Voters in Longmont in 2011 and in Boulder in 2014 allowed their municipalities to provide telecommunications services to non-municipal entities. Similarly, BVSD wants to lease excess capacity on its fiber optic networks to bring in more General Fund revenue. Negotiations with lessees would begin after passage of 3A so there are currently no revenue projections. See the 2014 Boulder 2C ballot issue for the state and municipal history on this issue.
The 2006 BVSD voter-approved bond funded a fiber optic network which currently has some excess or “dark fiber” capacity. As with last year’s 2C, proponents say that BVSD could bring broadband infrastructure to student neighborhoods which currently don’t have Internet (although the BVSD 3A ballot issue webpage doesn’t mention this option) with the goal of helping to close the achievement gap.
The BVSD Board of Education voted 6-0 with one member absent to place this issue on the ballot.
Recommendation: yes
Depending on the length of the lease(s) negotiated, BVSD could find itself in the future needing more fiber optic capacity while leasing “excess” capacity. Nevertheless, for the present it seems economically prudent to lease out excess capacity.
BVSD Ballot Measure Webpage
http://bvsd.org/boe/Pages/BallotMeasure.aspx
Available in English and Spanish.
No known campaign website for the Yes side.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Ballot Question 3A
Without increasing taxes, shall Boulder Valley School District No. RE-2 be authorized to lease current excess capacity on its existing fiber optic networks or to otherwise provide high-speed internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services, including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, to schools, libraries, residents, businesses, nonprofit entities, and other users or subscribers of such services, either directly or indirectly, by contract and/or through sale or purchase of resale or wholesale services, with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted with voter approval by Article 27, Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes?
Yes___
No___
See BVSD RE-2 Resolution No. 15-17 to refer 3A to the voters.
http://www.boarddocs.com/co/bvsd/Board.nsf/Public
Click on the Library tab, then Resolutions -2015, then “Authorizing a Ballot Issue…”
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Friday, July 24, 2015
The 2014 Election
State voters were sour on all the state ballot issues except for open meetings for school boards. Meanwhile, voters in the city of Boulder approved closed city council meetings to discuss, but not vote on, issues around a municipal electric utility. Voters approved every ballot issue proposed by the city, the county and the Boulder Valley School District, including 3 new taxes and 1 tax extension.
On a different political note, at 42% Colorado now tops the nation in the percent of its legislators who are women. Janet Buckner’s appointment last month to fill the seat held by her late husband makes her the 30th woman in the state house out of a total of 65 house members. Twelve of the 35 state senators are women. Nationwide, about 24% of state legislators are women.
As mentioned in a previous blog post, in 2013 there were three state senate seats targeted for recall. The efforts were successful in that the sitting senators left office abruptly. Below is the 2014 follow-up to the story.
• Bernie Herpin (R) replaced John Morse (D) [recalled in 2013] but was defeated in 2014 by Michael Merrifield (D).
• George Rivera (R) replaced Angela Giron (D) [recalled in 2013] but was defeated in 2014 by Leroy Garcia (D).
• Rachel Zenzinger (D) replaced Evie Hudak (D) [resigned in 2013] but was defeated in 2014 by Laura Woods (R).
Overall, the 2014 senate elections resulted in an 18-17 majority for Republicans.
On a different political note, at 42% Colorado now tops the nation in the percent of its legislators who are women. Janet Buckner’s appointment last month to fill the seat held by her late husband makes her the 30th woman in the state house out of a total of 65 house members. Twelve of the 35 state senators are women. Nationwide, about 24% of state legislators are women.
As mentioned in a previous blog post, in 2013 there were three state senate seats targeted for recall. The efforts were successful in that the sitting senators left office abruptly. Below is the 2014 follow-up to the story.
• Bernie Herpin (R) replaced John Morse (D) [recalled in 2013] but was defeated in 2014 by Michael Merrifield (D).
• George Rivera (R) replaced Angela Giron (D) [recalled in 2013] but was defeated in 2014 by Leroy Garcia (D).
• Rachel Zenzinger (D) replaced Evie Hudak (D) [resigned in 2013] but was defeated in 2014 by Laura Woods (R).
Overall, the 2014 senate elections resulted in an 18-17 majority for Republicans.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Vote on the Ballot Issues!
Sometimes people don’t vote on a ballot issue because they don’t know much about it. Another, maybe worse, scenario is that sometimes people vote on an issue thinking they understand it, but they don’t. A goal of this site is to decrease the frequency of those two scenarios.
