Most of the referred measures had bipartisan sponsors, but not Prop KK. Prop KK imposes a 6.5% excise tax on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition sold by firearm dealers and manufacturers and ammunition sellers. The tax revenue would be exempt (debruced) from TABOR limits and would fund primarily crime victim services ($30M), but also mental health services for veterans ($5M) and youth ($3M) and school security grants ($1M).
The federal government has levied an excise tax on retail sales of firearms and ammunition since 1919 with the proceeds funding wildlife conservation and hunting programs. Retail sales of firearms, firearm parts and ammunition are also subject to local and state sales tax.
Sellers with annual sales of less than $20,000 are exempt from this proposed 6.5% tax. Retail sales to law enforcement officers, their agencies, and active-duty military members are also exempt.
Recommendation: Yes
Opponents argue that adults have a constitutional right to own firearms, and this measure infringes on that right. However, the government doesn’t have an obligation to provide firearms tax-free. Plus, the government is often left bearing the cost of gun-related violence. This measure is attempting to recoup some of those costs by imposing a new excise tax, and if fewer guns are out in society, we could have less gun-related violence.
If firearms sales are banned – for instance, sales of certain firearms are banned in Washington, DC – or the retail sales price is exorbitant, people who want to buy firearms will go to other states or seek unregulated ghost guns. Prop KK won’t solve the problem of gun violence in our society, but it will shine a spotlight on it and attempts a small step toward reducing gun violence.
Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Supports Crime Victim Services)
https://yesonpropkk.com/
Website for the No Side (Rocky Mountain Gun Owners)
https://rmgo.org/prop-kk/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition KK (STATUTORY)
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY $39,000,000 ANNUALLY TO FUND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INCLUDING FOR MILITARY VETERANS AND AT-RISK YOUTH, SCHOOL SAFETY AND GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES BY AUTHORIZING A TAX ON GUN DEALERS, GUN MANUFACTURERS, AND AMMUNITION VENDORS AT THE RATE OF 6.5% OF THE NET TAXABLE SALES FROM THE RETAIL SALE OF ANY GUN, GUN PRECURSOR PART, OR AMMUNITION, WITH THE STATE KEEPING AND SPENDING ALL OF THE NEW TAX REVENUE AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
HB24-349 to refer Prop KK to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
Proposition 127 – Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting
We’ve seen wildlife management by citizen initiative before. In 2020 voters narrowly approved Prop 114 to reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado. Since December 2021, gray wolves have killed more than three dozen livestock.
This time around we have a ballot measure to prohibit hunting of bobcats and mountain lions. (Lynx hunting is already prohibited under state and federal law.) Prop 127 would continue to allow the killing of bobcats and mountain lions in certain non-sport situations, including in defense of a human life, livestock, personal property, or a motor vehicle.
Currently, Colorado may provide reimbursement to owners for damage by “big game” to personal property, agricultural land and livestock. Prop 127 would remove mountain lions from the “big game” category, rendering owners ineligible for future reimbursements.
Recommendation: No
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Agency is responsible for wildlife management and administering hunting and trapping regulations of “big cats.” State law requires wildlife to be protected and managed for the people of Colorado. Bobcats and mountain lions are not classified as threatened. Let the CO Parks and Wildlife Commission continue to manage these big cats and keep their populations stable.
Website for the Yes Side (Cats Aren’t Trophies)
https://catsarenttrophies.org/
Website for the No Side (Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better)
https://wildlifedeservebetter.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 127 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a prohibition on the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the intentional killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging or releasing of a deadly weapon at a mountain lion, lynx, or bobcat; creating eight exceptions to this prohibition including for the protection of human life, property, and livestock; establishing a violation of this prohibition as a class 1 misdemeanor; and increasing fines and limiting wildlife license privileges for persons convicted of this crime?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 127 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/91Final.pdf
This time around we have a ballot measure to prohibit hunting of bobcats and mountain lions. (Lynx hunting is already prohibited under state and federal law.) Prop 127 would continue to allow the killing of bobcats and mountain lions in certain non-sport situations, including in defense of a human life, livestock, personal property, or a motor vehicle.
