Tuesday, October 16, 2018

City of Boulder 2E – Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes

The Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group (CFEWG) proposed 3 charter amendments: 2E, 2F and 2G. Each ballot question can stand alone.

Quoting from an op-ed in the Daily Camera penned by members of CFEWG: “The initiative is where a group of citizens gathers enough signatures to put a proposed piece of legislation on the ballot and asks the voters to approve it. A referendum uses a similar process to give citizens a chance to vote directly on legislation already passed by the governing body. And recalls ask the voters if they want to remove an elected official from office, typically for some serious malfeasance.”

2E proposes changes in 9 different Sections of the charter. Highlights are below.

Section 29
Would replace calendar dates with the date when “ballots are finalized for printing” for handling a candidate withdrawal.

Sections 38A, 56 and 177
Initiative and referenda petitions would require signatures equal to 10% of the average number of people who cast a ballot in the previous two municipal elections. Petitions to recall an elected official – in other words, a city council member – would require 20% of the average number of people who cast a ballot in the previous two municipal elections, likely a decrease from the current 25% of the city vote in the previous gubernatorial election. (2E would eliminate the current Section 38A charter language referring to 5% and 15% petitions. See 2011’s Ballot Question 2G for more information on 5% and 15% petitions.)

Sections 39 and 40 - Proposed Petition Calendar
(DBNE = calendar days before Nov election. Deadlines below may actually refer to the last business day on or before DBNE.)
180 days before filing petition – collect signatures
150 DBNE – file (aka submit) petition with signatures
140 DBNE – clerk certifies sufficiency status
   Within 10 days of clerk’s certificate – resolve insufficiency
120 DBNE - clerk certifies amended petition’s sufficiency status
71 DBNE – council sets ballot title
   Within 7 days of ballot title setting – file any title challenges

Section 48
Prior to the 2017 Ballot Question 2Q, initiative petitioners prepared the ballot title. 2Q gave that power to city council members. This year’s 2E finds middle ground, saying that the groups need to work together to set the ballot title.

Section 54
An initiative or referendum approved by voters “may be amended by two-thirds of the council members present provided that the amendments do not alter or modify the basic intent of such ordinance or are necessary to come into compliance with state or federal law.”

Recommendation: for the measure

Once again Boulder is tinkering with its initiative, referendum and recall processes. (See 2017’s 2Q and 2011’s 2G.) This time, the city council put a group of citizens on the job. The Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group (CFEWG) has recommended these improvements. Some of the members of CFEWG have been personally affected by the charter language and were especially motivated.

Separating the 3 CFEWG charter amendments was a good idea.

Some confusion over dates may still exist even if 2E passes. For instance, in Section 38B one reference is to ten days and another is to five calendar days. How do we interpret the ten days? Ten business days or ten calendar days?

Website for the Yes Side - Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/campaign-financeelections-working-group
Not so much a campaign website as a website tracking the progress of the working group

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language (with bullet points added for clarity)

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E – Charter Amendments for Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes

Shall Sections 29, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 44, 48, 54, 56, and 177 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8272 to:
• clarify the actions required to be taken if a candidate withdraws from a city council election;
• establish the number of signatures required for an initiative and referendum to be at least ten percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections so as to return this number closer to the range that was in place prior to changes in federal law and registration procedures;
• establish the number of signatures required for a recall to be at least twenty percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections;
• amend the process and establish a fixed schedule for filing, review and consideration of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions so that both petitioners and city staff will have clarity and certainty;
• set standards for the city clerk’s examination of petitions so that this examination is completed in a timely fashion and that the possibility of fraud is minimized;
• provide for input from the petition committee to the city council prior to setting the ballot title to help ensure accuracy of the title; and
• require that an ordinance passed by vote of the people may only be amended by two-thirds of the council members present, and only if the amendments are consistent with the basic intent of the ordinance or are necessary to come into compliance with state or federal law?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8272 to put Question 2E to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8272

City of Boulder 2F – Initiative Petition Signature Verification

In 2017 voters approved 2Q, clean-up changes to 13 different Sections of the city charter. The following paragraph was tagged onto the end of Section 39:
“When examining the signatures on petitions, the clerk may verify signatures to the extent reasonably possible by comparison with the election records of the Boulder County Clerk as available, and comparison of signatures on a petition for duplication. Protests of petitions may be made as provided by Colorado law and rules adopted by the city manager.”