The non-presidential election years typically have lower turnout especially among younger voters. It’s the kind of year that a bad ballot issue might slip through if people aren’t paying attention or don’t bother to vote. The recent controversy over the Jeffco school board decisions reminds us that it is important to vote the whole ballot every year and to understand what you are voting for.
This year the legislature didn’t refer any ballot issues to the voters. The county, city and school district all referred tax measures. The city also included two “permission” ballot measures.
We’ve seen most of the issues on the ballot before in one form or another. An exception is Prop 105 to label genetically engineered foods. Oregon also has a similar issue on their ballot this year. Interestingly, Oregon and Colorado had citizen panels of 20 members hear both sides of the issue and then vote on the issue. The favor-vs-oppose votes were 9-11 and 11-9 respectively in the two states.
Two items not on the ballot this year, though they have been much in the news, are fracking and gay marriage. Our member of Congress Jared Polis pulled his anti-fracking measures in early August after cutting a deal whereby Gov. Hickenlooper creates a task force on oil and gas to propose legislative solutions to the controversy. Meanwhile, our clerk and recorder Hillary Hall bravely began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples this summer in late June after the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Utah’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional, stopped in July when the CO Supreme Court ordered her to stop, and finally this past week after the Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal got the okay and began issuing marriage licenses again.
Each ballot issue has its own blog entry if you would like more information or you would like to make comments about the ballot issue. Please limit comments on this blog entry to general comments about the process or the election.
Please vote the whole ballot. In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts! At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as a link to the County Clerk’s website. The links will be updated as more information becomes available.
STATE OF COLORADO
VOCABULARY
Amendment = Constitutional change
These can only be changed by a voter-approved constitutional amendment.
Proposition = Statutory change
These can be modified by the Colorado General Assembly.
Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.
Referenda - denoted by letters
The General Assembly or City Council put these on the ballot with a 2/3 supermajority vote or majority vote respectively.
Amendment 67
Change Criminal Code’s Definition of Person and Child
Requires that “person” and “child” in the criminal code and in state wrongful death statutes include “unborn human beings”
NO
Amendment 68
Horse Racetrack Casino Gambling
Allows casino gambling at Arapahoe Park racetrack near Aurora with some of the proceeds going to a new K-12 education fund
no
Proposition 104
School District Open Meeting Requirements for Collective Bargaining
Requires school district collective bargaining negotiations to be held in public
no
Proposition 105
Labeling Genetically Engineered Food
Requires a label on most foods for sale containing genetically engineered components
leaning toward yes
BOULDER COUNTY
Ballot Issue 1A
County-wide Flood Recovery Sales and Use Tax
Raises sales tax by 0.185% for 5 years to pay for flood recovery, victim assistance and to reduce risks of future flood damage
leaning toward no
Ballot Issue 1B
Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Extension
Continues for 15 years the 0.9 mill levy increase approved by voters in 2010 to restore and increase human services funding in the aftermath of the recession
leaning toward yes
CITY OF BOULDER
Ballot Issues --> New taxes
Ballot Questions --> Others
2A (Ballot Issue)
Temporary Tax Increase for Community, Culture, and Safety
Imposes a new 0.3% sales and use tax for 3 years to improve central Boulder including as far south as Chautauqua and as far east as the Dairy Center of the Arts
for
2B (Ballot Question)
City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility
Permits through the end of 2017 closed city council meetings solely for the purpose of discussing legal matters and negotiation strategy around the municipal electric utility
for
2C (Ballot Question)
Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services
Requests permission (as required by state law) for the city to provide telecommunication services – in particular, broadband – to residents and businesses
for
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2
3A
$576M Bond
Increases property taxes for 30 years to pay for repairs, upgrades, new programs, a new school in Erie and replacement of 3 existing elementary schools
no
GOVERNMENT SITES
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder – Elections Division
http://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/pages/default.aspx
See a sample ballot, check your voter and ballot status, find a ballot drop-off location and more. You may also contact the Elections Division at 303 413 7740.
Blue Book Online (Colorado Legislative Council)
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2014 State Ballot Information Booklet. Available in English and Spanish.
