-one years to serve as a member of the Colorado general assembly.
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Referendum M -- Obsolete Constitutional Provision Relating to Land Value Increases
This referendum would take out a provision that allows the general assembly to delay for a limited time the taxation of the improvement of land caused by the planting of hedges, orchards or forests. Currently state statute excludes from taxation for 30 years any increase in the value of private land due to the planting of trees. A separate section of the constitution defines allowable tax exemptions but doesn't allow for an exemption for hedges, orchards or forests.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- REPEALS Section 7 of Article XVIII.
Recommendation: YES
Let’s take the junk out of the Colorado Constitution.
Referendum M (Approved ballot title below)
Obsolete Constitutional Provision Relating to Land Value Increases
Shall section 7 of article XVIII of the state constitution concerning outdated, obsolete provisions regarding land value increase be repealed?
Yes ________________ No ________________
See Section 3 of Article X of the constitution which I think contains the list of current allowable property tax exemptions. You'll have to navigate to Colorado Constitution, then Article X, then Section 3.
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- REPEALS Section 7 of Article XVIII.
Recommendation: YES
Let’s take the junk out of the Colorado Constitution.
Referendum M (Approved ballot title below)
Obsolete Constitutional Provision Relating to Land Value Increases
Shall section 7 of article XVIII of the state constitution concerning outdated, obsolete provisions regarding land value increase be repealed?
Yes ________________ No ________________
See Section 3 of Article X of the constitution which I think contains the list of current allowable property tax exemptions. You'll have to navigate to Colorado Constitution, then Article X, then Section 3.
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Referendum N -- Obsolete Consitutional Provisions Relating to Alcoholic Beverages
This referendum would remove portions of the constitution that relate to the regulation of alchoholic beverages including the prohibition on the establishment of saloons. Saloons were strictly for consuming alcoholic beverages. Current state statute requires bars to serve food.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- REPEALS Section 5 of Article XVIII and all of Article XXII.
Recommendation: YES
Let’s take the junk out of the Colorado Constitution.
Referendum N (Approved ballot title below)
Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Relating to Alcohol Beverages
Shall there be a repeal of section 5 of article XVIII and article XXII of the state constitution, concerning the elimination of outdated obsolete provisions of the state constitution?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- REPEALS Section 5 of Article XVIII and all of Article XXII.
Recommendation: YES
Let’s take the junk out of the Colorado Constitution.
Referendum N (Approved ballot title below)
Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Relating to Alcohol Beverages
Shall there be a repeal of section 5 of article XVIII and article XXII of the state constitution, concerning the elimination of outdated obsolete provisions of the state constitution?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Referendum O -- Citizen-Initated State Laws
Currently citizens' initiatives can gain access to the state ballot if a petition is submitted with the number of valid signatures equal to 5% of the last vote total for Secretary of State in the last election. This referendum would differentiate between constitutional changes and statutory changes, making constitutional changes more difficult. The signature requirements would change to 6% (constitutional) and 4% (statutory) of the vote total for Governor in the last eleciton. Eight percent of the required signatures for constitutional amendments would have to come from each congressional district. Each house of the CO general assembly would need a 2/3 vote to amend a voter-approved statutory change within the first five years. The referendum also addresses timelines and allowing comments at a public meeting.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 1 of Article V
Recommendation: yes
I disapprove of the number of gratuitous constitutional amendments on the ballot. (See the About Me section of this blog.) I don’t think that this measure would decrease the number of ballot issues, but it might persuade petition organizers to seek statutory changes rather than constitutional changes. We might even see longer ballots because of the loosening of requirements for statutory changes. But who knows? Maybe our neighbors on the Western Slope would be more particular about which petitions they sign and we would end up with fewer statewide ballot measures. Sometimes we do want to change something already in the constitution (witness Amendments 50 and 59), and then we don’t want to have an impossible challenge for the petition organizers. I think this ballot measure strikes a fair balance.
