As is typical in even years, Boulder voters will see many ballot measures this year: 14 state measures, 3 city measures, and 1 RTD measure. Half the state measures are amendments to the constitution and half are statutory changes. Seven of the state measures are citizen initiatives, which had to collect signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot.
While one set of national running mates is talking about “childless cat ladies” and “they’re eating the dogs,” the state ballot measures are talking about big cats in the wild and pets, such as dogs, under veterinary care. Other national issues appearing on Colorado ballots are reproductive rights, the definition of marriage, and Final-4 Voting. And because we live in Colorado, we’ve got some debrucing measures for good measure. [See what I did there?]
Interestingly, none of the city measures are about content, such as taxes, election changes or prohibited items on city property; instead, they are all about city council processes and powers.
In 2022, this site changed how it approached most tax measures. Dedicated taxes are often designed for maximum appeal – Let’s support “rainbows and puppies.” Meanwhile the rest of the government functions are funded with non-dedicated taxes. Rather than weigh in on whether or not you should vote for a tax or debt question, this site started putting the word "Tax" in the Recommendation field, neither supporting nor opposing the measure but sometimes giving you some things to consider. An exception: this site has been a consistent supporter of debrucing measures, like Prop JJ and RTD 7A.
This year “politics” has been added as a recommendation, meaning the question is so tied up in politics that it comes down to a political call.
Each of the 18 ballot measures has its own post with more information and a space to make a comment on the 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 influence you have! 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. If you vote early, you can avoid some of those pesky “Get Out the Vote” (GOTV) reminders.
At the bottom of this post are other ballot measure websites as well as a link to the Boulder County Clerk’s website. The links are updated as more resources become available.
Ballots were mailed out starting October 11 so you should have your ballot already. 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 5th. Most people vote in one of 3 ways:
1) In person at one of your county’s Voter Service and Polling Centers
2) Mail your ballot with appropriate postage and allow for adequate delivery time (Within CO, your county clerk is supposed to pay the postage if you don’t affix stamps, but you might not want to risk it.)
3) Drop off your ballot at any Colorado polling place or ballot drop box, even outside of your county
VOCABULARY
Amendment = Constitutional change
All of this year’s amendments, except for J, require 55% approval for passage.
Proposition = Statutory change
Propositions can be modified later by the Colorado General Assembly.
State Referenda - denoted by letters
The General Assembly put these on the ballot.
State Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.
Ballot Issues = Tax or debt measures
Ballot Questions = Others
2024 BALLOT MEASURES
STATE OF COLORADO
Amendment G
Expand Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities
Expand current exemption to Total Disability Individual Unemployability veterans
Tax
Amendment H
Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality
Create an adjudicative board, expand tribunal membership and release info about disciplinary charges earlier
politics
Amendment I
Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder
Prohibit the granting of bail to a person indicted for first degree murder when proof is evident or presumption is great
No
Amendment J
Repeal “Valid Marriage” Definition in Constitution
Remove the unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage
YES
Amendment K
Move Constitutional Election Deadlines Earlier
Require earlier dates for publishing ballot measures, filing ballot measures and for a judge’s deadline to declare intent to run for retention
Yes
Amendment 79
Constitutional Right to Abortion
Enshrine right to abortion in the constitution and repeal the ban on state and local funding for abortion services
YES
Amendment 80
Constitutional Right to School Choice
Enshrine right to school choice in the constitution and expand choice to include private schools
No
Proposition JJ
Debruce CO from Sports Betting Limits and Keep Funding the Water Plan
Let CO keep money above the previously self-imposed limit
Yes
Proposition KK
Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax for Crime Victim Services
Impose a 6.5% excise tax on most firearms, firearm parts and ammunition sold in CO with most of the revenue going to crime victim services
Yes
Proposition 127
Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting
Add bobcats and mountain lions to the prohibition on sport hunting already existing for lynx, and no longer reimburse owners for damage by mountain lions
No
Proposition 128
Reduce Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence
Increase time required behind bars for certain convicted persons from 75% of their sentence minus earned time to 85% of their sentence
No
Proposition 129
Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates
Create a new group of veterinary professionals who would have to get a master’s degree and possible additional training TBD by the State Board of Veterinary Medicine
No
Proposition 130
Funding for Law Enforcement Including Additional Death Benefits
Without finding new revenue, spend $350M on local law enforcement officers and provide a $1M death benefit to officers killed in the line of duty
No
Proposition 131
All-Candidate Top-4 Primary and Instant-Runoff (Ranked) Voting General Election
Replace partisan primaries for most state and federal offices with a Top-4 “jungle” primary and allow voters to rank candidates in the general election
Yes
CITY OF BOULDER
City of Boulder 2C
Base Council Pay on Area Median Income
More than triple council member pay and quadruple the mayor’s pay with no change in their duties
Against
City of Boulder 2D
Executive Sessions
Allow city council to conduct executive sessions for reasons outlined in statutory guidelines
leaning for
City of Boulder 2E
Boards and Commissions Changes
Replace most of the charter language on advisory commissions with a statement granting council power to establish commissions and rules by ordinance
Against
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
RTD 7A
Debruce RTD Permanently
Remove RTD’s revenue cap so RTD may keep all the money it collects
YES
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.
https://bouldercounty.gov/elections/ballot-information/
See who is running as write-in candidates.
GOVERNMENT SITES
Blue Book / Folleto Informativo (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 2024 State Ballot Information Booklet – available in English and Spanish.
State Ballot Analysis - https://leg.colorado.gov/BallotAnalysis
Colorado Secretary of State
Amendments and Propositions on the 2024 Ballot
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2024.html
City of Boulder
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections
INFORMATION-ONLY SITES
League of Women Voters – also listed under Advocacy Sites
https://www.vote411.org/
See your ballot, learn about the issues and the candidates
Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2024_ballot_measures
Entries for each ballot measure include supporters and opponents and campaign finance information
MEDIA SITES
Boulder Weekly Vote Guide
https://boulderweekly.com/content-archives/voters-guide/election-2024-a-quick-and-dirty-vote-guide/
Daily Camera 2024 Voters Guide
https://www.dailycamera.com/tag/2024-voters-guide/
Yellow Scene Election Guide 2024
https://yellowscene.com/2024/10/21/yellow-scene-election-guide-2024/
Colorado Politics Elections Page
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/elections/
Colorado Sun Voter Guide
https://coloradosun.com/colorado-voter-guide-2024-election/
Colorado Public Radio Voter’s Guide
https://www.cpr.org/2024/10/14/vg-2024-colorado-voter-guide-to-the-2024-election/
Colorado Inside Out (PBS) Election 2024
https://www.pbs12.org/watch/2024-election/
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION SITES
These sites take positions on all or most of the measures.
League of Women Voters of Boulder County 2024 Ballot Measures (English and Spanish)
https://lwvbc.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=629866&module_id=690234
League of Women Voters of CO Where the League Stands
https://lwvcolorado.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=314195&module_id=614131
Bell Policy Center 2024 Ballot Guide
https://www.bellpolicy.org/2024/08/27/2024-colorado-ballot-guide/
Boulder Progressives
https://www.boulderprogressives.org/voter-guide
POLITICAL PARTY SITES
Boulder County Democratic Party
https://www.bocodems.org/2024-voter-guide/
Independence Institute – Libertarian Think Tank
https://i2i.org/election2024/
CITIZEN SITES
Richard Valenty
https://richardvalenty.com/election-2024-survival-and-other-things/
Tuesday, October 22, 2024
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
Amendment G – Expand Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities
Veterans with a 100% permanent disability from a service-related injury or illness qualify for Colorado’s homestead exemption which reduces property taxes on a homeowner’s primary residence by exempting the first $100,000 of a home’s value for homes valued at $200,000 or more. For homes of lower values, the exemption is 50% of the home’s value. The state reimburses local governments for all revenue lost as a result of the exemption.
Amendment G would expand this property tax exemption to an estimated 3,700 veterans who qualify for Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU) because they are unable to work a steady paid job due to a less-than-100% service-connected disability.
