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
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
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 Election Deadlines Earlier in the Constitution
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)