Website for Yes side (Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense)
http://www.oyescolorado.org/
Website for No side
http://www.norefo.com/
Referendum O (Approved ballot title below)
Citizen-Initiated State Laws
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning ballot initiatives, and, in connection therewith, increasing the number of signatures required for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution; reducing the number of signatures required for a proposed statutory initiative; requiring a minimum number of signatures for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to be gathered from residents of each congressional district in the state; increasing the time allowed to gather signatures for a proposed statutory initiative; modifying the review of initiative petitions; establishing a filing deadline for proposed initiatives to amend the state constitution; and requiring a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the general assembly to amend, repeal, or supersede any law enacted by an initiative for a period of five years after the law becomes effective?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
Required CONSTITUTIONAL change -- CHANGES Section 1 of Article V
Recommendation: yes
I disapprove of the number of gratuitous constitutional amendments on the ballot. (See the About Me section of this blog.) I don’t think that this measure would decrease the number of ballot issues, but it might persuade petition organizers to seek statutory changes rather than constitutional changes. We might even see longer ballots because of the loosening of requirements for statutory changes. But who knows? Maybe our neighbors on the Western Slope would be more particular about which petitions they sign and we would end up with fewer statewide ballot measures. Sometimes we do want to change something already in the constitution (witness Amendments 50 and 59), and then we don’t want to have an impossible challenge for the petition organizers. I think this ballot measure strikes a fair balance.
Website for Yes side (Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense)
http://www.oyescolorado.org/
Website for No side
http://www.norefo.com/
Referendum O (Approved ballot title below)
Citizen-Initiated State Laws
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning ballot initiatives, and, in connection therewith, increasing the number of signatures required for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution; reducing the number of signatures required for a proposed statutory initiative; requiring a minimum number of signatures for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to be gathered from residents of each congressional district in the state; increasing the time allowed to gather signatures for a proposed statutory initiative; modifying the review of initiative petitions; establishing a filing deadline for proposed initiatives to amend the state constitution; and requiring a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the general assembly to amend, repeal, or supersede any law enacted by an initiative for a period of five years after the law becomes effective?
Yes ________________ No ________________
To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.
County of Boulder 1A -- Clean Energy Options
This would allow Boulder County to take on debt in order to make loans to property owners wanting to make energy efficiency improvements or to install clean energy equipment such as solar panels. It is not a tax increase. The loan would be paid back by the participating property owners through a special assessment which would stay with the property until the loan is repaid. (This new program is possible because of the passage of House Bill 1350 sponsored by Alice Madden, a state representative from Boulder.)
Recommendation: YES
People purchasing new homes should try to wrap the cost of energy improvements into their mortgage so that they can get the mortgage tax break. The rest of us could line up to take advantage of this proposed program. Individuals benefit since the county can usually get loans at a lower interest than individuals can. Collection of property taxes is straightforward. The downside to this ballot measure that I see is that there will be a limited number of loans available.
Website for the Yes side
http://yes1a.org/resolution.php
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
COUNTY ISSUE 1A (Approved Ballot Language)
Boulder County Clean Energy Options LID Debt and Multiple Fiscal Year Financial Obligation Authorization:
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT (FOR CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) BE INCREASED BY UP TO $40,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $96,800,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS OR ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE DISTRICT, AND ANY COSTS NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL THERETO, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE COST OF ESTABLISHING RESERVES TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF SUCH DEBT, BY THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE OWNERS THEREOF HAVE CONSENTED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO SUCH A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION, AND FROM OTHER FUNDS THAT MAY BE LAWFULLY PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 10%, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, SHALL BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AND SHALL CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE AMOUNTS FOR PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH BONDS AND TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR SUCH ADVANCES BY COLLECTING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-20-619(2), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED; AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON AND FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-99?
YES ___ NO ___
See Resolution No. 2008-99.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1304-2008-99%20Resolution%20for%201A%20-%20Clean%20Energy%20Options.pdf
Recommendation: YES
People purchasing new homes should try to wrap the cost of energy improvements into their mortgage so that they can get the mortgage tax break. The rest of us could line up to take advantage of this proposed program. Individuals benefit since the county can usually get loans at a lower interest than individuals can. Collection of property taxes is straightforward. The downside to this ballot measure that I see is that there will be a limited number of loans available.
Website for the Yes side
http://yes1a.org/resolution.php
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
COUNTY ISSUE 1A (Approved Ballot Language)
Boulder County Clean Energy Options LID Debt and Multiple Fiscal Year Financial Obligation Authorization:
SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT (FOR CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) BE INCREASED BY UP TO $40,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $96,800,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS OR ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE DISTRICT, AND ANY COSTS NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL THERETO, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE COST OF ESTABLISHING RESERVES TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF SUCH DEBT, BY THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED AGAINST BENEFITED PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE OWNERS THEREOF HAVE CONSENTED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY ENTERING INTO SUCH A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR INCLUSION, AND FROM OTHER FUNDS THAT MAY BE LAWFULLY PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH BONDS, WHICH BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 10%, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, SHALL BE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AND SHALL CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DETERMINE; SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE-FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE AMOUNTS FOR PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH BONDS AND TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR SUCH ADVANCES BY COLLECTING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 30-20-619(2), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED; AND SHALL THE REVENUES FROM SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON AND FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-99?
