What a year this has been! Usually people following ballot measures worry about drop-off for the down-ballot races and ballot issues, but this year there is a national effort to discredit any effort to make voting easier and more widespread. Voting by mail is particularly in the crosshairs.
Please make a plan for getting your ballot if you have moved. Remember that in Colorado you can register and vote as late as Election Day, Tuesday, November 3rd. You have 3 ways to vote:
1) In person at one of your county’s Voter Service and Polling Centers
2) Mail your ballot with appropriate postage and allowing for adequate delivery time
3) Drop off your ballot at any Colorado polling place or ballot drop box, even outside of your county.
Since ballots will get mailed out beginning October 9, check with your county clerk to figure out the best way to get your ballot if you aree registering or updating your address now.
Ballot issues are the quintessential down-ballot races, but presidential election years have higher turnout so ballot issues may get more attention. Statewide citizen initiatives generally run in even years. City and county governments often think twice about running a lot of ballot measures in even years, especially if the different levels of government are all competing for your tax dollars. Except for 2D though, versions of this year’s local measures were all brought forth originally by citizens to city council rather than originating with city council.
Meanwhile, for a General Assembly session interrupted by a pandemic, the legislature still managed to refer 3 measures to the ballot and delay a transportation bond issue one more year to 2021. Prop 113 is the first citizens’ veto referendum to get certified for the ballot since 1932. A veto referendum is an effort to repeal a law passed by the legislature, in this case Colorado’s joining the National Popular Vote Compact. Two of this year’s amendments (B and 77) are repeals of constitutional language so they only need a simple majority to pass. The other amendments (C and 76) need 55% to pass.
Each of the 16 ballot measures has its own post if you’d like more information or if you would like to make a comment on a specific ballot measure. 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. More links will be updated as more information becomes available.
VOCABULARY
Amendment = Constitutional change
Any non-repeal amendments require 55% of the electorate for passage.
Proposition = Statutory change
Propositions can be modified later 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 (city)
The governing legislative body (General Assembly, City Council) put these on the ballot.
Ballot Issues = Tax or debt measures
Ballot Questions = Others
2020 BALLOT MEASURES
STATE OF COLORADO
Amendment B – requires a simple majority to pass
Repeal the Gallagher Amendment
Remove the 45% residential vs 55% nonresidential property tax ratio requirement and effectively fix the assessment rates at their current percentages
Yes/For
Amendment C
Ease Regulations on Nonprofits Engaging in Charitable Gaming
Allow nonprofits to engage in charitable gaming after 3 years instead of 5 years and to begin paying a minimum wage to run gaming operations
Yes/For
Amendment 76
Change CO Constitution Paragraph on Voting Eligibility from “Every Citizen” to “Only a Citizen”
Prohibit expanding the right to vote to anyone not meeting specified requirements including disenfranchising almost-18-year-olds in primary elections
NO/AGAINST
Amendment 77 – requires a simple majority to pass
Allow Gambling Town Voters to Expand Gaming and Increase Bet Limits
Repeal casino bet limits and restrictions from the constitution, permit local voters to increase bet limits and add new casino games, and expand community colleges’ allowable uses for gambling revenue
leaning yes/leaning for
Proposition EE
Taxes on Nicotine and Tobacco Products
Establish a minimum consumer price per pack and per carton of cigarettes, a new nicotine (vaping) tax, and increasing cigarette, tobacco and nicotine taxes until reaching a maximum in mid-2027
Yes/For
Proposition 113
National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC)
Affirm the legislature’s decision to join the NPVC so that the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote is elected (once states with 270 Electoral College votes join the NPVC)
Yes/For
Proposition 114
Reintroduction and Management of Gray Wolves
Reintroduce and manage gray wolves, obtain regular public feedback on the plan, and compensate livestock owners for losses
leaning yes/leaning for
Proposition 115
Prohibition on Abortion at 22 Weeks
Update the criminal code to punish abortion providers who perform abortions beginning at 22 weeks (about 5 months) with exceptions only for the physical health of the pregnant woman
NO/AGAINST
Proposition 116
Reduce State Income Tax Rate
Reduce the Colorado flat income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%
NO/AGAINST
Proposition 117
Voter Approval of New High-Revenue State Enterprises Exempt from TABOR
Require voter approval for new state enterprises if the fee revenue is projected to be or was $100M in the first 5 years
NO/AGAINST
Proposition 118
Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program
Create a state program to provide up to 12 weeks of leave at up to 90% of pay (maximum $1,100/week in first year) for eligible employees
Yes/For
CITY OF BOULDER
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B
No Eviction Without Representation
Impose a tax on landlords to pay for tenant representation in eviction hearings
Yes/For
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Public Service Company Franchise
Enter into a new Xcel Franchise Agreement after a 10-year lapse
leaning yes/leaning for
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D
Repurpose the Utility Occupation Tax
Extends and repurpose the portion of the Utility Occupation Tax currently directed toward municipalization efforts
leaning yes/leaning for
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E
Charter Amendments Related to Direct Election of the Mayor
Directly elect the mayor beginning in 2023 (unless delayed) using ranked voting
No/Against
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F
Charter Amendment Related to the Boulder Arts Commission
Increase the Arts Commission from 5 to 7 commissioners
Yes/For
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SITES
Colorado Secretary of State – Go Vote Colorado page
http://govotecolorado.gov
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder
303 413 7740
https://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/
Look up your voter registration, see a sample ballot, check your ballot status, and find the county Voter Service and Polling Center locations.
GOVERNMENT SITES
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 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet – available in English and Spanish.
City of Boulder
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections
Judicial Performance Commission
Find out more about the judges who will be on your ballot.
http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2020
MEDIA SITES
Boulder Weekly Election Guide
https://www.boulderweekly.com/special-editions/vote-guide-2020/
Daily Camera Voter Guide
https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/10/09/2020-voter-guide-for-boulder-broomfield-and-weld-counties/
Boulder Beat Election 2020
https://boulderbeat.news/boulder-ballot-election-2020/
Colorado Politics Voter Guide
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/eedition/page-o-01/page_5207cc4f-440f-580d-b77e-714a0c627d3d.html
Colorado Sun Voter Guide
https://coloradosun.com/2020/10/04/colorado-ballot-guide-2020-election/
Colorado Public Radio Ballot Guide
https://www.cpr.org/category/politics/2020-elections/
5280 Magazine
https://www.5280.com/2020/09/your-go-to-guide-to-colorados-2020-ballot-measures/
FollowtheMoneyCO
http://followthemoneyco.com/
INFORMATION-ONLY SITES
League of Women Voters - also listed under Advocacy Sites
Vote411.org - See your ballot, learn about the issues and the candidates.
Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2020_ballot_measures
Entries for individual ballot measures list supporters and opponents, campaign finance information and more.
Count Me In Colorado
http://countmeincolorado.com/2020-ballot-information/
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION SITES
These sites take positions on all or most of the measures.
League of Women Voters
Colorado Ballot Issues (English and Spanish)
https://www.lwvcolorado.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=314195&module_id=414279
LWV of Boulder County Elections 2020 (English and Spanish)
https://www.lwvbc.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=629866&module_id=404841
Bell Policy Center
https://www.bellpolicy.org/2020/10/04/2020-ballot-guide/
New Era Voter Guide
https://neweravoterguide.org/
POLITICAL PARTY SITES
Boulder County Republican Party Voter Guide
https://www.bocogop.org/index.php/2-uncategorised/47-2020-voter-guide
Boulder County Democratic Party Voter Guide
https://bocovoter.org/
CITIZEN SITES
My Weekly Resistance
https://www.myweeklyresistance.com/voter-guide-2020
Eric Budd
https://ericmbudd.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/how-im-voting-in-the-2020-boulder-colorado-elections/
Richard Valenty
https://richardvalenty.com/election-2020-lots-to-think-about/
Mike Rosen (Complete Colorado)
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2020/10/05/rosen-my-take-on-the-2020-ballot-measures/
Friday, October 9, 2020
Thursday, October 8, 2020
Amendment B – Repeal the Gallagher Amendment Related to Property Taxes
Amendment B would repeal two constitutional requirements in Article X commonly referred to as the Gallagher Amendment, after then-state senator Dennis Gallagher who drafted the referendum passed by voters in 1982.
Colorado has had rapid population growth with only five congressional districts in 1980, seven today and possibly eight after the 2020 census reapportionment. Nevertheless, Colorado’s total residential property taxes are fixed at the 1982 level of 45% of the total property tax.
Since Gallagher passed, most nonresidential property is assessed at a fixed 29% rate. Under the formula,
property tax = property value * assessment rate * mill levy,
the state is forced to annually reevaluate the assessment rate on residential properties to maintain the required 45% - 55% ratio. In 1983 the residential assessment rate (RAR) was 21%. Even in the years when nonresidential property values increase faster than residential values, TABOR forbids the RAR from increasing without a vote of the people. The RAR has only gone down since 1983 to its current 7.15%.
Amendment B would repeal the 45% - 55% ratio requirement and the fixed 29% nonresidential assessment rate. Since the legislature is unlikely to decrease assessment rates, expect them to stay at 29% and 7.15%. Any future increases in assessment rates would have to be approved by the electorate. Some local jurisdictions have automatic property tax increases to offset losses from the Gallagher, and those would be eliminated. If Amendment B does not pass, the RAR is projected to continue to decrease.
Because Amendment B is a repeal of constitutional provisions, only a simple majority is needed for passage. A similar attempt to repeal Gallagher in 2003 failed with 77.6% voting against Initiative 32.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Schools, counties, fire departments and more depend on property taxes. Urban communities with a good mix of residential and nonresidential properties are weathering Gallagher’s requirements okay, but rural communities are suffering.
TABOR, the Gallagher Amendment and Amendment 23 are the three big constraints on the state budget. We have a chance to free ourselves from one of the big three while keeping Colorado’s residential property taxes among the lowest in the nation.
Website for the Yes side – Yes on Amendment B
https://yesonamendmentb.com/
Building a Better Colorado “does not advocate for any specific solutions” but asked community groups about possible solutions for Colorado’s fiscal handcuffs.
https://buildingabettercolorado.org/understanding-the-gallagher-amendment/
Website for the No side – Keep Property Taxes Low
https://keeptaxeslowco.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment B (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Without increasing property tax rates, to help preserve funding for local districts that provide fire protection, police, ambulance, hospital, kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and other services, and to avoid automatic mill levy increases, shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution to repeal the requirement that the general assembly periodically change the residential assessment rate in order to maintain the statewide proportion of residential property as compared to all other taxable property valued for property tax purposes and repeal the nonresidential property tax assessment rate of twenty-nine percent?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
SCR20-001 to refer Amendment B to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_scr001_enr.pdf
Colorado has had rapid population growth with only five congressional districts in 1980, seven today and possibly eight after the 2020 census reapportionment. Nevertheless, Colorado’s total residential property taxes are fixed at the 1982 level of 45% of the total property tax.
Since Gallagher passed, most nonresidential property is assessed at a fixed 29% rate. Under the formula,
property tax = property value * assessment rate * mill levy,
the state is forced to annually reevaluate the assessment rate on residential properties to maintain the required 45% - 55% ratio. In 1983 the residential assessment rate (RAR) was 21%. Even in the years when nonresidential property values increase faster than residential values, TABOR forbids the RAR from increasing without a vote of the people. The RAR has only gone down since 1983 to its current 7.15%.
