As with many clean-up measures, the provisions of this ballot issue generally make sense.
1) Changes “qualified elector” to “registered elector.”
2) Requires the city clerk to certify a list of candidates prior to ballots being distributed to voters (as opposed to the current 55 days before the election).
3) Changes the candidate list order from alphabetical to “determined by lot.”
4) Delays any new council member from taking office until the election results for his or her race are final.
5) Deletes obsolete wording about voting machines.
6) Limits the canvassing and election board for municipal elections to those city council members not seeking election. Currently, if the number of eligible city council members is less than 5, then the city council must designate 1 or more city voters to the canvassing board in order for there to be at least 5 members. In 2011 barring any unforeseen circumstances, there should be 6 city council members on the board – 4 continuing members and 2 retiring members.
Recommendation: for
The only concern that I have about this clean-up measure is that the canvassing and election board could end up with very few members. Since generally 5 city council seats are up for election each time, most of the time there would be at least 4 city council members available to serve on the canvassing board. If vacancies occur on council, however, the canvassing board could end up with fewer than 4 members. I don’t worry very much though because the city clerk and county clerk and recorder, not to mention the county commissioners and candidates on the ballot, also monitor the process.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2F (Approved Ballot Language)
Clean‐Up Charter Provisions Regarding Elections
Shall Sections 5, 21, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 55, 56, 57, 61, 97, 97A, 98, 108, 124, and 164 of the Charter of the City of Boulder be amended to update the Charter with current election terminology and practices as set forth in Ordinance No. 7801?
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7801 to refer 2F to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7801.pdf
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
City of Boulder 2G – Change Initiative Petition Procedures
This ballot issue proposes the following timetable and requirements for getting a City of Boulder citizens’ initiative on the ballot.
[NEW] Petitioners submit proposed petition to city manager.
*Within 15 days the city manager comments on the format or contents.
*If the petitioners then make substantial changes to the petition unrelated to the city manager’s comments, the petitioners must resubmit the petition to the city manager.
Petitioners begin collecting signatures.
*Within 180 days the petitioners file the petition with the city clerk.
[NEW – Currently no time limit for collecting signatures]
*Within 10 days of filing the city clerk announces that
1) the 5% (of the registered city electors) threshold has not been reached (in which case the petitioners have 10 days to gather the needed signatures or stop the process),
2) the 5% threshold has been reached, but not the 15% threshold, or
3) the 15% threshold has been reached.
*At the next regular city council meeting the clerk will submit the measure to city council which will refer the measure to a committee.
*Within 60 days the committee will report back to city council. [NEW – 30 days now]
*Within 60 days of the committee report the city council will take final action [NEW – 30 days now]
1) Pass the measure or
2) Put the measure on the ballot
a) “5% petitions” will be voted upon at the subsequent November election that is more than 120 days from the clerk’s submission to city council [NEW – Now the 5% petition can be voted upon at a special municipal election also. In addition, the petitioners have a 30-day period after city council’s final action in which to collect enough signatures to be a 15% petition.]
b) 15% petitions will be voted upon
1] at the subsequent November election that is between 56 days and 6 months away from city council’s final action, or
2] if the November election is more than 6 months away from city council’s final action, at a special election to be held between 60 and 150 days from council’s final action. [NEW – Now the special election has to be held between 30 and 45 days.]
3] The proposed city charter language is unclear about the 15% petitions in which the November election is within 56 days of the city council’s final action. I think the spirit of the law would require a special election, but someone might make the argument that the petitioners would have to wait until November of the following year.
Recommendation: for
The city manager would get advance notice of petitions but doesn’t have any power to accept or reject the petition, just advisory power to suggest revisions. Almost 6 months is enough time to collect signatures for an initiative. There is no increased hurdle in the number of signatures. I’m not concerned about eliminating the option of collecting supplemental signatures to change a 5% petition into a 15% petition. My biggest concern is the increased time limits for the city council’s steps to get an initiative on the ballot.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2G (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Initiative Procedures
Shall Sections 38, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Charter, relating to the procedures for submitting an initiative petition to the City, be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.