Boulder County 2014 Election Webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/gov/about/pages/countyballotissues.aspx
City of Boulder 2014 Election Webpage
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections
City of Boulder Central Records Webpage
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/Browse.aspx?startid=121434&row=1&&&dbid=0
Boulder Valley School District Website
http://bvsd.org/pages/home.aspx
MEDIA SITES
Boulder Weekly Election Guide 2014
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-13470-election-2014-vote-guide.html
Daily Camera Election Webpage
http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news
Denver Post Election 2014 Webpage
http://www.denverpost.com/election2014
NON-PARTISAN SITES
Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2014_ballot_measures
League of Women Voters
LWV of Boulder County http://lwvbc.org/2014election.html#s05
LWV of Colorado (English and Spanish) http://lwvcolorado.org/ballot-issues.html
This LWV of Colorado web page also contains a great “Think Before You Ink” statement to help voters decide whether or not to sign initiative petitions.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS' SITES
Boulder Chamber of Commerce
http://boulderchamber.com/business-advocacy/eye-ballot-2014/
Boulder Tomorrow
http://www.bouldertomorrow.com/#!hottopics/c1xcs
PARTISAN SITES
Boulder County Democratic Party Voter Guide
http://bocodems.org/
Download the Voter Guide from the home page.
The Boulder County Republicans, Libertarian Party and Green Party don’t have ballot issues recommendations posted on their websites at last check.
WEBSITES ABOUT JUDGES ON THE BALLOT
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation
http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2014
Clear the Bench Colorado
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations-2014/
The non-presidential election years typically have lower turnout especially among younger voters. It’s the kind of year that a bad ballot issue might slip through if people aren’t paying attention or don’t bother to vote. The recent controversy over the Jeffco school board decisions reminds us that it is important to vote the whole ballot every year and to understand what you are voting for.
This year the legislature didn’t refer any ballot issues to the voters. The county, city and school district all referred tax measures. The city also included two “permission” ballot measures.
We’ve seen most of the issues on the ballot before in one form or another. An exception is Prop 105 to label genetically engineered foods. Oregon also has a similar issue on their ballot this year. Interestingly, Oregon and Colorado had citizen panels of 20 members hear both sides of the issue and then vote on the issue. The favor-vs-oppose votes were 9-11 and 11-9 respectively in the two states.
Two items not on the ballot this year, though they have been much in the news, are fracking and gay marriage. Our member of Congress Jared Polis pulled his anti-fracking measures in early August after cutting a deal whereby Gov. Hickenlooper creates a task force on oil and gas to propose legislative solutions to the controversy. Meanwhile, our clerk and recorder Hillary Hall bravely began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples this summer in late June after the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Utah’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional, stopped in July when the CO Supreme Court ordered her to stop, and finally this past week after the Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal got the okay and began issuing marriage licenses again.
Each ballot issue has its own blog entry if you would like more information or you would like to make comments about the ballot issue. Please limit comments on this blog entry to general comments about the process or the election.
Please vote the whole ballot. In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts! At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as a link to the County Clerk’s website. The links will be updated as more information becomes available.
STATE OF COLORADO
VOCABULARY
Amendment = Constitutional change
These can only be changed by a voter-approved constitutional amendment.
Proposition = Statutory change
These can be modified by the Colorado General Assembly.
Initiatives - denoted by numbers
Electors signed petitions to put these on the ballot.
Referenda - denoted by letters
The General Assembly or City Council put these on the ballot with a 2/3 supermajority vote or majority vote respectively.
Amendment 67
Change Criminal Code’s Definition of Person and Child
Requires that “person” and “child” in the criminal code and in state wrongful death statutes include “unborn human beings”
NO
Amendment 68
Horse Racetrack Casino Gambling
Allows casino gambling at Arapahoe Park racetrack near Aurora with some of the proceeds going to a new K-12 education fund
no
Proposition 104
School District Open Meeting Requirements for Collective Bargaining
Requires school district collective bargaining negotiations to be held in public
no
Proposition 105
Labeling Genetically Engineered Food
Requires a label on most foods for sale containing genetically engineered components
leaning toward yes
BOULDER COUNTY
Ballot Issue 1A
County-wide Flood Recovery Sales and Use Tax
Raises sales tax by 0.185% for 5 years to pay for flood recovery, victim assistance and to reduce risks of future flood damage
leaning toward no
Ballot Issue 1B
Human Services Safety Net Mill Levy Extension
Continues for 15 years the 0.9 mill levy increase approved by voters in 2010 to restore and increase human services funding in the aftermath of the recession
leaning toward yes
CITY OF BOULDER
Ballot Issues --> New taxes
Ballot Questions --> Others
2A (Ballot Issue)
Temporary Tax Increase for Community, Culture, and Safety
Imposes a new 0.3% sales and use tax for 3 years to improve central Boulder including as far south as Chautauqua and as far east as the Dairy Center of the Arts
for
2B (Ballot Question)
City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility
Permits through the end of 2017 closed city council meetings solely for the purpose of discussing legal matters and negotiation strategy around the municipal electric utility
for
2C (Ballot Question)
Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services
Requests permission (as required by state law) for the city to provide telecommunication services – in particular, broadband – to residents and businesses
for
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2
3A
$576M Bond
Increases property taxes for 30 years to pay for repairs, upgrades, new programs, a new school in Erie and replacement of 3 existing elementary schools
no
GOVERNMENT SITES
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder – Elections Division
http://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/pages/default.aspx
See a sample ballot, check your voter and ballot status, find a ballot drop-off location and more. You may also contact the Elections Division at 303 413 7740.
