Vote on the Ballot Issues!

The last time we had as many ballot issues as this year was 2008, a presidential year. I hope you vote in this year’s “midterm” election – for our top state offices, this is not a midterm election – and that this blog helps inform your decisions on the ballot issues.

The path to the ballot varied quite a bit this year from previous years. The higher signature requirement imposed by Amendment 71 after its passage in 2016 forced Prop 112 and perhaps other citizen initiatives to go the statutory route rather than the constitutional route, dueling sides eventually compromised on redistricting measures Y and Z, and in Boulder the Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group proposed 3 ballot issues affecting the initiative process.

Ballots issues to “clean up” the state constitution or city charter include Amendments W, X and A, and city of Boulder ballot issues 2E, 2F and arguably 2I. Oil and gas development are big factors in Amendment 74 (even if not mentioned), Prop 112, and City of Boulder 2C. Meanwhile, Propositions 109 and 110 are dueling transportation issues.

Of the 22 ballot issues, about 1/3 – the seven listed below – are tax or debt issues, and Amendments 74 and 75 and Proposition 111 involve other money issues – “takings,” campaign contributions and payday loans.

Sales Tax
  Prop 110 - 0.62% for 20 years
  County 1A – 0.185% 5-year extension

Graduated Income Tax and Freezing of Property Tax
  Amendment 73

Take on Debt Without a Repayment Source
  Prop 109

Future (?) “Disincentive Tax” on Oil and Gas Development
  City 2C

Remove TABOR Restrictions
  City 2D
  Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 7G

Each of the 22 ballot issues has its own post if you'd like more information or if you would like to make comments about the specific ballot issue. Please limit comments on this introductory post to general comments about the process or the election.

In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts! Please research the issues and candidates and vote the entire ballot. Encourage your family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and anyone else eligible to vote to do likewise.

At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as a link to the Boulder County Clerk’s website. The links will be updated as more information becomes available.

Remember that in Colorado you can register and vote as late as Election Day, Tuesday, November 6th. If you are already registered, you have probably already received your ballot in the mail. Contact your County Clerk for more information.


VOCABULARY - STATE OF COLORADO

Amendment = Constitutional change
Amendments can only be changed by a vote, usually 55%, of the electorate.

Proposition = Statutory change
Propositions can be modified by the Colorado General Assembly.


Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.

Referenda - denoted by letters (state) or a number and letter (county, city, BVSD, SCFD)
The governing legislative body (General Assembly, County Commission, City Council, or District Board) put these on the ballot.


VOCABULARY – OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Ballot Issues = Tax measures
Ballot Questions = Others


STATE OF COLORADO

Amendment V
Lower Age Requirement for Members of the General Assembly
YES/FOR

Amendment W
Election Ballot Format for Judicial Retention Elections
yes/for

Amendment X
Industrial Hemp Definition
YES/FOR

Amendment Y
Congressional Redistricting
yes/for

Amendment Z
Legislative Redistricting
yes/for

Amendment A - simple majority req'd for passage
Prohibit Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
YES/FOR

Amendment 73
Funding for Public Schools
yes/for

Amendment 74
Compensation for Fair Market Value Reduction by Govt Law or Regulation
NO/AGAINST

Amendment 75
Increasing Campaign Contribution Limits When Opponent Self Funds $1M
no/against

Proposition 109
Authorize Debt to Fund Highway Projects
NO/AGAINST

Proposition 110
20-Year Sales Tax for Transportation Projects
leaning no/against

Proposition 111
Limitations on Payday Loans
YES/FOR

Proposition 112
Increased Setback Requirement for Oil and Gas Development
yes/for


COUNTY OF BOULDER

County of Boulder Issue 1A
Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension
leaning yes


CITY OF BOULDER

City of Boulder Issue 2C
Oil and Gas Pollution Tax
leaning for the measure

City of Boulder Issue 2D
Retain Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue
FOR THE MEASURE

City of Boulder Question 2E
Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes
for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2F
Initiative Petition Signature Verification
for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2G
Electronic and Online Petitions
for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2H
Membership of Advisory Commissions
leaning for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2I
Deadline for Planning Dept Budget Recommendations
leaning for the measure


URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Issue 7G
Remove TABOR Restrictions
YES/FOR


GOVERNMENT SITES

Colorado Secretary of State
http://govotecolorado.com or
http://www.sos.state.co.us/
See your sample ballot including candidates, judges and ballot issues.

Boulder County Clerk and Recorder – Elections Division
https://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/
Check your voter registration where you can see a sample ballot, check your ballot status, find a ballot drop-off location, sign up for Ballot Track and more. You may also contact the Elections Division at 303 413 7740. You can register in person and vote a ballot through Election Day, Tuesday, November 6th.

Blue Book Online (Colorado Legislative Council)
https://leg.colorado.gov/content/initiatives/initiatives-blue-book-overview/ballot-information-booklet-blue-book
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2018 State Ballot Information Booklet – available in English and Spanish. The website also has the following link to a page listing all the state ballot issues dating back to 1880.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/lcs/ballothistory.nsf/

County of Boulder 2018 Ballot Issues and Measures
https://www.bouldercounty.org/government/county-ballot-issues/2018-election/

City of Boulder 2018 Election Webpage
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections

CO Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation
http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/
From the site: One change you should be aware of is Commissions now determine if a judge “meets” or “does not meet” performance standards. In prior year evaluations Commissions recommended a judge be “retained” or “not retained.”
– Judicial performance information is also available in the Blue Book.


MEDIA SITES

5280 Election Page
https://www.5280.com/2018/10/colorado-ballot-2018-what-every-voter-should-know/

Boulder Weekly Election Guide 2018
https://www.boulderweekly.com/content-archives/voters-guide/vote-guide-2018/vote-guide-2018/

Colorado Politics Election Page
https://coloradopolitics.com/category/election-2018/

Daily Camera Election Page
http://www.dailycamera.com/colorado-election-news

Denver Post Election Page
https://www.denverpost.com/tag/election-2018/

303 Magazine Election Page
https://303magazine.com/2018/10/colorado-ballot-guide-2018/

The Colorado Independent Election Page
https://www.coloradoindependent.com/colorado-election-2018/

The Coloradoan Election Page
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/10/12/guide-2018-colorado-election-colorado-governor-congress-ballot-issues-and-more/1576531002/

Denverite Election Page
https://denverite.com/2018/08/17/colorado-election-2018/

Colorado Public Radio Election Page
https://www.cpr.org/news/story/2018-election-colorado-voter-guide

KGNU Radio Election Page
http://news.kgnu.org/category/elections/

Channel 9 News Election Page
https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/voter-guide/voter-guide-2018-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-upcoming-colorado-election/73-602151174

Fox 31 News Election Page
https://kdvr.com/2018/10/15/the-problem-solvers-guide-to-2018-colorado-election/

Rocky Mountain PBS Election Page
http://www.rmpbs.org/insight/2018-elections/


NON-PARTISAN SITES

Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2018_ballot_measures
Entries for individual ballot measures list supporters and opponents, campaign finance information and more.