Recommendation: Tax
A veteran with a TDIU rating receives the same federal disability benefits as a veteran with 100% disability so Amendment G would similarly apply Colorado’s homestead exemption to both groups.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment G (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the expansion of eligibility for the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to include a veteran who does not have a service-connected disability rated as a one hundred percent permanent disability but does have individual unemployability status?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HCR23-1002 to refer Amendment G to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hcr23-1002
Amendment G would expand this property tax exemption to an estimated 3,700 veterans who qualify for Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU) because they are unable to work a steady paid job due to a less-than-100% service-connected disability.
Recommendation: Tax
A veteran with a TDIU rating receives the same federal disability benefits as a veteran with 100% disability so Amendment G would similarly apply Colorado’s homestead exemption to both groups.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment G (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the expansion of eligibility for the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to include a veteran who does not have a service-connected disability rated as a one hundred percent permanent disability but does have individual unemployability status?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HCR23-1002 to refer Amendment G to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hcr23-1002
Amendment H – Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality
The judicial branch – particularly, the Colorado Supreme Court – has been rocked by scandals recently. For example, in 2023 the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (CCJD) censured former Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats following an investigation.
Amendment H would create an independent adjudicative board composed of 4 citizens, 4 lawyers and 4 district court judges, all appointed by the CO Supreme Court and the governor, to handle disciplinary hearings and make the final ruling. This board would replace the current 3-step process where CO Supreme Court-appointed judges make recommendations to the CCJD who then makes disciplinary recommendations to the CO Supreme Court who makes the final disciplinary ruling.
Amendment H also calls for a tribunal of randomly selected District and Appeal Court judges representing different districts to hear cases involving a Supreme Court Justice, their staff or family. The current process limits the tribunal to only Appeal Court judges.
Under Amendment H, proceedings would become public as soon as formal charges are filed, rather than waiting until a formal recommendation for sanctions is filed.
Recommendation: politics
Except for the one argument against Amendment H in the Blue Book, nobody seems to be arguing that the current system works. No doubt there are more improvements that could be made and perhaps should have been made in this ballot measure – given that the concurrent resolution to refer Amendment H to voters passed unanimously (not counting 2 abstentions in the House).
Those opposed to Amendment H say that it does little to nothing to make the judicial process work better. They also argue that if Amendment H passes, “it will be almost impossible to obtain necessary reforms because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H.” Most referenda pass, but if Amendment H fails, the legislators may not pursue another change. Make a political choice and vote accordingly.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side (Judicial Integrity Project)
https://judicialintegrity.org/amendment-h-vote-no.html
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment H (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judicial discipline, and in connection therewith, establishing an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board, setting standards for judicial review of a discipline case, and clarifying when discipline proceedings become public?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HCR23-1001 to refer Amendment H to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hcr23-1001
Amendment H would create an independent adjudicative board composed of 4 citizens, 4 lawyers and 4 district court judges, all appointed by the CO Supreme Court and the governor, to handle disciplinary hearings and make the final ruling. This board would replace the current 3-step process where CO Supreme Court-appointed judges make recommendations to the CCJD who then makes disciplinary recommendations to the CO Supreme Court who makes the final disciplinary ruling.
Amendment H also calls for a tribunal of randomly selected District and Appeal Court judges representing different districts to hear cases involving a Supreme Court Justice, their staff or family. The current process limits the tribunal to only Appeal Court judges.
Under Amendment H, proceedings would become public as soon as formal charges are filed, rather than waiting until a formal recommendation for sanctions is filed.
Recommendation: politics
Except for the one argument against Amendment H in the Blue Book, nobody seems to be arguing that the current system works. No doubt there are more improvements that could be made and perhaps should have been made in this ballot measure – given that the concurrent resolution to refer Amendment H to voters passed unanimously (not counting 2 abstentions in the House).
Those opposed to Amendment H say that it does little to nothing to make the judicial process work better. They also argue that if Amendment H passes, “it will be almost impossible to obtain necessary reforms because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H.” Most referenda pass, but if Amendment H fails, the legislators may not pursue another change. Make a political choice and vote accordingly.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side (Judicial Integrity Project)
https://judicialintegrity.org/amendment-h-vote-no.html
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment H (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judicial discipline, and in connection therewith, establishing an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board, setting standards for judicial review of a discipline case, and clarifying when discipline proceedings become public?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HCR23-1001 to refer Amendment H to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hcr23-1001
Amendment I – Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder
CO Constitution’s Article II, Section 19, (1) lists the cases in which a person charged with an offense shall be denied bail. They include (in abridged form):
a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great (PEPG); or
b) After a timely hearing usually within 96 hours, the court finds that PEPG of the alleged crime, and finds that the public would be in significant peril if the accused were released on bail, and that the person accused of a crime of violence alleged to be committed was on probation, parole, bail or had a specific felony conviction as described in the constitution.
A capital offense is one which may result in a death sentence. First degree murder was a capital offense until Colorado abolished the death penalty in 2020. Therefore, section a) above is no longer applicable.
Amendment I adds section d) to include first degree murder when PEPG.
CO Constitution’s Article II, Section 19, (2) states that if a person is denied bail, then the accused’s trial must begin within 90 days after bail is denied, EXCEPT in the case of a capital offense. Amendment I adds first degree murder to the exception clause so a person accused of first degree murder may languish in jail indefinitely.
Bail is defined as the temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial. Sometimes bail requires posting a financial security, e.g., money or real estate. Sometimes bail occurs on the defendant’s own recognizance, i.e., a promise to show up for the trial.
Recommendation: No
If Amendment I gave the judge discretion to deny bail or required a first degree murder trial to begin within 90 days, then this would be a better constitutional amendment. By requiring the judge to deny bail and not requiring a speedy trial, this constitutional amendment deserves a No vote.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment I (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning creating an exception to the right to bail for cases of murder in the first degree when proof is evident or presumption is great?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HCR24-1002 to refer Amendment I to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hcr24-1002
a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great (PEPG); or
b) After a timely hearing usually within 96 hours, the court finds that PEPG of the alleged crime, and finds that the public would be in significant peril if the accused were released on bail, and that the person accused of a crime of violence alleged to be committed was on probation, parole, bail or had a specific felony conviction as described in the constitution.
A capital offense is one which may result in a death sentence. First degree murder was a capital offense until Colorado abolished the death penalty in 2020. Therefore, section a) above is no longer applicable.
Amendment I adds section d) to include first degree murder when PEPG.
CO Constitution’s Article II, Section 19, (2) states that if a person is denied bail, then the accused’s trial must begin within 90 days after bail is denied, EXCEPT in the case of a capital offense. Amendment I adds first degree murder to the exception clause so a person accused of first degree murder may languish in jail indefinitely.
Bail is defined as the temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial. Sometimes bail requires posting a financial security, e.g., money or real estate. Sometimes bail occurs on the defendant’s own recognizance, i.e., a promise to show up for the trial.
Recommendation: No
If Amendment I gave the judge discretion to deny bail or required a first degree murder trial to begin within 90 days, then this would be a better constitutional amendment. By requiring the judge to deny bail and not requiring a speedy trial, this constitutional amendment deserves a No vote.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment I (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning creating an exception to the right to bail for cases of murder in the first degree when proof is evident or presumption is great?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HCR24-1002 to refer Amendment I to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hcr24-1002
Amendment J – Repeal “Valid Marriage” Definition in Constitution
Amendment J would repeal Article II, Section 31 of the CO Constitution, which reads: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Voters approved this language in 2006.
Amendment J requires only a simple majority of votes to pass because it is not adding any language to the constitution; rather, Amendment J is repealing language that only required a simple majority back in 2006 to pass. All the other amendments on your ballot require 55% of the vote to pass.
Colorado’s ban on same-sex marriage has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, so removing this constitutional definition of marriage would align with current federal and state rulings.
Recommendation: YES
If the language remains in the constitution and the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) were to overturn its ruling and decide that bans on same-sex marriage are legal, then this “valid marriage” definition would be in force again. To SCOTUS-proof its constitution, Colorado should repeal this language.
