The 2016 Election and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The 2016 city of Boulder, BVSD and SCFD ballot measures all passed. The only county measure that didn’t pass was a mill levy increase for subdivision roads. State voters rejected 4 measures and approved 5 measures. The approved ballot issues open primary elections to unaffiliated voters, increase the number of signatures for petitions to change the constitution, increase the minimum wage, and allow medical aid in dying for the terminally ill.

As in 2000, the 2016 winner of the presidential popular vote did not win the Electoral College vote. The proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is intended to bypass the Electoral College as soon as states with 270 electoral votes join the compact. The NPVIC was introduced in the Colorado’s General Assembly as Senate Bill 17-099. It was “killed” in the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Vote on the Ballot Issues!

This is a big year for ballot issues. Of the 19 issues on the ballot for city of Boulder voters, 9 are tax measures (U, 69, 72, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2H, 3A and 4B) and a 10th (70) is about the minimum wage. Semi-open primaries (107, 108), term limits (1D, 302) and cleaning up governing documents (T, 2I) each get 2 ballot issues. The initiative process (71), medical aid-in-dying (106), and insurance benefits for city council members (2J) round out the list.

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.

In general, the further down the ballot you go, the more your vote counts! Please research the issues and candidates and vote the entire ballot. Tell your friends, neighbors, colleagues and anyone else eligible to vote to do likewise.

At the bottom of this blog entry are other ballot issue websites as well as a link to the Boulder County Clerk’s website. The links will be updated as more information becomes available.

Remember that in Colorado you can register and vote as late as Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th. If you are already registered, you have probably already received your ballot in the mail. Contact your County Clerk for more information.


VOCABULARY - STATE OF COLORADO

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 (state) or a number and letter (county, city, BVSD, SCFD)
The governing legislative body (General Assembly, County Commission, City Council, or District Board) put these on the ballot.


VOCABULARY – OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Ballot Issues = Tax measures
Ballot Questions = Others


STATE OF COLORADO

Amendment T
Remove Exception to Slavery Ban
Removes 14 words from the state constitution in order to ban slavery in all cases.
YES/FOR

Amendment U
Exempt Smaller Possessory Interests from Property Taxes
Exempts property taxes on possessory interests valued at $6,000 or less with a biennial inflation adjustment rounded up to the nearest 100 dollars
leaning no/against

Amendment 69
Establish a Public, Statewide Health Care System
Sets up a new political subdivision of the state to collect taxes and existing state and federal health care funding in order to finance universal health insurance for Colorado residents
yes/for

Amendment 70
Increase the State Minimum Wage
Increases the minimum wage by 90 cents each year until January 1, 2020 and thereafter increases the minimum wage based on the Colorado consumer price index
yes/for

Amendment 71
Increase Thresholds for Petitioners to Amend the Constitution
Increases the number of votes required for most initiatives to successfully amend the constitution and increases the geographic requirements for petition signatures.
no/against

Amendment 72
Increase Tobacco Taxes
Increases the state portion of the cigarette tax from $0.84 to $2.59 for a pack of 20 cigarettes.
leaning yes/for

Proposition 106
Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill
Allows mentally capable, non-coerced, terminally ill adults to request, receive and self-administer a lethal drug
YES/FOR

Proposition 107
“Semi-open” Presidential Primary Elections
Reinstitutes a presidential primary for the major political parties and allows unaffiliated voters to vote in it without affiliating with a party – See Prop 108 below.
leaning no/against

Proposition 108
“Semi-open” State and Local Primary Elections
Allows unaffiliated voters to vote in a party’s June primary election without affiliating with the party – See Prop 107 above.
NO/AGAINST


COUNTY OF BOULDER

County of Boulder Issue 1A
Mill Levy Increase for Subdivision Roads in Unincorporated Boulder County
Increases the property tax mill levy by 0.785 mills for 15 years to pay for Boulder County subdivision road reconstruction with a portion of the municipal taxpayers’ contribution returned to the cities
leaning yes/for