League of Women Voters
Boulder County - https://lwvbc.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=629866&module_id=318120
Colorado (English and Spanish) - http://lwvcolorado.org/lwv/elections/

New Era Colorado
http://neweravoterguide.org/voter-guides/statewide/


ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION SITES

Boulder Chamber of Commerce
https://boulderchamber.com/business-advocacy/eye-ballot/

Bell Policy Center
http://www.bellpolicy.org/2018/09/19/2018-colorado-ballot-guide/

Conservation Colorado
https://conservationco.org/voter-guide-2018/

Common Cause of Colorado
https://www.commoncause.org/colorado/democracy-wire/2018-ballot-initiatives/


CITIZEN SITES

Jason Vogel (Boulder citizen)
https://mailchi.mp/49e1ea45f5db/jason-vogels-guide-to-the-2018-elections?e=37c54a5751

Douglas Bruce (author of TABOR)
https://www.westword.com/news/douglas-bruces-2018-voters-guide-for-thirteen-colorado-ballot-issues-10808805

Ross Kaminsky (on 630 KHOW Radio)
https://khow.iheart.com/featured/ross-kaminsky/content/2018-09-24-rosss-2018-colorado-ballot-measures-voting-guide/

Mike Rosen (Complete Colorado)
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2018/10/17/mike-rosen-my-picks-for-the-2018-colorado-ballot-measures/

Amendment V – Lower Age Requirement for Members of the General Assembly

Section 4 of Article V of the Colorado Constitution sets the minimum age for serving in the state legislature (aka the General Assembly) at 25 years. Amendment V would change the minimum age to 21 years and would change the male-only pronouns to male and female pronouns.

Amendment V was referred by the 2017 session of the General Assembly to be placed on the 2018 general election ballot, but almost 1/3 of the state representatives and just over 1/6 of the state senators voted against putting in on the ballot.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

Allowing younger people to run for office doesn’t guarantee that they will get elected, but it might increase turnout, enthusiasm and civic awareness among younger voters. And if the voters want to recruit and elect a younger person, this change would give the voters that option.

Facebook page for the Yes Side – Let Coloradans Serve
https://www.facebook.com/LetCoServe/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment V (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a reduction in the age qualification for a member of the general assembly from twenty-five years to twenty-one years?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

SCR 17-001 to refer Amendment V to the voters
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_vfinal.pdf

Amendment W – Election Ballot Format for Judicial Retention Elections

In Section 25 of Article VI, the Colorado constitution spells out the ballot language format for judicial retention elections, requiring a separate retention question for each judge on the ballot. Amendment W proposes consolidating judges for the same court under one retention question. Each judge would continue to have their own Yes / No next to or under their name – one question, but separate places to vote on whether or not to retain each judge.

HCR 18-1001 passed both houses of the legislature unanimously with two members excused. County clerks favor the more efficient use of ballot space.

Recommendation: yes/for

I would have preferred that Amendment W extract the ballot format language from the constitution and put it into statute.

The judicial retention questions take up a large portion of the current ballot but rarely generate much interest within the electorate. There may be some psychological attitude shifts among voters if judges are grouped together, or there may be an increased chance of accidentally marking the incorrect line. These effects seem minimal.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment W (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change in the format of the election ballot for judicial retention elections?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

HCR 18-1001 to refer Amendment W to the voters
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_wfinal.pdf

Amendment X – Industrial Hemp Definition

Amendment X would remove the current definition of industrial hemp from Article XVIII, Section 16 of the Colorado constitution and replace it with “as it is defined in federal law or as the term is defined in Colorado statute.” The current definition entered the Constitution via Amendment 64, passed by the voters in 2012.

Hemp and marijuana are both members of the Cannabis family, but they have very different uses. Marijuana is used as an intoxicating drug for medicinal or recreational purposes. Hemp contains negligible amounts of the marijuana chemical THC. Hemp is cultivated for its fiber, hurd (inner core of the stem) and seed. Hemp is used for a wide variety of purposes from construction to skin products to clothing to bedding to dietary supplements.

The US Senate version of the 2018 Farm Bill removes hemp from the Controlled Substances Act and legalizes growing hemp as an agricultural crop. Colorado hemp farmers may be at a competitive disadvantage if the state constitution has a lower limit on the percent of THC in hemp than the final version of the Farm Bill.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

The Colorado constitution is not the appropriate place to define industrial hemp, particularly if federal law would conflict with the Colorado definition. The Colorado constitution is the appropriate place to name the seat of government as in the 2010 Amendment Q.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side – Keep Hemp Legal
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment X (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning changing the industrial hemp definition from a constitutional definition to a statutory definition?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

HCR 18-1001 to refer Amendment W to the voters
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_xfinal.pdf

Amendment Y – Congressional Redistricting

Amendments Y and Z are the culmination of an extended effort to address gerrymandering in our state. At one point two different groups had dueling proposals, but the two sides each made compromises and joined forces. Amendments Y and Z were approved unanimously in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly.

Every ten years after the federal census, Colorado draws new congressional districts. Colorado is expected to gain one congressional seat after the 2020 census, going from 7 to 8 congressional districts.

Currently, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional district boundaries. The maps have landed in the courts in the previous 4 congressional redistricting.

Amendment Y would establish a 12-member citizen commission to draw congressional districts. The commission would be comprised of 4 members from each of the two largest political parties and 4 citizens who are unaffiliated. An emphasis on representation from all the current congressional districts is present throughout the commissioner selection and public hearing process.

Much of the Senate Concurrent Resolution to put Amendment Y on the ballot details the multi-step process for determining the commissioners. Individuals wishing to serve on the commission would submit a public application. After verifying that applicants meet the stated qualifications – such as not being a paid lobbyist – 300 names would be chosen randomly for each political party and 450 names of unaffiliated voters. A panel of three retired high-level CO judges would choose 50 candidates from each of the three groups, based on criteria such as being a good team player and having the ability to advocate. Half of the commission will be chosen by lot, 2 from each political party group. The majority and minority leaders in each house of the General Assembly would each nominate 10 names from the original applicant pool, and the panel of judges would choose one name from each legislative leader’s list, as well as two more unaffiliated citizens, to fill out the 12-member redistricting commission.

Nonpartisan commission staff would draw a preliminary redistricting map. Members of the public could also submit maps and provide testimony at the minimum 21 public hearings held across the state. At least 8 of the 12 commissioners would have to approve the final map. If no map gets such approval, a staff map would be submitted to the CO Supreme Court for review.

Recommendation: yes/for

Some people don’t think that Colorado, as a purple state, has a gerrymandering problem. Colorado is fairly well balanced in its congressional delegation and in both houses of the General Assembly. However, only a few of the districts are actually competitive. One of the criteria in Amendment Y, albeit low on the priority list, is to maximize politically competitive districts.

Having legislatures appoint members of the congressional redistricting commission is a much less cumbersome process than the one proposed in Amendment Y. The selection criteria in Amendment Y will restrict members of the commission to those who have had limited recent involvement in the partisan political process. Additionally, the four unaffiliated commissioners could present a wild card to the process.

In 2010 California used a similar selection process to name the members of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission and received 30,000 applicants. I’m skeptical that Colorado will receive 1,050 qualified applicants. I hope to be proven wrong.