Website for the Yes Side (Freedom to Marry Colorado)
https://www.freedomtomarryco.com/
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment J (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution removing the ban on same-sex marriage?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
SCR24-003 to refer Amendment J to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/scr24-003
Amendment J requires only a simple majority of votes to pass because it is not adding any language to the constitution; rather, Amendment J is repealing language that only required a simple majority back in 2006 to pass. All the other amendments on your ballot require 55% of the vote to pass.
Colorado’s ban on same-sex marriage has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, so removing this constitutional definition of marriage would align with current federal and state rulings.
Recommendation: YES
If the language remains in the constitution and the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) were to overturn its ruling and decide that bans on same-sex marriage are legal, then this “valid marriage” definition would be in force again. To SCOTUS-proof its constitution, Colorado should repeal this language.
Website for the Yes Side (Freedom to Marry Colorado)
https://www.freedomtomarryco.com/
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment J (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution removing the ban on same-sex marriage?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
SCR24-003 to refer Amendment J to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/scr24-003
Amendment K – Move Constitutional Election Deadlines Earlier
The CO Constitution currently states that all ballot measures must be published “in at least one legal publication of general circulation in each county of the state and shall be made at least fifteen days prior to the final date of voter registration for the election.” What is that final date? Today Colorado allows eligible people to register to vote on Election Day.
Ballots are mailed to military and overseas voters known as UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) voters 45 days before the election and to other voters 22 days before the election. Amendment K would require publication of the ballot measures 45 days before the election, instead of 15 days.
Currently, any citizen initiatives along with the required citizen signatures must be “filed with the secretary of state at least three months before the general election at which they are to be voted upon.” Amendment K would move this deadline one week earlier.
The current deadline for referenda is “not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly that passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.” Amendment K would change the 90 days to 83 days.
Judges up for retention have a 3-month period in which to declare their intent to run for another term. Amendment K proposes changing the starting and ending point of this 3-month period earlier by one week.
Recommendation: Yes
Moving the publication deadline earlier for ballot measures makes sense since the ballot text must be ready for UOCAVA voters anyway. With a long ballot, regular (i.e., non-UOCAVA) voters should be able to see the ballot text before they get their ballot so they have time to do research.
One week earlier for initiatives, referenda and judges’ reelection declaration is also reasonable. The only noticeable impact might be a citizen referendum, such as 2020’s Prop 113 to overturn the legislature’s signing onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). If the legislature had passed SB19-042 at the end of the 2020 session instead of in 2019, opponents of NPVIC would have been squeezed for time to collect signatures.
Should these election deadlines be in the CO Constitution? Perhaps not, but Amendment K is not giving us the option of removing the constitutional deadlines.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment K (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the modification of certain deadlines in connection with specified elections?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
SCR24-002 to refer Amendment K to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/scr24-002
Ballots are mailed to military and overseas voters known as UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) voters 45 days before the election and to other voters 22 days before the election. Amendment K would require publication of the ballot measures 45 days before the election, instead of 15 days.
Currently, any citizen initiatives along with the required citizen signatures must be “filed with the secretary of state at least three months before the general election at which they are to be voted upon.” Amendment K would move this deadline one week earlier.
The current deadline for referenda is “not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly that passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.” Amendment K would change the 90 days to 83 days.
Judges up for retention have a 3-month period in which to declare their intent to run for another term. Amendment K proposes changing the starting and ending point of this 3-month period earlier by one week.
Recommendation: Yes
Moving the publication deadline earlier for ballot measures makes sense since the ballot text must be ready for UOCAVA voters anyway. With a long ballot, regular (i.e., non-UOCAVA) voters should be able to see the ballot text before they get their ballot so they have time to do research.
One week earlier for initiatives, referenda and judges’ reelection declaration is also reasonable. The only noticeable impact might be a citizen referendum, such as 2020’s Prop 113 to overturn the legislature’s signing onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). If the legislature had passed SB19-042 at the end of the 2020 session instead of in 2019, opponents of NPVIC would have been squeezed for time to collect signatures.
Should these election deadlines be in the CO Constitution? Perhaps not, but Amendment K is not giving us the option of removing the constitutional deadlines.
Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment K (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the modification of certain deadlines in connection with specified elections?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
SCR24-002 to refer Amendment K to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/scr24-002
Amendment 79 – Constitutional Right to Abortion
In 1973 the US Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision recognized a right to abortion, but the court’s 2022 Dobbs decision returned regulatory authority to the states. Some states (not CO) have criminalized abortions, making doctors very hesitant to perform an abortion even if a woman’s life is in danger.
Amendment 79 would make abortion a constitutional right in CO and repeal the ban on state and local government funding for abortion services. Amendment 79 might be considered unnecessary, but it’s also seen as insurance in case Colorado’s legislative partisan makeup drastically changes.
Opponents argue that a constitutional right to abortion could lead to abortion-on-demand for any reason, e.g., the baby is the “wrong” biological sex. Opponents also want to preclude any state and local government money from being used to pay for abortions through Medicaid or state and local government employee health insurance plans.
Recommendation: YES
Since the Dobbs decision, we have all learned that abortions are an important part of health care. Too many women’s lives have been put at risk, some with fatal consequences. The CO Constitution is an appropriate place to enshrine rights, including the right to needed health care.
Website for the Yes Side (Coloradans for Reproductive Freedom)
https://coloradansforreproductivefreedom.com/
Website for the No Side (Vote No on 79)
https://voteno79.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 79 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado constitution recognizing the right to abortion, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state and local governments from denying, impeding, or discriminating against the exercise of that right, allowing abortion to be a covered service under health insurance plans for Colorado state and local government employees and for enrollees in state and local governmental insurance programs?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Amendment 79 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/89Final.pdf
Amendment 79 would make abortion a constitutional right in CO and repeal the ban on state and local government funding for abortion services. Amendment 79 might be considered unnecessary, but it’s also seen as insurance in case Colorado’s legislative partisan makeup drastically changes.
Opponents argue that a constitutional right to abortion could lead to abortion-on-demand for any reason, e.g., the baby is the “wrong” biological sex. Opponents also want to preclude any state and local government money from being used to pay for abortions through Medicaid or state and local government employee health insurance plans.
Recommendation: YES
Since the Dobbs decision, we have all learned that abortions are an important part of health care. Too many women’s lives have been put at risk, some with fatal consequences. The CO Constitution is an appropriate place to enshrine rights, including the right to needed health care.
Website for the Yes Side (Coloradans for Reproductive Freedom)
https://coloradansforreproductivefreedom.com/
Website for the No Side (Vote No on 79)
https://voteno79.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 79 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado constitution recognizing the right to abortion, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state and local governments from denying, impeding, or discriminating against the exercise of that right, allowing abortion to be a covered service under health insurance plans for Colorado state and local government employees and for enrollees in state and local governmental insurance programs?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Amendment 79 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/89Final.pdf
Amendment 80 – Constitutional Right to School Choice
Currently, CO students in grades K-12 are entitled to a free public education. Students are allowed to attend any public school, even if the child lives outside of the official attendance boundaries. Each school district has its own way to regulate “open enrollment.” Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) asks parents to order their school preferences and holds a lottery. Some students have priority over others. Students outside of BVSD have the lowest priority in BVSD, unless they fall in another category, such as child of a BVSD employee.
Parents also have the option of sending their children to private schools or of homeschooling their children, but Colorado does not pay for those children’s educational expenses.
Amendment 80 would add the following language to the CO Constitution: “The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education; that parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.”
Would a constitutional right to a private education require CO to pay for that private education if the parents cannot afford it (or even if the parents can)? Amendment 80 does not lay out any changes to state law, but does set up the possibility for many legal challenges.
Recommendation: No
Colorado allows choice for public schools. When a community has multiple schools for each grade level, the competition for students and their accompanying dollars drives the schools to continuously improve. For example, most students from wealthy families in Boulder attend public schools because public schools are seen as meeting the families’ needs and desires.
The fiscal impact of Amendment 80 on the state and school districts is entirely speculative. It “may increase their spending on legal expenses and planning costs.”
Except for the “private” school language of Amendment 80, CO already tries to achieve the intent of Amendment 80. If you believe that tax dollars for K-12 education should be spent to boost public education, then vote No on Amendment 80. Let’s not open a can of legal worms.