County of Boulder Issue 1B
Open Space Sales and Use Tax Extension and Bond Authorization
Extends half of the current 0.25% open space sales tax for 15 years – See Issue 1C below.
no/against

County of Boulder Issue 1C
Sustainability Sales and Use Tax Extension
Extends half of the current 0.25% open space sales tax for 15 years but redirects the revenue for sustainability projects – See Issue 1B above.
no/against

County of Boulder Question 1D
District Attorney Term-Limit Extension
Allows the District Attorney to serve 4 consecutive terms
yes/for


CITY OF BOULDER

City of Boulder Issue 2H
Tax on Distributors of Sugary Drinks
Imposes a tax of 2 cents per fluid ounce on the distributor of most sugar-sweetened drinks
leaning for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2I
Amend Water Service “Blue Line”
Clarifies the “Blue Line,” west of which the city doesn’t, with a few exceptions, provide water
for the measure

City of Boulder Question 2J
Insurance Benefits for City Council Members
Allows city council members to enroll in the city’s health and life insurance plans as though they were full-time city employees
FOR the measure

City of Boulder Question 302
Term Limits for City Council
Limits city council members to 3 terms during their lifetimes
AGAINST the measure


BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

BVSD Issue 3A
Property Tax Increase
Increases the mill levy in perpetuity starting at about 1.7 mills and allows further increases by up to 1 mill each year until a cap of 4 mills is reached
no/against


DENVER METROPOLITAN SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL FACILITIES DISTRICT

SCFD Issue 4B
Sales and Use Tax Extension
Extends a 1-cent tax on a $10 purchase for 12 years and slightly changes the allocation of tax revenue
yes/for


GOVERNMENT SITES

Boulder County Clerk and Recorder – Elections Division
http://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/pages/default.aspx
See a sample ballot including candidates and judges, 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. You can register in person and vote a ballot through Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th.

Blue Book Online (Colorado Legislative Council)
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cga-legislativecouncil/ballotblue-book
The real name of the Blue Book is the 2016 State Ballot Information Booklet – available in English and Spanish.
The website also has the following link to a page listing all the state ballot issues since 1908.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/lcs/ballothistory.nsf/

County of Boulder 2016 Ballot Issues and Measures
http://www.bouldercounty.org/gov/about/pages/countyballotissues.aspx

City of Boulder 2016 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


MEDIA SITES

Boulder Weekly Election Guide 2016
http://www.boulderweekly.com/news/2016-vote-guide/

Daily Camera Election Page including a Voter Guide
http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news/ci_30474456/voter-election-guide-2016-boulder-broomfield-colorado

Denver Post Voter Guide
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/20/colorado-voter-guide-2016/

Colorado Public Radio Voter Guide
http://www.cpr.org/news/story/2016-election-colorado-voter-guide

KGNU Radio - Election 2016
http://news.kgnu.org/category/elections/

Channel 9 News - Debates on Citizen Initiatives
http://www.9news.com/news/politics/voter-guide/9news-debate-special-colorado-ballot-questions/337649292

Fox 31 - Political Analysis including Polling Results
http://kdvr.com/2016/09/29/your-guide-to-colorado-ballot-measures/


NON-PARTISAN SITES

Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2016_ballot_measures
Entries for individual ballot measures list supporters and opponents, campaign finance information and more.

League of Women Voters
Boulder County - http://lwvbc.org/2016election.html
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 ORGANIZATION SITE

Boulder Chamber of Commerce
http://boulderchamber.com/2016-ballot-issues/


CITIZEN SITE

Dave Hill: Dave Does the Blog
http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2016/10/01/a-look-at-colorados-ballot-initiatives.html

Amendment T – Remove Exception to Slavery Ban

Amendment T would strike the following italicized words from Article II, Section 26 of the state constitution: "There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." These words mirror the current language in the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Constitutional changes require approval from the electorate. Unanimous votes in both chambers of the General Assembly supported Senate Concurrent Resolution 16-006 to place Amendment T on the ballot.