Website for the Yes Side – Fair Maps Colorado
https://fairmapscolorado.com/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment Y (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change to the way that congressional districts are drawn, and, in connection therewith, taking the duty to draw congressional districts away from the state legislature and giving it to an independent commission, composed of twelve citizens who possess specified qualifications; prohibiting any one political party's control of the commission by requiring that one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party, one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's largest political party, and one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's second largest political party; prohibiting certain persons, including professional lobbyists, federal campaign committee employees, and federal, state, and local elected officials, from serving on the commission; limiting judicial review of a map to a determination by the supreme court of whether the commission or its nonpartisan staff committed an abuse of discretion; requiring the commission to draw districts with a focus on communities of interest and political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, and then to maximize the number of competitive congressional seats to the extent possible; and prohibiting maps from being drawn to dilute the electoral influence of any racial or ethnic group or to protect any incumbent, any political candidate, or any political party?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

SCR 18-004 to refer Amendment Y to the voters
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_yfinal.pdf

Amendment Z – Legislative Redistricting

Amendments Z and Y are the culmination of an extended effort to address gerrymandering in our state. At one point two different groups had dueling proposals, but the two sides each made compromises and joined forces. Amendments Y and Z were approved unanimously in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly.

Every ten years after the federal census, Colorado draws new legislative districts. The General Assembly has 65 House districts and 35 Senate districts.

Currently, the Colorado Reapportionment Commission draws the legislative districts. The governor, legislative leaders and the chief justice of the CO supreme court appoint the 11 members of the commission. Up to 6 of the 11 members may be affiliated with the same political party.

Amendment Z, like Amendment Y, would establish a 12-member citizen commission to draw congressional districts. The commission would be comprised of 4 members from each of the two largest political parties and 4 citizens who are unaffiliated. An emphasis on representation from all the current congressional districts is present throughout the commissioner selection and public hearing process. A person could not serve on both the congressional and the legislative redistricting commissions.

Much of the Senate Concurrent Resolution to put Amendment Z on the ballot details the multi-step process for determining the commissioners. Individuals wishing to serve on the commission would submit a public application. After verifying that applicants meet the stated qualifications – such as not being a paid lobbyist – 300 names would be chosen randomly for each political party and 450 names of unaffiliated voters. A panel of three retired high-level CO judges would choose 50 candidates from each of the three groups, based on criteria such as being a good team player and having the ability to advocate. Half of the commission will be chosen by lot, 2 from each political party group. The majority and minority leaders in each house of the General Assembly would each nominate 10 names from the original applicant pool, and the panel of judges would choose one name from each legislative leader’s list, as well as two more unaffiliated citizens, to fill out the 12-member redistricting commission.

Nonpartisan commission staff would draw a preliminary redistricting map. Members of the public could also submit maps and provide testimony at the minimum 21 public hearings held across the state. At least 8 of the 12 commissioners would have to approve the final map. If no map gets such approval, a staff map would be submitted to the CO Supreme Court for review.

Recommendation: yes/for

Some people don’t think that Colorado, as a purple state, has a gerrymandering problem. Colorado is fairly well balanced in its congressional delegation and in both houses of the General Assembly. However, only a few of the districts are actually competitive. One of the criteria in Amendment Z, albeit low on the priority list, is to maximize politically competitive districts.

Having government leaders appoint members of the congressional redistricting commission is a much less cumbersome process than the one proposed in Amendment Z. The selection criteria in Amendment Z will restrict members of the commission to those who have had limited recent involvement in the partisan political process. Additionally, the four unaffiliated commissioners could present a wild card to the process.

In 2010 California used a similar selection process to name the members of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission and received 30,000 applicants. I’m skeptical that Colorado will receive 1,050 qualified applicants. I hope to be proven wrong.

Website for the Yes Side – Fair Maps Colorado
https://fairmapscolorado.com/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment Z (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change to the manner in which state senate and state house of representatives districts are drawn, and, in connection therewith, reforming the existing legislative reapportionment commission by expanding the commission to twelve members and authorizing the appointment of members who possess specified qualifications; prohibiting any one political party's control of the commission by requiring that one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party, one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's largest political party, and one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's second largest political party; prohibiting certain persons, including professional lobbyists, federal campaign committee employees, and federal, state, and local elected officials, from serving on the commission; limiting judicial review of a map to a determination by the supreme court of whether the commission or its nonpartisan staff committed an abuse of discretion; requiring the commission to draw state legislative districts using communities of interest as well as political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, and then to maximize the number of competitive state legislative seats to the extent possible; and prohibiting maps from being drawn to dilute the electoral influence of any racial or ethnic group or to protect any incumbent, any political candidate, or any political party?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

SCR 18-005 to refer Amendment Z to the voters
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/initiative%2520referendum_zfinal.pdf

Amendment A – Prohibit Slavery and Involuntary Servitude

Amendment A would strike the following italicized words from Article II, Section 26 of the state constitution: "There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The state constitution’s current text mirrors the language in the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Amendment A’s effect on the constitution is identical to that of 2016’s Amendment T which voters rejected by a slim margin. This year, however, the question on the ballot – see below – was rewritten to be less confusing.

Constitutional changes require approval from the electorate. Once again unanimous votes in both chambers of the General Assembly (with 5 state representatives excused for the final vote) supported House Concurrent Resolution 18-1002 to place Amendment A on the ballot.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

This is another step in cleaning up archaic sections of the state constitution and an effort to have the state constitution reflect more humanitarian ideals.

Opponents contend that Amendment A would jeopardize offender work programs and might force communities to house offenders rather than offer them the opportunity to work off their sentence. Proponents dispute that claim, pointing to 23 states which have no constitutional language about slavery or involuntary servitude but still have work programs.

Website for the Yes Side (Abolish Slavery Colorado)
https://abolishslaveryco.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment A (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime and thereby prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude in all circumstances?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

HCR 18-1002 to refer Amendment A to the voters
http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018A/bills/2018a_hcr1002_01.pdf

Amendment 73 – Funding for Public Schools

Amendment 73 would increase funding for public preschool through high school (P-12) programs through a graduated rate increase on higher income earners and by increasing the corporate income tax rate from 4.63% to 6%. Amendment 23 would also make changes to the Gallagher Amendment, lowering and freezing the school district property tax assessment rate at 7% for residential property and 24% for other taxable property except it would keep levies unchanged for mines and land producing oil and gas.

In 1982 voters approved the Gallagher Amendment, aka Amendment No. 1 – Property Tax Assessment. It has had the effect of reducing the residential real estate assessment rate from 21% in 1985 to about 8% in 2016. Most of the local share of public school funding comes from property taxes. TABOR, authored by Douglas Bruce, passed in 1992 – the third time it was on the ballot. TABOR further restricts tax rates, but allows communities to vote to “de-Bruce” in order to bypass some TABOR restrictions.

The Public School Finance Act of 1994 attempted to equalize funding among school districts across the state. In 2000 voters approved Amendment 23 requiring annual increases in school funding. An argument in favor of Amendment 23 was to better align Colorado’s school funding with most other states. After the recession hit in 2008, the state created a “negative factor” (now renamed the “budget stabilization factor”) to reduce the state’s share of funding for P-12 public education.

In recent years the General Assembly has allowed individual districts, with voter approval, to further increase local taxes, putting the equalization principle in jeopardy. Prop 103 in 2011 to temporarily increase income tax rates in order to fund P-12 education did not pass. Some school boards, including BVSD, did not support Prop 103, arguing that residents would give more money to the state than they would receive for their schools. This time around, Amendment 73 ensures that state funding for every school district will stay the same or increase – a “no harm” provision – and may be why almost all school districts support this measure.