Website for the Yes Side (School Choice for Every Child)
https://www.voteyeson80.com/
Website for the No Side (Public School Strong)
https://www.protectpublicschools.co/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 80 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing the right to school choice for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, and, in connection therewith, declaring that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, and private schools; home schooling; open enrollment options; and future innovations in education?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Amendment 80 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/138OriginalFinal.pdf
Parents also have the option of sending their children to private schools or of homeschooling their children, but Colorado does not pay for those children’s educational expenses.
Amendment 80 would add the following language to the CO Constitution: “The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education; that parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.”
Would a constitutional right to a private education require CO to pay for that private education if the parents cannot afford it (or even if the parents can)? Amendment 80 does not lay out any changes to state law, but does set up the possibility for many legal challenges.
Recommendation: No
Colorado allows choice for public schools. When a community has multiple schools for each grade level, the competition for students and their accompanying dollars drives the schools to continuously improve. For example, most students from wealthy families in Boulder attend public schools because public schools are seen as meeting the families’ needs and desires.
The fiscal impact of Amendment 80 on the state and school districts is entirely speculative. It “may increase their spending on legal expenses and planning costs.”
Except for the “private” school language of Amendment 80, CO already tries to achieve the intent of Amendment 80. If you believe that tax dollars for K-12 education should be spent to boost public education, then vote No on Amendment 80. Let’s not open a can of legal worms.
Website for the Yes Side (School Choice for Every Child)
https://www.voteyeson80.com/
Website for the No Side (Public School Strong)
https://www.protectpublicschools.co/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 80 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing the right to school choice for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, and, in connection therewith, declaring that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, and private schools; home schooling; open enrollment options; and future innovations in education?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Amendment 80 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/138OriginalFinal.pdf
Proposition JJ – Debruce CO from Sports Betting Limits and Keep Funding the Water Plan
In 2019 voters passed Prop DD to legalize sports betting and to authorize the first $29M in tax revenue toward the underfunded and somewhat controversial Water Plan. Under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), anything above the $29M goes back to the casinos and organizations that pay the sports betting tax. Prop JJ would debruce the state from its self-imposed $29M limit and continue directing the sports betting tax revenue to the Colorado Water Plan implementation cash fund.
From the Bell Policy Center website https://www.bellpolicy.org/2019/07/12/what-is-debrucing/: “Debrucing” is the act of eliminating the government spending limit and allowing that government to retain and spend all of the revenue it collects under existing tax rates.
Recommendation: Yes
The opponents make their standard argument that TABOR limits should be respected and refunds provided when tax revenues exceed the limits. Not being a fan of TABOR’s limits makes the Yes recommendation an easy call. Since the refunds would go to sports betting organizations, instead of individual taxpayers, the Yes recommendation is an even easier call.
In 2019 this site worried about establishing sports betting and about the Colorado Water Plan’s priorities, but neither of those topics is the main focus of this ballot measure.
Website for the Yes Side (Conserve and Protect Our Water)
https://yesonjj.com/
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition JJ (STATUTORY)
Without raising taxes, may the state keep and spend all sports betting tax revenue above voter-approved limits to fund water conservation and protection projects instead of refunding revenue to casinos?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HB24-1436 to refer Prop JJ to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1436
From the Bell Policy Center website https://www.bellpolicy.org/2019/07/12/what-is-debrucing/: “Debrucing” is the act of eliminating the government spending limit and allowing that government to retain and spend all of the revenue it collects under existing tax rates.
Recommendation: Yes
The opponents make their standard argument that TABOR limits should be respected and refunds provided when tax revenues exceed the limits. Not being a fan of TABOR’s limits makes the Yes recommendation an easy call. Since the refunds would go to sports betting organizations, instead of individual taxpayers, the Yes recommendation is an even easier call.
In 2019 this site worried about establishing sports betting and about the Colorado Water Plan’s priorities, but neither of those topics is the main focus of this ballot measure.
Website for the Yes Side (Conserve and Protect Our Water)
https://yesonjj.com/
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition JJ (STATUTORY)
Without raising taxes, may the state keep and spend all sports betting tax revenue above voter-approved limits to fund water conservation and protection projects instead of refunding revenue to casinos?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HB24-1436 to refer Prop JJ to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1436
Proposition KK – Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax for Crime Victim Services
Most of the referred measures had bipartisan sponsors, but not Prop KK. Prop KK imposes a 6.5% excise tax on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition sold by firearm dealers and manufacturers and ammunition sellers. The tax revenue would be exempt (debruced) from TABOR limits and would fund primarily crime victim services ($30M), but also mental health services for veterans ($5M) and youth ($3M) and school security grants ($1M).
The federal government has levied an excise tax on retail sales of firearms and ammunition since 1919 with the proceeds funding wildlife conservation and hunting programs. Retail sales of firearms, firearm parts and ammunition are also subject to local and state sales tax.
Sellers with annual sales of less than $20,000 are exempt from this proposed 6.5% tax. Retail sales to law enforcement officers, their agencies, and active-duty military members are also exempt.
Recommendation: Yes
Opponents argue that adults have a constitutional right to own firearms, and this measure infringes on that right. However, the government doesn’t have an obligation to provide firearms tax-free. Plus, the government is often left bearing the cost of gun-related violence. This measure is attempting to recoup some of those costs by imposing a new excise tax, and if fewer guns are out in society, we could have less gun-related violence.
If firearms sales are banned – for instance, sales of certain firearms are banned in Washington, DC – or the retail sales price is exorbitant, people who want to buy firearms will go to other states or seek unregulated ghost guns. Prop KK won’t solve the problem of gun violence in our society, but it will shine a spotlight on it and attempts a small step toward reducing gun violence.
Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Supports Crime Victim Services)
https://yesonpropkk.com/
Website for the No Side (Rocky Mountain Gun Owners)
https://rmgo.org/prop-kk/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition KK (STATUTORY)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY $39,000,000 ANNUALLY TO FUND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INCLUDING FOR MILITARY VETERANS AND AT-RISK YOUTH, SCHOOL SAFETY AND GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES BY AUTHORIZING A TAX ON GUN DEALERS, GUN MANUFACTURERS, AND AMMUNITION VENDORS AT THE RATE OF 6.5% OF THE NET TAXABLE SALES FROM THE RETAIL SALE OF ANY GUN, GUN PRECURSOR PART, OR AMMUNITION, WITH THE STATE KEEPING AND SPENDING ALL OF THE NEW TAX REVENUE AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HB24-349 to refer Prop KK to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349
The federal government has levied an excise tax on retail sales of firearms and ammunition since 1919 with the proceeds funding wildlife conservation and hunting programs. Retail sales of firearms, firearm parts and ammunition are also subject to local and state sales tax.
Sellers with annual sales of less than $20,000 are exempt from this proposed 6.5% tax. Retail sales to law enforcement officers, their agencies, and active-duty military members are also exempt.
Recommendation: Yes
Opponents argue that adults have a constitutional right to own firearms, and this measure infringes on that right. However, the government doesn’t have an obligation to provide firearms tax-free. Plus, the government is often left bearing the cost of gun-related violence. This measure is attempting to recoup some of those costs by imposing a new excise tax, and if fewer guns are out in society, we could have less gun-related violence.
If firearms sales are banned – for instance, sales of certain firearms are banned in Washington, DC – or the retail sales price is exorbitant, people who want to buy firearms will go to other states or seek unregulated ghost guns. Prop KK won’t solve the problem of gun violence in our society, but it will shine a spotlight on it and attempts a small step toward reducing gun violence.
Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Supports Crime Victim Services)
https://yesonpropkk.com/
Website for the No Side (Rocky Mountain Gun Owners)
https://rmgo.org/prop-kk/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition KK (STATUTORY)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY $39,000,000 ANNUALLY TO FUND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INCLUDING FOR MILITARY VETERANS AND AT-RISK YOUTH, SCHOOL SAFETY AND GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES BY AUTHORIZING A TAX ON GUN DEALERS, GUN MANUFACTURERS, AND AMMUNITION VENDORS AT THE RATE OF 6.5% OF THE NET TAXABLE SALES FROM THE RETAIL SALE OF ANY GUN, GUN PRECURSOR PART, OR AMMUNITION, WITH THE STATE KEEPING AND SPENDING ALL OF THE NEW TAX REVENUE AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HB24-349 to refer Prop KK to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349
Proposition 127 – Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting
We’ve seen wildlife management by citizen initiative before. In 2020 voters narrowly approved Prop 114 to reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado. Since December 2021, gray wolves have killed more than three dozen livestock.