YES ___ NO ___
See Resolution No. 2008-99.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1304-2008-99%20Resolution%20for%201A%20-%20Clean%20Energy%20Options.pdf
County of Boulder 1B -- Worthy Cause 0.05% Sales/Use Tax Extension
This is a 10-year extension of the current tax of 1 penny on a $20 purchase. Voters approved this tax in 2000 and again in 2003. Funds go to local human services non-profits for capital improvements and equipment. Some of the funds would go toward needs determined by the county commissioners and some funds would be available for non-profits to apply for on an annual basis.
Recommendation: no
The voters in Boulder County have been good to the local non-profits, approving the Worthy Cause tax twice -- the first time for 3 years, the next time for 5 years. This time the county commissioners are asking for a 10-year extension, but they have only identified capital improvement and equipment needs for 5 years. I think they should only ask for a 5-year tax extension. In addition, capital improvements are generally considered a one-time expense, but the county commissioners seem to be under the expectation that this should be an ongoing tax. I want to help local non-profits, but I think, with the economy in the tank, this is not the time for a regressive sales tax to pay for capital improvements. I see the need for funds for non-profits’ day-to-day operations more than for capital improvements. I think we should take a break from this tax and revisit the issue next year.
Website for Yes side
http://worthycauseyes.org/
Website for No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
COUNTY ISSUE 1B (Approved Ballot Language)
Worthy Cause 0.05% County-wide Sales and Use Tax Extension Issue
WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY’S EXISTING 0.05% SALES AND USE TAX FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BE EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2018 FOR THE PURPOSES OF FUNDING CAPITAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR NON-PROFIT HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES AND HOUSING AUTHORITIES WITHIN BOULDER COUNTY PROVIDING HEALTH, TRANSITIONAL AND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING, AND OTHER HUMAN SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHILDCARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, BASIC NEEDS SUCH AS FOOD AND CLOTHING, AND SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-88?
YES ___ NO ___
See Resolution 2008-88 which includes possible expenditures for the first 5 years.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1304-2008-88%20Resolution%20for%201B%20-%20Worthy%20Cause.pdf
Recommendation: no
The voters in Boulder County have been good to the local non-profits, approving the Worthy Cause tax twice -- the first time for 3 years, the next time for 5 years. This time the county commissioners are asking for a 10-year extension, but they have only identified capital improvement and equipment needs for 5 years. I think they should only ask for a 5-year tax extension. In addition, capital improvements are generally considered a one-time expense, but the county commissioners seem to be under the expectation that this should be an ongoing tax. I want to help local non-profits, but I think, with the economy in the tank, this is not the time for a regressive sales tax to pay for capital improvements. I see the need for funds for non-profits’ day-to-day operations more than for capital improvements. I think we should take a break from this tax and revisit the issue next year.
Website for Yes side
http://worthycauseyes.org/
Website for No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
COUNTY ISSUE 1B (Approved Ballot Language)
Worthy Cause 0.05% County-wide Sales and Use Tax Extension Issue
WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY’S EXISTING 0.05% SALES AND USE TAX FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BE EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2018 FOR THE PURPOSES OF FUNDING CAPITAL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR NON-PROFIT HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES AND HOUSING AUTHORITIES WITHIN BOULDER COUNTY PROVIDING HEALTH, TRANSITIONAL AND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING, AND OTHER HUMAN SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHILDCARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, BASIC NEEDS SUCH AS FOOD AND CLOTHING, AND SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES; AND SHALL THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2008-88?