Although 2Q allowed for signature verification, the 2018 Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group (CFEWG) found this new part of Section 39 inadequate. CFEWG proposed adding Secretary of State records as another source for comparison purposes and proposed using Boulder Revised Code rather than city manager rules for petition protests. The petition protest would need to “be submitted by 40 calendar days after submittal of the petition to the clerk.” Instead of “the clerk may” verify signatures, the proposed language is now “the clerk shall” verify signatures.

Recommendation: for the measure

Yes, the city should verify signatures that charter requires petitioners to collect.

Let’s hope the city won’t need to propose more changes to Section 39 of the charter next year or council will look incompetent. Actually, Ballot Question 2E also proposes changes to Section 39, but those changes are not at odds with the proposed 2F changes so either or both of the ballot questions could pass or fail without harm to the other.

Website for the Yes Side - Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/campaign-financeelections-working-group
Not so much a campaign website as a website tracking the progress of the working group

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F – Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification

Shall Sections 39, 46, and 57 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8273 to require the city clerk, to the extent reasonably possible and so as to ensure authenticity, compare the signatures on a petition to signatures with the election records of the Boulder County Clerk or the Secretary of State?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8273 to put Question 2F to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8273 

City of Boulder 2G – Electronic and Online Petitions

Ballot Question 2G changes Sections 38, 45, and 56 of the city charter to allow for electronic petitions and online electronic signing or endorsement of petitions. Rather than specify in the charter the details of valid electronic petitions, signatures or endorsements, the proposed charter language reads, “as permitted by Boulder Revised Code.”

Question 2G pertains only to petitions. Final votes on municipal measures will continue to be conducted by election administrators, usually the Boulder County Clerk’s office via mail ballots.

The Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group unanimously recommended putting 2G on the November ballot.

Recommendation: for the measure

This measure adds another option besides paper petitions for circulators of municipal petitions.

The city council heard from Denver election administrators who have provided e-Sign to petition circulators with electronic tablets in order to collect signatures. The e-Sign program eliminates electronically signing the same petition twice, eliminates invalid voting addresses, and even assists in verifying signatures. Denver finds many fewer bad signatures on electronic petitions than on paper petitions, thereby saving staff time for other election functions. Denver administrators also informed city council of the safeguards built into e-Sign to prevent hacking.

2G may reduce the number of paid signature gatherers, allowing smaller organizations with good ideas to offer ballot measures. 2G may also reduce the ugly sidewalk battles that we have seen recently between petition circulators and groups opposed to the initiatives.

The technical details of how to collect and process electronic signatures should not be in the city charter. Kudos to city council for not mucking up our charter with those details.

The more cities in Colorado that adopt e-Sign, the more likely that the state will allow e-Sign for state initiatives. The high signature requirement of “Raise the Bar” Amendment 71, passed in 2016, was overturned but then stayed on appeal. The effect of a high bar could be dampened with e-Sign. Online petitions would provide even more opportunity to surpass a high bar. Concerns about someone assuming another person’s identity are somewhat mitigated by the fact that the signers’ identities would be public info and a person could unsign a petition.

If 2G passes, get ready to be bombarded to sign electronic petitions.

“Website” for the Yes Side – a Change.org petition
https://www.change.org/p/boulder-city-council-allow-online-petitioning-for-ballot-initiatives

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G – Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions

Shall Sections 38, 45, and 56 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8274 to allow the Boulder City Council to adopt ordinances that permit use of electronic petitions and to permit on-line electronic signing or endorsement of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8274 to put Question 2G to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8274

Webpage of the Campaign Finance/Elections Working Group
https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/campaign-financeelections-working-group

City of Boulder 2H – Membership of Advisory Commissions

The Boulder City Charter Section 130 reads, “… the council by ordinance may create and provide for such advisory commissions as it may deem advisable … Each of such commissions, including the library commission, shall be composed of five city residents, not all of one sex, …”

However, the Planning Board and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are separately each set at 7 members in Sections 74 and 157, respectively. Perhaps the “board” rather than “commission” designation was partially intentional to get around the 5-member limit.