Amendment B would repeal the 45% - 55% ratio requirement and the fixed 29% nonresidential assessment rate. Since the legislature is unlikely to decrease assessment rates, expect them to stay at 29% and 7.15%. Any future increases in assessment rates would have to be approved by the electorate. Some local jurisdictions have automatic property tax increases to offset losses from the Gallagher, and those would be eliminated. If Amendment B does not pass, the RAR is projected to continue to decrease.
Because Amendment B is a repeal of constitutional provisions, only a simple majority is needed for passage. A similar attempt to repeal Gallagher in 2003 failed with 77.6% voting against Initiative 32.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Schools, counties, fire departments and more depend on property taxes. Urban communities with a good mix of residential and nonresidential properties are weathering Gallagher’s requirements okay, but rural communities are suffering.
TABOR, the Gallagher Amendment and Amendment 23 are the three big constraints on the state budget. We have a chance to free ourselves from one of the big three while keeping Colorado’s residential property taxes among the lowest in the nation.
Website for the Yes side – Yes on Amendment B
https://yesonamendmentb.com/
Building a Better Colorado “does not advocate for any specific solutions” but asked community groups about possible solutions for Colorado’s fiscal handcuffs.
https://buildingabettercolorado.org/understanding-the-gallagher-amendment/
Website for the No side – Keep Property Taxes Low
https://keeptaxeslowco.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment B (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Without increasing property tax rates, to help preserve funding for local districts that provide fire protection, police, ambulance, hospital, kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and other services, and to avoid automatic mill levy increases, shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution to repeal the requirement that the general assembly periodically change the residential assessment rate in order to maintain the statewide proportion of residential property as compared to all other taxable property valued for property tax purposes and repeal the nonresidential property tax assessment rate of twenty-nine percent?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
SCR20-001 to refer Amendment B to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_scr001_enr.pdf
Wednesday, October 7, 2020
Amendment C – Ease Regulations on Nonprofits Engaging in Charitable Gaming
Amendment C would change the time requirement that a charitable organization must have been in existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license – think bingo and raffles – from 5 years to 3 years and allow the legislature to make further time period adjustments beginning in 2024.
Amendment C would also allow the charitable organization to begin paying people, but no more than “the applicable” minimum wage, to run charitable games. When an employee is subject to both of Colorado’s minimum wage ($12/hour but adjusted annually) and the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour), the employee is entitled to the higher wage.
Recommendation: Yes/For
What does enshrining regulations on gaming in the constitution say about how much Colorado cares, or at one time cared, about gaming? If gaming were not in the constitution, we would not be voting on Amendments C and 77 nor have voted on 2014’s Amendment 68.
Fortunately, the trend seems to be toward taking gaming out of the constitution. Amendment 77 proposes repealing some constitutional language, Amendment C gives state legislatures more power beginning in 2024, and 2019's Prop DD on sports betting is in statute instead of the constitution.
In 2010 Amendment P asked voters to change the constitution to allow the legislature to specify an authority to regulate games of chance. The voters resoundingly rejected Amendment P with 62.3% against. I hope this year’s more limited attempt to take gaming out of the constitution will pass.
Website for the Yes side – Colorado Charitable Bingo Association
https://cobingoassn.com/amendment-c/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment C (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and operators of games and reducing the required period of a charitable organization's continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR20-1001 to refer Amendment C to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_hcr1001_rr2.pdf
Amendment C would also allow the charitable organization to begin paying people, but no more than “the applicable” minimum wage, to run charitable games. When an employee is subject to both of Colorado’s minimum wage ($12/hour but adjusted annually) and the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour), the employee is entitled to the higher wage.
Recommendation: Yes/For
What does enshrining regulations on gaming in the constitution say about how much Colorado cares, or at one time cared, about gaming? If gaming were not in the constitution, we would not be voting on Amendments C and 77 nor have voted on 2014’s Amendment 68.
Fortunately, the trend seems to be toward taking gaming out of the constitution. Amendment 77 proposes repealing some constitutional language, Amendment C gives state legislatures more power beginning in 2024, and 2019's Prop DD on sports betting is in statute instead of the constitution.
In 2010 Amendment P asked voters to change the constitution to allow the legislature to specify an authority to regulate games of chance. The voters resoundingly rejected Amendment P with 62.3% against. I hope this year’s more limited attempt to take gaming out of the constitution will pass.
Website for the Yes side – Colorado Charitable Bingo Association
https://cobingoassn.com/amendment-c/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment C (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and operators of games and reducing the required period of a charitable organization's continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HCR20-1001 to refer Amendment C to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_hcr1001_rr2.pdf
Amendment 76 – Change CO Constitution Paragraph on Voting Eligibility from “Every Citizen” to “Only a Citizen”
Article VII, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution states, “Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, has resided in this state for such time as may be prescribed by law, and has been duly registered as a voter if required by law shall be qualified to vote at all elections.
The proposed language – changing “every citizen” to “only a citizen” – would prohibit expanding the right to vote to anyone not meeting the specified requirements. For instance, the CO legislature allowed 17-year-old citizens who would be 18 in the general election to vote in this year’s primary. Passing Amendment 76 would take away that newfound right.
Home-rule charters currently allow some non-resident property owners to vote in local elections. The Blue Book notes that “ultimately the courts may have to decide how the measure is applied to election in home rule cities and towns.”
Although the US Constitution lacks an affirmative right to vote, it forbids denying the right based on membership in certain groups, e.g., former slaves and women. There is no constitutional provision prohibiting noncitizens from voting. However, since 1996, federal law has prohibited noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and no state currently allows noncitizens to vote in state elections.
The US has a long history of legal, noncitizen voting that continues to this day. San Francisco allows a “parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education" and about a dozen Maryland municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.
In 2013 the city of Boulder electorate passed 2G allowing city council to appoint noncitizens as members of city commissions.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
This mean-spirited disenfranchisement effort uses fear of immigrants and ignorance of current laws to take away a newfound right of almost-18-year-olds and to limit possible future expansion of voting across Colorado.
Website for the Yes side – Colorado Citizen Voters
https://www.coloradocitizenvoters.com/
Website for the No side – Campaign for Real Election Protection
https://votenoon76.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 76 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring that to be qualified to vote at any election an individual must be a United States citizen?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Amendment 76 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/76Final.pdf
The proposed language – changing “every citizen” to “only a citizen” – would prohibit expanding the right to vote to anyone not meeting the specified requirements. For instance, the CO legislature allowed 17-year-old citizens who would be 18 in the general election to vote in this year’s primary. Passing Amendment 76 would take away that newfound right.
Home-rule charters currently allow some non-resident property owners to vote in local elections. The Blue Book notes that “ultimately the courts may have to decide how the measure is applied to election in home rule cities and towns.”
Although the US Constitution lacks an affirmative right to vote, it forbids denying the right based on membership in certain groups, e.g., former slaves and women. There is no constitutional provision prohibiting noncitizens from voting. However, since 1996, federal law has prohibited noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and no state currently allows noncitizens to vote in state elections.
The US has a long history of legal, noncitizen voting that continues to this day. San Francisco allows a “parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education" and about a dozen Maryland municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.
In 2013 the city of Boulder electorate passed 2G allowing city council to appoint noncitizens as members of city commissions.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
This mean-spirited disenfranchisement effort uses fear of immigrants and ignorance of current laws to take away a newfound right of almost-18-year-olds and to limit possible future expansion of voting across Colorado.
Website for the Yes side – Colorado Citizen Voters
https://www.coloradocitizenvoters.com/
Website for the No side – Campaign for Real Election Protection
https://votenoon76.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 76 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring that to be qualified to vote at any election an individual must be a United States citizen?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Amendment 76 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/76Final.pdf
Amendment 77 – Allow Gambling Town Voters to Expand Gaming and Increase Bet Limits
Voters can pass the measure with a simple majority because the constitutional changes proposed in Amendment 77 are to repeal the following 12 words:
“to include roulette or craps or both”
“up to one hundred dollars”
The statutory changes proposed in Amendment 77 permit voters in the gaming towns to determine a new maximum bet limit and to add new casino games.
Amendment 50, passed by voters in 2008, increased the bet limit from $5 to $100. The increased tax revenue associated with the changed bet limit was dedicated to several purposes with a SMALL portion of the increased tax revenue divided as follows:
78% to community colleges
12% to the gaming towns’ counties
10% to the gaming towns
Any increased bet revenue would continue to be distributed according to the existing formula. Amendment 77 also expands the allowable uses of the community college portion to include programs to improve student retention and increase credential completion.
The gaming towns listed in the CO constitution are Central (City), Black Hawk and Cripple Creek.
Prop DD, passed by voters in 2019, legalized sports betting online and in casinos.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Taking out gambling details from the constitution makes sense. Not putting any restrictions in statute might be a mistake, but if gaming towns abuse their “local choice,” the legislature can wrest control back from the local voters. If we could guarantee that the legislature would appropriately monitor and correct the gambling situation as appropriate, I would make a stronger positive recommendation.
Colorado won’t turn into a Nevada as long as state-sanctioned casinos are restricted to the 3 gaming towns, but gambling addictions do affect the wider community. The gaming counties and towns receive busloads of visitors who go home after gambling but leave 22% of a small portion of gaming tax revenue behind.
The proponents point out that the only other state with an individual bet limit is South Dakota. Its state-sanctioned (not Native American) casinos are in the town of Deadwood, where the maximum bet for most casinos remains at $100, despite a change in 2012 to allow $1000 bets. The reason: Few Deadwoods casinos have met the surveillance and cash requirements in order to accept the higher bets.
Website for the Yes side – Local Choice Colorado
https://localchoicecolorado.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 77 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning voter-approved changes to limited gaming, and, in connection therewith, allowing the voters of Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, for their individual cities, to approve other games in addition to those currently allowed and increase a maximum single bet to any amount; and allowing gaming tax revenue to be used for support services to improve student retention and credential completion by students enrolled in community colleges?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Amendment 77 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/257Final.pdf
“to include roulette or craps or both”
“up to one hundred dollars”
The statutory changes proposed in Amendment 77 permit voters in the gaming towns to determine a new maximum bet limit and to add new casino games.
Amendment 50, passed by voters in 2008, increased the bet limit from $5 to $100. The increased tax revenue associated with the changed bet limit was dedicated to several purposes with a SMALL portion of the increased tax revenue divided as follows:
78% to community colleges
12% to the gaming towns’ counties
10% to the gaming towns
Any increased bet revenue would continue to be distributed according to the existing formula. Amendment 77 also expands the allowable uses of the community college portion to include programs to improve student retention and increase credential completion.
The gaming towns listed in the CO constitution are Central (City), Black Hawk and Cripple Creek.
Prop DD, passed by voters in 2019, legalized sports betting online and in casinos.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Taking out gambling details from the constitution makes sense. Not putting any restrictions in statute might be a mistake, but if gaming towns abuse their “local choice,” the legislature can wrest control back from the local voters. If we could guarantee that the legislature would appropriately monitor and correct the gambling situation as appropriate, I would make a stronger positive recommendation.