Currently, Colorado may provide reimbursement to owners for damage by “big game” to personal property, agricultural land and livestock. Prop 127 would remove mountain lions from the “big game” category, rendering owners ineligible for future reimbursements.
Recommendation: No
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Agency is responsible for wildlife management and administering hunting and trapping regulations of “big cats.” State law requires wildlife to be protected and managed for the people of Colorado. Bobcats and mountain lions are not classified as threatened. Let the CO Parks and Wildlife Commission continue to manage these big cats and keep their populations stable.
Website for the Yes Side (Cats Aren’t Trophies)
https://catsarenttrophies.org/
Website for the No Side (Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better)
https://wildlifedeservebetter.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 127 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a prohibition on the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the intentional killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging or releasing of a deadly weapon at a mountain lion, lynx, or bobcat; creating eight exceptions to this prohibition including for the protection of human life, property, and livestock; establishing a violation of this prohibition as a class 1 misdemeanor; and increasing fines and limiting wildlife license privileges for persons convicted of this crime?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 127 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/91Final.pdf
Proposition 128 – Reduce Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence
One part of Prop 128 would increase the amount of time a person convicted of certain crimes of violence must serve from 75% of their sentence minus earned time to at least 85% of their sentence. A second part of Prop 128 would make a person convicted for the third time of a crime of violence ineligible for parole.
Discretionary parole happens when a convicted person has not finished their sentence and the State Board of Parole releases the convicted person from prison under community supervision. Earned time further reduces time behind bars when a person makes progress toward personal, professional, or educational goals. Prop 128 would not subtract any earned time from the 85% requirement.
Prop 128 would not affect the parole eligibility of a person convicted of a crime committed before 2025.
Recommendation: No
Each indicted person should be judged at trial on the merits of their individual case. Each convicted person should be judged for parole on their individual case rather than setting an artificial, across-the-board limit. Keeping people who can be constructive members of society in prison is counterproductive. Prohibiting earned time from being included in the time served also is the wrong incentive.
The judge who sentences a person convicted of crimes of violence knows the parole eligibility rules and can adjust the sentencing (within parameters) on the front end. Later the State Parole Board can accept or deny a person’s application for parole. Leaving some wiggle room is a more humane way to mete out justice.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-128
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 128 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 128 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/112OriginalFinal.pdf
Discretionary parole happens when a convicted person has not finished their sentence and the State Board of Parole releases the convicted person from prison under community supervision. Earned time further reduces time behind bars when a person makes progress toward personal, professional, or educational goals. Prop 128 would not subtract any earned time from the 85% requirement.
Prop 128 would not affect the parole eligibility of a person convicted of a crime committed before 2025.
Recommendation: No
Each indicted person should be judged at trial on the merits of their individual case. Each convicted person should be judged for parole on their individual case rather than setting an artificial, across-the-board limit. Keeping people who can be constructive members of society in prison is counterproductive. Prohibiting earned time from being included in the time served also is the wrong incentive.
The judge who sentences a person convicted of crimes of violence knows the parole eligibility rules and can adjust the sentencing (within parameters) on the front end. Later the State Parole Board can accept or deny a person’s application for parole. Leaving some wiggle room is a more humane way to mete out justice.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-128
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 128 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 128 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/112OriginalFinal.pdf
Proposition 129 – Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates
The Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine currently regulates three licensed professionals: veterinarians, veterinarian technicians (vet tech), and veterinarian technician specialists. Prop 129 proposes creating a veterinary professional associate (VPA). The scope of tasks that a VPA would be allowed to perform would be determined later by the CO State Board of Veterinary Medicine.
The proponents claim that all VPAs would have “received comprehensive and robust training while earning a master’s degree.” Opponents claim that VPAs’ “training would be mostly online with minimal hands-on instruction. … VPAs [could] practice veterinary medicine, including performing surgery after only a one-semester internship.”
Recommendation: No
The argument for creating a new position is to provide more and better care for animals. A more certain way for animals to get more and better care is to adequately train and pay vet professionals. Prop 129 appears to be a way to undertrain and underpay a new group of vet professionals to the detriment of animal patients.