This year the city council created a Housing Advisory Board, and council members have expressed interest in expanding the board to 7 members. Ballot Question 2H would allow city council the flexibility to set future boards or commissions and this year’s new Housing Advisory Board at either 5 or 7 members.

A majority of a 5-member commission is 3. For a 7-member commission, the majority is 4. Currently, Section 130 specifies, “Special meetings may be called at any time upon due notice by three members. Three members shall constitute a quorum, and the affirmative vote of at least three members shall be necessary to authorize any action by the commission.” Ballot Question 2H would change “three” to “a majority of the.”

Lastly, the phrase “not all of one sex” would be changed to “not all of one gender identity.”

Recommendation: leaning for the measure

Larger boards can allow for more diversity of opinion but may cut down on the commission’s ability to nimbly make decisions.

The change to “majority,” instead of explicitly stating 3 members for 5-member commissions or 4 members for 7-member commissions, sets up the question of what happens if there are 2 vacancies on a commission. Is the majority based on the number of seats on the commission or the number of current commissioners? The current charter language requires 3 members to conduct business and authorize actions, regardless of vacancies. If a commission is dysfunctional and 2 of the 5 members resign, then could a majority be interpreted to be 2 members, perhaps the very 2 members who are most responsible for the dysfunctional commission?

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language (with bullet points added for clarity)

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H -- Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions

Shall Section 130 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8271 to
• allow council to set the number of any new advisory commission as five or seven when forming the commission;
• allow council to increase the size of the Housing Advisory Board from five to seven members;
• change the criteria for what constitutes a majority to accommodate boards of different sizes; and
• change the reference of “sex” to “gender identity?”

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8271 to put Question 2H to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8271

Sunday, October 14, 2018

City of Boulder 2I – Deadline for Planning Dept Budget Recommendations

This ballot measure would change the 60-day period to a 30-day period in the city charter’s Section 78 (c): “Submit annually to the city manager, not less than sixty days prior to the date for submission of the city manager’s proposed budget to city council, a list of recommended capital improvements to be undertaken during the forthcoming six-year period.”

Timeline for the city’s budget
  Oct 1 – Deadline for city manager to submit a budget (Charter, Section 93). The first public hearing on the proposed city budget is usually in early October.
  Dec 1 – Deadline for city council to pass an annual appropriation ordinance (Charter, Section 95)
  January 1 – city’s new fiscal year

This ballot measure was submitted by the city council’s charter committee.

Recommendation: leaning for the measure

Putting the above city council and city manager deadlines in the city charter makes more sense than putting a Planning Department deadline in the city charter. A better ballot question would have taken out “not less than sixty days prior to the date for submission of the city manager’s proposed budget to city council” and let the Planning Department and the city manager work out the deadlines outside of the city charter. The 60-day deadline was added to the charter, presumably by the voters, at some date after the city manager and city council deadlines were enshrined in the charter.

Website for the Yes Side
No known website – Info on a supporters’ website appreciated.

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I – Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations

Shall Section 78 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8270 to change the time for the Planning Department to submit its recommendations for public improvements from sixty days to thirty days before the submission of the budget to be consistent with the city’s budgeting process?

For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____

See Ordinance No. 8270 to put Question 2I to the voters
https://bouldercolorado.gov/central-records/document-archive then click on Browse City Council Records > Ordinances > 2018 > 8270

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 7G – Remove TABOR Restrictions

The CO General Assembly established the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) in 1969 to work on what its name suggests. UDFCD includes Denver and parts of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas and Jefferson Counties.