This time around we have a ballot measure to prohibit hunting of bobcats and mountain lions. (Lynx hunting is already prohibited under state and federal law.) Prop 127 would continue to allow the killing of bobcats and mountain lions in certain non-sport situations, including in defense of a human life, livestock, personal property, or a motor vehicle.
Currently, Colorado may provide reimbursement to owners for damage by “big game” to personal property, agricultural land and livestock. Prop 127 would remove mountain lions from the “big game” category, rendering owners ineligible for future reimbursements.
Recommendation: No
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Agency is responsible for wildlife management and administering hunting and trapping regulations of “big cats.” State law requires wildlife to be protected and managed for the people of Colorado. Bobcats and mountain lions are not classified as threatened. Let the CO Parks and Wildlife Commission continue to manage these big cats and keep their populations stable.
Website for the Yes Side (Cats Aren’t Trophies)
https://catsarenttrophies.org/
Website for the No Side (Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better)
https://wildlifedeservebetter.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 127 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a prohibition on the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the intentional killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging or releasing of a deadly weapon at a mountain lion, lynx, or bobcat; creating eight exceptions to this prohibition including for the protection of human life, property, and livestock; establishing a violation of this prohibition as a class 1 misdemeanor; and increasing fines and limiting wildlife license privileges for persons convicted of this crime?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 127 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/91Final.pdf
This time around we have a ballot measure to prohibit hunting of bobcats and mountain lions. (Lynx hunting is already prohibited under state and federal law.) Prop 127 would continue to allow the killing of bobcats and mountain lions in certain non-sport situations, including in defense of a human life, livestock, personal property, or a motor vehicle.
Currently, Colorado may provide reimbursement to owners for damage by “big game” to personal property, agricultural land and livestock. Prop 127 would remove mountain lions from the “big game” category, rendering owners ineligible for future reimbursements.
Recommendation: No
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Agency is responsible for wildlife management and administering hunting and trapping regulations of “big cats.” State law requires wildlife to be protected and managed for the people of Colorado. Bobcats and mountain lions are not classified as threatened. Let the CO Parks and Wildlife Commission continue to manage these big cats and keep their populations stable.
Website for the Yes Side (Cats Aren’t Trophies)
https://catsarenttrophies.org/
Website for the No Side (Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better)
https://wildlifedeservebetter.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 127 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a prohibition on the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the intentional killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging or releasing of a deadly weapon at a mountain lion, lynx, or bobcat; creating eight exceptions to this prohibition including for the protection of human life, property, and livestock; establishing a violation of this prohibition as a class 1 misdemeanor; and increasing fines and limiting wildlife license privileges for persons convicted of this crime?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 127 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/91Final.pdf
Proposition 128 – Reduce Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence
One part of Prop 128 would increase the amount of time a person convicted of certain crimes of violence must serve from 75% of their sentence minus earned time to at least 85% of their sentence. A second part of Prop 128 would make a person convicted for the third time of a crime of violence ineligible for parole.
Discretionary parole happens when a convicted person has not finished their sentence and the State Board of Parole releases the convicted person from prison under community supervision. Earned time further reduces time behind bars when a person makes progress toward personal, professional, or educational goals. Prop 128 would not subtract any earned time from the 85% requirement.
Prop 128 would not affect the parole eligibility of a person convicted of a crime committed before 2025.
Recommendation: No
Each indicted person should be judged at trial on the merits of their individual case. Each convicted person should be judged for parole on their individual case rather than setting an artificial, across-the-board limit. Keeping people who can be constructive members of society in prison is counterproductive. Prohibiting earned time from being included in the time served also is the wrong incentive.
The judge who sentences a person convicted of crimes of violence knows the parole eligibility rules and can adjust the sentencing (within parameters) on the front end. Later the State Parole Board can accept or deny a person’s application for parole. Leaving some wiggle room is a more humane way to mete out justice.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-128
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 128 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 128 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/112OriginalFinal.pdf
Discretionary parole happens when a convicted person has not finished their sentence and the State Board of Parole releases the convicted person from prison under community supervision. Earned time further reduces time behind bars when a person makes progress toward personal, professional, or educational goals. Prop 128 would not subtract any earned time from the 85% requirement.
Prop 128 would not affect the parole eligibility of a person convicted of a crime committed before 2025.
Recommendation: No
Each indicted person should be judged at trial on the merits of their individual case. Each convicted person should be judged for parole on their individual case rather than setting an artificial, across-the-board limit. Keeping people who can be constructive members of society in prison is counterproductive. Prohibiting earned time from being included in the time served also is the wrong incentive.
The judge who sentences a person convicted of crimes of violence knows the parole eligibility rules and can adjust the sentencing (within parameters) on the front end. Later the State Parole Board can accept or deny a person’s application for parole. Leaving some wiggle room is a more humane way to mete out justice.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-128
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 128 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 128 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/112OriginalFinal.pdf
Proposition 129 – Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates
The Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine currently regulates three licensed professionals: veterinarians, veterinarian technicians (vet tech), and veterinarian technician specialists. Prop 129 proposes creating a veterinary professional associate (VPA). The scope of tasks that a VPA would be allowed to perform would be determined later by the CO State Board of Veterinary Medicine.
The proponents claim that all VPAs would have “received comprehensive and robust training while earning a master’s degree.” Opponents claim that VPAs’ “training would be mostly online with minimal hands-on instruction. … VPAs [could] practice veterinary medicine, including performing surgery after only a one-semester internship.”
Recommendation: No
The argument for creating a new position is to provide more and better care for animals. A more certain way for animals to get more and better care is to adequately train and pay vet professionals. Prop 129 appears to be a way to undertrain and underpay a new group of vet professionals to the detriment of animal patients.
The state legislature tried to address the lack of veterinary care in some geographic areas by passing nearly unanimously House Bill 24-1048 Providing Veterinary Services Through Telehealth. The veterinarian and the animal patient must have an established veterinarian-client relationship before telehealth services can be rendered. The primary sponsor of HB24-1048 is veterinarian and State Rep Karen McCormick who is strongly opposed to Prop 129.
Website for the Yes Side (All Pets Deserve Vet Care)
https://allpetsdeservevetcare.com/
Website for the No Side (Keep Our Pets Safe)
https://keepourpetssafe.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 129 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating a new veterinary professional associate profession, and, in connection therewith, establishing qualifications including a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care or the equivalent as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine to be a veterinary professional associate; requiring registration with the state board; allowing a registered veterinary professional associate to practice veterinary medicine under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian; and making it a misdemeanor to practice as a veterinary professional associate without an active registration?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 129 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/145Final.pdf
The proponents claim that all VPAs would have “received comprehensive and robust training while earning a master’s degree.” Opponents claim that VPAs’ “training would be mostly online with minimal hands-on instruction. … VPAs [could] practice veterinary medicine, including performing surgery after only a one-semester internship.”
Recommendation: No
The argument for creating a new position is to provide more and better care for animals. A more certain way for animals to get more and better care is to adequately train and pay vet professionals. Prop 129 appears to be a way to undertrain and underpay a new group of vet professionals to the detriment of animal patients.
The state legislature tried to address the lack of veterinary care in some geographic areas by passing nearly unanimously House Bill 24-1048 Providing Veterinary Services Through Telehealth. The veterinarian and the animal patient must have an established veterinarian-client relationship before telehealth services can be rendered. The primary sponsor of HB24-1048 is veterinarian and State Rep Karen McCormick who is strongly opposed to Prop 129.