The state legislature tried to address the lack of veterinary care in some geographic areas by passing nearly unanimously House Bill 24-1048 Providing Veterinary Services Through Telehealth. The veterinarian and the animal patient must have an established veterinarian-client relationship before telehealth services can be rendered. The primary sponsor of HB24-1048 is veterinarian and State Rep Karen McCormick who is strongly opposed to Prop 129.
Website for the Yes Side (All Pets Deserve Vet Care)
https://allpetsdeservevetcare.com/
Website for the No Side (Keep Our Pets Safe)
https://keepourpetssafe.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 129 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating a new veterinary professional associate profession, and, in connection therewith, establishing qualifications including a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care or the equivalent as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine to be a veterinary professional associate; requiring registration with the state board; allowing a registered veterinary professional associate to practice veterinary medicine under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian; and making it a misdemeanor to practice as a veterinary professional associate without an active registration?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 129 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/145Final.pdf
The proponents claim that all VPAs would have “received comprehensive and robust training while earning a master’s degree.” Opponents claim that VPAs’ “training would be mostly online with minimal hands-on instruction. … VPAs [could] practice veterinary medicine, including performing surgery after only a one-semester internship.”
Recommendation: No
The argument for creating a new position is to provide more and better care for animals. A more certain way for animals to get more and better care is to adequately train and pay vet professionals. Prop 129 appears to be a way to undertrain and underpay a new group of vet professionals to the detriment of animal patients.
The state legislature tried to address the lack of veterinary care in some geographic areas by passing nearly unanimously House Bill 24-1048 Providing Veterinary Services Through Telehealth. The veterinarian and the animal patient must have an established veterinarian-client relationship before telehealth services can be rendered. The primary sponsor of HB24-1048 is veterinarian and State Rep Karen McCormick who is strongly opposed to Prop 129.
Website for the Yes Side (All Pets Deserve Vet Care)
https://allpetsdeservevetcare.com/
Website for the No Side (Keep Our Pets Safe)
https://keepourpetssafe.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 129 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating a new veterinary professional associate profession, and, in connection therewith, establishing qualifications including a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care or the equivalent as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine to be a veterinary professional associate; requiring registration with the state board; allowing a registered veterinary professional associate to practice veterinary medicine under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian; and making it a misdemeanor to practice as a veterinary professional associate without an active registration?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 129 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/145Final.pdf
Proposition 130 – Funding for Law Enforcement Including Additional Death Benefits
Prop 130 requires the state to
1) set aside $350M in additional funding for local law enforcement agencies for recruitment and retention and
2) provide a one-time $1M death benefit to the family of a state or local law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty.
Because Prop 130 does not increase state revenue, the $350M would reduce funding for other state needs. Prop 130 does not provide a timeline for the state to provide the $350M.
The death benefits section of Prop 130 would continue after the $350M is spent and is estimated to cost $4M annually.
Recommendation: No
If additional funding for law enforcement paid for itself by generating $350M in revenue, or if (additional funding for) law enforcement alone were shown to be effective in reducing crime, then Prop 130 would deserve more consideration. A comprehensive measure to address all the facets of making a community safer, including focusing on social workers and access to housing and healthcare is needed rather than a law-enforcement-only approach.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-130
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 130 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning state funding for peace officer training and support, and, in connection therewith, directing the legislature to appropriate 350 million dollars to the peace officer training and support fund for municipal and county law enforcement agencies to hire and retain peace officers; allowing the fund to be used for pay, bonuses, initial and continuing education and training, and a death benefit for a peace officer, police, fire and first responder killed in the line of duty; and requiring the funding to supplement existing appropriations?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 130 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/157FinalCorrected.pdf
1) set aside $350M in additional funding for local law enforcement agencies for recruitment and retention and
2) provide a one-time $1M death benefit to the family of a state or local law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty.
Because Prop 130 does not increase state revenue, the $350M would reduce funding for other state needs. Prop 130 does not provide a timeline for the state to provide the $350M.
The death benefits section of Prop 130 would continue after the $350M is spent and is estimated to cost $4M annually.
Recommendation: No
If additional funding for law enforcement paid for itself by generating $350M in revenue, or if (additional funding for) law enforcement alone were shown to be effective in reducing crime, then Prop 130 would deserve more consideration. A comprehensive measure to address all the facets of making a community safer, including focusing on social workers and access to housing and healthcare is needed rather than a law-enforcement-only approach.