Colorado won’t turn into a Nevada as long as state-sanctioned casinos are restricted to the 3 gaming towns, but gambling addictions do affect the wider community. The gaming counties and towns receive busloads of visitors who go home after gambling but leave 22% of a small portion of gaming tax revenue behind.
The proponents point out that the only other state with an individual bet limit is South Dakota. Its state-sanctioned (not Native American) casinos are in the town of Deadwood, where the maximum bet for most casinos remains at $100, despite a change in 2012 to allow $1000 bets. The reason: Few Deadwoods casinos have met the surveillance and cash requirements in order to accept the higher bets.
Website for the Yes side – Local Choice Colorado
https://localchoicecolorado.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 77 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning voter-approved changes to limited gaming, and, in connection therewith, allowing the voters of Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, for their individual cities, to approve other games in addition to those currently allowed and increase a maximum single bet to any amount; and allowing gaming tax revenue to be used for support services to improve student retention and credential completion by students enrolled in community colleges?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Amendment 77 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/257Final.pdf
Proposition EE – Taxes on Nicotine and Tobacco Products
The legislature wants to raise taxes, especially on vaping products which aren’t currently subject to a “sin” tax, but the voters in Colorado have to approve taxes so Prop EE is on your ballot. House Bill 1427 passed mostly along party lines with a late amendment to use some of the tax revenue to reduce housing insecurity.
All of the affected products are currently subject to sales tax. The numbers below refer to the changes in cigarette, tobacco and nicotine taxes as described in HB1427 and differ somewhat from the numbers in the Blue Book. Beginning on Jan 1, 2021, Proposition EE would increase or impose taxes in multiple steps with the final authorized tax increase to occur on July 1, 2027.
--Per cigarette: from 1 to 6.5 to 8 to 10 cents
--Statutory tobacco products: from 20% to 30% to 36% to 42% of manufacturer’s list price (MLP)
--Nicotine (vaping) products: new 30% to 35% to 50% to 56% to 62% of MLP
Prop EE would also establish a minimum tax on moist snuff products and a new tax rate on modified risk tobacco products (MRTP). MRTP are intended to replace products with worse health risks, but Prop EE prohibits vaping from being classified as MRTP for state tax purposes, even if vaping products receive an MRTP federal designation.
Colorado consumers making online purchases from out-of-state retailers would be subject to these new or increased taxes.
Prop EE sets a minimum price for packs and cartons at $7 and $70 respectively, later rising to $7.50 and $75.
New tax revenue would help fund many services: preschool, rural schools, some K-12 education, affordable housing assistance, eviction legal assistance, local governments, tobacco education programs and the general fund.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Colorado has been called the healthiest state in the nation, but our high youth vaping rates go against that image. It’s time to tax vaping products. With medical costs so high, requiring people to pay more on the front end for unhealthy products doesn’t seem so unreasonable and has been shown to change societal behavior for the better.
Establishing a high minimum retail price for packs and cartons is considered a bone thrown to the name-brand cigarette companies, especially the Altria Group, so that they would go along with this measure. Altria successfully fought Amendment 72’s proposed tax increase in 2016. The vast majority of the opponents’ funding has come from Liggett, a large US tobacco company that markets discount cigarettes.
Reducing competition and increasing prices is not usually a desirable goal, but if the item on offer comes with a surgeon general’s warning, perhaps we do want to discourage its purchase and consumption.
Website for the Yes side – A Brighter, Healthier Future for Colorado's Kids
https://forcokids.com/
Website for the No side – No on EE – A Bad Deal for Colorado
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition EE (STATUTORY)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY $294,000,000 ANNUALLY BY IMPOSING A TAX ON NICOTINE LIQUIDS USED IN E-CIGARETTES AND OTHER VAPING PRODUCTS THAT IS EQUAL TO THE TOTAL STATE TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS WHEN FULLY PHASED IN, INCREMENTALLY INCREASING THE TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX BY UP TO 22% OF THE MANUFACTURER'S LIST PRICE, INCREMENTALLY INCREASING THE CIGARETTE TAX BY UP TO 9 CENTS PER CIGARETTE, EXPANDING THE EXISTING CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAXES TO APPLY TO SALES TO CONSUMERS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE STATE, ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM TAX FOR MOIST SNUFF TOBACCO PRODUCTS, CREATING AN INVENTORY TAX THAT APPLIES FOR FUTURE CIGARETTE TAX INCREASES, AND INITIALLY USING THE TAX REVENUE PRIMARILY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING TO HELP OFFSET REVENUE THAT HAS BEEN LOST AS A RESULT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS RELATED TO COVID-19 AND THEN FOR PROGRAMS THAT REDUCE THE USE OF TOBACCO AND NICOTINE PRODUCTS, ENHANCE THE VOLUNTARY COLORADO PRESCHOOL PROGRAM AND MAKE IT WIDELY AVAILABLE FOR FREE, AND MAINTAIN THE FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT CURRENTLY RECEIVE REVENUE FROM TOBACCO TAXES, WITH THE STATE KEEPING AND SPENDING ALL OF THE NEW TAX REVENUE AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HB20-1427 to refer Proposition EE to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_1427_rer.pdf
All of the affected products are currently subject to sales tax. The numbers below refer to the changes in cigarette, tobacco and nicotine taxes as described in HB1427 and differ somewhat from the numbers in the Blue Book. Beginning on Jan 1, 2021, Proposition EE would increase or impose taxes in multiple steps with the final authorized tax increase to occur on July 1, 2027.
--Per cigarette: from 1 to 6.5 to 8 to 10 cents
--Statutory tobacco products: from 20% to 30% to 36% to 42% of manufacturer’s list price (MLP)
--Nicotine (vaping) products: new 30% to 35% to 50% to 56% to 62% of MLP
Prop EE would also establish a minimum tax on moist snuff products and a new tax rate on modified risk tobacco products (MRTP). MRTP are intended to replace products with worse health risks, but Prop EE prohibits vaping from being classified as MRTP for state tax purposes, even if vaping products receive an MRTP federal designation.
Colorado consumers making online purchases from out-of-state retailers would be subject to these new or increased taxes.
Prop EE sets a minimum price for packs and cartons at $7 and $70 respectively, later rising to $7.50 and $75.
New tax revenue would help fund many services: preschool, rural schools, some K-12 education, affordable housing assistance, eviction legal assistance, local governments, tobacco education programs and the general fund.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Colorado has been called the healthiest state in the nation, but our high youth vaping rates go against that image. It’s time to tax vaping products. With medical costs so high, requiring people to pay more on the front end for unhealthy products doesn’t seem so unreasonable and has been shown to change societal behavior for the better.
Establishing a high minimum retail price for packs and cartons is considered a bone thrown to the name-brand cigarette companies, especially the Altria Group, so that they would go along with this measure. Altria successfully fought Amendment 72’s proposed tax increase in 2016. The vast majority of the opponents’ funding has come from Liggett, a large US tobacco company that markets discount cigarettes.
Reducing competition and increasing prices is not usually a desirable goal, but if the item on offer comes with a surgeon general’s warning, perhaps we do want to discourage its purchase and consumption.
Website for the Yes side – A Brighter, Healthier Future for Colorado's Kids
https://forcokids.com/
Website for the No side – No on EE – A Bad Deal for Colorado
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition EE (STATUTORY)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY $294,000,000 ANNUALLY BY IMPOSING A TAX ON NICOTINE LIQUIDS USED IN E-CIGARETTES AND OTHER VAPING PRODUCTS THAT IS EQUAL TO THE TOTAL STATE TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS WHEN FULLY PHASED IN, INCREMENTALLY INCREASING THE TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX BY UP TO 22% OF THE MANUFACTURER'S LIST PRICE, INCREMENTALLY INCREASING THE CIGARETTE TAX BY UP TO 9 CENTS PER CIGARETTE, EXPANDING THE EXISTING CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAXES TO APPLY TO SALES TO CONSUMERS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE STATE, ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM TAX FOR MOIST SNUFF TOBACCO PRODUCTS, CREATING AN INVENTORY TAX THAT APPLIES FOR FUTURE CIGARETTE TAX INCREASES, AND INITIALLY USING THE TAX REVENUE PRIMARILY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING TO HELP OFFSET REVENUE THAT HAS BEEN LOST AS A RESULT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS RELATED TO COVID-19 AND THEN FOR PROGRAMS THAT REDUCE THE USE OF TOBACCO AND NICOTINE PRODUCTS, ENHANCE THE VOLUNTARY COLORADO PRESCHOOL PROGRAM AND MAKE IT WIDELY AVAILABLE FOR FREE, AND MAINTAIN THE FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT CURRENTLY RECEIVE REVENUE FROM TOBACCO TAXES, WITH THE STATE KEEPING AND SPENDING ALL OF THE NEW TAX REVENUE AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
HB20-1427 to refer Proposition EE to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_1427_rer.pdf
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Proposition 113 – National Popular Vote Compact
States in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) commit that the Electoral College (EC) in their state will consist of the presidential electors of the party whose nominee wins the national popular vote. (And this year the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in CO Dept of State v Baca that states can bind electors to the candidates to which they are pledged.) The NPVIC will take effect when states with a majority of the EC votes – 270 or more – sign onto the compact.
The General Assembly passed Senate Bill 19-042 for Colorado to join the NPVIC, 19-16 in the Senate and 34-29-1 in the House. Several amendments were introduced – not all of them serious – but none passed, partly because all the states in the compact have to use standardized language. For instance, the bill language includes a provision on how to handle a tie in the national popular vote – the elector slate of the winner of the state’s popular vote would be certified.
If the General Assembly passed this bill, why are we voting on it this fall? Every bill in Colorado has either a safety clause or a petition clause. A bill with a safety clause can take effect immediately after the governor signs it and is not subject to a citizen petition to refer part or all of the bill to the Colorado electorate. The sponsors of this bill could not justify a safety clause since the NPVIC effort wouldn’t take effect by the 2020 election so opponents were allowed to collect signatures to ask the voters if they really want Colorado to join the NPVIC.
Birch Bayh, who died in 2019, is the only non-Founding Father to author two Constitutional Amendments: the 25th and 26th Amendments. He also led unsuccessful efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment and to abolish the Electoral College.
After Bayh’s efforts failed, people frustrated with the Electoral College’s results not always matching the popular vote looked for a different solution. Getting enough states to join the NPVIC is probably easier than amending the US Constitution to accomplish the same goal.
Recommendation: Yes/For
By design, the Electoral College gives more weight to smaller states and their voters -- similar to the US Senate. Many people believe that the Electoral College advantages the Republican Party, but the number of small red states and small blue states is comparable. The states that really matter are the swing states.
By definition, swing states are not dominated by either major party. Both major candidates get lots of votes, but the size of the margin of victory doesn’t matter. The candidate receiving the most votes in the state in November gets all the state’s EC votes in December. (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions, awarding 2 EC votes to the state winner and the other EC votes to the corresponding congressional district winner.)
The one election that is on everyone’s ballot should be decided by a national vote, instead of in 51 separate elections.