Blue Book Online (Colorado Legislative Council)
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2014 State Ballot Information Booklet. Available in English and Spanish.
Boulder County 2014 Election Webpage
http://www.bouldercounty.org/gov/about/pages/countyballotissues.aspx
City of Boulder 2014 Election Webpage
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections
City of Boulder Central Records Webpage
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/Browse.aspx?startid=121434&row=1&&&dbid=0
Boulder Valley School District Website
http://bvsd.org/pages/home.aspx
MEDIA SITES
Boulder Weekly Election Guide 2014
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-13470-election-2014-vote-guide.html
Daily Camera Election Webpage
http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news
Denver Post Election 2014 Webpage
http://www.denverpost.com/election2014
NON-PARTISAN SITES
Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2014_ballot_measures
League of Women Voters
LWV of Boulder County http://lwvbc.org/2014election.html#s05
LWV of Colorado (English and Spanish) http://lwvcolorado.org/ballot-issues.html
This LWV of Colorado web page also contains a great “Think Before You Ink” statement to help voters decide whether or not to sign initiative petitions.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS' SITES
Boulder Chamber of Commerce
http://boulderchamber.com/business-advocacy/eye-ballot-2014/
Boulder Tomorrow
http://www.bouldertomorrow.com/#!hottopics/c1xcs
PARTISAN SITES
Boulder County Democratic Party Voter Guide
http://bocodems.org/
Download the Voter Guide from the home page.
The Boulder County Republicans, Libertarian Party and Green Party don’t have ballot issues recommendations posted on their websites at last check.
WEBSITES ABOUT JUDGES ON THE BALLOT
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation
http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2014
Clear the Bench Colorado
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations-2014/
Monday, October 6, 2014
Amendment 67 – Change Criminal Code’s Definition of Person and Child
After Personhood Colorado’s Amendment 48 in 2008 and Amendment 62 in 2010 were soundly defeated, the organization is trying different ballot wording though the goal remains the same: outlaw abortion and certain forms of birth control by requiring that “person” and “child” in the criminal code and in state wrongful death statutes include “unborn human beings.”
This year the campaign is being called A Voice for Brady, after the named unborn child of Heather Surovik. (The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a national organization and NOT related to the pro-67 campaign.) Surovik was 8 months pregnant in 2012 when her unborn child was killed by a drunk driver.
In an interview with former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee available on the pro-67 website, Surovik said that 38 states have a fetal homicide law similar to Amendment 67. What Surovik failed to mention is that Colorado is one of those 38 states according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Both House Bill 13-1154, which changed the Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18, Article 3.5 Offenses Against Pregnant Women, and House Bill 14-1388 – Civil Remedy for Unlawful Termination of Pregnancy Act – were signed into law since Surovik’s car crash.
This amendment would add a Section 17 to Article XVIII to the Colorado Constitution with the majority of the relevant content referencing a 2009 court ruling which notes “no definition of ‘person’ or ‘child’” in the criminal code and the comment that “This is an area that cries out for new legislation.” In addition to the legal changes that would occur with the passage of Amendment 67, one could ask whether this court history and editorializing are appropriate in our constitution.
Recommendation: NO
This amendment to our already over-bloated constitution doesn’t specifically mention abortion and birth control, but they are the elephants in the room. This amendment’s actual purpose is to prohibit abortions and restrict birth control options. The language could even allow miscarriages to be subject to criminal investigations. Medical personnel as well as pregnant women could be criminally charged.
Websites for the Yes side (Personhood Colorado)
http://avoiceforbrady.com/
http://www.personhoodusa.com/campaigns/colorado-brady-amendment-67/
Website for the No side (No on Personhood)
http://voteno67.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 67 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add Section 17 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/5Final.pdf
This year the campaign is being called A Voice for Brady, after the named unborn child of Heather Surovik. (The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a national organization and NOT related to the pro-67 campaign.) Surovik was 8 months pregnant in 2012 when her unborn child was killed by a drunk driver.