Website for the Yes Side (Advance Colorado)
https://www.advancecolorado.org/2024ballot/
Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Smart Justice)
https://www.coloradansforsmartjustice.org/no-on-130
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 130 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning state funding for peace officer training and support, and, in connection therewith, directing the legislature to appropriate 350 million dollars to the peace officer training and support fund for municipal and county law enforcement agencies to hire and retain peace officers; allowing the fund to be used for pay, bonuses, initial and continuing education and training, and a death benefit for a peace officer, police, fire and first responder killed in the line of duty; and requiring the funding to supplement existing appropriations?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 130 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/157FinalCorrected.pdf
Proposition 131 – All-Candidate Top-4 Primary and Instant-Runoff (Ranked) Voting General Election
Gov Polis described Prop 131 well to the Mineral County Miner: "This initiative would make it so all candidates running for an office appear on the [June] primary ballot [and all voters would be able to vote for any of those candidates], and then the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, proceed to the general election. For future November elections, voters would get a ballot listing four candidates. Instead of picking just one, voters would rank the candidates in order of preference. This is also called ‘instant-runoff voting.’”
Unaffiliated and minor-party candidates would be required to run in the primary instead of jumping straight to the November general election. For a seat considered safe for one political party, two or more candidates from the dominant party might advance to the general election, giving the larger electorate a say in which candidate is elected. If only one candidate from the dominant party runs for a seat and that candidate dies or withdraws before the general election, the dominant party does not get to choose a replacement from the party and may end up relinquishing a safe seat to the other party.
Both the primary-election ballot and the general-election ballots will be longer with more candidates than current ballots. There will also be two types of primary ballots –
1) one for the Prop 131 offices (US Senate, US House, and all partisan state offices except for District Attorney) that every voter receives and
2) separate Democratic and Republican ballots for county offices and District Attorney that will continue to be distributed to Democrats and Republicans, respectively, with both ballots going to unaffiliated voters.
The general-election ballot will also be longer because more ballot space is needed to allow voters to rank their preferences whenever there are three or four candidates. Write-in votes will not be allowed on the Prop 131 general-election ballots.
In the November general election, if there are only 2 candidates, then the voters will just vote for one candidate as we do currently. Whenever there are 3 or the maximum 4 candidates, the voters can rank the candidates (#1 for first choice, #2 for second choice and #3 for third choice). The vote counting will be conducted in rounds until 2 candidates remain. In the first round the #1 choices are counted as votes. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the votes for the eliminated candidate transfer to the next-highest ranked candidate on the ballots. (If there is no next ranking, then the ballot is called “exhausted.”) This process continues until 2 candidates remain, and the candidate with more votes is declared the winner.
The implementation date for Prop 131 is January 2026. However, in the last days of the CO legislative session an amendment was added to Senate Bill 24-210 which delays implementation of any ranked voting method for state and federal offices until 12 municipalities have conducted ranked voting elections. Gov Polis signed SB24-210 but his signing statement said that if the Prop 131 initiative is approved by voters, he wants to work with the legislature and stakeholders to get the initiative implemented “no later than the 2028 election cycle.”
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 131 would empower more voters. In our current partisan primary process, many elections are effectively decided in the primary. By forcing multiple viable candidates to run in the general election, people who haven’t traditionally participated in the primary can have a more meaningful voice in the general election. Extreme candidates are more likely to be eliminated in the instant-runoff voting process.
The long, even-year November ballot could very well lead to voter fatigue with its increased number of competitive elections and with voters able to rank multiple candidates instead of just choosing one. Getting the public’s attention for your favorite candidate or your favorite ballot issue will be harder. Expensive political campaigns could become yet more expensive. If Prop 131 passes, perhaps Boulder should consider revisiting its decision to move municipal elections to even years to give voters a little bit of a breather.
Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Voters First)
https://yeson131.com/
Websites for the No Side (Voter Rights Colorado – left-leaning)
https://voterrightsco.org/
(First Choice Counts – right-leaning)
https://www.firstchoicecounts.com/ – only addresses the voting method in the general election
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 131 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new election processes for certain federal and state offices, and, in connection therewith, creating a new all-candidate primary election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education, and the Colorado state legislature; allowing voters to vote for any one candidate per office, regardless of the voter’s or candidate’s political party affiliation; providing that the four candidates for each office who receive the most votes advance to the general election; and in the general election, allowing voters to rank candidates for each office on their ballot, adopting a process for how the ranked votes are tallied, and determining the winner to be the candidate with the highest number of votes in the final tally?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 131 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/310FinalCorrected.pdf
SB24-210 – Section 54 delays implementation of Prop 131
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-210
Unaffiliated and minor-party candidates would be required to run in the primary instead of jumping straight to the November general election. For a seat considered safe for one political party, two or more candidates from the dominant party might advance to the general election, giving the larger electorate a say in which candidate is elected. If only one candidate from the dominant party runs for a seat and that candidate dies or withdraws before the general election, the dominant party does not get to choose a replacement from the party and may end up relinquishing a safe seat to the other party.
Both the primary-election ballot and the general-election ballots will be longer with more candidates than current ballots. There will also be two types of primary ballots –
1) one for the Prop 131 offices (US Senate, US House, and all partisan state offices except for District Attorney) that every voter receives and
2) separate Democratic and Republican ballots for county offices and District Attorney that will continue to be distributed to Democrats and Republicans, respectively, with both ballots going to unaffiliated voters.
The general-election ballot will also be longer because more ballot space is needed to allow voters to rank their preferences whenever there are three or four candidates. Write-in votes will not be allowed on the Prop 131 general-election ballots.
In the November general election, if there are only 2 candidates, then the voters will just vote for one candidate as we do currently. Whenever there are 3 or the maximum 4 candidates, the voters can rank the candidates (#1 for first choice, #2 for second choice and #3 for third choice). The vote counting will be conducted in rounds until 2 candidates remain. In the first round the #1 choices are counted as votes. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the votes for the eliminated candidate transfer to the next-highest ranked candidate on the ballots. (If there is no next ranking, then the ballot is called “exhausted.”) This process continues until 2 candidates remain, and the candidate with more votes is declared the winner.
The implementation date for Prop 131 is January 2026. However, in the last days of the CO legislative session an amendment was added to Senate Bill 24-210 which delays implementation of any ranked voting method for state and federal offices until 12 municipalities have conducted ranked voting elections. Gov Polis signed SB24-210 but his signing statement said that if the Prop 131 initiative is approved by voters, he wants to work with the legislature and stakeholders to get the initiative implemented “no later than the 2028 election cycle.”
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 131 would empower more voters. In our current partisan primary process, many elections are effectively decided in the primary. By forcing multiple viable candidates to run in the general election, people who haven’t traditionally participated in the primary can have a more meaningful voice in the general election. Extreme candidates are more likely to be eliminated in the instant-runoff voting process.
The long, even-year November ballot could very well lead to voter fatigue with its increased number of competitive elections and with voters able to rank multiple candidates instead of just choosing one. Getting the public’s attention for your favorite candidate or your favorite ballot issue will be harder. Expensive political campaigns could become yet more expensive. If Prop 131 passes, perhaps Boulder should consider revisiting its decision to move municipal elections to even years to give voters a little bit of a breather.
Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Voters First)
https://yeson131.com/
Websites for the No Side (Voter Rights Colorado – left-leaning)
https://voterrightsco.org/
(First Choice Counts – right-leaning)
https://www.firstchoicecounts.com/ – only addresses the voting method in the general election
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition 131 (STATUTORY)
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new election processes for certain federal and state offices, and, in connection therewith, creating a new all-candidate primary election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education, and the Colorado state legislature; allowing voters to vote for any one candidate per office, regardless of the voter’s or candidate’s political party affiliation; providing that the four candidates for each office who receive the most votes advance to the general election; and in the general election, allowing voters to rank candidates for each office on their ballot, adopting a process for how the ranked votes are tallied, and determining the winner to be the candidate with the highest number of votes in the final tally?