One flawed argument against a national popular vote is that different states have different rules, for instance, about early voting, applying for an absentee ballot, and whether and when felons can vote. States that make it easier to vote would be likely to have more say in who is elected president! And, conversely, states that make it harder to vote would have less say in who is elected president. Higher voter turnout is a good goal for a democracy and, if NPVIC can lead to that, all the better.
Another argument against a national popular vote is that fraudulent ballots or tabulations could happen in any state, whereas now the fraud must occur in the swing states to make a difference. This argument is more worthy of consideration, except that instead of vague “fraud” we should be worried about voter suppression and intimidation, computer hacking (so we need voter-verified paper ballots and good audits), and possibly corrupt or incompetent election officials. Since the gutting of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013 and Russian interference in 2016, the focus on these issues has been laudable and needs to be sustained. Election integrity should be adequately funded.
Meanwhile, voting for Prop 113 won’t force any change until and unless enough other states join the NPVIC.
Website for the Yes side – Yes on National Popular Vote
https://yesonnationalpopularvote.com/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Vote
https://protectcoloradosvote.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 113 (STATUTORY)
Shall the following Act of the General Assembly be approved: An Act concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote, being Senate Bill No. 19-042?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
SB19-042 to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_042_signed.pdf
Secretary of State information about the Right of Referendum
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/referendumPetitions.html
The General Assembly passed Senate Bill 19-042 for Colorado to join the NPVIC, 19-16 in the Senate and 34-29-1 in the House. Several amendments were introduced – not all of them serious – but none passed, partly because all the states in the compact have to use standardized language. For instance, the bill language includes a provision on how to handle a tie in the national popular vote – the elector slate of the winner of the state’s popular vote would be certified.
If the General Assembly passed this bill, why are we voting on it this fall? Every bill in Colorado has either a safety clause or a petition clause. A bill with a safety clause can take effect immediately after the governor signs it and is not subject to a citizen petition to refer part or all of the bill to the Colorado electorate. The sponsors of this bill could not justify a safety clause since the NPVIC effort wouldn’t take effect by the 2020 election so opponents were allowed to collect signatures to ask the voters if they really want Colorado to join the NPVIC.
Birch Bayh, who died in 2019, is the only non-Founding Father to author two Constitutional Amendments: the 25th and 26th Amendments. He also led unsuccessful efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment and to abolish the Electoral College.
After Bayh’s efforts failed, people frustrated with the Electoral College’s results not always matching the popular vote looked for a different solution. Getting enough states to join the NPVIC is probably easier than amending the US Constitution to accomplish the same goal.
Recommendation: Yes/For
By design, the Electoral College gives more weight to smaller states and their voters -- similar to the US Senate. Many people believe that the Electoral College advantages the Republican Party, but the number of small red states and small blue states is comparable. The states that really matter are the swing states.
By definition, swing states are not dominated by either major party. Both major candidates get lots of votes, but the size of the margin of victory doesn’t matter. The candidate receiving the most votes in the state in November gets all the state’s EC votes in December. (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions, awarding 2 EC votes to the state winner and the other EC votes to the corresponding congressional district winner.)
The one election that is on everyone’s ballot should be decided by a national vote, instead of in 51 separate elections.
One flawed argument against a national popular vote is that different states have different rules, for instance, about early voting, applying for an absentee ballot, and whether and when felons can vote. States that make it easier to vote would be likely to have more say in who is elected president! And, conversely, states that make it harder to vote would have less say in who is elected president. Higher voter turnout is a good goal for a democracy and, if NPVIC can lead to that, all the better.
Another argument against a national popular vote is that fraudulent ballots or tabulations could happen in any state, whereas now the fraud must occur in the swing states to make a difference. This argument is more worthy of consideration, except that instead of vague “fraud” we should be worried about voter suppression and intimidation, computer hacking (so we need voter-verified paper ballots and good audits), and possibly corrupt or incompetent election officials. Since the gutting of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013 and Russian interference in 2016, the focus on these issues has been laudable and needs to be sustained. Election integrity should be adequately funded.
Meanwhile, voting for Prop 113 won’t force any change until and unless enough other states join the NPVIC.
Website for the Yes side – Yes on National Popular Vote
https://yesonnationalpopularvote.com/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Vote
https://protectcoloradosvote.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 113 (STATUTORY)
Shall the following Act of the General Assembly be approved: An Act concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote, being Senate Bill No. 19-042?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
SB19-042 to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_042_signed.pdf
Secretary of State information about the Right of Referendum
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/referendumPetitions.html
Proposition 114 – Reintroduction and Management of Gray Wolves
People hunted and trapped gray wolves until they were decimated in Colorado more than 70 years ago. Prop 114 would authorize reintroduction and management of a gray wolf population west of the Continental Divide, obtain regular public feedback on the plans and compensate livestock owners for losses.
If gray wolves remain on the federal endangered species list, then the US Fish and Wildlife Service is the management authority, and Colorado would need federal approval before reintroducing wolves. Gray wolves were reintroduced in the northern Rocky Mountains in 1995 and were removed from the endangered species list in that region in 2011. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming now have management authority for gray wolves.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Sometimes Colorado likes to be on the forefront of changes – think marijuana and vote-by-mail. In this case, however, Colorado has other long-term models to follow, but opponents argue that the northern Rocky Mountains’ ecosystem is not similar to Colorado’s system and shouldn’t be used as a model.
Another state, Minnesota, has continuously had large wolf and human populations, indicating that the two populations can coexist. Biologists believe that wolves will promote a healthy environment by providing a check on deer and elk populations. Ranchers’ herds may also fall victim to wolves, but state funding would be allocated to help prevent such conflicts and to compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.
A majority of CO counties are listed on the opponents’ website as officially opposed to Prop 114.
Website for the Yes side – Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund
https://www.wolfactionfund.com/
Website for the No side – Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition
https://www.stopthewolf.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 114 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado parks and wildlife commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 114 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/107Final.pdf
If gray wolves remain on the federal endangered species list, then the US Fish and Wildlife Service is the management authority, and Colorado would need federal approval before reintroducing wolves. Gray wolves were reintroduced in the northern Rocky Mountains in 1995 and were removed from the endangered species list in that region in 2011. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming now have management authority for gray wolves.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Sometimes Colorado likes to be on the forefront of changes – think marijuana and vote-by-mail. In this case, however, Colorado has other long-term models to follow, but opponents argue that the northern Rocky Mountains’ ecosystem is not similar to Colorado’s system and shouldn’t be used as a model.
Another state, Minnesota, has continuously had large wolf and human populations, indicating that the two populations can coexist. Biologists believe that wolves will promote a healthy environment by providing a check on deer and elk populations. Ranchers’ herds may also fall victim to wolves, but state funding would be allocated to help prevent such conflicts and to compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.
A majority of CO counties are listed on the opponents’ website as officially opposed to Prop 114.
Website for the Yes side – Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund
https://www.wolfactionfund.com/
Website for the No side – Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition
https://www.stopthewolf.org/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 114 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado parks and wildlife commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 114 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/107Final.pdf
Proposition 115 – Prohibition on Abortion at 22 Weeks
Colorado is one of a handful of states that has no gestational age limit on abortions. Prop 115 would prohibit abortions beginning at 22 weeks of pregnancy in Title 18 Criminal Conduct of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Only the abortion provider, not the woman undergoing the abortion nor others involved peripherally with prescriptions or equipment, could be charged with a crime.
Previous attempts to prohibit abortions in 2008, 2010 and 2014 fell short at the ballot box by wide margins. Those attempts focused on redefining “person” and banning all abortions.
This narrower proposal criminalizes abortions during the 2nd trimester (14 to 26 weeks). Roe v Wade allows states to place reasonable medical regulations beginning in the 2nd trimester to protect the pregnant woman’s health. Only in the 3rd trimester do states have a compelling interest to protect prenatal life.
Prop 115 allows for abortions after 22 weeks for the physical health of the pregnant woman, but not for her mental health.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Prop 115 supporters point out that more and more babies born at 22 weeks survive and that Prop 115 does not punish the pregnant woman. However, prohibiting abortion providers from providing abortions at 22 weeks definitely adversely affects a pregnant woman seeking a 22-week abortion.
Women don’t usually know that they are pregnant until 4 or 5 weeks into their pregnancy (counted from the date of the last menstrual period) at the earliest. This would leave at most about 4 months to figure out the entire abortion process, to get time off work, to gather the fees and to get transportation to the abortion clinic. In places with no access to abortion services, 4 months may not be enough time, especially in the sensitive cases of incest or teen pregnancy.
Developments mid-pregnancy, including learning about fatal fetal abnormalities, can also cause a woman to reevaluate a decision to carry her pregnancy to full term.
During this pandemic, some states have shamefully tried to stop abortions by stating that abortion is not an essential service.
Rather than criminalize abortions at the back end of pregnancy, abortion advocates could widely publicize and fund the freezing of embryos at the front end of pregnancy. Frozen embryos have a good healthy baby success rate, and the family can time the later delivery for when the family is ready to raise a child.
Website for the Yes side – Coalition for Women and Children
https://www.duedatetoolate.com/
Website for the No side – Abortion Access for All
http://voteno115.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 115 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning prohibiting an abortion when the probable gestational age of the fetus is at least twenty-two weeks, and, in connection therewith, making it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to perform or attempt to perform a prohibited abortion, except when the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened, but not solely by a psychological or emotional condition; defining terms related to the measure including "probable gestational age" and "abortion," and excepting from the definition of "abortion" medical procedures relating to miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy; specifying that a woman on whom an abortion is performed may not be charged with a crime in relation to a prohibited abortion; and requiring the Colorado medical board to suspend for at least three years the license of a licensee whom the board finds performed or attempted to perform a prohibited abortion?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 115 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/120FinalCorrected.pdf
Previous attempts to prohibit abortions in 2008, 2010 and 2014 fell short at the ballot box by wide margins. Those attempts focused on redefining “person” and banning all abortions.
This narrower proposal criminalizes abortions during the 2nd trimester (14 to 26 weeks). Roe v Wade allows states to place reasonable medical regulations beginning in the 2nd trimester to protect the pregnant woman’s health. Only in the 3rd trimester do states have a compelling interest to protect prenatal life.
Prop 115 allows for abortions after 22 weeks for the physical health of the pregnant woman, but not for her mental health.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Prop 115 supporters point out that more and more babies born at 22 weeks survive and that Prop 115 does not punish the pregnant woman. However, prohibiting abortion providers from providing abortions at 22 weeks definitely adversely affects a pregnant woman seeking a 22-week abortion.
Women don’t usually know that they are pregnant until 4 or 5 weeks into their pregnancy (counted from the date of the last menstrual period) at the earliest. This would leave at most about 4 months to figure out the entire abortion process, to get time off work, to gather the fees and to get transportation to the abortion clinic. In places with no access to abortion services, 4 months may not be enough time, especially in the sensitive cases of incest or teen pregnancy.
Developments mid-pregnancy, including learning about fatal fetal abnormalities, can also cause a woman to reevaluate a decision to carry her pregnancy to full term.
During this pandemic, some states have shamefully tried to stop abortions by stating that abortion is not an essential service.