Amendment 73 amends Article X, Section 3 of the constitution, better known as the Gallagher Amendment, and income tax rates in Article X, Section 20 of the constitution, better known as the TABOR Amendment. Amendment 73 amends the Colorado Revised Statutes primarily in 22-55-109, creating a Quality Public Education Fund, directing the legislature to create a new public school finance law, and providing for review of school funding within 5 and 10 years of implementation of Amendment 73.

The current Colorado flat income rate is 4.63%. The new income tax rates are set forth in an amended 39-22-104 CRS as follows:
4.63% (current rate) for incomes up to 150K
5% for incomes over 150K up to 200K
6% for incomes over 200K up to 300K
7% for incomes over 300K up to 500K
8.25% for incomes over 500K
Over 90% of taxpayers will not see an increase in their income tax rate.

Recommendation: yes/for

A well-educated populace is critical to Colorado’s successful future, but education costs money. It’s time to say farewell to accounting tricks such as the negative factor that hurt school districts and students.

Amendment 73 is a progressive tax, unlike Prop 103 in 2011. Amendment 73’s tax rates are more complicated than Prop 103’s and will create more work for government tax workers, but the taxable income levels are written into statute so lawmakers can change them as inflation pushes more taxpayers into the higher brackets.

This amendment will help school districts across the state. Because the residential property tax would be frozen rather than continue to fall, BVSD taxpayers are expected to pay more in property tax in the future compared to forecasted rates if Amendment 73 does not pass. Currently, Colorado has some of the lowest residential property tax rates in the nation.

Website for the Yes Side – Great Schools, Thriving Communities
http://www.greatschoolsthrivingcommunities.org/

Website for the No Side – Blank Check. Blatant Deception.
https://www.noamendment73.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 73 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall state taxes be increased $1,600,000,000 annually by an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the Colorado revised statutes concerning funding relating to preschool through high school public education, and, in connection therewith, creating an exception to the single rate state income tax for revenue that is dedicated to the funding of public schools; increasing income tax rates incrementally for individuals, trusts, and estates using four tax brackets starting at .37% for income above $150,000 and increasing to 3.62% for income above $500,000; increasing the corporate income tax rate by 1.37%; for purposes of school district property taxes, reducing the current residential assessment rate of 7.2% to 7.0% and the current nonresidential assessment rate of 29% to 24%; requiring the revenue from the income tax increases to be deposited in a dedicated public education fund and allowing the revenue collected to be retained and spent as voter-approved revenue changes; requiring the legislature to annually appropriate money from the fund to school districts to support early childhood through high school public educational programs on an equitable basis throughout the state without decreasing general fund appropriations; directing the legislature to enact, regularly review, and revise when necessary, a new public school finance law that meets specified criteria; until the legislature has enacted a new public school finance law, requiring the money in the fund to be annually appropriated for specified education programs and purposes; requiring the money in the fund to be used to support only public schools; requiring general fund appropriations for public education to increase by inflation, up to 5%, annually; and requiring the department of education to commission a study of the use of the money in the fund within five years?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 73 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/93Final.pdf

Amendment 74 – Just Compensation for Reduction in Fair Market Value by Government Law or Regulation

CO law currently provides for compensation to a property owner when the government takes or damages private property resulting in an almost total loss in value or use of the property. Amendment 74 would require compensation for any reduction in property value because of a “regulatory taking.”

Recommendation: NO/AGAINST

Proponents should have suggested a statutory change rather than a constitutional change. Vague language means that the courts will probably see a lot of action if Amendment 74 passes. Fear of bankruptcy from financial penalties may also deter local, less well funded governments from doing what is best for the community.

We can learn from Oregon’s experience with similar measures. Oregonians passed Measure 7 in 2000, but the Oregon Supreme Court later it was struck it down. In 2004 voters approved Measure 37, but later subsequently reduced its effect via voter passage of Measure 49 in 2007.

Website for the Yes Side – Committee for Colorado’s Shared Heritage
https://coloradosharedheritage.com/

Website for the No Side – Save Our Neighborhoods
https://no74.co/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 74 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring the government to award just compensation to owners of private property when a government law or regulation reduces the fair market value of the property?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 74 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/108Final.pdf

Amendment 75 – Increasing Campaign Contribution Limits When Opponent Self Funds $1M

Campaign finance laws limit the dollar amount that an individual may contribute to a candidate’s campaign. However, a candidate may currently donate or loan funds to his or her campaign without any limitation.

Amendment 75 would be triggered when a candidate donates or loans more than 1 million dollars to their own campaign or to another campaign supporting or opposing a candidate in the same contest or when a candidate coordinates third-party donations over $1M to affect the candidate’s own election. In any of these cases, the opponents would be permitted to collect 5 times the current individual contribution limits.

This is a proposed constitutional amendment because the current campaign contribution limits are noted in the constitution and adjusted for inflation every four years.

Recommendation: no/against

Most Americans agree that we have too much money in our elections. A problem with big money is that elected officials feel beholden to their big donors. This ballot issue would increase the amount big donors can give and may therefore increase the “beholden-ness” factor.

Although big money can buy big media, candidates only need saturation. At some point media become oversaturated and may turn off voters to a candidate’s message. The best use of big money may be for GOTV (get out the vote) – in other words, bodies on the ground knocking on doors and making phone calls.

Political parties usually work hard, both financially and with sweat equity, for their candidates in order to help them be viable. We don’t need media oversaturation and more “beholden-ness.”

There are some down-ballot statewide contests that deserve higher individual campaign contribution limits, particularly CU Regent-at-Large. Jared Polis’ first foray into politics was for a State Board of Education at-large seat – the at-large seat was eliminated after the 2000 census – in which he spent $1.2M of his own money, compared to about $10,000 raised by his Republican incumbent-opponent.

Big money has less impact in a local election where personal relationships mean more. In the city of Boulder, big money does not have a good track record of buying elections. Consider the municipalization issue or Scott Gessler’s failed 2003 city council bid.

In November Denver voters will decide on a ballot initiative to create a fund of up to $8M of taxpayer money to match 9 times over small donations for municipal campaigns. A $10 donation would become a $100 donation. The Denver ballot measure would better empower small donors and would likely decrease the “beholden-ness” factor.

Website for the Yes Side – Stop Buying Our Elections
https://www.stopbuyingourelection.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 75 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution providing that if any candidate in a primary or general election for state office directs more than one million dollars in support of his or her own election, then every candidate for that office in the same election may accept five times the amount of campaign contributions normally allowed?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 75 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/173Final.pdf

Proposition 109 – Authorize Debt to Fund Highway Projects

Prop 109 and Prop 110 approach funding transportation needs in very different ways.

Prop 109 would direct the state to sell bonds in order to borrow up to $3.5 billion. In 2017 and 2018, Colorado committed $2.5B for transportation projects, but Prop 109 would replace these financial commitments, resulting in only $1B in additional transportation funds but much more debt.

Colorado would be required to repay the $3.5B in debt within 20 years without raising taxes or fees. The state would have to identify a source of funds from which to repay the debt.

Prop 109 identifies 66 highway projects to fund with a total estimated cost of $5.6B – in other words, $2.1B more than the $3.5B debt under Prop 109. The Dept of Transportation and the Transportation Commission would have to prioritize transportation needs.

Recommendation: NO/AGAINST

Prop 109 would put “Damn” in state statute, but that is not the reason to vote against it. Prop 109 is financially reckless, tasking the state to take on debt but not creating a funding source to repay the debt. Even TABOR author Douglas Bruce opposes the measure, saying that the CO constitution prohibits state debt.