Website for the Yes Side (All Pets Deserve Vet Care)
https://allpetsdeservevetcare.com/
Website for the No Side (Keep Our Pets Safe)
https://keepourpetssafe.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 129 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating a new veterinary professional associate profession, and, in connection therewith, establishing qualifications including a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care or the equivalent as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine to be a veterinary professional associate; requiring registration with the state board; allowing a registered veterinary professional associate to practice veterinary medicine under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian; and making it a misdemeanor to practice as a veterinary professional associate without an active registration?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 129 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/145Final.pdf
Proposition 130 – Funding for Law Enforcement Including Additional Death Benefits
Prop 130 requires the state to
1) set aside $350M in additional funding for local law enforcement agencies for recruitment and retention and
2) provide a one-time $1M death benefit to the family of a state or local law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty.
Because Prop 130 does not increase state revenue, the $350M would reduce funding for other state needs. Prop 130 does not provide a timeline for the state to provide the $350M.
The death benefits section of Prop 130 would continue after the $350M is spent and is estimated to cost $4M annually.
Recommendation: No
If additional funding for law enforcement paid for itself by generating $350M in revenue, or if (additional funding for) law enforcement alone were shown to be effective in reducing crime, then Prop 130 would deserve more consideration. A comprehensive measure to address all the facets of making a community safer, including focusing on social workers and access to housing and healthcare is needed rather than a law-enforcement-only approach.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-130
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 130 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning state funding for peace officer training and support, and, in connection therewith, directing the legislature to appropriate 350 million dollars to the peace officer training and support fund for municipal and county law enforcement agencies to hire and retain peace officers; allowing the fund to be used for pay, bonuses, initial and continuing education and training, and a death benefit for a peace officer, police, fire and first responder killed in the line of duty; and requiring the funding to supplement existing appropriations?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 130 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/157FinalCorrected.pdf
1) set aside $350M in additional funding for local law enforcement agencies for recruitment and retention and
2) provide a one-time $1M death benefit to the family of a state or local law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty.
Because Prop 130 does not increase state revenue, the $350M would reduce funding for other state needs. Prop 130 does not provide a timeline for the state to provide the $350M.
The death benefits section of Prop 130 would continue after the $350M is spent and is estimated to cost $4M annually.
Recommendation: No
If additional funding for law enforcement paid for itself by generating $350M in revenue, or if (additional funding for) law enforcement alone were shown to be effective in reducing crime, then Prop 130 would deserve more consideration. A comprehensive measure to address all the facets of making a community safer, including focusing on social workers and access to housing and healthcare is needed rather than a law-enforcement-only approach.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-130
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 130 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning state funding for peace officer training and support, and, in connection therewith, directing the legislature to appropriate 350 million dollars to the peace officer training and support fund for municipal and county law enforcement agencies to hire and retain peace officers; allowing the fund to be used for pay, bonuses, initial and continuing education and training, and a death benefit for a peace officer, police, fire and first responder killed in the line of duty; and requiring the funding to supplement existing appropriations?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 130 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/157FinalCorrected.pdf
Proposition 131 – All-Candidate Top-4 Primary and Instant-Runoff (Ranked) Voting General Election
Gov Polis described Prop 131 well to the Mineral County Miner: "This initiative would make it so all candidates running for an office appear on the [June] primary ballot [and all voters would be able to vote for any of those candidates], and then the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, proceed to the general election. For future November elections, voters would get a ballot listing four candidates. Instead of picking just one, voters would rank the candidates in order of preference. This is also called ‘instant-runoff voting.’”
Unaffiliated and minor-party candidates would be required to run in the primary instead of jumping straight to the November general election. For a seat considered safe for one political party, two or more candidates from the dominant party might advance to the general election, giving the larger electorate a say in which candidate is elected. If only one candidate from the dominant party runs for a seat and that candidate dies or withdraws before the general election, the dominant party does not get to choose a replacement from the party and may end up relinquishing a safe seat to the other party.
Both the primary-election ballot and the general-election ballots will be longer with more candidates than current ballots. There will also be two types of primary ballots –
1) one for the Prop 131 offices (US Senate, US House, and all partisan state offices except for District Attorney) that every voter receives and
2) separate Democratic and Republican ballots for county offices and District Attorney that will continue to be distributed to Democrats and Republicans, respectively, with both ballots going to unaffiliated voters.
The general-election ballot will also be longer because more ballot space is needed to allow voters to rank their preferences whenever there are three or four candidates. Write-in votes will not be allowed on the Prop 131 general-election ballots.
In the November general election, if there are only 2 candidates, then the voters will just vote for one candidate as we do currently. Whenever there are 3 or the maximum 4 candidates, the voters can rank the candidates (#1 for first choice, #2 for second choice and #3 for third choice). The vote counting will be conducted in rounds until 2 candidates remain. In the first round the #1 choices are counted as votes. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the votes for the eliminated candidate transfer to the next-highest ranked candidate on the ballots. (If there is no next ranking, then the ballot is called “exhausted.”) This process continues until 2 candidates remain, and the candidate with more votes is declared the winner.
The implementation date for Prop 131 is January 2026. However, in the last days of the CO legislative session an amendment was added to Senate Bill 24-210 which delays implementation of any ranked voting method for state and federal offices until 12 municipalities have conducted ranked voting elections. Gov Polis signed SB24-210 but his signing statement said that if the Prop 131 initiative is approved by voters, he wants to work with the legislature and stakeholders to get the initiative implemented “no later than the 2028 election cycle.”
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 131 would empower more voters. In our current partisan primary process, many elections are effectively decided in the primary. By forcing multiple viable candidates to run in the general election, people who haven’t traditionally participated in the primary can have a more meaningful voice in the general election. Extreme candidates are more likely to be eliminated in the instant-runoff voting process.
The long, even-year November ballot could very well lead to voter fatigue with its increased number of competitive elections and with voters able to rank multiple candidates instead of just choosing one. Getting the public’s attention for your favorite candidate or your favorite ballot issue will be harder. Expensive political campaigns could become yet more expensive. If Prop 131 passes, perhaps Boulder should consider revisiting its decision to move municipal elections to even years to give voters a little bit of a breather.
Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Voters First)
https://yeson131.com/
Websites for the No Side (Voter Rights Colorado – left-leaning)
https://voterrightsco.org/
(First Choice Counts – right-leaning)
https://www.firstchoicecounts.com/ – only addresses the voting method in the general election
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 131 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new election processes for certain federal and state offices, and, in connection therewith, creating a new all-candidate primary election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education, and the Colorado state legislature; allowing voters to vote for any one candidate per office, regardless of the voter’s or candidate’s political party affiliation; providing that the four candidates for each office who receive the most votes advance to the general election; and in the general election, allowing voters to rank candidates for each office on their ballot, adopting a process for how the ranked votes are tallied, and determining the winner to be the candidate with the highest number of votes in the final tally?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 131 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/310FinalCorrected.pdf
SB24-210 – Section 54 delays implementation of Prop 131
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-210
Unaffiliated and minor-party candidates would be required to run in the primary instead of jumping straight to the November general election. For a seat considered safe for one political party, two or more candidates from the dominant party might advance to the general election, giving the larger electorate a say in which candidate is elected. If only one candidate from the dominant party runs for a seat and that candidate dies or withdraws before the general election, the dominant party does not get to choose a replacement from the party and may end up relinquishing a safe seat to the other party.
Both the primary-election ballot and the general-election ballots will be longer with more candidates than current ballots. There will also be two types of primary ballots –
1) one for the Prop 131 offices (US Senate, US House, and all partisan state offices except for District Attorney) that every voter receives and
2) separate Democratic and Republican ballots for county offices and District Attorney that will continue to be distributed to Democrats and Republicans, respectively, with both ballots going to unaffiliated voters.
The general-election ballot will also be longer because more ballot space is needed to allow voters to rank their preferences whenever there are three or four candidates. Write-in votes will not be allowed on the Prop 131 general-election ballots.
In the November general election, if there are only 2 candidates, then the voters will just vote for one candidate as we do currently. Whenever there are 3 or the maximum 4 candidates, the voters can rank the candidates (#1 for first choice, #2 for second choice and #3 for third choice). The vote counting will be conducted in rounds until 2 candidates remain. In the first round the #1 choices are counted as votes. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the votes for the eliminated candidate transfer to the next-highest ranked candidate on the ballots. (If there is no next ranking, then the ballot is called “exhausted.”) This process continues until 2 candidates remain, and the candidate with more votes is declared the winner.