Rather than criminalize abortions at the back end of pregnancy, abortion advocates could widely publicize and fund the freezing of embryos at the front end of pregnancy. Frozen embryos have a good healthy baby success rate, and the family can time the later delivery for when the family is ready to raise a child.
Website for the Yes side – Coalition for Women and Children
https://www.duedatetoolate.com/
Website for the No side – Abortion Access for All
http://voteno115.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 115 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning prohibiting an abortion when the probable gestational age of the fetus is at least twenty-two weeks, and, in connection therewith, making it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to perform or attempt to perform a prohibited abortion, except when the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened, but not solely by a psychological or emotional condition; defining terms related to the measure including "probable gestational age" and "abortion," and excepting from the definition of "abortion" medical procedures relating to miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy; specifying that a woman on whom an abortion is performed may not be charged with a crime in relation to a prohibited abortion; and requiring the Colorado medical board to suspend for at least three years the license of a licensee whom the board finds performed or attempted to perform a prohibited abortion?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 115 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/120FinalCorrected.pdf
Proposition 116 – Reduce State Income Tax Rate
Prop 116 may be the easiest ballot measure to understand this year. Colorado voters are accustomed to seeing ballot measures approving tax increases because of the TABOR requirement. However, we don’t usually see a vote to decrease taxes. Prop 116 would decrease the state income flat tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%.
The Prop 116 campaign originated in order to counter The Fair Tax campaign which would have created 4 income tax rates instead of the current flat tax. Most people would have paid a lower tax rate of 4.58%, but earnings from $250,000 to $500,000 would have been taxed at 7%, from $500K to $1M at 7.75% and higher earnings at 8.9%.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Colorado’s economy is suffering from a pandemic at the moment. Even if Colorado were in a booming economy right now and all state programs were fully funded, we should proceed cautiously before cutting taxes because of the TABOR straightjacket. TABOR reduces state flexibility – the so-called “ratchet effect” – to rebound when coming out of a recession by returning to pre-recession tax rates.
If Colorado suddenly discovered a new, plentiful source of long-term income, there would be a reason to cut state income taxes. That is not the case here. The percent decrease is so small that one might conclude that Prop 116 is an experiment to test the waters. The 0.08% change would save a taxpayer 8 cents out of $100 of taxable income. Not enough for a taxpayer to notice, but in combination with all the other taxpayers, the total can pay for a state program.
Website for the Yes side – Energize Our Economy
https://americansforprosperity.ivolunteers.com/Sign/TABOR-Initiatives
Info on a more comprehensive supporters’ website appreciated.
Jon Caldara of The Independence Institute and State Sen Jerry Sonnenberg are the initiative’s designated representatives.
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Recovery
https://no116and117.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 116 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 116 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/306Final.pdf
The Prop 116 campaign originated in order to counter The Fair Tax campaign which would have created 4 income tax rates instead of the current flat tax. Most people would have paid a lower tax rate of 4.58%, but earnings from $250,000 to $500,000 would have been taxed at 7%, from $500K to $1M at 7.75% and higher earnings at 8.9%.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Colorado’s economy is suffering from a pandemic at the moment. Even if Colorado were in a booming economy right now and all state programs were fully funded, we should proceed cautiously before cutting taxes because of the TABOR straightjacket. TABOR reduces state flexibility – the so-called “ratchet effect” – to rebound when coming out of a recession by returning to pre-recession tax rates.
If Colorado suddenly discovered a new, plentiful source of long-term income, there would be a reason to cut state income taxes. That is not the case here. The percent decrease is so small that one might conclude that Prop 116 is an experiment to test the waters. The 0.08% change would save a taxpayer 8 cents out of $100 of taxable income. Not enough for a taxpayer to notice, but in combination with all the other taxpayers, the total can pay for a state program.
Website for the Yes side – Energize Our Economy
https://americansforprosperity.ivolunteers.com/Sign/TABOR-Initiatives
Info on a more comprehensive supporters’ website appreciated.
Jon Caldara of The Independence Institute and State Sen Jerry Sonnenberg are the initiative’s designated representatives.
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Recovery
https://no116and117.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 116 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 116 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/306Final.pdf
Proposition 117 – Voter Approval of New High-Revenue State Enterprises Exempt from TABOR
An enterprise is a government-owned business that generates most of its income from fees, that can issue revenue bonds and that receives less than 10% of its revenue from state and local governments. Some examples include the state lottery, state unemployment insurance, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the University of Colorado.
State government revenue comes from 3 main sources: taxes, fees and federal funding. Tax increases are subject to TABOR restrictions, but most fee increases are not. Prop 117 would require voter approval for new state enterprises if the fee revenue is projected to be or was $100M in the first 5 years.
Generally, if Colorado collects more money than the TABOR revenue limit, the excess must be refunded to taxpayers unless a “deBrucing” measure such as 2005’s Ref C five-year timeout is approved by voters. Fee revenue from enterprises, however, does not count toward the TABOR revenue limit so legislators regularly consider creating enterprises to work around TABOR.
Enterprises must report annually if they are meeting the criteria to continue being an enterprise. If an enterprise loses its status, its revenue is subject to the TABOR limit until such time as it regains its enterprise status.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Some people call this measure, “fees are taxes,” but TABOR exempted fees because fees are paid only by the people receiving the services rather than by all taxpayers.
According to the Common Sense Institute, the percent of revenue exempt from TABOR has grown from 46% in 1993 to 69% in 2019. Supporters of Prop 117 don’t want the legislature to use the enterprise “loophole,” but it’s no surprise that Democrats and Republicans have sponsored bills to create enterprises and to try to get out of TABOR’s fiscal stranglehold.
Website for the Yes side – Voter Approval of Fees
https://americansforprosperity.ivolunteers.com/Sign/TABOR-Initiatives
Info on a more comprehensive supporters’ website appreciated.
Michael Fields and Lindsey Singer, both of Colorado Rising Action, are the initiative’s designated representatives.
Common Sense Institute “is legally required to refrain from policy advocacy,” but Prop 117 supporters might like what its site says.
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/initiative-295/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Recovery
https://no116and117.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 117 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring statewide voter approval at the next even-year election of any newly created or qualified state enterprise that is exempt from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution, if the projected or actual combined revenue from fees and surcharges of the enterprise, and all other enterprises created within the last five years that serve primarily the same purpose, is greater than $100 million within the first five fiscal years of the creation or qualification of the new enterprise?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 117 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/295OriginalFinal.pdf
State government revenue comes from 3 main sources: taxes, fees and federal funding. Tax increases are subject to TABOR restrictions, but most fee increases are not. Prop 117 would require voter approval for new state enterprises if the fee revenue is projected to be or was $100M in the first 5 years.
Generally, if Colorado collects more money than the TABOR revenue limit, the excess must be refunded to taxpayers unless a “deBrucing” measure such as 2005’s Ref C five-year timeout is approved by voters. Fee revenue from enterprises, however, does not count toward the TABOR revenue limit so legislators regularly consider creating enterprises to work around TABOR.
Enterprises must report annually if they are meeting the criteria to continue being an enterprise. If an enterprise loses its status, its revenue is subject to the TABOR limit until such time as it regains its enterprise status.
Recommendation: NO/AGAINST
Some people call this measure, “fees are taxes,” but TABOR exempted fees because fees are paid only by the people receiving the services rather than by all taxpayers.
According to the Common Sense Institute, the percent of revenue exempt from TABOR has grown from 46% in 1993 to 69% in 2019. Supporters of Prop 117 don’t want the legislature to use the enterprise “loophole,” but it’s no surprise that Democrats and Republicans have sponsored bills to create enterprises and to try to get out of TABOR’s fiscal stranglehold.
Website for the Yes side – Voter Approval of Fees
https://americansforprosperity.ivolunteers.com/Sign/TABOR-Initiatives
Info on a more comprehensive supporters’ website appreciated.
Michael Fields and Lindsey Singer, both of Colorado Rising Action, are the initiative’s designated representatives.
Common Sense Institute “is legally required to refrain from policy advocacy,” but Prop 117 supporters might like what its site says.
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/initiative-295/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Recovery
https://no116and117.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 117 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring statewide voter approval at the next even-year election of any newly created or qualified state enterprise that is exempt from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution, if the projected or actual combined revenue from fees and surcharges of the enterprise, and all other enterprises created within the last five years that serve primarily the same purpose, is greater than $100 million within the first five fiscal years of the creation or qualification of the new enterprise?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 117 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/295OriginalFinal.pdf
Proposition 118 – Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program
Eligible employees who take unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act maintain their employer-provided health care coverage and must be offered the same or an equal position upon returning to work.
Prop 118 would create a state program to provide up to 12 weeks of leave at up to 90% of pay (maximum $1,100/week) for eligible employees beginning in 2024. Beginning in 2023 the state would collect up to 0.90% of a participating employee’s taxable wages with the employee paying at most half of the premium into the program fund. Beginning in 2025, the program director could increase the premium from 0.90% to 1.2%.
Examples and estimates: In 2023 and 2024 an employee would pay at most $4.50 into the fund out of a paycheck of $1000 in taxable wages. In 2023 the annual premium paid by a high-income employee is estimated to top out at $728. The $1,100 maximum weekly benefit in 2024 is estimated to increase to $1253/week in 2025.
The actual benefits paid out are calculated so that those workers making less than the state average weekly wage (SAWW) receive a higher percent of their weekly wage than those making more than the SAWW. The Blue Book uses an estimated 2024 SAWW of $1340 in its model.
All employers must participate in the program unless they
-have 9 or fewer employees
-are self-employed
-are local governments
-already offer approved paid leave
Participating employees must pay the employee portion of the premium even if the employer is not participating. In particular, employers with 9 or fewer employees must collect and remit the employee portion of the premium.
Prop 118 creates an enterprise which clearly falls in the large-size category under Prop 117.
Recommendation: Yes/For
There have been six attempts to pass paid leave in CO, but even with Democrats in control of both houses and the governorship, the majority was unable to pass it. This initiative, Prop 118, is a workaround attempt.
About 2/3 of personal bankruptcies are due to high medical bills or lost wages due to illness or injury. I’d prefer that Prop 118 took on comprehensive health insurance rather than focus on paid leave, but governing involves the art of the possible.
Businesses point out that local governments aren’t required to participate. Businesses also complain about the financial and regulatory burden on employers. Meanwhile, employees will get their say at the ballot box. Nobody is claiming that this bill is perfect, but a handful of other states have implemented paid leave.
Website for the Yes side – Colorado Families First
https://www.voteyeson118.com/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Recovery
https://votenoon118.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 118 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member's military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly benefit amount; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; allowing a local government to opt out of the program; permitting employees of such a local government and self-employed individuals to participate in the program; exempting employers who offer an approved private paid family and medical leave plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 0.9% of each employee's wages, up to a cap, through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter, up to 1.2% of each employee's wages, by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 50% of the premium amount from an employee's wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium, with an exemption for employers with fewer than 10 employees; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 118 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/283Final.pdf
Prop 118 would create a state program to provide up to 12 weeks of leave at up to 90% of pay (maximum $1,100/week) for eligible employees beginning in 2024. Beginning in 2023 the state would collect up to 0.90% of a participating employee’s taxable wages with the employee paying at most half of the premium into the program fund. Beginning in 2025, the program director could increase the premium from 0.90% to 1.2%.