YES ___ NO ___
See Resolution 2008-88 which includes possible expenditures for the first 5 years.
http://www.bouldercounty.org/newsroom/articlefiles/1304-2008-88%20Resolution%20for%201B%20-%20Worthy%20Cause.pdf
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
City of Boulder 201 -- City Retention of Property Tax Funds
This is a “de-Brucing” measure to allow the city to retain excess property tax funds up to .5 mills per year and to allow any taxes collected above that amount to be credited to a property owner’s subsequent year’s taxes. (Douglas Bruce is the author of TABOR [Article X, Section 20 of the CO Constitution]. TABOR requires governments with revenues over a certain amount to return the excess revenue to the taxpayers unless the voters approve government retention of those revenues. Voters in Boulder have already permitted the city to retain excess revenue from the sales and use tax. If this measure passes, the city will be completely “de-Bruced.”)
Recommendation: for
I am generally in favor of de-Brucing. This year Boulder residential property owners received a 2.78 mill-credit on their tax bill. If this measure passes, in six years this credit would no longer appear on property tax bills. Although this measure would allow the city to retain more property taxes, it does not allow the city to raise the mill levy to collect more property taxes. If the city wanted to do that, it would have to get voter approval.
BALLOT ISSUE NO. 201 (Approved Ballot Language)
CITY RETENTION OF PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Without raising taxes, and in order to pay for necessary city purposes such as fire apparatus, information technologies, energy costs, facility maintenance and city services, shall the city of Boulder, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7608, be allowed to retain and spend property tax funds collected in tax collection years 2009 and beyond, and retain and spend any earnings therefrom, without limitation or condition, and without limiting the collection or spending of any other revenues or funds by the city of Boulder, under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution or any other law?
And in connection therewith,
(1) Shall any increase in retained taxes starting in tax collection year 2009 that is authorized by this measure be limited to .5 mills per year, and (2) shall any tax monies that are collected above those that the city may retain be credited to property owners as an offset against the subsequent year’s taxes?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
Recommendation: for
I am generally in favor of de-Brucing. This year Boulder residential property owners received a 2.78 mill-credit on their tax bill. If this measure passes, in six years this credit would no longer appear on property tax bills. Although this measure would allow the city to retain more property taxes, it does not allow the city to raise the mill levy to collect more property taxes. If the city wanted to do that, it would have to get voter approval.
BALLOT ISSUE NO. 201 (Approved Ballot Language)
CITY RETENTION OF PROPERTY TAX FUNDS
Without raising taxes, and in order to pay for necessary city purposes such as fire apparatus, information technologies, energy costs, facility maintenance and city services, shall the city of Boulder, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7608, be allowed to retain and spend property tax funds collected in tax collection years 2009 and beyond, and retain and spend any earnings therefrom, without limitation or condition, and without limiting the collection or spending of any other revenues or funds by the city of Boulder, under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution or any other law?
And in connection therewith,
(1) Shall any increase in retained taxes starting in tax collection year 2009 that is authorized by this measure be limited to .5 mills per year, and (2) shall any tax monies that are collected above those that the city may retain be credited to property owners as an offset against the subsequent year’s taxes?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
City of Boulder 202 -- Sales and Use Tax Extension
This measure would continue indefinitely the current 0.38% city sales and use tax for general fund services such as police, fire, library, parks and human services. This tax will generate nearly $10 million in revenue in 2008. The current expiration date is Dec 31, 2011. (This tax was originally approved by the voters in 1987 and designated for the library capital construction program with excess going to the general fund. The library debt will be paid off in 2011.)
Recommendation: FOR
In my opinion, too many of the city’s funds are earmarks. I would like to see fewer earmarks, reducing budgetary constraints on our elected officials and city staff. The money in the general fund is not earmarked and may be spent at the discretion of the city council. Yet the general fund goes to pay for the essential and desirable services listed above and needs a relatively reliable source of funding (although I’d prefer a source that doesn’t disproportionately affect the poor). If in the future the city wants to raise the tax rate, TABOR would require the city to come back to the voters for approval.
BALLOT ISSUE NO. 202 (Approved Ballot Language)
SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION
WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE CITY OF BOULDER, PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO 7607, HAVE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND INDEFINITELY, BEYOND ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2011, THE EXISTING 0.38% CITY SALES AND USE TAX THAT IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3-2-5 OF THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981. THESE REVENUES WILL CONTINUE TO FUND GENERAL FUND SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARY, PARKS AND HUMAN SERVICES.