The implementation date for Prop 131 is January 2026. However, in the last days of the CO legislative session an amendment was added to Senate Bill 24-210 which delays implementation of any ranked voting method for state and federal offices until 12 municipalities have conducted ranked voting elections. Gov Polis signed SB24-210 but his signing statement said that if the Prop 131 initiative is approved by voters, he wants to work with the legislature and stakeholders to get the initiative implemented “no later than the 2028 election cycle.”
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 131 would empower more voters. In our current partisan primary process, many elections are effectively decided in the primary. By forcing multiple viable candidates to run in the general election, people who haven’t traditionally participated in the primary can have a more meaningful voice in the general election. Extreme candidates are more likely to be eliminated in the instant-runoff voting process.
The long, even-year November ballot could very well lead to voter fatigue with its increased number of competitive elections and with voters able to rank multiple candidates instead of just choosing one. Getting the public’s attention for your favorite candidate or your favorite ballot issue will be harder. Expensive political campaigns could become yet more expensive. If Prop 131 passes, perhaps Boulder should consider revisiting its decision to move municipal elections to even years to give voters a little bit of a breather.
Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Voters First)
https://yeson131.com/
Websites for the No Side (Voter Rights Colorado – left-leaning)
https://voterrightsco.org/
(First Choice Counts – right-leaning)
https://www.firstchoicecounts.com/ – only addresses the voting method in the general election
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 131 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new election processes for certain federal and state offices, and, in connection therewith, creating a new all-candidate primary election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education, and the Colorado state legislature; allowing voters to vote for any one candidate per office, regardless of the voter’s or candidate’s political party affiliation; providing that the four candidates for each office who receive the most votes advance to the general election; and in the general election, allowing voters to rank candidates for each office on their ballot, adopting a process for how the ranked votes are tallied, and determining the winner to be the candidate with the highest number of votes in the final tally?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 131 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/310FinalCorrected.pdf
SB24-210 – Section 54 delays implementation of Prop 131
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-210
Monday, October 14, 2024
City of Boulder 2C – Base Council Pay on Area Median Income
Ballot Question 2C would increase pay for council members and the mayor by basing the pay on a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) for a single-person household. The pay would increase from about $12,500 this year to 40% ($40,880 this year) of AMI for council members and 50% ($51,100) of AMI for the mayor. Both the current pay based on the Consumer Price Index and the proposed pay based on AMI have annual adjustments. The new pay would start in December of 2026 with the swearing in of new council members.
Question 2C proposes paying the mayor more than council, which Boulder has never done.
The last time we saw a council pay measure, the voters in 2021 passed 2M to untie council pay from meeting attendance.
Recommendation: Against
More pay for council members is okay, but our mayor should not get more pay than the council members. We have a weak-mayor/strong-city-manager system. When we directly elected our mayor for the first time in 2023, we learned that a mayoral election deprives the city of a public servant who would likely have continued on council under our former system. Perhaps we should stop directly electing our mayor and go back to electing 5 council members every two years.
More pay for council members is okay, but if council wants their job to be considered as the large time commitment that they claim it is, then when they were asked to place a charter amendment on the ballot to prohibit a council member from simultaneously serving in the state legislator, they should have done so.
More pay for council members is okay, but perhaps such a large and sudden (as opposed to gradual) pay raise is not warranted. A council member’s primary obligation is to prepare and attend a meeting every week. The meetings are in the evening so that council members can, and some do, have a day job. In contrast, the county commissioner job is considered full-time, and the commissioners hold regular meetings during the day.
An argument for more pay for council is that people with lower incomes will be more encouraged to run for office. The proposed substantial pay raise may encourage more candidates of all stripes to run, making the elections much more competitive and expensive, and thereby shutting out those with fewer resources. To ensure diverse representation, a better solution is adopting proportional representation for council.
This site has consistently argued that council members deserve more pay, but recent hypocrisy around this issue and the proposed structure in this ballot question lead to an “Against” recommendation.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Council Pay
Shall Sec. 7 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be repealed and replaced to set compensation for City Council members at 40% of the Area Median Income and 50% of the Area Median Income for Mayor, commencing on the swearing-in date of the newly elected City Council in December of 2026, as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8640?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8640 to refer Question 2C to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187437&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Question 2C proposes paying the mayor more than council, which Boulder has never done.
The last time we saw a council pay measure, the voters in 2021 passed 2M to untie council pay from meeting attendance.
Recommendation: Against
More pay for council members is okay, but our mayor should not get more pay than the council members. We have a weak-mayor/strong-city-manager system. When we directly elected our mayor for the first time in 2023, we learned that a mayoral election deprives the city of a public servant who would likely have continued on council under our former system. Perhaps we should stop directly electing our mayor and go back to electing 5 council members every two years.
More pay for council members is okay, but if council wants their job to be considered as the large time commitment that they claim it is, then when they were asked to place a charter amendment on the ballot to prohibit a council member from simultaneously serving in the state legislator, they should have done so.
More pay for council members is okay, but perhaps such a large and sudden (as opposed to gradual) pay raise is not warranted. A council member’s primary obligation is to prepare and attend a meeting every week. The meetings are in the evening so that council members can, and some do, have a day job. In contrast, the county commissioner job is considered full-time, and the commissioners hold regular meetings during the day.
An argument for more pay for council is that people with lower incomes will be more encouraged to run for office. The proposed substantial pay raise may encourage more candidates of all stripes to run, making the elections much more competitive and expensive, and thereby shutting out those with fewer resources. To ensure diverse representation, a better solution is adopting proportional representation for council.
This site has consistently argued that council members deserve more pay, but recent hypocrisy around this issue and the proposed structure in this ballot question lead to an “Against” recommendation.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Council Pay
Shall Sec. 7 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be repealed and replaced to set compensation for City Council members at 40% of the Area Median Income and 50% of the Area Median Income for Mayor, commencing on the swearing-in date of the newly elected City Council in December of 2026, as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8640?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8640 to refer Question 2C to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187437&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
City of Boulder 2D – Executive Sessions
City council is asking again for permission to hold executive sessions. Ordinance 8641 lists eight matters for which an executive session could be called. Some of the matters are legal advice, transactions of “property interest,” security arrangements, and personnel matters. The ninth matter is “Any other discussion allowed by C.R.S. 24-6-402.” The eight matters listed closely mirror the list allowed by C.R.S. 24-6-402 (4) for a local public body. (C.R.S. = Colorado Revised Statutes)
Question 2D also includes this text: “Council members not present and voting for a regular or special council meeting may nonetheless participate in an executive session that is part of that meeting using remote technology.”
Recommendation: leaning for
This site has been supportive of executive sessions in the recent past (Question 2P in 2017 and Question 2B in 2014) and mildly against Question 2B in 2008 when the number of council members that would have been needed to call an executive session weren’t even in favor of the ballot measure.
The stated reasons for calling an executive session sound reasonable, but an October 7, 2024 Boulder Weekly posting in its “Voter Guide” points out that “Aurora (2023), Basalt (2020), Denver Public Schools (2023), Glenwood Springs (2023), Del Norte (2024) and Florence (2024) have all been recently been [sic] found” to have abused the option of executive sessions.
Boulder untied council pay from meeting attendance by passing Question 2M in 2021. This year’s Question 2D also could be seen as reducing the imperative of council members attending public council meetings.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D
Executive Sessions
Shall Sec. 9 be amended and A NEW Sec. 21A. of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be adopted to authorize City Council to hold executive sessions as provided by state law, and implement the transition as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8641?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8641 to refer Question 2D to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187438&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Question 2D also includes this text: “Council members not present and voting for a regular or special council meeting may nonetheless participate in an executive session that is part of that meeting using remote technology.”
Recommendation: leaning for
This site has been supportive of executive sessions in the recent past (Question 2P in 2017 and Question 2B in 2014) and mildly against Question 2B in 2008 when the number of council members that would have been needed to call an executive session weren’t even in favor of the ballot measure.