7802 to require initiative petitions to:
1) Be simple and clear;
2) Be submitted for review and comment prior to circulation;
3) Have signatures no older than 180 days prior to filing;
4) Expand time for council to hold hearings and take final actions on petitions;
5) Change election timing for initiative petitions; and
6) Related details as specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 7802.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7802 to refer 2G to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7802.pdf
[NEW] Petitioners submit proposed petition to city manager.
*Within 15 days the city manager comments on the format or contents.
*If the petitioners then make substantial changes to the petition unrelated to the city manager’s comments, the petitioners must resubmit the petition to the city manager.
Petitioners begin collecting signatures.
*Within 180 days the petitioners file the petition with the city clerk.
[NEW – Currently no time limit for collecting signatures]
*Within 10 days of filing the city clerk announces that
1) the 5% (of the registered city electors) threshold has not been reached (in which case the petitioners have 10 days to gather the needed signatures or stop the process),
2) the 5% threshold has been reached, but not the 15% threshold, or
3) the 15% threshold has been reached.
*At the next regular city council meeting the clerk will submit the measure to city council which will refer the measure to a committee.
*Within 60 days the committee will report back to city council. [NEW – 30 days now]
*Within 60 days of the committee report the city council will take final action [NEW – 30 days now]
1) Pass the measure or
2) Put the measure on the ballot
a) “5% petitions” will be voted upon at the subsequent November election that is more than 120 days from the clerk’s submission to city council [NEW – Now the 5% petition can be voted upon at a special municipal election also. In addition, the petitioners have a 30-day period after city council’s final action in which to collect enough signatures to be a 15% petition.]
b) 15% petitions will be voted upon
1] at the subsequent November election that is between 56 days and 6 months away from city council’s final action, or
2] if the November election is more than 6 months away from city council’s final action, at a special election to be held between 60 and 150 days from council’s final action. [NEW – Now the special election has to be held between 30 and 45 days.]
3] The proposed city charter language is unclear about the 15% petitions in which the November election is within 56 days of the city council’s final action. I think the spirit of the law would require a special election, but someone might make the argument that the petitioners would have to wait until November of the following year.
Recommendation: for
The city manager would get advance notice of petitions but doesn’t have any power to accept or reject the petition, just advisory power to suggest revisions. Almost 6 months is enough time to collect signatures for an initiative. There is no increased hurdle in the number of signatures. I’m not concerned about eliminating the option of collecting supplemental signatures to change a 5% petition into a 15% petition. My biggest concern is the increased time limits for the city council’s steps to get an initiative on the ballot.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2G (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment of Initiative Procedures
Shall Sections 38, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Charter, relating to the procedures for submitting an initiative petition to the City, be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.
7802 to require initiative petitions to:
1) Be simple and clear;
2) Be submitted for review and comment prior to circulation;
3) Have signatures no older than 180 days prior to filing;
4) Expand time for council to hold hearings and take final actions on petitions;
5) Change election timing for initiative petitions; and
6) Related details as specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 7802.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7802 to refer 2G to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7802.pdf
City of Boulder 2H – Call to Abolish Corporate Personhood
In January 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that the First Amendment of the Constitution allows for unlimited expenditures in candidate elections by for-profit and not-for-profit corporations as well as unions. In so doing, the Court struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
Move to Amend is a national organization dedicated to preventing corporations from having an excessive influence in politics. The local chapter succeeded in getting this issue on the ballot.
Opponents of this measure point out that trying to abolish corporate personhood would also take away the rights of non-profit corporations. (See the 1963 NAACP v. Button opinion written by William Brennan.)