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF THE TAX AND ANY EARNINGS THEREFROM, BE COLLECTED AND SPENT WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE ____
Recommendation: FOR
In my opinion, too many of the city’s funds are earmarks. I would like to see fewer earmarks, reducing budgetary constraints on our elected officials and city staff. The money in the general fund is not earmarked and may be spent at the discretion of the city council. Yet the general fund goes to pay for the essential and desirable services listed above and needs a relatively reliable source of funding (although I’d prefer a source that doesn’t disproportionately affect the poor). If in the future the city wants to raise the tax rate, TABOR would require the city to come back to the voters for approval.
BALLOT ISSUE NO. 202 (Approved Ballot Language)
SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION
WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE CITY OF BOULDER, PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO 7607, HAVE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND INDEFINITELY, BEYOND ITS CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2011, THE EXISTING 0.38% CITY SALES AND USE TAX THAT IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3-2-5 OF THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981. THESE REVENUES WILL CONTINUE TO FUND GENERAL FUND SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARY, PARKS AND HUMAN SERVICES.
AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
SHALL THE FULL PROCEEDS OF THE TAX AND ANY EARNINGS THEREFROM, BE COLLECTED AND SPENT WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
FOR THE MEASURE ____ AGAINST THE MEASURE ____
City of Boulder 2A -- City Council Compensation
This would change the pay of city council members from $174.31 per meeting for up to 4 meetings per month to $1000 per month to be adjusted in the future by reference to the Consumer Price Index. (A similar measure on the 2007 ballot lost by 49 votes out of over 16,000 votes cast. It would have paid council members $500 per meeting for up to 2 meetings per month.)
Recommendation: for
I want my city council members to work hard for the city. I want to reward them for overseeing a city of 100,000 people and a $230 million budget, and then I want to hold them accountable. Being a city council member shouldn’t be a volunteer job, and a lot of work is done outside of city council meetings. Longmont pays its city council members $12,000 a year. We should compensate the city council members better so that more middle- and lower-income citizens will consider running for city council. This proposal may not actually make much of a dent toward this goal, but it is a step in the right direction.
Ballot Question No. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
City Council Compensation
Shall Section 7 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7599 to provide that starting in 2009, city council members will be compensated at the rate of $1000 per month, adjusted in the future by reference to the Consumer Price Index?
The proposed amendment would delete existing language that currently compensates city council members at $174.31 per meeting, not to exceed four meetings per calendar month.
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Section 7.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleII.htm
Recommendation: for
I want my city council members to work hard for the city. I want to reward them for overseeing a city of 100,000 people and a $230 million budget, and then I want to hold them accountable. Being a city council member shouldn’t be a volunteer job, and a lot of work is done outside of city council meetings. Longmont pays its city council members $12,000 a year. We should compensate the city council members better so that more middle- and lower-income citizens will consider running for city council. This proposal may not actually make much of a dent toward this goal, but it is a step in the right direction.
Ballot Question No. 2A (Approved Ballot Language)
City Council Compensation
Shall Section 7 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7599 to provide that starting in 2009, city council members will be compensated at the rate of $1000 per month, adjusted in the future by reference to the Consumer Price Index?
The proposed amendment would delete existing language that currently compensates city council members at $174.31 per meeting, not to exceed four meetings per calendar month.
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Section 7.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleII.htm
City of Boulder 2B -- City Council Executive Sessions
This would allow City Council to call an executive session if 2/3 of the members present vote to do so. 2B limits the sensitive matters which could be discussed at the meeting. No final action would be allowed in executive sessions. (In 2003 voters approved 53% to 47% a different Ballot Issue 2B to permit "a committe of two council members and any number of other persons to screen applications, evaluate performance, and consider discipline for the city manager, city attorney, and municipal court judge positions in private, so long as council takes action on committee recommendations in a public meeting.")
Recommendation: lean against
For a group of 9 members, I would normally be in favor of allowing occasional executive sessions, but since, at last count, 2/3 of the council members weren’t in favor of sending this to ballot and there seems to be passionate opposition to this amendment, in part because of the wording, I’m leaning against supporting this measure.
Ballot Question No. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
City Council Executive Sessions
Shall Section 9 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7600 in order to allow city council to meet in executive session to discuss sensitive matters where premature disclosure would be contrary to the public interest?
Executive sessions will only be held in conformity with locally enacted procedural rules that are at least as restrictive as those set forth in the laws of the state of Colorado and only upon a 2/3 vote of council members present at a meeting. No final action will be allowed at executive sessions.