Recommendation: YES/FOR

This is another step in cleaning up archaic sections of the state constitution and an effort to have the state constitution reflect more humanitarian ideals.

Website for the Yes Side (previously called No Slavery, No Exceptions)
www.yesontco.com

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


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment T (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

SCR 16-006 to refer Amendment T to the voters
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2016A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/2FB3B2DFD1B1FF6A87257F240064FAC2?Open&file=SCR006_enr.pdf

Amendment U – Exempt Smaller Possessory Interests from Property Taxes

The ballot language for Amendment U is almost identical to the ballot language for Amendment R in 2010. That measure, as well as all but one statewide measure that year, was rejected by the voters.

Some individuals and businesses realize a financial benefit from leasing land or equipment from the government. This control over the property is called a possessory interest, as distinguished from an ownership interest. Examples range from Coors Field to some cattle grazing to a coffee shop at DIA.

The value of a possessory interest is typically equal to the cost of the lease for the government property. This amendment would exempt property taxes on possessory interests valued at $6,000 or less with a biennial inflation adjustment rounded up to the nearest 100 dollars.

According to Article X, Section 3 of the constitution, this “taxable property shall be valued for assessment at twenty-nine percent of its actual value.” For comparison, residential real estate in Boulder County is assessed at just under 8%. The mill levy is multiplied by the assessed value to get the actual property tax owed.

These smaller possessory interests currently pay in total about $125,000 annually in property taxes or about $25 on average but account for about 70% of all the possessory interests.

Recommendation: leaning no/against

This year’s recommendation reverses this blog’s recommendation in 2010 on Amendment R.

The primary argument in favor of Amendment U is to save local governments money – namely, the tax collection process can cost more than the revenue collected from the taxes. However, the collection infrastructure is already set up so potential savings would be minimal and hard to track. Meanwhile, the lack of tax revenue is easy to quantify.

Many of the smaller possessory interests are for agricultural leases. The “market rate” for these leases appears to be very low. Perhaps the “market rate” should be revisited.

In 2012 city of Boulder voters approved 2D to allow 40-year leases. At that time and presumably currently, business tenants were charged a market rate and nonprofit tenants a reduced rate (typically $1 per year).

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

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


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment U (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning an exemption from property taxation for a possessory interest in real property if the actual value of the interest is less than or equal to six thousand dollars or such amount adjusted for inflation?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

SCR 16-002 to refer Amendment U to the voters
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/17448886E26347B387257EF20078FE78?Open&file=SCR002_enr.pdf

Amendment 69 – Establish a Public, Statewide Health Care System

Amendment 69 would add Article XXX, ColoradoCare, to the state constitution. This new political subdivision of the state would finance health care services for Colorado residents, collect existing state and federal health care funding along with a new tax revenue stream, and be run by a board of trustees at first appointed by elected officials and then elected by its beneficiaries.

Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE for the military and some other government programs would continue to operate. The list of health care services that beneficiaries would, at a minimum, receive is listed in the ballot text and on websites. It includes oral, vision and hearing care for children but not for adults.

Beneficiaries could choose their primary care provider. ColoradoCare would have no deductibles and, for primary and preventive care, no copayments. Copayments could be charged for other care, but only if they are not financially burdensome for the patient.

Beginning on July 1, 2017, ColoradoCare would collect the following transitional operating fund tax:
From employers: 0.6% of total payroll
From employees: 0.3% of payroll income
From all residents: 0.9% of some non-payroll income
Alimony, unemployment compensation, the first $20,000 to $24,000, depending on age, of retirement income, and income above $350K for individuals or $450K for joint filers would not be subject to taxation.