In an interview with former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee available on the pro-67 website, Surovik said that 38 states have a fetal homicide law similar to Amendment 67. What Surovik failed to mention is that Colorado is one of those 38 states according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Both House Bill 13-1154, which changed the Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18, Article 3.5 Offenses Against Pregnant Women, and House Bill 14-1388 – Civil Remedy for Unlawful Termination of Pregnancy Act – were signed into law since Surovik’s car crash.
This amendment would add a Section 17 to Article XVIII to the Colorado Constitution with the majority of the relevant content referencing a 2009 court ruling which notes “no definition of ‘person’ or ‘child’” in the criminal code and the comment that “This is an area that cries out for new legislation.” In addition to the legal changes that would occur with the passage of Amendment 67, one could ask whether this court history and editorializing are appropriate in our constitution.
Recommendation: NO
This amendment to our already over-bloated constitution doesn’t specifically mention abortion and birth control, but they are the elephants in the room. This amendment’s actual purpose is to prohibit abortions and restrict birth control options. The language could even allow miscarriages to be subject to criminal investigations. Medical personnel as well as pregnant women could be criminally charged.
Websites for the Yes side (Personhood Colorado)
http://avoiceforbrady.com/
http://www.personhoodusa.com/campaigns/colorado-brady-amendment-67/
Website for the No side (No on Personhood)
http://voteno67.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 67 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add Section 17 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/5Final.pdf
Amendment 68 – Horse Racetrack Casino Gambling
Amendment 68 would allow casino gambling at Arapahoe Park, a horse racetrack in Arapahoe County. If Pueblo and Mesa Counties were to have active horse racetracks licensed for betting with at least 30 race days per year for 5 consecutive years, then one racetrack in each of those counties could also have casino gambling under this proposed amendment.
The language authorizes 2,500 slot machines per casino and an unlimited number of tables of blackjack, poker, roulette and craps. Individual casino bets would be limited to $100. The implementing language supersedes Referendum C passed by voters in 1992 requiring approval of the local electorate before allowing limited gaming.
The casino operator would have to pay the state a one-time fee of $25 million. The local government could also, after negotiation, impose a one-time impact fee and a recurring, annual impact fee. The casino would also have to pay the state 34% of its adjusted gross proceeds – the revenue from the casino minus the payouts to winners.
The money paid to the state, predicted at $114.5 million per year and not subject to constitutional revenue and spending limitations, would go into a new K-12 education fund and would not be used to replace current education funding. Currently, the state attempts to equalize funding for school districts so that districts with more local money such as the Boulder Valley School District receive less state money, but this fund would distribute dollars on a per-public-school-pupil basis.
Current state revenue from gambling in mountain towns Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek is less than $100 million. With Arapahoe Park closer to major population centers, gambling and tourism revenue would likely drop in the mountain towns with a corresponding drop in money dedicated to statewide community colleges, historic preservation and the local communities. (See Amendment 50 in 2008.) With the passage of Amendment 68, we would have higher education and K-12 education competing against each other for some of the same gambling dollars.
Like Amendment 67, this amendment would also add Section 17 to Article XVIII, titled Miscellaneous.
Recommendation: no
Aside from the fact that we never should have put gambling in our constitution to begin with, this proposed amendment would primarily benefit Rhode Island’s Twin River Casino which is positioned to open casino gambling at Arapahoe Park. The amount of money going toward education is just a drop in the bucket. (See this year’s BVSD bond issue 3A for a comparison.) It also seems likely that legislators would find a way to count the new education fund money when they budget for public schools as they reinterpreted Amendment 23 nine years after it passed so they could reduce funding increases.
Arapahoe Park is in unincorporated Arapahoe County, but the city of Aurora estimates its costs for needed improvements to the roads to the casino to be over $60 million. In order to get any impact fees from Arapahoe Park, the city would have to annex Arapahoe Park.