Recommendation: for
Despite the language in Ordinance 7807 stating that this ballot measure “would amend the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” passing this measure would not change the US Constitution or any laws or official definitions. It only makes a statement. I would hope that any kinks in the language would be ironed out before a constitutional amendment is actually proposed and voted upon. If you agree with the sentiment of the statement, vote for it.
Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2H)
http://www.yeson2h.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2H (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment to Abolish Corporate Personhood
Shall the People of the City of Boulder, Colorado, call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1) Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and
2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7807 to refer 2H to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7807.pdf
Move to Amend is a national organization dedicated to preventing corporations from having an excessive influence in politics. The local chapter succeeded in getting this issue on the ballot.
Opponents of this measure point out that trying to abolish corporate personhood would also take away the rights of non-profit corporations. (See the 1963 NAACP v. Button opinion written by William Brennan.)
Recommendation: for
Despite the language in Ordinance 7807 stating that this ballot measure “would amend the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” passing this measure would not change the US Constitution or any laws or official definitions. It only makes a statement. I would hope that any kinks in the language would be ironed out before a constitutional amendment is actually proposed and voted upon. If you agree with the sentiment of the statement, vote for it.
Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2H)
http://www.yeson2h.org/
Website for the No side
No known website -- Info on an opposition website appreciated.
City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2H (Approved Ballot Language)
Amendment to Abolish Corporate Personhood
Shall the People of the City of Boulder, Colorado, call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:
1) Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and
2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
‐ For the measure
‐ Against the measure
See Ordinance No. 7807 to refer 2H to the voters.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Elections/2011/Ordinances/7807.pdf
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Amendment 50 Meets State’s Budget Woes -- Hickenlooper Replaces Gaming Commission
In most states casino tax rates are set by the legislature, but in Colorado the 5 members of the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission (or the voters of Colorado) approve tax rate changes. For instance, in May of 2008 the commission approved a targeted tax cut for casinos with revenues of less than 8 million dollars.
This year at the May 19 meeting the 4 attending commissioners approved a controversial across-the-board 5% cut in the casino tax rate to provide financial relief to the industry, despite some of the bigger casinos bringing in large profits. Casino tax rates are based on net revenue (officially called Adjusted Gross Proceeds equal to bets minus payouts); higher revenue determines a higher tax rates. On July 1 the top tax rate changed from 20% to 19%. The other tax rates went from 0.25% to 0.2375% (under 2 million dollars in AGP), 2% to 1.9% ($2M to $5M), 9% to 8.55% ($5M to $8M), 11% to 10.45% ($8M to $10M), and 16% to 15.2% ($10M to $13M).
On June 6 the 5 members of the commission unanimously rejected requests from the Colorado Community College System and History Colorado to reverse the impending tax cut. (Prior to Amendment 50 25% of the gaming tax revenue went to historic preservation. Passage of Amendment 50 in 2008 empowered local voters in gaming communities to increase the bet limit from $5 to $100 with 78% of the resulting increased tax revenue going to community colleges.)
Governor John Hickenlooper was unhappy with the casino tax rate cut, especially given the state's current budget woes. On July 6 he reminded us that the commission members serve “at the pleasure of the governor” with his decision to replace the entire commission. Hickenlooper was already due to replace two of the members whose terms expired in early July.
The rules for reversing the casino tax rate cut are unclear. It may be that the new commission can just vote to reverse it. It is clear, however, that Amendment 50 prohibits the commission from setting any tax rate ABOVE the previous level (in effect since July 1, 2008). A statewide vote of the electorate is required to increase casino tax rates above the July 1, 2008 level.
This year at the May 19 meeting the 4 attending commissioners approved a controversial across-the-board 5% cut in the casino tax rate to provide financial relief to the industry, despite some of the bigger casinos bringing in large profits. Casino tax rates are based on net revenue (officially called Adjusted Gross Proceeds equal to bets minus payouts); higher revenue determines a higher tax rates. On July 1 the top tax rate changed from 20% to 19%. The other tax rates went from 0.25% to 0.2375% (under 2 million dollars in AGP), 2% to 1.9% ($2M to $5M), 9% to 8.55% ($5M to $8M), 11% to 10.45% ($8M to $10M), and 16% to 15.2% ($10M to $13M).