Examples and estimates: In 2023 and 2024 an employee would pay at most $4.50 into the fund out of a paycheck of $1000 in taxable wages. In 2023 the annual premium paid by a high-income employee is estimated to top out at $728. The $1,100 maximum weekly benefit in 2024 is estimated to increase to $1253/week in 2025.
The actual benefits paid out are calculated so that those workers making less than the state average weekly wage (SAWW) receive a higher percent of their weekly wage than those making more than the SAWW. The Blue Book uses an estimated 2024 SAWW of $1340 in its model.
All employers must participate in the program unless they
-have 9 or fewer employees
-are self-employed
-are local governments
-already offer approved paid leave
Participating employees must pay the employee portion of the premium even if the employer is not participating. In particular, employers with 9 or fewer employees must collect and remit the employee portion of the premium.
Prop 118 creates an enterprise which clearly falls in the large-size category under Prop 117.
Recommendation: Yes/For
There have been six attempts to pass paid leave in CO, but even with Democrats in control of both houses and the governorship, the majority was unable to pass it. This initiative, Prop 118, is a workaround attempt.
About 2/3 of personal bankruptcies are due to high medical bills or lost wages due to illness or injury. I’d prefer that Prop 118 took on comprehensive health insurance rather than focus on paid leave, but governing involves the art of the possible.
Businesses point out that local governments aren’t required to participate. Businesses also complain about the financial and regulatory burden on employers. Meanwhile, employees will get their say at the ballot box. Nobody is claiming that this bill is perfect, but a handful of other states have implemented paid leave.
Website for the Yes side – Colorado Families First
https://www.voteyeson118.com/
Website for the No side – Protect Colorado’s Recovery
https://votenoon118.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 118 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member's military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly benefit amount; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; allowing a local government to opt out of the program; permitting employees of such a local government and self-employed individuals to participate in the program; exempting employers who offer an approved private paid family and medical leave plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 0.9% of each employee's wages, up to a cap, through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter, up to 1.2% of each employee's wages, by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 50% of the premium amount from an employee's wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium, with an exemption for employers with fewer than 10 employees; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Proposition 118 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/283Final.pdf
Monday, October 5, 2020
City of Boulder 2B – Tax Landlords to Pay for Tenant Representation in Eviction Hearings
Although the proponents of “No Eviction Without Representation” began collecting signatures before the pandemic, the pandemic’s economic downturn has certainly heightened awareness of the issue. Early on in the pandemic, an eviction moratorium and some rental assistance were set in place, and recently Gov Polis established an Eviction Prevention Task Force which will issue recommendations probably in early October.
In normal times a tenant’s failure to pay rent can land the tenant in county court. The landlord, who has to serve the tenant with official documents, often has legal representation, while the tenant who is struggling to pay rent probably cannot afford an attorney. Legal representation for a tenant may not prevent an eviction, but it can often buy time for the tenant to scrounge up money for late rent or to find another living situation and avoid a black mark on the tenant’s record.
Under 2B landlords would be taxed $75 for each rental unit. Originally the revenue was called a fee and dedicated only to legal representation, including a coordinator to administer the program and an oversight committee. City council wanted some money to go to rental assistance also and the proponents agreed. Negotiations turned the fee into a tax so it would be “legally defensible” in our TABOR world.
Recommendation: Yes/For
We all know that Boulder is an expensive rental market. The proponents modeled 2B after San Francisco’s 2018 Prop F, which passed 56% to 44%.
Boulder does not have rent control like San Francisco so some people question the need for this measure and worry that the city will be on the hook for any tenant attorney costs over the $1.9M collected annually. We don’t know what the actual costs will be but the tenants’ committee and coordinator will be monitoring that information.
Opponents argue that the $75 tax per year will get passed on to renters, but $6.25/month seems like a rounding error more than a rent increase.
Information will help even out the current power imbalance. An attorney can explain the process to the tenant but in the end the tenant and landlord still have to settle their contract dispute.
The proponents were unhappy that Boulder Housing Partners (BHP), which manages 1,400 affordable housing units for the city, would be exempt from the $75 tax. BHP was described as “one of the biggest evictors in the city.”
Website for the Yes side – No Eviction Without Representation
https://www.newrboulder.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language (in the city of Boulder format)
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B
No Eviction Without Representation
Shall the City of Boulder’s taxes be increased annually by one million, nine hundred thousand ($1,900,000.00) (first full fiscal year increase) commencing on Jan. 1, 2021, and by whatever additional amounts are raised annually thereafter from an excise tax to be paid by landlords on dwelling units with rental licenses in the amount of $75 per year, with the tax rate increasing every year thereafter at a rate that does not exceed the Colorado consumer price index on each rental license for a dwelling unit that is issued by the city;
and in connection therewith, shall all of the revenues collected be used to fund:
• the administrative cost of the tax, and thereafter to
• establish, run and fully fund a program to provide legal representation to tenants who face the loss of housing in eviction and administrative proceedings;
• provide a tenant’s legal services and assistance coordinator to administer the program;
• create a tenants’ committee comprised of five members paid a $1,000 per year stipend; and
• provide rental assistance for persons that are vulnerable to eviction; and
shall the full proceeds of such taxes at such rates and any earnings thereon be collected, retained, and spent, as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation or condition, and without limiting the collection, retention, 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?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8412 to put issue 2B to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/o-8412_3rd_rdg-1-202009101508.pdf?_ga=2.232524247.954903512.1600536510-1345314453.1596765451
In normal times a tenant’s failure to pay rent can land the tenant in county court. The landlord, who has to serve the tenant with official documents, often has legal representation, while the tenant who is struggling to pay rent probably cannot afford an attorney. Legal representation for a tenant may not prevent an eviction, but it can often buy time for the tenant to scrounge up money for late rent or to find another living situation and avoid a black mark on the tenant’s record.
Under 2B landlords would be taxed $75 for each rental unit. Originally the revenue was called a fee and dedicated only to legal representation, including a coordinator to administer the program and an oversight committee. City council wanted some money to go to rental assistance also and the proponents agreed. Negotiations turned the fee into a tax so it would be “legally defensible” in our TABOR world.
Recommendation: Yes/For
We all know that Boulder is an expensive rental market. The proponents modeled 2B after San Francisco’s 2018 Prop F, which passed 56% to 44%.
Boulder does not have rent control like San Francisco so some people question the need for this measure and worry that the city will be on the hook for any tenant attorney costs over the $1.9M collected annually. We don’t know what the actual costs will be but the tenants’ committee and coordinator will be monitoring that information.
Opponents argue that the $75 tax per year will get passed on to renters, but $6.25/month seems like a rounding error more than a rent increase.
Information will help even out the current power imbalance. An attorney can explain the process to the tenant but in the end the tenant and landlord still have to settle their contract dispute.
The proponents were unhappy that Boulder Housing Partners (BHP), which manages 1,400 affordable housing units for the city, would be exempt from the $75 tax. BHP was described as “one of the biggest evictors in the city.”
Website for the Yes side – No Eviction Without Representation
https://www.newrboulder.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language (in the city of Boulder format)
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B
No Eviction Without Representation
Shall the City of Boulder’s taxes be increased annually by one million, nine hundred thousand ($1,900,000.00) (first full fiscal year increase) commencing on Jan. 1, 2021, and by whatever additional amounts are raised annually thereafter from an excise tax to be paid by landlords on dwelling units with rental licenses in the amount of $75 per year, with the tax rate increasing every year thereafter at a rate that does not exceed the Colorado consumer price index on each rental license for a dwelling unit that is issued by the city;
and in connection therewith, shall all of the revenues collected be used to fund:
• the administrative cost of the tax, and thereafter to
• establish, run and fully fund a program to provide legal representation to tenants who face the loss of housing in eviction and administrative proceedings;
• provide a tenant’s legal services and assistance coordinator to administer the program;
• create a tenants’ committee comprised of five members paid a $1,000 per year stipend; and
• provide rental assistance for persons that are vulnerable to eviction; and
shall the full proceeds of such taxes at such rates and any earnings thereon be collected, retained, and spent, as a voter-approved revenue change without limitation or condition, and without limiting the collection, retention, 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?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8412 to put issue 2B to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/o-8412_3rd_rdg-1-202009101508.pdf?_ga=2.232524247.954903512.1600536510-1345314453.1596765451
Sunday, October 4, 2020
City of Boulder 2C – New Xcel Franchise Agreement After a 10-Year Lapse
The 2C ballot language consists of 61 words, but don’t let that fool you. The proposed 20-year Franchise Agreement is 38 pages long and is part of a larger proposed Settlement Agreement. (See the links at the bottom of this page.)
In 2010 the city of Boulder chose not to renew a franchise agreement with Xcel. Nevertheless, Xcel was required to continue providing electricity until the city formed its own municipal electric utility or entered into an agreement with a different investor-owned utility.
Municipalization came up again on the ballot in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 with the municipalization proponents prevailing each time. The city even created its own municipal utility in name only.
This summer a group called End the Muni tried to get a measure on the ballot to end the municipalization effort. Although End the Muni did not collect enough signatures, the city council on a 2nd-reading vote of 6 to 2 (with one member absent) referred a similar measure to the ballot.
Empower Our Future, a group that supports the municipalization efforts, is unhappy with the city’s proposed Franchise Agreement and the process. This ballot measure is essentially a go/no go vote on municipalization. We have learned much about the costs of municipalization, but Empower Our Future feels that the city is not fulfilling a promise to inform the citizens of the “final costs” of municipalization before calling for go/no go vote. Their argument leans on the 2017 measure 2O – Vote Prior to Municipalization Construction Debt.
Under the proposed Settlement Agreement most litigation would cease, undergrounding investment to improve reliability would restart, and the city would maintain the option to terminate the franchise at several specified times in the future, particularly if certain emissions reduction targets are not met.
In legal documents the name Xcel is more properly called by the utility subsidiary’s name, Public Service Company of Colorado.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Our 21st-century effort to create a municipal electric utility has run into many legal and regulatory stumbling blocks and cost tens of millions of dollars, including the need to borrow from the general fund. (See companion ballot measure 2D.) Some long-time proponents of municipalization believe that the proposed Franchise Agreement is the best deal we can get.
On the other hand, Empower Our Future feels that the proposed Franchise Agreement (pFA) has been rushed and is too risky, giving Xcel the upper hand. They point to responses to a 2018 Request for Indicative Pricing that shows “local power” energy suppliers could provide Boulder with more renewable electricity at less cost than Xcel. The community choice aggregation (muni-lite) option might have become a reality in Colorado via Boulder Rep Edie Hooton’s bill HB20-1064 but, like many other bills this year, it did not survive the pandemic.
A different 2019 bill with Boulder co-sponsors Sen Steve Fenberg and House Speaker KC Becker addressed greenhouse gases. SB19-236 requires retail utilities with more than half a million customers in Colorado, such as Xcel, to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 to 80% of 2005 levels.
If you continue to strongly support a city municipal utility and want to be free of Xcel, you should vote against this measure. Given the uncertain economic and health situation we are in at the moment, an ongoing municipalization effort seems to be a low priority for the city right now and will likely fall off the radar if the proposed Franchise Agreement is passed.