Website for the Yes side (Coloradans for Better Schools)
http://yesforbetterschools.com/
Website for the No side (Don’t Turn Racetracks Into Casinos)
http://www.voteno68.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 68 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $114,500,000 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR, AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS THAT ARE RAISED THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A NEW TAX ON AUTHORIZED HORSE RACETRACKS' ADJUSTED GROSS PROCEEDS FROM LIMITED GAMING TO INCREASE STATEWIDE FUNDING FOR K-12 EDUCATION, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT LIMITED GAMING IN ADDITION TO PRE-EXISTING PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AT ONE QUALIFIED HORSE RACETRACK IN EACH OF THE COUNTIES OF ARAPAHOE, MESA, AND PUEBLO; AUTHORIZING HOST COMMUNITIES TO IMPOSE IMPACT FEES ON HORSE RACETRACKS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT LIMITED GAMING; ALLOWING ALL RESULTING REVENUE TO BE COLLECTED AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY LAW; AND ALLOCATING THE RESULTING TAX REVENUES TO A FUND TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE FOR K-12 EDUCATION?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add Section 17 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/135Final.pdf
The language authorizes 2,500 slot machines per casino and an unlimited number of tables of blackjack, poker, roulette and craps. Individual casino bets would be limited to $100. The implementing language supersedes Referendum C passed by voters in 1992 requiring approval of the local electorate before allowing limited gaming.
The casino operator would have to pay the state a one-time fee of $25 million. The local government could also, after negotiation, impose a one-time impact fee and a recurring, annual impact fee. The casino would also have to pay the state 34% of its adjusted gross proceeds – the revenue from the casino minus the payouts to winners.
The money paid to the state, predicted at $114.5 million per year and not subject to constitutional revenue and spending limitations, would go into a new K-12 education fund and would not be used to replace current education funding. Currently, the state attempts to equalize funding for school districts so that districts with more local money such as the Boulder Valley School District receive less state money, but this fund would distribute dollars on a per-public-school-pupil basis.
Current state revenue from gambling in mountain towns Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek is less than $100 million. With Arapahoe Park closer to major population centers, gambling and tourism revenue would likely drop in the mountain towns with a corresponding drop in money dedicated to statewide community colleges, historic preservation and the local communities. (See Amendment 50 in 2008.) With the passage of Amendment 68, we would have higher education and K-12 education competing against each other for some of the same gambling dollars.
Like Amendment 67, this amendment would also add Section 17 to Article XVIII, titled Miscellaneous.
Recommendation: no
Aside from the fact that we never should have put gambling in our constitution to begin with, this proposed amendment would primarily benefit Rhode Island’s Twin River Casino which is positioned to open casino gambling at Arapahoe Park. The amount of money going toward education is just a drop in the bucket. (See this year’s BVSD bond issue 3A for a comparison.) It also seems likely that legislators would find a way to count the new education fund money when they budget for public schools as they reinterpreted Amendment 23 nine years after it passed so they could reduce funding increases.
Arapahoe Park is in unincorporated Arapahoe County, but the city of Aurora estimates its costs for needed improvements to the roads to the casino to be over $60 million. In order to get any impact fees from Arapahoe Park, the city would have to annex Arapahoe Park.
Website for the Yes side (Coloradans for Better Schools)
http://yesforbetterschools.com/
Website for the No side (Don’t Turn Racetracks Into Casinos)
http://www.voteno68.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Amendment 68 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $114,500,000 ANNUALLY IN THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR, AND BY SUCH AMOUNTS THAT ARE RAISED THEREAFTER, BY IMPOSING A NEW TAX ON AUTHORIZED HORSE RACETRACKS' ADJUSTED GROSS PROCEEDS FROM LIMITED GAMING TO INCREASE STATEWIDE FUNDING FOR K-12 EDUCATION, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT LIMITED GAMING IN ADDITION TO PRE-EXISTING PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AT ONE QUALIFIED HORSE RACETRACK IN EACH OF THE COUNTIES OF ARAPAHOE, MESA, AND PUEBLO; AUTHORIZING HOST COMMUNITIES TO IMPOSE IMPACT FEES ON HORSE RACETRACKS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT LIMITED GAMING; ALLOWING ALL RESULTING REVENUE TO BE COLLECTED AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY LAW; AND ALLOCATING THE RESULTING TAX REVENUES TO A FUND TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE FOR K-12 EDUCATION?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add Section 17 to Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/135Final.pdf
Proposition 104 – School District Open Meeting Requirements for Collective Bargaining
Collective bargaining is the negotiation process between workers’ representatives, usually labor union officials, and an employer to determine conditions of employment. In addition to salary, benefits and work schedule, collective bargaining for teachers may determine other issues such as curriculum and class size.