On June 6 the 5 members of the commission unanimously rejected requests from the Colorado Community College System and History Colorado to reverse the impending tax cut. (Prior to Amendment 50 25% of the gaming tax revenue went to historic preservation. Passage of Amendment 50 in 2008 empowered local voters in gaming communities to increase the bet limit from $5 to $100 with 78% of the resulting increased tax revenue going to community colleges.)
Governor John Hickenlooper was unhappy with the casino tax rate cut, especially given the state's current budget woes. On July 6 he reminded us that the commission members serve “at the pleasure of the governor” with his decision to replace the entire commission. Hickenlooper was already due to replace two of the members whose terms expired in early July.
The rules for reversing the casino tax rate cut are unclear. It may be that the new commission can just vote to reverse it. It is clear, however, that Amendment 50 prohibits the commission from setting any tax rate ABOVE the previous level (in effect since July 1, 2008). A statewide vote of the electorate is required to increase casino tax rates above the July 1, 2008 level.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Lawsuit Filed Against TABOR
One week ago a bipartisan group of 34 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in US District Court claiming that TABOR is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs note that TABOR, by requiring citizen approval of tax increases, takes away some of the power granted to legislators in Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution which states, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government. . .”
Attorney General John Suthers has a 60-day period to respond to the lawsuit but may ask for an extension. Opponents of the lawsuit warn that the entire citizen-initiative process will be in jeopardy if this lawsuit is successful.
Other citizen-initiated amendments have been overturned by courts in the past, in particular, Amendment 2 (to repeal anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation) and Amendment 54 (prohibiting campaign contributions from the extended family of government contractors).
Background on TABOR
A version of TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) was on the ballot in 1988 and 1990 before being passed by Colorado voters in 1992. It added Article X, Section 20 to the constitution.
TABOR requires voters to approve any tax rate increases. TABOR also restricts spending, requiring taxpayer refunds of excess revenues unless voters approved a revenue change, called “de-Brucing” after Douglas Bruce, the author of TABOR. Colorado is unique among the states in having such revenue and spending restrictions.
Many Colorado communities have locally de-Bruced. In 2005 Colorado voters approved Referendum C providing for a 5-year timeout from some TABOR provisions.
In 1994 Colorado voters passed a single-subject amendment to the constitution. In 1995 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the Amend Tabor case that TABOR “contains multiple subjects.” The result is that undoing TABOR via a voter-approved, constitutional amendment would require passing multiple ballot measures, a tricky feat to accomplish in any election year.
The single-subject provision for amendments to the constitution was originally Senate Concurrent Resolution 93-004. It was referred to and passed by Colorado voters in the 1994 election. The single-subject language can be seen in Article V, Section 1 (5.5) and Article XIX, Section 2 (3) of the Colorado Constitution and in Title 1, Article 40, Section 106.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Colorado General Assembly website
http://www.leg.state.co.us/
The menu on the left contains links to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Attorney General John Suthers has a 60-day period to respond to the lawsuit but may ask for an extension. Opponents of the lawsuit warn that the entire citizen-initiative process will be in jeopardy if this lawsuit is successful.
Other citizen-initiated amendments have been overturned by courts in the past, in particular, Amendment 2 (to repeal anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation) and Amendment 54 (prohibiting campaign contributions from the extended family of government contractors).
Background on TABOR
A version of TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) was on the ballot in 1988 and 1990 before being passed by Colorado voters in 1992. It added Article X, Section 20 to the constitution.