Website for the Yes side – End the Muni
http://endthemuni.org/
Website for the No side – Empower Our Future
https://empowerourfuture.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Public Service Company Franchise
Shall the City of Boulder grant a franchise to Public Service Company of Colorado to furnish, sell and distribute gas and electricity to the city and to all persons, businesses, and industries within the city and the right to make reasonable use of all streets and other public places and public easements as may be necessary as described in Ordinance 8410?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Ordinance 8410 to put 2C to the voters. Exhibit A included in the ordinance is the proposed Franchise Agreement.
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Ord_8410_-_Franchise_Agreement-1-202008281144.pdf?_ga=2.187918700.518549467.1599345017-1345314453.1596765451
City of Boulder’s webpage for question 2C
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/2020-ballot-measure-public-service-company-franchise
City’s webpage on the details of the proposed Xcel Settlement
https://bouldercolorado.gov/local-power/potential-settlement-xcel-energy
In 2010 the city of Boulder chose not to renew a franchise agreement with Xcel. Nevertheless, Xcel was required to continue providing electricity until the city formed its own municipal electric utility or entered into an agreement with a different investor-owned utility.
Municipalization came up again on the ballot in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 with the municipalization proponents prevailing each time. The city even created its own municipal utility in name only.
This summer a group called End the Muni tried to get a measure on the ballot to end the municipalization effort. Although End the Muni did not collect enough signatures, the city council on a 2nd-reading vote of 6 to 2 (with one member absent) referred a similar measure to the ballot.
Empower Our Future, a group that supports the municipalization efforts, is unhappy with the city’s proposed Franchise Agreement and the process. This ballot measure is essentially a go/no go vote on municipalization. We have learned much about the costs of municipalization, but Empower Our Future feels that the city is not fulfilling a promise to inform the citizens of the “final costs” of municipalization before calling for go/no go vote. Their argument leans on the 2017 measure 2O – Vote Prior to Municipalization Construction Debt.
Under the proposed Settlement Agreement most litigation would cease, undergrounding investment to improve reliability would restart, and the city would maintain the option to terminate the franchise at several specified times in the future, particularly if certain emissions reduction targets are not met.
In legal documents the name Xcel is more properly called by the utility subsidiary’s name, Public Service Company of Colorado.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Our 21st-century effort to create a municipal electric utility has run into many legal and regulatory stumbling blocks and cost tens of millions of dollars, including the need to borrow from the general fund. (See companion ballot measure 2D.) Some long-time proponents of municipalization believe that the proposed Franchise Agreement is the best deal we can get.
On the other hand, Empower Our Future feels that the proposed Franchise Agreement (pFA) has been rushed and is too risky, giving Xcel the upper hand. They point to responses to a 2018 Request for Indicative Pricing that shows “local power” energy suppliers could provide Boulder with more renewable electricity at less cost than Xcel. The community choice aggregation (muni-lite) option might have become a reality in Colorado via Boulder Rep Edie Hooton’s bill HB20-1064 but, like many other bills this year, it did not survive the pandemic.
A different 2019 bill with Boulder co-sponsors Sen Steve Fenberg and House Speaker KC Becker addressed greenhouse gases. SB19-236 requires retail utilities with more than half a million customers in Colorado, such as Xcel, to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 to 80% of 2005 levels.
If you continue to strongly support a city municipal utility and want to be free of Xcel, you should vote against this measure. Given the uncertain economic and health situation we are in at the moment, an ongoing municipalization effort seems to be a low priority for the city right now and will likely fall off the radar if the proposed Franchise Agreement is passed.
Website for the Yes side – End the Muni
http://endthemuni.org/
Website for the No side – Empower Our Future
https://empowerourfuture.org/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Public Service Company Franchise
Shall the City of Boulder grant a franchise to Public Service Company of Colorado to furnish, sell and distribute gas and electricity to the city and to all persons, businesses, and industries within the city and the right to make reasonable use of all streets and other public places and public easements as may be necessary as described in Ordinance 8410?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Ordinance 8410 to put 2C to the voters. Exhibit A included in the ordinance is the proposed Franchise Agreement.
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Ord_8410_-_Franchise_Agreement-1-202008281144.pdf?_ga=2.187918700.518549467.1599345017-1345314453.1596765451
City of Boulder’s webpage for question 2C
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/2020-ballot-measure-public-service-company-franchise
City’s webpage on the details of the proposed Xcel Settlement
https://bouldercolorado.gov/local-power/potential-settlement-xcel-energy
City of Boulder 2D - Extend and Repurpose the “Extra” Utility Occupation Tax
We’ve seen versions of this ballot issue before, namely 2010 (2B), 2011 (2B), 2015 (2O) and 2017 (2L). The 2011, 2017 and this year’s measures all specifically refer to the part of the Utility Occupation Tax (UOT) which does not replace the Xcel franchise fee, but rather is allocated for efforts to form a municipal electric utility.
Ballot question 2D is a companion measure to 2C and only takes effect if both measures pass. The $1.9M portion of the Utility Occupation Tax (UOT) would be extended for three more years to Dec 31, 2025 and could be used to repay the General Fund for costs associated with municipalization and to fund projects that support the city’s clean energy goals in the context of the city’s racial equity goals.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Persuading voters in the midst of an economic downturn to extend a tax could be a tough sell – probably less so in high-cost-of-living Boulder where voters tend to support higher taxes. Let’s also hope that, by the time the extension would take effect on Jan 1, 2023, the pandemic is in the rearview mirror and the economy is strong again.
Although the city has suffered from the recession and still has bills to pay, the city’s climate and equity goals are not forgotten in this ballot issue. Some revenue would “provide energy-related assistance to disadvantaged members of the community, improve system reliability and modernization, and support clean energy-related business.” Those people who would otherwise be most adversely affected by the increased UOT could instead be helped by 2D.
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 (in the city of Boulder format)
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D
Repurpose the Utility Occupation Tax
Without raising the tax rate shall the existing Utility Occupation Tax, which in 2021 and 2022 will be in the amount of $2,076,181, be extended from a current expiration date of December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2025 and be repurposed to pay all costs associated with the formation of a municipal electric utility and to be used to fund projects, pilots, initiatives and research that support the city's clean energy goals in the context of the city's racial equity goals and the community's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement such as:
• Providing energy-related assistance to disadvantaged members of the community, including support for utility bill payments and access to renewable energy;
• Improving system reliability and modernizing, and supporting clean energy-related businesses, including, without limitation, new approaches in electrification of buildings and transportation, enhancement of resilience;
• Implementing a partnership agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado; and
• Increasing access to energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions
Only if a majority of registered electors approve a Franchise Agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado at the November 3, 2020 Election, And shall the increased and extended portion of the tax be subject to the same terms and conditions as the original tax and 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?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Ordinance No. 8417 to put 2D to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Ord_8417_Utility_Occupation_Tax-1-202008281155.pdf?_ga=2.256608975.518549467.1599345017-1345314453.1596765451
Ballot question 2D is a companion measure to 2C and only takes effect if both measures pass. The $1.9M portion of the Utility Occupation Tax (UOT) would be extended for three more years to Dec 31, 2025 and could be used to repay the General Fund for costs associated with municipalization and to fund projects that support the city’s clean energy goals in the context of the city’s racial equity goals.
Recommendation: leaning yes/leaning for
Persuading voters in the midst of an economic downturn to extend a tax could be a tough sell – probably less so in high-cost-of-living Boulder where voters tend to support higher taxes. Let’s also hope that, by the time the extension would take effect on Jan 1, 2023, the pandemic is in the rearview mirror and the economy is strong again.
Although the city has suffered from the recession and still has bills to pay, the city’s climate and equity goals are not forgotten in this ballot issue. Some revenue would “provide energy-related assistance to disadvantaged members of the community, improve system reliability and modernization, and support clean energy-related business.” Those people who would otherwise be most adversely affected by the increased UOT could instead be helped by 2D.
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 (in the city of Boulder format)
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D
Repurpose the Utility Occupation Tax
Without raising the tax rate shall the existing Utility Occupation Tax, which in 2021 and 2022 will be in the amount of $2,076,181, be extended from a current expiration date of December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2025 and be repurposed to pay all costs associated with the formation of a municipal electric utility and to be used to fund projects, pilots, initiatives and research that support the city's clean energy goals in the context of the city's racial equity goals and the community's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement such as:
• Providing energy-related assistance to disadvantaged members of the community, including support for utility bill payments and access to renewable energy;
• Improving system reliability and modernizing, and supporting clean energy-related businesses, including, without limitation, new approaches in electrification of buildings and transportation, enhancement of resilience;
• Implementing a partnership agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado; and
• Increasing access to energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions
Only if a majority of registered electors approve a Franchise Agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado at the November 3, 2020 Election, And shall the increased and extended portion of the tax be subject to the same terms and conditions as the original tax and 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?
YES/FOR ____
NO/AGAINST ____
Ordinance No. 8417 to put 2D to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Ord_8417_Utility_Occupation_Tax-1-202008281155.pdf?_ga=2.256608975.518549467.1599345017-1345314453.1596765451
City of Boulder 2E - Direct Election of the Mayor Using Ranked Voting
Ballot measure 2E asks if Boulder voters want to, beginning in 2023, elect their mayor directly rather than have city council choose the mayor from its ranks and, if so, does Boulder want to use ranked choice (instant runoff) voting when there are more than two candidates.
The mayor’s job duties, 2-year term, and selection in odd years would not change from the status quo. Someone who has served for 3 terms as a member of city council could be elected to 2 mayoral terms. Others could be elected for up to 4 mayoral terms.
Instead of electing 5 council members every two years, the city would elect 4 council members, all for 4-year terms. If a city council member in the middle of a 4-year term is elected mayor, then the 5th vote-getter would be elected to finish the two years. The voters would presumably have voted for 4 council members though, not 5.
The county clerk weighed in at the eleventh hour to notify the city that it should plan to hold its own election, not rely on the county to coordinate a ranked voting election. This announcement changed the council vote to put the measure on the ballot from the first reading of 7 – 2 to the second reading of 5 – 4. The council was unable to get the necessary 6 votes to put a contingency clause in the ballot language to delay the use of ranked voting until the county clerk is able to conduct the election or the city has sufficient funds to conduct its own election.
At their retreat this year, city council discussed but chose not to pursue adoption of any alternative form of voting. Filling the void, a subset of members from Open Boulder’s two boards organized an “Our Mayor, Our Choice” petition effort to get this measure on the ballot.
The decision not to allow electronic signatures in the midst of a pandemic despite the voters’ approval of 2G in 2018 irked many working on citizens’ initiatives. Then varying interpretations of the number of required signatures and the time allowed for collecting signatures added fuel to the fire. (One of the interpretations is in 2E passed by Boulder voters in 2018.)
The ensuing chaos did not put the city attorney in a positive light. “Bedrooms are for People” was another ballot effort negatively impacted by the city attorney’s change in interpretation of petition signature requirements and deadlines, and ultimately sued the city unsuccessfully to be put on the ballot.