The stated reasons for calling an executive session sound reasonable, but an October 7, 2024 Boulder Weekly posting in its “Voter Guide” points out that “Aurora (2023), Basalt (2020), Denver Public Schools (2023), Glenwood Springs (2023), Del Norte (2024) and Florence (2024) have all been recently been [sic] found” to have abused the option of executive sessions.
Boulder untied council pay from meeting attendance by passing Question 2M in 2021. This year’s Question 2D also could be seen as reducing the imperative of council members attending public council meetings.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D
Executive Sessions
Shall Sec. 9 be amended and A NEW Sec. 21A. of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be adopted to authorize City Council to hold executive sessions as provided by state law, and implement the transition as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8641?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8641 to refer Question 2D to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187438&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
City of Boulder 2E – Boards and Commissions Changes
One way that city residents engage with the city’s government is by serving on boards and commissions. The city charter’s Article IX. Advisory Commissions has been in the charter since the charter’s inception in 1917.
City council wants to delete almost all of “Section 130. - General provisions concerning advisory commissions” and replace it with a sweeping statement that “the council may, by ordinance, establish appointive boards and commissions” and prescribe the powers, terms of office, etc.
Recommendation: Against
The city has been accused of not listening to the community and not seeking the community’s input. For instance, in 2017 the city reduced Open Comment time at council meetings. Recently, perhaps in response, the city has started working with the National Civic League on a Better Public Meetings Project.
The board and commission members are already appointed by council and are mostly advisory in nature. Removing language from the voter-approved charter and replacing it with council-passed ordinance language seems problematic. If a particular problem exists with the boards and commissions, council should request voters approve a specific change to the charter to address that issue rather than request overarching power. Councils come and go, but the charter is more permanent and can be a bulwark against a “bad” council.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E
Boards and Commissions Changes
Shall Sec. 130 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to authorize City Council to set the terms and criteria of board and commission members and amend the language regarding removal of board and commission members as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8639?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8639 to refer Question 2E to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187436&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
City council wants to delete almost all of “Section 130. - General provisions concerning advisory commissions” and replace it with a sweeping statement that “the council may, by ordinance, establish appointive boards and commissions” and prescribe the powers, terms of office, etc.
Recommendation: Against
The city has been accused of not listening to the community and not seeking the community’s input. For instance, in 2017 the city reduced Open Comment time at council meetings. Recently, perhaps in response, the city has started working with the National Civic League on a Better Public Meetings Project.
The board and commission members are already appointed by council and are mostly advisory in nature. Removing language from the voter-approved charter and replacing it with council-passed ordinance language seems problematic. If a particular problem exists with the boards and commissions, council should request voters approve a specific change to the charter to address that issue rather than request overarching power. Councils come and go, but the charter is more permanent and can be a bulwark against a “bad” council.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E
Boards and Commissions Changes
Shall Sec. 130 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to authorize City Council to set the terms and criteria of board and commission members and amend the language regarding removal of board and commission members as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8639?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8639 to refer Question 2E to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187436&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
RTD 7A – Debruce RTD Permanently
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) provides public transportation in all of 4 counties, including Boulder County, and in parts of 4 other counties. All CU-Boulder students get an RTD pass with their student ID.
Voters are being asked to permanently debruce RTD. In 1999 voters temporarily debruced RTD while paying off bond debt; that debt should be paid off in November 2024.
From the Bell Policy Center website https://www.bellpolicy.org/2019/07/12/what-is-debrucing/: “Debrucing” is the act of eliminating the government spending limit and allowing that government to retain and spend all of the revenue it collects under existing tax rates. The revenue cap is part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and reduces the state’s ability to raise revenue and invest more funding into the priorities that Coloradans care about.
Recommendation: YES
Most jurisdictions have already received voter approval to debruce. Doing away with RTD’s revenue cap makes sense – as it has every time debrucing has appeared on the city of Boulder ballot.
Some people may be unhappy with RTD for not completing the FasTracks commuter rail to Boulder, but denying RTD revenue that it has already collected will certainly not help achieve commuter rail.
Website for the Yes Side
https://www.keepcoloradomoving.com/
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Regional Transportation District Ballot Issue 7A
WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX OR INCREASING ANY TAX RATE, SHALL THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT'S ("RTD") AUTHORIZATION TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES IT RECEIVES FROM ALL SOURCES, INCLUDING ITS SALES TAX REVENUES, GRANT FUNDS AND OTHER MONEYS LAWFULLY RECEIVED BY RTD FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO OR ANY OTHER SOURCE, ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 1999, BE CONTINUED TO PERMIT RTD TO RETAIN REVENUE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE VITAL RTD SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
· PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION CHOICES TO LOCAL RESIDENTS BY MAINTAINING AND GROWING CURRENT LEVELS OF BUS, AND RAIL SERVICES;
· REPAIRING AND IMPROVING RAIL LINES, BUSES, BUS STOPS AND STATIONS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC'S INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT;
· MAINTAINING THE AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES;
· CONTINUING TO PROVIDE CLEANER, MORE EFFICIENT METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN DRIVING ON ROADS AND HIGHWAYS; AND
· PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR YOUTH AGES 19 AND UNDER AT REDUCED OR NO FARES;
WITH ALL FUNDS SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT AUDIT AND OVERSEEN BY THE ELECTED RTD BOARD; AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND EXEMPTION FROM ANY REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Resolution 009 to refer Issue 7A to the voters
https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/v/1/clerk-and-recorder/documents/elections/2024/ballot-measures/rtd-tabor.pdf
RTD TABOR Notice – See pages 28-30
https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/v/1/clerk-and-recorder/documents/elections/2024/11.5-general/2024-eng-tabor-notice_final_1.pdf
Voters are being asked to permanently debruce RTD. In 1999 voters temporarily debruced RTD while paying off bond debt; that debt should be paid off in November 2024.
From the Bell Policy Center website https://www.bellpolicy.org/2019/07/12/what-is-debrucing/: “Debrucing” is the act of eliminating the government spending limit and allowing that government to retain and spend all of the revenue it collects under existing tax rates. The revenue cap is part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and reduces the state’s ability to raise revenue and invest more funding into the priorities that Coloradans care about.
Recommendation: YES
Most jurisdictions have already received voter approval to debruce. Doing away with RTD’s revenue cap makes sense – as it has every time debrucing has appeared on the city of Boulder ballot.
Some people may be unhappy with RTD for not completing the FasTracks commuter rail to Boulder, but denying RTD revenue that it has already collected will certainly not help achieve commuter rail.
Website for the Yes Side
https://www.keepcoloradomoving.com/
Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Regional Transportation District Ballot Issue 7A
WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX OR INCREASING ANY TAX RATE, SHALL THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT'S ("RTD") AUTHORIZATION TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES IT RECEIVES FROM ALL SOURCES, INCLUDING ITS SALES TAX REVENUES, GRANT FUNDS AND OTHER MONEYS LAWFULLY RECEIVED BY RTD FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO OR ANY OTHER SOURCE, ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 1999, BE CONTINUED TO PERMIT RTD TO RETAIN REVENUE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE VITAL RTD SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
· PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION CHOICES TO LOCAL RESIDENTS BY MAINTAINING AND GROWING CURRENT LEVELS OF BUS, AND RAIL SERVICES;
· REPAIRING AND IMPROVING RAIL LINES, BUSES, BUS STOPS AND STATIONS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC'S INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT;
· MAINTAINING THE AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES;
· CONTINUING TO PROVIDE CLEANER, MORE EFFICIENT METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN DRIVING ON ROADS AND HIGHWAYS; AND
· PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR YOUTH AGES 19 AND UNDER AT REDUCED OR NO FARES;
WITH ALL FUNDS SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT AUDIT AND OVERSEEN BY THE ELECTED RTD BOARD; AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND EXEMPTION FROM ANY REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITATIONS UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Resolution 009 to refer Issue 7A to the voters
https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/v/1/clerk-and-recorder/documents/elections/2024/ballot-measures/rtd-tabor.pdf
RTD TABOR Notice – See pages 28-30
https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/v/1/clerk-and-recorder/documents/elections/2024/11.5-general/2024-eng-tabor-notice_final_1.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)