There are 179 school districts in Colorado. About 3/4 of Colorado public school students attend schools in districts with collective bargaining agreements. Colorado law currently allows school districts and other local governing bodies to meet in closed sessions to discuss certain announced topics upon a vote of 2/3 of the members present. Any final votes or actions, however, must take place in public meetings. Currently, collective bargaining negotiations can be held outside of school board meetings in closed meetings by a small subset of school board members or by school district representatives. This proposed change would no longer allow closed collective bargaining meetings.
Recommendation: no
In general, I support the ability to hold closed, executive sessions on an occasional basis. Collective bargaining can be a long, drawn-out, complicated and sensitive process. I’m not convinced that having more disparate voices weighing in either in the actual meeting or outside of the meeting through social media or other public forums will benefit the process. The better solution, I think, is for the electorate and unions to elect good leaders to represent them in the collective bargaining process.
I also wonder, like many others, why only school districts are targeted. Schools have been the target of political forces at least since George W. Bush pushed through No Child Left Behind. The largest and 3rd largest school districts in the state, Jefferson County and Douglas County respectively, have recently made some controversial decisions, but it’s not clear that having open negotiating sessions would benefit either management or workers.
Website for the Yes side (Sunshine on Government)
http://www.sunshinek12.org/
Website for the No side (Local Schools, Local Choices)
http://getthefactson104.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 104 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring any meeting of a board of education, or any meeting between any representative of a school district and any representative of employees, at which a collective bargaining agreement is discussed to be open to the public?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to amend the Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-6-402 and add subsection 22-32-109.4:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/124Final.pdf
There are 179 school districts in Colorado. About 3/4 of Colorado public school students attend schools in districts with collective bargaining agreements. Colorado law currently allows school districts and other local governing bodies to meet in closed sessions to discuss certain announced topics upon a vote of 2/3 of the members present. Any final votes or actions, however, must take place in public meetings. Currently, collective bargaining negotiations can be held outside of school board meetings in closed meetings by a small subset of school board members or by school district representatives. This proposed change would no longer allow closed collective bargaining meetings.
Recommendation: no
In general, I support the ability to hold closed, executive sessions on an occasional basis. Collective bargaining can be a long, drawn-out, complicated and sensitive process. I’m not convinced that having more disparate voices weighing in either in the actual meeting or outside of the meeting through social media or other public forums will benefit the process. The better solution, I think, is for the electorate and unions to elect good leaders to represent them in the collective bargaining process.
I also wonder, like many others, why only school districts are targeted. Schools have been the target of political forces at least since George W. Bush pushed through No Child Left Behind. The largest and 3rd largest school districts in the state, Jefferson County and Douglas County respectively, have recently made some controversial decisions, but it’s not clear that having open negotiating sessions would benefit either management or workers.
Website for the Yes side (Sunshine on Government)
http://www.sunshinek12.org/
Website for the No side (Local Schools, Local Choices)
http://getthefactson104.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 104 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring any meeting of a board of education, or any meeting between any representative of a school district and any representative of employees, at which a collective bargaining agreement is discussed to be open to the public?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to amend the Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-6-402 and add subsection 22-32-109.4:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/124Final.pdf
Proposition 105 – Labeling Genetically Engineered Food
Starting in July of 2016, Prop 105 would require “Produced with Genetic Engineering” labels on genetically modified or engineered food for sale in Colorado with the exception of
- chewing gum,
- alcoholic beverages,
- food prepared for immediate consumption or sold by restaurants,
- medically prescribed foods,
- food (e.g., cheese) which is only considered genetically engineered because of a genetically engineered processing aid,
- food derived from an animal such as eggs, meat or honey unless the animal was genetically engineered, and
- food and drink for animals.
The Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment would oversee implementation and enforcement of the labeling requirements. Existing state penalties for food mislabeling would apply to violators. Individuals could not take legal action against anyone in the food supply chain for violations.
American scientists Paul Berg, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen started the field of genetic engineering in 1973. Genetically engineered foods, often called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been in the food supply since the 1990s. Often crops are genetically modified to increase yields by increasing resistance to pests, diseases, environmental conditions or herbicide treatments. The Food and Drug Administration has the same safety guidelines for genetically engineered food as any other food. Almost all the soybean and corn grown in the US is genetically modified.
Recommendation: leaning toward yes
There are 64 nations which require labeling of genetically modified food, including developed countries such as Japan, China, Russia, Brazil and Australia. The European Union has required labeling of genetically modified food since 1997. The Vermont, Maine and Connecticut legislatures passed labeling laws which are due to take effect at the same time or later than Prop 105. Meanwhile, the Boulder region is seen as a hub of natural foods.