If Prop 109 passes, other state needs will go unfunded or be drastically worse funded in order to pay for highway projects, or the state legislature will need to alter Prop 109 to make it viable.

Prop 109 and Prop 110 would fund some different projects. If both measures pass, they would have to duke it out over the projects list. Another bone of contention – the current financial commitments that Prop 109 would eliminate are maintained under Prop 110.

Website for the Yes Side – Fix Our Damn Roads
http://fixourdamnroads.com/

Website for the No Side – Let’s Go Colorado
https://www.letsgocolorado.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 109 (STATUTORY)

SHALL STATE DEBT BE INCREASED $3,500,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $5,200,000,000, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES OR FEES, BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, NOTE PROCEEDS SHALL BE RETAINED AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND USED EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND SPECIFIED ROAD AND BRIDGE EXPANSION, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 109 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/167Final.pdf

Proposition 110 – 20-Year Sales Tax for Transportation Projects

Prop 110 and Prop 109 approach funding transportation needs in very different ways.

Prop 110 proposes an increase in the state sales tax from 2.9% to 3.52% (a 21% increase) for 20 years beginning in 2019. The annual projected revenue increase is $766.7 million. The new revenue would be distributed according to the formula: 45% state projects, 40% local projects, and 15% multimodal transportation, such as buses, light rail, bike paths and sidewalks.

To pay for large projects, the state would be authorized to borrow up to $6 billion. The maximum total repayment of $9.4B is less than the projected increased sales tax revenue.

A bit over 10% of the state budget goes to transportation funds coming from 4 sources:
$526.8M federal gas tax
$339.5M registration fees
$321.6M state gas tax
$241.8M other – federal grants, tolls, etc

Recommendation: leaning no/against

The proponents’ argument that, with a sales tax, “the 39.7 million visitors who use our roads pay their share,” is not a convincing argument. Most of the regressive sales tax will be paid by Coloradans. This proposed sales tax increase won’t even apply to gasoline purchases made by visitors.

A more sensible solution would be to raise the state gas tax incrementally and permanently over the coming years. Such a change would connect driving on our roads more directly with transportation revenue. Incremental changes would give drivers some time to adjust their behavior and reduce the effect on their pocketbook. Reducing vehicle miles per passenger would decrease the wear and tear on our roads. Reportedly, polling found a gas tax increase to be unpalatable to voters, but perhaps an education campaign could have swayed voters.

Colorado set the current state gas tax at 22 cents per gallon back in 1991. Fuel efficiency has gone way up since 1991, but there are still enough gas-powered vehicles on the road to warrant an increase that would be paid partially by motoring tourists. For instance, increase the state gas tax by 5 cents per gallon annually until we are at 42 cents per gallon. Exempt gasoline for public buses from the increased gas tax.

Meanwhile, increase the tax on vehicle sales and/or the fees on vehicle title transfers. Perhaps electric and hybrid car owners should pay a higher tax or fees since they are not impacted as much by a change in gas taxes, but they still drive on our roads. Once again, exempt public buses from the increase.

As a tax increase, my substitute proposal would require a vote of the people. If neither Prop 109 nor Prop 110 pass, perhaps the legislature would consider this different tactic, although the current plan is Senate Bill 18-001 which would ask on the 2019 ballot for bonding authority of $2.33 billion to be repaid from the general fund.

I believe transportation projects should prioritize safety. We don’t want any bridges falling down because of poor maintenance or construction, like in Minnesota (2007) and Florida (2018). The second priority should be reducing damage to tires and suspension due to rough roads and thereby reducing vehicle repair costs. The third priority should be reducing traffic congestion.

Most people will vote one way on Prop 110 and another way on Prop 109, but voting against both is also an option. Voting for both is not recommended as noted in this blog’s Prop 109 comments. Neither measure will pass without a majority of the votes cast for that measure.

Website for the Yes Side – Let’s Go Colorado
https://www.letsgocolorado.com/

Website for the No Side – Fix Our Damn Roads
http://fixourdamnroads.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 110 (STATUTORY)

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $766,700,000 ANNUALLY FOR A TWENTY-YEAR PERIOD, AND STATE DEBT SHALL BE INCREASED $6,000,000,000 WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $9,400,000,000, TO PAY FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CHANGING THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO: 1) INCREASE THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX RATE BY 0.62% BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2019; REQUIRING 45% OF THE NEW REVENUE TO FUND STATE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, MAINTENANCE, AND CONGESTION RELATED PROJECTS, 40% TO FUND MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND 15% TO FUND MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, INCLUDING BIKE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE; 2) AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES TO FUND PRIORITY STATE TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, INCLUDING MULTIMODAL CAPITAL PROJECTS; AND 3) PROVIDE THAT ALL REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE TAX RATE INCREASE AND PROCEEDS FROM ISSUANCE OF REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES ARE VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES EXEMPT FROM ANY STATE OR LOCAL REVENUE, SPENDING, OR OTHER LIMITATIONS IN LAW?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 110 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/153Final.pdf

Proposition 111 – Limitations on Payday Loans

Payday loans in Colorado are capped at $500 paid back over a maximum of 6 months. In addition to fees, lenders may currently charge an annual interest rate of 45%.

In 2010 the state legislature curbed excessive payday loan charges, but in 2016 the average annual percentage rate (APR) on payday loans in Colorado in 2016 was still 129 percent. The APR is the total loan cost, including interest and all fees, expressed as a yearly rate. Prop 111 would limit the APR on payday loans to 36 percent, a drastic reduction from the current average APR.

Congress limits the interest rate on payday loans to active-duty military. The Military Annual Percentage Rate (MAPR) is 36% with some exceptions so active-duty military in Colorado are already benefiting from the 36% APR maximum.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

Opponents argue that the state should not regulate payday loans and/or that, under Prop 111, payday loan businesses will leave Colorado, eliminating an important, well-regulated source of short-term credit. Their argument is refuted by the actions of Congress and the 15 states and the District of Columbia that have capped rates at 36%. In Arizona, Montana, Ohio and South Dakota, voters at the ballot box approved the caps.

In our TABOR-constrained state, we are often voting on whether or not to raise taxes. With Prop 111 we have the opportunity to help those with financial challenges without raising taxes. Prop 111 is a hand-up, not a hand-out.

Website for the Yes Side – Coloradans to Stop Predatory Payday Loans
https://www.stoppredatorypaydayloans.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 111 (STATUTORY)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limitations on payday lenders, and, in connection therewith, reducing allowable charges on payday loans to an annual percentage rate of no more than thirty-six percent?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 111 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/126Final.pdf

Proposition 112 – Increased Setback Requirement for Oil and Gas Development

Current setbacks for oil and gas development are 500 feet from a home or other occupied building or 1,000 feet from neighborhoods or high-occupancy buildings, e.g., schools and health care institutions. In some instances, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and a building owner may waive the current setback requirements.

Prop 112 would increase the setback requirement to 2,500 feet for new oil and gas development. In addition to occupied structures, the setback would also apply to water sources and areas designated as vulnerable, such as sports fields.

Recommendation: yes/for

In 2016 Amendment 71 – to make it more difficult to amend the constitution – became a proxy fight between anti-fracking activists and the oil and gas industry. Those in favor of increasing setbacks for oil and gas development sidestepped Amendment 71 this year by proposing a statutory change rather than a constitutional change.