YES/FOR ___
NO/AGAINST ___
Prop 131 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2023-2024/310FinalCorrected.pdf
SB24-210 – Section 54 delays implementation of Prop 131
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-210
Monday, October 14, 2024
City of Boulder 2C – Base Council Pay on Area Median Income
Ballot Question 2C would increase pay for council members and the mayor by basing the pay on a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) for a single-person household. The pay would increase from about $12,500 this year to 40% ($40,880 this year) of AMI for council members and 50% ($51,100) of AMI for the mayor. Both the current pay based on the Consumer Price Index and the proposed pay based on AMI have annual adjustments. The new pay would start in December of 2026 with the swearing in of new council members.
Question 2C proposes paying the mayor more than council, which Boulder has never done.
The last time we saw a council pay measure, the voters in 2021 passed 2M to untie council pay from meeting attendance.
Recommendation: Against
More pay for council members is okay, but our mayor should not get more pay than the council members. We have a weak-mayor/strong-city-manager system. When we directly elected our mayor for the first time in 2023, we learned that a mayoral election deprives the city of a public servant who would likely have continued on council under our former system. Perhaps we should stop directly electing our mayor and go back to electing 5 council members every two years.
More pay for council members is okay, but if council wants their job to be considered as the large time commitment that they claim it is, then when they were asked to place a charter amendment on the ballot to prohibit a council member from simultaneously serving in the state legislator, they should have done so.
More pay for council members is okay, but perhaps such a large and sudden (as opposed to gradual) pay raise is not warranted. A council member’s primary obligation is to prepare and attend a meeting every week. The meetings are in the evening so that council members can, and some do, have a day job. In contrast, the county commissioner job is considered full-time, and the commissioners hold regular meetings during the day.
An argument for more pay for council is that people with lower incomes will be more encouraged to run for office. The proposed substantial pay raise may encourage more candidates of all stripes to run, making the elections much more competitive and expensive, and thereby shutting out those with fewer resources. To ensure diverse representation, a better solution is adopting proportional representation for council.
This site has consistently argued that council members deserve more pay, but recent hypocrisy around this issue and the proposed structure in this ballot question lead to an “Against” recommendation.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Council Pay
Shall Sec. 7 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be repealed and replaced to set compensation for City Council members at 40% of the Area Median Income and 50% of the Area Median Income for Mayor, commencing on the swearing-in date of the newly elected City Council in December of 2026, as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8640?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8640 to refer Question 2C to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187437&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Question 2C proposes paying the mayor more than council, which Boulder has never done.
The last time we saw a council pay measure, the voters in 2021 passed 2M to untie council pay from meeting attendance.
Recommendation: Against
More pay for council members is okay, but our mayor should not get more pay than the council members. We have a weak-mayor/strong-city-manager system. When we directly elected our mayor for the first time in 2023, we learned that a mayoral election deprives the city of a public servant who would likely have continued on council under our former system. Perhaps we should stop directly electing our mayor and go back to electing 5 council members every two years.
More pay for council members is okay, but if council wants their job to be considered as the large time commitment that they claim it is, then when they were asked to place a charter amendment on the ballot to prohibit a council member from simultaneously serving in the state legislator, they should have done so.
More pay for council members is okay, but perhaps such a large and sudden (as opposed to gradual) pay raise is not warranted. A council member’s primary obligation is to prepare and attend a meeting every week. The meetings are in the evening so that council members can, and some do, have a day job. In contrast, the county commissioner job is considered full-time, and the commissioners hold regular meetings during the day.
An argument for more pay for council is that people with lower incomes will be more encouraged to run for office. The proposed substantial pay raise may encourage more candidates of all stripes to run, making the elections much more competitive and expensive, and thereby shutting out those with fewer resources. To ensure diverse representation, a better solution is adopting proportional representation for council.
This site has consistently argued that council members deserve more pay, but recent hypocrisy around this issue and the proposed structure in this ballot question lead to an “Against” recommendation.
Website for the For Side
No known website – Info on a proponents’ website appreciated.
Website for the Against Side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C
Council Pay
Shall Sec. 7 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be repealed and replaced to set compensation for City Council members at 40% of the Area Median Income and 50% of the Area Median Income for Mayor, commencing on the swearing-in date of the newly elected City Council in December of 2026, as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8640?
For the Measure ___
Against the Measure ___
Ordinance 8640 to refer Question 2C to the ballot
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187437&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)