TABOR requires voters to approve any tax rate increases. TABOR also restricts spending, requiring taxpayer refunds of excess revenues unless voters approved a revenue change, called “de-Brucing” after Douglas Bruce, the author of TABOR. Colorado is unique among the states in having such revenue and spending restrictions.
Many Colorado communities have locally de-Bruced. In 2005 Colorado voters approved Referendum C providing for a 5-year timeout from some TABOR provisions.
In 1994 Colorado voters passed a single-subject amendment to the constitution. In 1995 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the Amend Tabor case that TABOR “contains multiple subjects.” The result is that undoing TABOR via a voter-approved, constitutional amendment would require passing multiple ballot measures, a tricky feat to accomplish in any election year.
The single-subject provision for amendments to the constitution was originally Senate Concurrent Resolution 93-004. It was referred to and passed by Colorado voters in the 1994 election. The single-subject language can be seen in Article V, Section 1 (5.5) and Article XIX, Section 2 (3) of the Colorado Constitution and in Title 1, Article 40, Section 106.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Colorado General Assembly website
http://www.leg.state.co.us/
The menu on the left contains links to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes.
State Ballot Issues – A Look Ahead
The Colorado Legislative Council Ballot and Blue Book webpage has a link to the initiatives currently being considered for the 2011 and 2012 ballots or you can go directly to the list via the link below.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1112InitRefr.nsf/dac421ef79ad243487256def0067c1de
Senate Concurrent Resolution 001 would have placed a referred measure proposing changes to the initiative process on the November ballot. A disagreement between the House and the Senate on the supermajority percentage required for the legislature to change or repeal a statutory change precluded its passage.
If SCR 11-001 had made it to the ballot and been approved by the voters, it would have
1) increased the percentage of citizen votes required to pass new constitutional amendments
2) allowed constitutional amendments passed prior to 2013 to be repealed with a majority of citizen votes
3) required a minimum percent of signatures on citizen initiatives from each congressional district
4) required a supermajority vote of the legislature to change or repeal a citizen-initiated statutory change for 3 years after it becomes effective
SCR 11-001 could yet reappear as a citizen initiative. In 2008 Referendum O had some similar goals but failed at the ballot box. Some supporters of Referendum O blame its defeat on the lengthy ballot; it was hard to get the voters to pay attention to it, and it competed with other ballot issues for campaign funds.
Click below to see the full text of SCR 11-001.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/65B390DB5A87F561872578080080066D?Open&file=SCR001_rer.pdf
http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1112InitRefr.nsf/dac421ef79ad243487256def0067c1de
Senate Concurrent Resolution 001 would have placed a referred measure proposing changes to the initiative process on the November ballot. A disagreement between the House and the Senate on the supermajority percentage required for the legislature to change or repeal a statutory change precluded its passage.
If SCR 11-001 had made it to the ballot and been approved by the voters, it would have
1) increased the percentage of citizen votes required to pass new constitutional amendments
2) allowed constitutional amendments passed prior to 2013 to be repealed with a majority of citizen votes
3) required a minimum percent of signatures on citizen initiatives from each congressional district
4) required a supermajority vote of the legislature to change or repeal a citizen-initiated statutory change for 3 years after it becomes effective
SCR 11-001 could yet reappear as a citizen initiative. In 2008 Referendum O had some similar goals but failed at the ballot box. Some supporters of Referendum O blame its defeat on the lengthy ballot; it was hard to get the voters to pay attention to it, and it competed with other ballot issues for campaign funds.
Click below to see the full text of SCR 11-001.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/65B390DB5A87F561872578080080066D?Open&file=SCR001_rer.pdf
2010 Ballot Issues – Results
Voters were not enamored of the 2010 state ballot issues. They rejected all the ballot issues except for Amendment Q to relocate the state government in the event of a declared disaster emergency.
Voters in Boulder City, County and Valley felt much more favorable toward those ballot issues, passing every single one.
Voters in Boulder City, County and Valley felt much more favorable toward those ballot issues, passing every single one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)