Proponents of Prop 112 chose 2,500 feet because it is about ½ mile. They point to studies showing adverse impacts on health for people within ½ mile of oil and gas drilling. Opponents point to other studies showing no ill health effects under the current setback requirements.

Likewise, the actual economic impact of Prop 112 is debated. An unspecified reduction in state income is anticipated by the Blue Book, but Prop 112 proponents argue that the state is giving more in tax breaks and refunds to oil and gas than the state is receiving in severance taxes.

The intent behind Prop 112 has been a Colorado effort for at least 4 years, despite what opponents say. Nor is Prop 112 as bad as opponents make it out to be. For one, Prop 112 only applies to new development – existing active wells would be grandfathered in. It’s true that abandoned wells would not be grandfathered in and a well is usually most productive in its early years. However, the setback refers to surface land. With horizontal drilling, oil and gas operations can drill multiple wells at the same site and access underground resources that setback requirements would otherwise keep off limits.

Finally, Prop 112 will be in statute and could be changed if the General Assembly votes to change it, preferably after reading the electorate’s mood. For instance, perhaps wells closed in the last 5 years should be considered “active” wells, or perhaps COGCC and owners should be able to waive increased setback requirements though I worry about undue pressure on the property owners.

If both Prop 112 (majority needed) and Amendment 74 (55% needed) both pass, then oil and gas companies may be making many requests for compensation.

Website for the Yes Side – Colorado Rising for Health and Safety
https://corising.org/

Website for the No Side – Protect Colorado’s Environment, Economy and Energy Independence
https://www.protectcolorado.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Proposition 112 (STATUTORY)

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Prop 112 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/97Final.pdf

County of Boulder 1A – Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension

In 2014 voters approved a new 5-year 0.185% county sales tax to fund flood recovery efforts following the famous 2013 flood. The county commissioners would like to extend the tax for five more years but repurpose it for Boulder County Jail facilities and programs, primarily construction of an alternative sentencing facility and expenses related to offender management programs.

In 2003 Boulder County voters approved a permanent 0.05% sales and use tax for jail improvement and operation. Taxpayers did not feel an increase in taxes then because the jail tax replaced an expiring Fire Training Center tax. According to the 2003 Colorado Daily’s Election Guide, that tax would fund 64 more beds in the jail, pay for construction of a new detox facility and fund alternative sentencing and rehab programs.

Recommendation: leaning yes

Proponents and the ballot title argue that jail beds are expensive for low-risk offenders. An alternative sentencing facility would be a wise use of the county budget and, luckily for the commissioners, is a project that might appeal to voters.

Construction funds probably should have been allocated already, perhaps by issuing bonds against the 0.05% sales tax or by earlier placing a tax increase before the voters. In 2016 when former Democratic county commissioner Paul Danish was a Republican candidate for county commissioner, he wrote in the August 4, 2016 issue of the Boulder Weekly about the dire straits of the county jail and the lack of political will by the county commissioners to do anything about it. The 2018 election appears to be the politically expedient time to ask for a politically expedient tax extension.

A sales tax is regressive, the Boulder County budget has ballooned over the last twenty years, and one wonders if the commissioners should have found another way to pay for an alternative sentencing facility or, at a minimum, asked for a smaller sales tax. The “temporary” flood recovery tax increased the county portion of the sales tax by over 20%.

Ongoing offender management programs should not be funded with a temporary tax. I would have preferred that the commissioners ask for the amount needed for facility construction, rather than for the full 0.185%. The commissioners, all of whom were commissioners in 2014, may be accused of breaking their promise not to extend the 0.185% sales tax, but if they had asked for a smaller tax, would they have been able to replace the “With no increase in any county tax” language in the ballot title?” with “With a decrease in county taxes…”?

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

COUNTY ISSUE 1A (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)

WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY EXTEND AN EXISTING 0.185% SALES AND USE TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2019, FOR FIVE (5) YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2024, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING FACILITY AT THE BOULDER COUNTY JAIL AND PROVIDING EXPANDED ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING AND OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TO KEEP LOW-RISK OFFENDERS OUT OF EXPENSIVE JAIL BEDS AND ENABLE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR THE JAIL POPULATION; MODERNIZATION OF THE CURRENT JAIL BUILDING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, RENOVATIONS AND REPURPOSING TO PROVIDE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO MEET THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH NEEDS OF INMATES; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS AND 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. 2018-76?

YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____

Resolution No. 2018-76 to refer 1A to the voters
https://assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018-76-resolution-describing-ballot-proposal.pdf

City of Boulder 2C - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax

Tax questions are first on the ballot so this must be a tax question, right? Well, not really. This is a possible tax increase on future oil and gas operations in the city. The tax would be paid by future developers.

Every barrel of oil would have an additional tax of $6.90 imposed by the city. Every thousand cubic feet of natural gas would have an additional $0.88 imposed. The revenue generated would go first toward mitigating any ill effects from oil and gas development, with the remainder going into the general fund.

Recommendation: leaning for the measure

In effect, 2C would impose a “carbon tax” and would discourage oil and gas developers from thinking about setting up shop in the city of Boulder.

Since there are no current oil and gas operations, this ballot measure seems like a solution in search of a problem. Or like a city that is trying to tout its environmental and health credentials as it pretends that it is gouging Big Oil and Gas. This feels very much like a quintessential Boulder ballot issue.

The real purpose of 2C may be for Boulder to lead the way for other cities that are considering imposing a pollution tax. Why not try the legal ballot language and campaign tactics in a city where no risk currently exists? A fair amount of ink went into the analysis to measure the damage from oil and gas operations and to impose an appropriate tax. [Update: Lafayette's 2A is a very similar ballot issue.]

On the one hand, we may not want oil and gas development in our neighborhood. On the other hand, we all ride in gasoline-powered vehicles and the gasoline has to come from somewhere.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Issue 2C – Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax

Shall City of Boulder taxes be increased $0 in 2019 and by whatever amounts are generated annually thereafter through the imposition of an oil and gas pollution tax at the rate of up to $6.90 per barrel of oil and up to $0.88 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas for oil or gas extracted within the Boulder city limits commencing January 1, 2019, and shall revenue from the tax be used to fund costs associated with oil and gas extraction in the city of Boulder and with the remainder used by the general fund and shall all earnings thereon (regardless of amount) constitute a voter approved revenue change, and an exception to the revenue and spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8264 to put issue 2C to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8264

City of Boulder 2D – Retain Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue

In the 2016 ballot language for Issue 2H, the city of Boulder projected an annual revenue of $3.8 million in excise taxes paid by the distributor of sugar-sweetened beverages were 2H to pass, which it did.

Under TABOR, if the tax revenue exceeds projections, the city must refund the excess amount. The projected 2018 tax revenue is expected to be up to $5.2 million. Boulder is asking voters to allow the city to keep revenue that exceeds the 2016 estimates and not refund it to the sweetened beverage product distributors.

2D is very similar to Prop BB in 2015 when the state asked voters for permission to retain marijuana tax revenue because overall state revenue exceeded projections in the Blue Book.

Recommendation: FOR THE MEASURE

The May 8 city council study session packet notes that although city staff “do not believe an additional ballot measure should be required because the TABOR requirement is an estimate, the other jurisdictions that have faced this issue have put a measure on the ballot to keep the excess because the refunding requirements of TABOR are so onerous and could be imposed years after the fact at ten percent interest.”