Everyone who pays property taxes in UDFCD has a line on their tax statement showing the UDFCD mill levy. According to the UDFCD website, the current mill levy for Boulder County is ½ mill. The legislature authorized up to 1 mill for UDFCD, but TABOR’s passage in 1992 has forced the mill levy to decrease. The projected increased cost to homeowners in 2019 under 7G is $1.97 per $100,000 of home value.

The UDFCD board of directors voted unanimously on August 16th to ask voters to remove the TABOR restrictions.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

TABOR acts like a set of handcuffs that impedes our financial flexibility. Colorado is the one and only state with TABOR rules. Other states, seeing the limits imposed on Colorado, have wisely chosen not to adopt rules similar to TABOR.

Website for the Yes Side – Citizens Protecting People, Property, and Open Space.
https://www.yeson7g.com/

Website for the No Side – Taxpayers Protecting Affordable Housing
http://noon7g.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G

SHALL URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $14.9 MILLION IN 2019 (RESULTING IN AN ANNUAL TAX INCREASE NOT TO EXCEED $1.97 IN 2019 FOR EACH $100,000 OF ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL VALUATION) AND BY SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER FROM A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED 1.0 MILLS TO PAY FOR DISTRICT WORK IN COORDINATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING:
  1. MAINTAINING EARLY FLOOD WARNING GAUGES TO PROVIDE POTENTIAL EVACUATION WARNINGS,
  2. PROVIDING TRAILS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO RESIDENTS BY PRESERVING THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN FLOODPLAIN AREAS WHICH PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND
  3. REMOVING DEBRIS, GARBAGE AND OBSTRUCTIONS FROM STREAMS, CREEKS AND RIVERS RESULTING IN REDUCED RISK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS, PROTECTING PROPERTY, AND RESTORING NATURAL BEAUTY;
WITH THE DISTRICT’S ENTIRE MILL LEVY RATE SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CAPS AND TO ADJUSTMENT TO OFFSET REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL VALUATION USED TO DETERMINE ASSESSED VALUATION; AND SHALL ALL DISTRICTREVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT NOT WITHSTANDING ANY LIMITS PROVIDED BY LAW?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District website
https://udfcd.org

August 2018 Board Meeting Packet to put 7G on the ballot. See pages 35-40.
https://udfcd.org/wp-content/uploads/uploads/bod/meeting%20materials/2018/August%202018%20Board%20Packet.pdf

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

The 2017 Election and Amendment 71 News

Not unexpectedly, the voters of the city and county of Boulder were generous, approving all the tax measures. The only rejected ballot issue was 2P to allow city council executive sessions for negotiation and legal discussions around a future municipal electric utility.

The city’s utility occupation tax helps pay the municipalization expenses. Ballot issue 2L to extend and increase the tax was losing when the initial mail-ballot results were announced. However, a big Election Day get-out-the-vote push credited to New Era Colorado, which supported 2L and targets young voters, seemed to make the difference. In the final count the pro-2L side received 15,852 votes (51.7%) compared to the con-2L side’s 14,807 votes.

New Era is very active in Boulder, particularly on the CU campus. State Senator Steve Fenberg and candidates Joe Neguse (Congress) and Molly Fitzpatrick (County Clerk and Recorder) all got their political chops in New Era and all have been or will be on the ballot in the Boulder area.

In other news today, Judge William Martinez of the US District Court for the District of Colorado voided part of Amendment 71, passed by the voters in 2016. Amendment 71 affects constitutional changes proposed via a citizen initiative. It required collecting signatures from 2% of the registered voters from each of the state’s 35 senate districts and then getting 55% of the statewide vote in the general election. The former requirement was voided, the latter not.

Supporters of Amendment 71 believe that the 10th Circuit Court will overturn the decision. The Denver Post reports that the Colorado Secretary of State wants the judge’s order stayed while an appeal is heard. If the stay is granted, the geographic distribution requirement would remain in effect until the appeal is concluded, probably through this November’s election. Opponents of Amendment 71 argue that only wealthy initiative backers can afford to meet the geographic signature requirements for ballot access.