City council was somewhat more receptive to referring the Our Mayor petition to the ballot, but the ballot language needed modification to fix a vacancy that was built into the original language. Council member Bob Yates worked with proponents to improve the ballot language. Along the way the mayor’s election year and term reverted to the status quo.
Recommendation: No/Against
From this ballot measure’s many twists and turns, you can see that it was not well planned nor well executed. The county clerk also says that the city is on its own with a ranked voting election, and the city has admitted that it is not ready. The proponents say that they can come back to the voters and ask for an implementation delay if needed.
Given the implementation hurdles and the 2023 start date, why didn’t council take a reasoned approach and wait a year to put this on the ballot? If this doesn’t pass, council can put it on the ballot again next year. Or perhaps a different ballot measure could propose replacing ranked voting with a simpler alternative, such as approval voting.
Some council members believe that the directly elect mayor proposal is a solution in search of a problem. According to the proponents, many Boulderites didn’t even realize that city council, rather than the electorate, chooses the mayor.
Boulder’s council/manager system means that Boulder has a “weak” mayor. (In interesting timing, Jane Brautigam, our city manager announced that she is retiring effective October 30, after 12 years on the job.) Opponents of this measure point to power conflicts between a directly-elected weak mayor and a council-hired manager.
Some people question why we should bother holding a separate election for a “weak” mayor. The 2E campaign points out that every city in Colorado larger than Boulder directly elects a mayor. With only 3 exceptions (Denver, CO Springs and Pueblo), all mayors in Colorado are in the weak category.
Why would people run for a 2-year term as a weak mayor when they can run at-large for one of four council seats with a 4-year term? Maybe only term-limited or almost term-limited council members will run as mayor.
In our current system, the voters in Boulder narrow the pool for mayor to 9 candidates, and the losing candidates in the mayoral race continue to serve as council members. In the proposed system, two or more candidates would vie to be mayor; assuming that all the candidates are good, the city loses out when only one wins.
During the conversation on 2E, the city council expressed support for changing to a proportional way of electing members of city council in the future. The city is likely to convene another Elections Working Group to resolve the very visible petition signature problems and to study proportional representation.
Website for the Yes side – Our Mayor, Our Choice
https://www.ourmayor-ourchoice.org/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
(Steve Pomerance penned a few Daily Camera columns noting flaws in 2E.)
https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/09/16/opinion-steve-pomerance-mayor-ballot-measure-still-has-serious-problems/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E
Charter Amendments Related to Direct Election of the Mayor
Shall Article II, Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 of the Boulder City Charter be amended to provide for the direct election of the mayor by ranked choice (instant runoff) voting?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8420 to put 2E to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/o-8420_2nd_Rdg_Our_Mayor_Our_Choice_SIGNED-1-202009101508.pdf?_ga=2.67266649.954903512.1600536510-1345314453.1596765451
Supplemental Memo (Sept 1, 2020, Item 3K) – Analysis of Administrative and Legal Issues with the Letter from the County Clerk
https://boulder.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=3456&ItemID=3195
The mayor’s job duties, 2-year term, and selection in odd years would not change from the status quo. Someone who has served for 3 terms as a member of city council could be elected to 2 mayoral terms. Others could be elected for up to 4 mayoral terms.
Instead of electing 5 council members every two years, the city would elect 4 council members, all for 4-year terms. If a city council member in the middle of a 4-year term is elected mayor, then the 5th vote-getter would be elected to finish the two years. The voters would presumably have voted for 4 council members though, not 5.
The county clerk weighed in at the eleventh hour to notify the city that it should plan to hold its own election, not rely on the county to coordinate a ranked voting election. This announcement changed the council vote to put the measure on the ballot from the first reading of 7 – 2 to the second reading of 5 – 4. The council was unable to get the necessary 6 votes to put a contingency clause in the ballot language to delay the use of ranked voting until the county clerk is able to conduct the election or the city has sufficient funds to conduct its own election.
At their retreat this year, city council discussed but chose not to pursue adoption of any alternative form of voting. Filling the void, a subset of members from Open Boulder’s two boards organized an “Our Mayor, Our Choice” petition effort to get this measure on the ballot.
The decision not to allow electronic signatures in the midst of a pandemic despite the voters’ approval of 2G in 2018 irked many working on citizens’ initiatives. Then varying interpretations of the number of required signatures and the time allowed for collecting signatures added fuel to the fire. (One of the interpretations is in 2E passed by Boulder voters in 2018.)
The ensuing chaos did not put the city attorney in a positive light. “Bedrooms are for People” was another ballot effort negatively impacted by the city attorney’s change in interpretation of petition signature requirements and deadlines, and ultimately sued the city unsuccessfully to be put on the ballot.
City council was somewhat more receptive to referring the Our Mayor petition to the ballot, but the ballot language needed modification to fix a vacancy that was built into the original language. Council member Bob Yates worked with proponents to improve the ballot language. Along the way the mayor’s election year and term reverted to the status quo.
Recommendation: No/Against
From this ballot measure’s many twists and turns, you can see that it was not well planned nor well executed. The county clerk also says that the city is on its own with a ranked voting election, and the city has admitted that it is not ready. The proponents say that they can come back to the voters and ask for an implementation delay if needed.
Given the implementation hurdles and the 2023 start date, why didn’t council take a reasoned approach and wait a year to put this on the ballot? If this doesn’t pass, council can put it on the ballot again next year. Or perhaps a different ballot measure could propose replacing ranked voting with a simpler alternative, such as approval voting.
Some council members believe that the directly elect mayor proposal is a solution in search of a problem. According to the proponents, many Boulderites didn’t even realize that city council, rather than the electorate, chooses the mayor.
Boulder’s council/manager system means that Boulder has a “weak” mayor. (In interesting timing, Jane Brautigam, our city manager announced that she is retiring effective October 30, after 12 years on the job.) Opponents of this measure point to power conflicts between a directly-elected weak mayor and a council-hired manager.
Some people question why we should bother holding a separate election for a “weak” mayor. The 2E campaign points out that every city in Colorado larger than Boulder directly elects a mayor. With only 3 exceptions (Denver, CO Springs and Pueblo), all mayors in Colorado are in the weak category.
Why would people run for a 2-year term as a weak mayor when they can run at-large for one of four council seats with a 4-year term? Maybe only term-limited or almost term-limited council members will run as mayor.
In our current system, the voters in Boulder narrow the pool for mayor to 9 candidates, and the losing candidates in the mayoral race continue to serve as council members. In the proposed system, two or more candidates would vie to be mayor; assuming that all the candidates are good, the city loses out when only one wins.
During the conversation on 2E, the city council expressed support for changing to a proportional way of electing members of city council in the future. The city is likely to convene another Elections Working Group to resolve the very visible petition signature problems and to study proportional representation.
Website for the Yes side – Our Mayor, Our Choice
https://www.ourmayor-ourchoice.org/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
(Steve Pomerance penned a few Daily Camera columns noting flaws in 2E.)
https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/09/16/opinion-steve-pomerance-mayor-ballot-measure-still-has-serious-problems/
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E
Charter Amendments Related to Direct Election of the Mayor
Shall Article II, Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 of the Boulder City Charter be amended to provide for the direct election of the mayor by ranked choice (instant runoff) voting?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST _____
Ordinance No. 8420 to put 2E to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/o-8420_2nd_Rdg_Our_Mayor_Our_Choice_SIGNED-1-202009101508.pdf?_ga=2.67266649.954903512.1600536510-1345314453.1596765451
Supplemental Memo (Sept 1, 2020, Item 3K) – Analysis of Administrative and Legal Issues with the Letter from the County Clerk
https://boulder.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=3456&ItemID=3195
City of Boulder 2F - Increase Arts Commission from 5 to 7 Commissioners
The Boulder Arts Commission has 5 commissioners, one appointed each year by city council to serve 5-year terms. In its annual letter to city council, the commissioners asked to increase the size by 2 commissioners. The two additional commissioners would be appointed in March 2021, one for a 5-year term and the other for an initial 3-year term to provide for staggered terms.
The Arts Commission was established in 1979 by ordinance and appears in Chapter 14-1 of the Boulder Revised Code. However, Section 130 of the city charter provides for “general provisions concerning advisory commissions,” including setting the size at 5 or 7 members. The city council is asking the voters to enshrine the Arts Commission in the city charter and simultaneously asking the voters to increase the size of the commission. Any additions to the city charter must be approved by voters.
The Arts Commission “advises the City Council and local arts groups in connection with all matters relating to the artistic and cultural development of the city.” A large part of the commission’s work is administering the city arts grant program. The request to city council noted that “[b]eing effective … requires a steep learning curve.”
A panel of 5 commissioners and 4 community members review and award grants. If the number of commissioners increases by 2, the commission would decrease the number of community members by 2.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Members of city boards and commissions are not paid for their service, other than an EcoPass and perhaps dinner during in-person meetings. Sometimes finding people to do this volunteer work is difficult. Five years is also a long commitment, and vacancies often occur when a member doesn’t complete a term. Increasing the number of Arts commissioners should lead to better continuity and more experience on the 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
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F
Charter Amendment Related to the Boulder Arts Commission
Shall new Sections 135 and 136 be added to the City Charter pursuant to Ordinance 8405 to increase the size of the Boulder Arts Commission to seven members, allow for continued service by existing Arts Commission members, provide for staggered terms for the new members and for filling of vacancies?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST_____
Ordinance No. 8405 to put 2F to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/o-8405_2nd_rdg_Arts_Commission_five_to_seven_bond_copy-1-202008261155.pdf?_ga=2.267554378.518549467.1599345017-1345314453.1596765451
The Arts Commission was established in 1979 by ordinance and appears in Chapter 14-1 of the Boulder Revised Code. However, Section 130 of the city charter provides for “general provisions concerning advisory commissions,” including setting the size at 5 or 7 members. The city council is asking the voters to enshrine the Arts Commission in the city charter and simultaneously asking the voters to increase the size of the commission. Any additions to the city charter must be approved by voters.
The Arts Commission “advises the City Council and local arts groups in connection with all matters relating to the artistic and cultural development of the city.” A large part of the commission’s work is administering the city arts grant program. The request to city council noted that “[b]eing effective … requires a steep learning curve.”
A panel of 5 commissioners and 4 community members review and award grants. If the number of commissioners increases by 2, the commission would decrease the number of community members by 2.
Recommendation: Yes/For
Members of city boards and commissions are not paid for their service, other than an EcoPass and perhaps dinner during in-person meetings. Sometimes finding people to do this volunteer work is difficult. Five years is also a long commitment, and vacancies often occur when a member doesn’t complete a term. Increasing the number of Arts commissioners should lead to better continuity and more experience on the 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
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F
Charter Amendment Related to the Boulder Arts Commission
Shall new Sections 135 and 136 be added to the City Charter pursuant to Ordinance 8405 to increase the size of the Boulder Arts Commission to seven members, allow for continued service by existing Arts Commission members, provide for staggered terms for the new members and for filling of vacancies?
YES/FOR _____
NO/AGAINST_____
Ordinance No. 8405 to put 2F to the voters
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/o-8405_2nd_rdg_Arts_Commission_five_to_seven_bond_copy-1-202008261155.pdf?_ga=2.267554378.518549467.1599345017-1345314453.1596765451
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)