Only in Colorado do we have the wacky TABOR law that doesn’t let governments keep “excess” revenue. Refunding the money would be a bureaucratic hassle and the refund would not go directly to the voters. Getting a ballot issue that would decrease the tax from its current 2 cents per fluid ounce would make more sense. Even if you always vote against tax increases and tax extensions, you should vote for 2D.

Website for the Yes Side - Healthy Kids, Healthy Boulder
http://www.healthyboulderkids.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Issue 2D – Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue

Without raising taxes may the city keep all revenues from the 2016 voter-approved sugar-sweetened beverage product distribution excise tax, and continue to collect the tax at the previously approved rate, and spend all revenues collected for the health equity-related purposes previously approved by the voters, without refunding to distributors the amount that exceeded the revenue estimates approved by voters in 2016?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure____

See Ordinance No. 8267 to put Issue 2D to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8267

City of Boulder 2E – Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes

The Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group (CFEWG) proposed 3 charter amendments: 2E, 2F and 2G. Each ballot question can stand alone.

Quoting from an op-ed in the Daily Camera penned by members of CFEWG: “The initiative is where a group of citizens gathers enough signatures to put a proposed piece of legislation on the ballot and asks the voters to approve it. A referendum uses a similar process to give citizens a chance to vote directly on legislation already passed by the governing body. And recalls ask the voters if they want to remove an elected official from office, typically for some serious malfeasance.”

2E proposes changes in 9 different Sections of the charter. Highlights are below.

Section 29
Would replace calendar dates with the date when “ballots are finalized for printing” for handling a candidate withdrawal.

Sections 38A, 56 and 177
Initiative and referenda petitions would require signatures equal to 10% of the average number of people who cast a ballot in the previous two municipal elections. Petitions to recall an elected official – in other words, a city council member – would require 20% of the average number of people who cast a ballot in the previous two municipal elections, likely a decrease from the current 25% of the city vote in the previous gubernatorial election. (2E would eliminate the current Section 38A charter language referring to 5% and 15% petitions. See 2011’s Ballot Question 2G for more information on 5% and 15% petitions.)

Sections 39 and 40 - Proposed Petition Calendar
(DBNE = calendar days before Nov election. Deadlines below may actually refer to the last business day on or before DBNE.)
180 days before filing petition – collect signatures
150 DBNE – file (aka submit) petition with signatures
140 DBNE – clerk certifies sufficiency status
   Within 10 days of clerk’s certificate – resolve insufficiency
120 DBNE - clerk certifies amended petition’s sufficiency status
71 DBNE – council sets ballot title
   Within 7 days of ballot title setting – file any title challenges

Section 48
Prior to the 2017 Ballot Question 2Q, initiative petitioners prepared the ballot title. 2Q gave that power to city council members. This year’s 2E finds middle ground, saying that the groups need to work together to set the ballot title.

Section 54
An initiative or referendum approved by voters “may be amended by two-thirds of the council members present provided that the amendments do not alter or modify the basic intent of such ordinance or are necessary to come into compliance with state or federal law.”

Recommendation: for the measure

Once again Boulder is tinkering with its initiative, referendum and recall processes. (See 2017’s 2Q and 2011’s 2G.) This time, the city council put a group of citizens on the job. The Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group (CFEWG) has recommended these improvements. Some of the members of CFEWG have been personally affected by the charter language and were especially motivated.

Separating the 3 CFEWG charter amendments was a good idea.

Some confusion over dates may still exist even if 2E passes. For instance, in Section 38B one reference is to ten days and another is to five calendar days. How do we interpret the ten days? Ten business days or ten calendar days?

Website for the Yes Side - Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/campaign-financeelections-working-group
Not so much a campaign website as a website tracking the progress of the working group

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language (with bullet points added for clarity)

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E – Charter Amendments for Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes

Shall Sections 29, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 44, 48, 54, 56, and 177 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8272 to:
• clarify the actions required to be taken if a candidate withdraws from a city council election;
• establish the number of signatures required for an initiative and referendum to be at least ten percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections so as to return this number closer to the range that was in place prior to changes in federal law and registration procedures;
• establish the number of signatures required for a recall to be at least twenty percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections;
• amend the process and establish a fixed schedule for filing, review and consideration of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions so that both petitioners and city staff will have clarity and certainty;
• set standards for the city clerk’s examination of petitions so that this examination is completed in a timely fashion and that the possibility of fraud is minimized;
• provide for input from the petition committee to the city council prior to setting the ballot title to help ensure accuracy of the title; and
• require that an ordinance passed by vote of the people may only be amended by two-thirds of the council members present, and only if the amendments are consistent with the basic intent of the ordinance or are necessary to come into compliance with state or federal law?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8272 to put Question 2E to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8272

City of Boulder 2F – Initiative Petition Signature Verification

In 2017 voters approved 2Q, clean-up changes to 13 different Sections of the city charter. The following paragraph was tagged onto the end of Section 39:
“When examining the signatures on petitions, the clerk may verify signatures to the extent reasonably possible by comparison with the election records of the Boulder County Clerk as available, and comparison of signatures on a petition for duplication. Protests of petitions may be made as provided by Colorado law and rules adopted by the city manager.”

Although 2Q allowed for signature verification, the 2018 Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group (CFEWG) found this new part of Section 39 inadequate. CFEWG proposed adding Secretary of State records as another source for comparison purposes and proposed using Boulder Revised Code rather than city manager rules for petition protests. The petition protest would need to “be submitted by 40 calendar days after submittal of the petition to the clerk.” Instead of “the clerk may” verify signatures, the proposed language is now “the clerk shall” verify signatures.

Recommendation: for the measure

Yes, the city should verify signatures that charter requires petitioners to collect.

Let’s hope the city won’t need to propose more changes to Section 39 of the charter next year or council will look incompetent. Actually, Ballot Question 2E also proposes changes to Section 39, but those changes are not at odds with the proposed 2F changes so either or both of the ballot questions could pass or fail without harm to the other.

Website for the Yes Side - Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/campaign-financeelections-working-group
Not so much a campaign website as a website tracking the progress of the working group

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F – Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification

Shall Sections 39, 46, and 57 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8273 to require the city clerk, to the extent reasonably possible and so as to ensure authenticity, compare the signatures on a petition to signatures with the election records of the Boulder County Clerk or the Secretary of State?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8273 to put Question 2F to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8273 

City of Boulder 2G – Electronic and Online Petitions

Ballot Question 2G changes Sections 38, 45, and 56 of the city charter to allow for electronic petitions and online electronic signing or endorsement of petitions. Rather than specify in the charter the details of valid electronic petitions, signatures or endorsements, the proposed charter language reads, “as permitted by Boulder Revised Code.”

Question 2G pertains only to petitions. Final votes on municipal measures will continue to be conducted by election administrators, usually the Boulder County Clerk’s office via mail ballots.

The Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group unanimously recommended putting 2G on the November ballot.

Recommendation: for the measure

This measure adds another option besides paper petitions for circulators of municipal petitions.

The city council heard from Denver election administrators who have provided e-Sign to petition circulators with electronic tablets in order to collect signatures. The e-Sign program eliminates electronically signing the same petition twice, eliminates invalid voting addresses, and even assists in verifying signatures. Denver finds many fewer bad signatures on electronic petitions than on paper petitions, thereby saving staff time for other election functions. Denver administrators also informed city council of the safeguards built into e-Sign to prevent hacking.