The only subjects that will be discussed in executive sessions are:
(1) Confidential issues associated with the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of property;
(2) Confidential legal advice;
(3) Confidential security matters or investigations;
(4) Confidential issues relating to ongoing negotiations and negotiating strategy; or
(5) Hiring and personnel matters pertaining to one of the council’s three employees, so long as the subject council employee is able to require that the discussion be held in public.
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
FYI --The council's three employees are the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Municipal Judge.
See Section 9.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleII.htm
Recommendation: lean against
For a group of 9 members, I would normally be in favor of allowing occasional executive sessions, but since, at last count, 2/3 of the council members weren’t in favor of sending this to ballot and there seems to be passionate opposition to this amendment, in part because of the wording, I’m leaning against supporting this measure.
Ballot Question No. 2B (Approved Ballot Language)
City Council Executive Sessions
Shall Section 9 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7600 in order to allow city council to meet in executive session to discuss sensitive matters where premature disclosure would be contrary to the public interest?
Executive sessions will only be held in conformity with locally enacted procedural rules that are at least as restrictive as those set forth in the laws of the state of Colorado and only upon a 2/3 vote of council members present at a meeting. No final action will be allowed at executive sessions.
The only subjects that will be discussed in executive sessions are:
(1) Confidential issues associated with the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of property;
(2) Confidential legal advice;
(3) Confidential security matters or investigations;
(4) Confidential issues relating to ongoing negotiations and negotiating strategy; or
(5) Hiring and personnel matters pertaining to one of the council’s three employees, so long as the subject council employee is able to require that the discussion be held in public.
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
FYI --The council's three employees are the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Municipal Judge.
See Section 9.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleII.htm
City of Boulder 2C -- Amendment of Recall Election Procedures
This would specify a timeline and the steps for recalling elected officeholders. It also restricts the recalled official from serving on any elected or appointed official city body for one year. The current charter requires a recall election to be held within 40 days rather than the proposed 75 to 90 days after filed recall petitions are certified as valid.
Recommendation: FOR
This ballot issue will bring the city of Boulder into conformity with state election laws.
Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Recall Election Procedures
Shall Sections 56, 58, 59, and 62 of the Charter, relating to the method to be utilized to recall holders of elective office, be amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 7603 to:
(1) Provide that the city clerk will make forms for recall petitions available and will, within two days of submission of proposed recall petition (and prior to their circulation to the public), review the petitions for form;
(2) Limit to two hundred words statements of reasons supporting and opposing a proposed recall and provide for the posting or publication of those statements at least twenty days prior to a recall election;
(3) Allow a recall election to be held between seventy-five and ninety days after the city clerk certifies that a valid recall petition has been filed;
(4) Provide for the coordination of recall elections with other municipal elections if such other elections are to be held within ninety days;
(5) Provide that a council vacancy that occurs after a removal election has been ordered will be filled by the procedures for filling of council vacancies that appear in Section 8 of the charter;
(6) Clarify the requirements for recall ballots, allowing for coordination with county election procedures, and specify that “yes” votes will be counted in favor of recall;
(7) Provide that any vacancy created by a recall election will be filled by an election held in the manner set forth for filling council vacancies in Section 8 of the charter; and
(8) Specify that an official may not serve on any elected or appointed official city body for a period of one year following the date on which that official is recalled from office or resigns while recall proceedings are pending.
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Sections 56 through 62.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleIV.htm#section56
Recommendation: FOR
This ballot issue will bring the city of Boulder into conformity with state election laws.
Ballot Question No. 2C (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Recall Election Procedures
Shall Sections 56, 58, 59, and 62 of the Charter, relating to the method to be utilized to recall holders of elective office, be amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 7603 to:
(1) Provide that the city clerk will make forms for recall petitions available and will, within two days of submission of proposed recall petition (and prior to their circulation to the public), review the petitions for form;
(2) Limit to two hundred words statements of reasons supporting and opposing a proposed recall and provide for the posting or publication of those statements at least twenty days prior to a recall election;
(3) Allow a recall election to be held between seventy-five and ninety days after the city clerk certifies that a valid recall petition has been filed;
(4) Provide for the coordination of recall elections with other municipal elections if such other elections are to be held within ninety days;
(5) Provide that a council vacancy that occurs after a removal election has been ordered will be filled by the procedures for filling of council vacancies that appear in Section 8 of the charter;
(6) Clarify the requirements for recall ballots, allowing for coordination with county election procedures, and specify that “yes” votes will be counted in favor of recall;
(7) Provide that any vacancy created by a recall election will be filled by an election held in the manner set forth for filling council vacancies in Section 8 of the charter; and
(8) Specify that an official may not serve on any elected or appointed official city body for a period of one year following the date on which that official is recalled from office or resigns while recall proceedings are pending.