An important issue in GMO labeling is the threshold number. It is difficult to prevent mixing of small amounts of GMO and non-GMO products in the food supply chain. The EU works around this issue by requiring labeling on foods with greater than 0.9% genetically modified content. Prop 105 is more stringent; it has a 0% threshold.
If this were a constitutional amendment, I would recommend voting against it. However, the legislature can tweak the statute to include a small threshold, making it a more viable law.
We require that ingredients be listed on food packages. I see including information about genetically engineered products as just telling a fuller story of the ingredients. California has been a main driver for reducing vehicle emissions because of their stringent laws. Colorado and Washington are creating the path for legalized, recreational marijuana. Maybe Colorado, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut will be the trend setters for the nation when it comes to genetically engineered labeling.
Website for the Yes side (Right to Know Colorado GMO)
http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/
Website for the No side (No on 105 Coalition)
http://noon105.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 105 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning labeling of genetically modified food; and, in connection therewith, requiring food that has been genetically modified or treated with genetically modified material to be labeled, "Produced With Genetic Engineering" starting on July 1, 2016; exempting some foods including but not limited to food from animals that are not genetically modified but have been fed or injected with genetically modified food or drugs, certain food that is not packaged for retail sale and is intended for immediate human consumption, alcoholic beverages, food for animals, and medically prescribed food; requiring the Colorado department of public health and environment to regulate the labeling of genetically modified food; and specifying that no private right of action is created for failure to conform to the labeling requirements?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add 25-5-401.5 to the Colorado Revised Statutes:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/48Final.pdf
- chewing gum,
- alcoholic beverages,
- food prepared for immediate consumption or sold by restaurants,
- medically prescribed foods,
- food (e.g., cheese) which is only considered genetically engineered because of a genetically engineered processing aid,
- food derived from an animal such as eggs, meat or honey unless the animal was genetically engineered, and
- food and drink for animals.
The Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment would oversee implementation and enforcement of the labeling requirements. Existing state penalties for food mislabeling would apply to violators. Individuals could not take legal action against anyone in the food supply chain for violations.
American scientists Paul Berg, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen started the field of genetic engineering in 1973. Genetically engineered foods, often called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been in the food supply since the 1990s. Often crops are genetically modified to increase yields by increasing resistance to pests, diseases, environmental conditions or herbicide treatments. The Food and Drug Administration has the same safety guidelines for genetically engineered food as any other food. Almost all the soybean and corn grown in the US is genetically modified.
Recommendation: leaning toward yes
There are 64 nations which require labeling of genetically modified food, including developed countries such as Japan, China, Russia, Brazil and Australia. The European Union has required labeling of genetically modified food since 1997. The Vermont, Maine and Connecticut legislatures passed labeling laws which are due to take effect at the same time or later than Prop 105. Meanwhile, the Boulder region is seen as a hub of natural foods.
An important issue in GMO labeling is the threshold number. It is difficult to prevent mixing of small amounts of GMO and non-GMO products in the food supply chain. The EU works around this issue by requiring labeling on foods with greater than 0.9% genetically modified content. Prop 105 is more stringent; it has a 0% threshold.
If this were a constitutional amendment, I would recommend voting against it. However, the legislature can tweak the statute to include a small threshold, making it a more viable law.
We require that ingredients be listed on food packages. I see including information about genetically engineered products as just telling a fuller story of the ingredients. California has been a main driver for reducing vehicle emissions because of their stringent laws. Colorado and Washington are creating the path for legalized, recreational marijuana. Maybe Colorado, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut will be the trend setters for the nation when it comes to genetically engineered labeling.
Website for the Yes side (Right to Know Colorado GMO)
http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/
Website for the No side (No on 105 Coalition)
http://noon105.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 105 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning labeling of genetically modified food; and, in connection therewith, requiring food that has been genetically modified or treated with genetically modified material to be labeled, "Produced With Genetic Engineering" starting on July 1, 2016; exempting some foods including but not limited to food from animals that are not genetically modified but have been fed or injected with genetically modified food or drugs, certain food that is not packaged for retail sale and is intended for immediate human consumption, alcoholic beverages, food for animals, and medically prescribed food; requiring the Colorado department of public health and environment to regulate the labeling of genetically modified food; and specifying that no private right of action is created for failure to conform to the labeling requirements?
- YES/FOR
- NO/AGAINST
See the text of the measure, as filed with the Secretary of State, to add 25-5-401.5 to the Colorado Revised Statutes:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/48Final.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)