2G may reduce the number of paid signature gatherers, allowing smaller organizations with good ideas to offer ballot measures. 2G may also reduce the ugly sidewalk battles that we have seen recently between petition circulators and groups opposed to the initiatives.

The technical details of how to collect and process electronic signatures should not be in the city charter. Kudos to city council for not mucking up our charter with those details.

The more cities in Colorado that adopt e-Sign, the more likely that the state will allow e-Sign for state initiatives. The high signature requirement of “Raise the Bar” Amendment 71, passed in 2016, was overturned but then stayed on appeal. The effect of a high bar could be dampened with e-Sign. Online petitions would provide even more opportunity to surpass a high bar. Concerns about someone assuming another person’s identity are somewhat mitigated by the fact that the signers’ identities would be public info and a person could unsign a petition.

If 2G passes, get ready to be bombarded to sign electronic petitions.

“Website” for the Yes Side – a Change.org petition
https://www.change.org/p/boulder-city-council-allow-online-petitioning-for-ballot-initiatives

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G – Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions

Shall Sections 38, 45, and 56 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8274 to allow the Boulder City Council to adopt ordinances that permit use of electronic petitions and to permit on-line electronic signing or endorsement of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8274 to put Question 2G to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8274

Webpage of the Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/campaign-financeelections-working-group

City of Boulder 2H – Membership of Advisory Commissions

The Boulder City Charter Section 130 reads, “… the council by ordinance may create and provide for such advisory commissions as it may deem advisable … Each of such commissions, including the library commission, shall be composed of five city residents, not all of one sex, …”

However, the Planning Board and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are separately each set at 7 members in Sections 74 and 157, respectively. Perhaps the “board” rather than “commission” designation was partially intentional to get around the 5-member limit.

This year the city council created a Housing Advisory Board, and council members have expressed interest in expanding the board to 7 members. Ballot Question 2H would allow city council the flexibility to set future boards or commissions and this year’s new Housing Advisory Board at either 5 or 7 members.

A majority of a 5-member commission is 3. For a 7-member commission, the majority is 4. Currently, Section 130 specifies, “Special meetings may be called at any time upon due notice by three members. Three members shall constitute a quorum, and the affirmative vote of at least three members shall be necessary to authorize any action by the commission.” Ballot Question 2H would change “three” to “a majority of the.”

Lastly, the phrase “not all of one sex” would be changed to “not all of one gender identity.”

Recommendation: leaning for the measure

Larger boards can allow for more diversity of opinion but may cut down on the commission’s ability to nimbly make decisions.

The change to “majority,” instead of explicitly stating 3 members for 5-member commissions or 4 members for 7-member commissions, sets up the question of what happens if there are 2 vacancies on a commission. Is the majority based on the number of seats on the commission or the number of current commissioners? The current charter language requires 3 members to conduct business and authorize actions, regardless of vacancies. If a commission is dysfunctional and 2 of the 5 members resign, then could a majority be interpreted to be 2 members, perhaps the very 2 members who are most responsible for the dysfunctional commission?

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language (with bullet points added for clarity)

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H -- Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions

Shall Section 130 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8271 to
• allow council to set the number of any new advisory commission as five or seven when forming the commission;
• allow council to increase the size of the Housing Advisory Board from five to seven members;
• change the criteria for what constitutes a majority to accommodate boards of different sizes; and
• change the reference of “sex” to “gender identity?”

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8271 to put Question 2H to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8271

City of Boulder 2I – Deadline for Planning Dept Budget Recommendations

This ballot measure would change the 60-day period to a 30-day period in the city charter’s Section 78 (c): “Submit annually to the city manager, not less than sixty days prior to the date for submission of the city manager’s proposed budget to city council, a list of recommended capital improvements to be undertaken during the forthcoming six-year period.”

Timeline for the city’s budget
  Oct 1 – Deadline for city manager to submit a budget (Charter, Section 93). The first public hearing on the proposed city budget is usually in early October.
  Dec 1 – Deadline for city council to pass an annual appropriation ordinance (Charter, Section 95)
  January 1 – city’s new fiscal year

This ballot measure was submitted by the city council’s charter committee.

Recommendation: leaning for the measure

Putting the above city council and city manager deadlines in the city charter makes more sense than putting a Planning Department deadline in the city charter. A better ballot question would have taken out “not less than sixty days prior to the date for submission of the city manager’s proposed budget to city council” and let the Planning Department and the city manager work out the deadlines outside of the city charter. The 60-day deadline was added to the charter, presumably by the voters, at some date after the city manager and city council deadlines were enshrined in the charter.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I – Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations

Shall Section 78 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8270 to change the time for the Planning Department to submit its recommendations for public improvements from sixty days to thirty days before the submission of the budget to be consistent with the city’s budgeting process?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8270 to put Question 2I to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8270

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 7G – Remove TABOR Restrictions

The CO General Assembly established the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) in 1969 to work on what its name suggests. UDFCD includes Denver and parts of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas and Jefferson Counties.

Everyone who pays property taxes in UDFCD has a line on their tax statement showing the UDFCD mill levy. According to the UDFCD website, the current mill levy for Boulder County is ½ mill. The legislature authorized up to 1 mill for UDFCD, but TABOR’s passage in 1992 has forced the mill levy to decrease. The projected increased cost to homeowners in 2019 under 7G is $1.97 per $100,000 of home value.

The UDFCD board of directors voted unanimously on August 16th to ask voters to remove the TABOR restrictions.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

TABOR acts like a set of handcuffs that impedes our financial flexibility. Colorado is the one and only state with TABOR rules. Other states, seeing the limits imposed on Colorado, have wisely chosen not to adopt rules similar to TABOR.

Website for the Yes Side – Citizens Protecting People, Property, and Open Space.
https://www.yeson7g.com/

Website for the No Side – Taxpayers Protecting Affordable Housing
http://noon7g.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G

SHALL URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $14.9 MILLION IN 2019 (RESULTING IN AN ANNUAL TAX INCREASE NOT TO EXCEED $1.97 IN 2019 FOR EACH $100,000 OF ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL VALUATION) AND BY SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER FROM A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED 1.0 MILLS TO PAY FOR DISTRICT WORK IN COORDINATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING:
  1. MAINTAINING EARLY FLOOD WARNING GAUGES TO PROVIDE POTENTIAL EVACUATION WARNINGS,
  2. PROVIDING TRAILS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO RESIDENTS BY PRESERVING THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN FLOODPLAIN AREAS WHICH PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND
  3. REMOVING DEBRIS, GARBAGE AND OBSTRUCTIONS FROM STREAMS, CREEKS AND RIVERS RESULTING IN REDUCED RISK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS, PROTECTING PROPERTY, AND RESTORING NATURAL BEAUTY;
WITH THE DISTRICT’S ENTIRE MILL LEVY RATE SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CAPS AND TO ADJUSTMENT TO OFFSET REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL VALUATION USED TO DETERMINE ASSESSED VALUATION; AND SHALL ALL DISTRICTREVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT NOT WITHSTANDING ANY LIMITS PROVIDED BY LAW?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District website
https://udfcd.org

August 2018 Board Meeting Packet to put 7G on the ballot. See pages 35-40.
https://udfcd.org/wp-content/uploads/uploads/bod/meeting%20materials/2018/August%202018%20Board%20Packet.pdf