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Sections 56 through 62.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleIV.htm#section56
Saturday, September 13, 2008
City of Boulder 2D -- Permit City Lease up to Forty Years
This would allow a 2/3 vote of all city council members to grant a lease of 40 years rather than the current maximum of 20 years on city-owned property, e.g. Dairy Center for the Arts. (This measure was on the ballot in 2007 and was defeated 61% to 39%.)
Recommendation: for
The city’s four major facilities – Chautauqua, BMoCA, The Dairy Center for the Arts and A Spice of Life – feel stymied in fundraising campaigns by the 20-year limit. The city staff recommended that the maximum lease be set at 30 years, but the city council chose 40 years for the ballot measure. I support providing stability for valuable, established institutions, but the city should make sure that the lease contract allows the city to adjust the lease regularly so we get a fair market rate.
Ballot Question No. 2D (Approved Ballot Language)
Permit City Lease Up To Forty Years
Shall Section 111 of the charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7604 to allow the city to grant a lease of streets or public places or property for a period of up to forty years (rather than the current maximum of twenty years) upon approval by a two-thirds vote of all council members?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Section 111.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleVIII.htm
Recommendation: for
The city’s four major facilities – Chautauqua, BMoCA, The Dairy Center for the Arts and A Spice of Life – feel stymied in fundraising campaigns by the 20-year limit. The city staff recommended that the maximum lease be set at 30 years, but the city council chose 40 years for the ballot measure. I support providing stability for valuable, established institutions, but the city should make sure that the lease contract allows the city to adjust the lease regularly so we get a fair market rate.
Ballot Question No. 2D (Approved Ballot Language)
Permit City Lease Up To Forty Years
Shall Section 111 of the charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7604 to allow the city to grant a lease of streets or public places or property for a period of up to forty years (rather than the current maximum of twenty years) upon approval by a two-thirds vote of all council members?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Section 111.
http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleVIII.htm
City of Boulder 2E -- Qualifications for Appointment to City Commissions
This would allow people who have resided in Boulder for at least one year and who are at least 18 to be appointed to serve on city commissions even if they are not city electors, i.e. not voters such as foreigners and felons in prison or on parole. Currently, the only requirement is to be an elector, i.e. voter.
Recommendation: against
Originally the city council considered a few different options for this ballot measure. For instance, they considered only allowing foreigners with green cards or who were pending US citizenship to serve on boards and commissions. Another would have limited foreigners to commissions and boards that have no quasi-judicial authority (e.g. subpoena power). One concern is that the commission and board members have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. In general, I’m in favor of hearing lots of different voices, but this measure provides no limit to the number of non-electors that could serve on a board or commission. Theoretically, an entire board could be composed of non-electors.
Website for Yes side
http://yes2equality.org/
Website for No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Ballot Question No. 2E (Approved Ballot Language)
Qualifications for Appointment to City Commissions
Shall Section 130 of the charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7605 to provide that city residents may be appointed to serve on city commissions even if they are not city electors, if they are at least eighteen years old and if they have resided in the city of Boulder for at least one year immediately prior to their appointment?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Section 130. http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleIX.htm
Recommendation: against
Originally the city council considered a few different options for this ballot measure. For instance, they considered only allowing foreigners with green cards or who were pending US citizenship to serve on boards and commissions. Another would have limited foreigners to commissions and boards that have no quasi-judicial authority (e.g. subpoena power). One concern is that the commission and board members have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. In general, I’m in favor of hearing lots of different voices, but this measure provides no limit to the number of non-electors that could serve on a board or commission. Theoretically, an entire board could be composed of non-electors.
Website for Yes side
http://yes2equality.org/
Website for No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Ballot Question No. 2E (Approved Ballot Language)
Qualifications for Appointment to City Commissions
Shall Section 130 of the charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7605 to provide that city residents may be appointed to serve on city commissions even if they are not city electors, if they are at least eighteen years old and if they have resided in the city of Boulder for at least one year immediately prior to their appointment?
For the Measure ____ Against the Measure ____
See Section 130. http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/charter_articleIX.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)