Beginning one month prior to implementation, ColoradoCare would switch to collecting the following premium tax:
From employers: 6.67% of total payroll
From employees: 3.33% of payroll income
From all residents: 10% of some non-payroll income
Although overall taxes would go up significantly with ColoradoCare, other health insurance costs would decrease or disappear altogether as the residents of Colorado shift from private insurers to a universal healthcare system. It is estimated that 80% of Coloradans would pay less under ColoradoCare.

Recommendation: yes/for

State health insurance exchanges under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, such as Connect for Colorado, have struggled because its beneficiaries need more medical services than originally anticipated. With universal coverage, similar to health care in other countries, ColoradoCare would have a better chance of success. Universal coverage means that all Colorado residents, not just citizens or taxpayers, would be covered. Additionally, coverage would be independent of one’s job or marital status.

Just as some people attend private schools yet we all pay for public education, ColoradoCare would allow residents to have private health insurance, but we would still expect taxpayers to pay for universal care. People with supplemental private health insurance may find that they save money by switching to ColoradoCare. During the initial period of the transitional operating fund tax, there would be an extra tax burden without an immediate health insurance benefit.

We can’t know about the future. We can only make predictions and ask questions. Would ColoradoCare encourage sick people to move to Colorado? Would ColoradoCare encourage businesses to flee the state because of higher taxes or come to the state because of the universal care benefit? It does seem that money would be more likely to stay in the state, stimulating our economy.

Proponents and opponents argue over whether ColoradoCare would be sustainable. Meanwhile, the current health care insurance system does not seem sustainable. Opponents argue that Colorado shouldn’t be a guinea pig, but some entity, probably bigger than Vermont, has to be the guinea pig. The proponents, including State Senator Irene Aguilar, MD, have been working toward health insurance reform for years through the legislative process without success. Another spokesperson for the proponents is Coloradan TR Reid who wrote The Healing of America about health care systems around the world.

A defect, for me, in ColoradoCare is the lack of guaranteed dental and vision care for adults. Insurance companies could fill the gap, but we would be back to a patchwork of health insurance solutions. My hope is that funds would allow dental and vision care to be covered or that beneficiaries would approve a tax increase to cover these needs.

I presume that elections for the ColoradoCare board members would be held similarly to the way a company asks shareholders to vote for their board of directors – notification via snail mail or email with various methods for casting one’s vote. I doubt that the county clerks and secretary of state would be involved in the election.

Website for the Yes Side (ColoradoCareYes)
http://www.coloradocare.org/

Website for the No Side (Coloradans for Coloradans)
http://www.coloradansforcoloradans.com/

Extra information and where you can get your questions answered
http://colorado69.org/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 69 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall state taxes be increased $25 billion annually in the first full fiscal year, and by such amounts that are raised thereafter, by an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing a health care payment system to fund health care for all individuals whose primary residence is in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, creating a governmental entity called ColoradoCare to administer the health care payment system; providing for the governance of ColoradoCare by an interim appointed board of trustees until an elected board of trustees takes responsibility; exempting ColoradoCare from the taxpayer's bill of rights; assessing an initial tax on the total payroll from employers, payroll income from employees, and nonpayroll income at varying rates; increasing these tax rates when ColoradoCare begins making health care payments for beneficiaries; capping the total amount of income subject to taxation; authorizing the board to increase the taxes in specified circumstances upon approval of the members of ColoradoCare; requiring ColoradoCare to contract with health care providers to pay for specific health care benefits; transferring administration of the Medicaid and children's basic health programs and all other state and federal health care funds for Colorado to ColoradoCare; transferring responsibility to ColoradoCare for medical care that would otherwise be paid for by workers' compensation insurance; requiring ColoradoCare to apply for a waiver from the affordable care act to establish a Colorado health care payment system; and suspending the operations of the Colorado health benefit exchange and transferring its resources to ColoradoCare?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 69 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/20Final.pdf

Amendment 70 – Increase the State Minimum Wage

Amendment 70 would increase the current state minimum wage of $8.31/hour for most workers to $9.30/hour on January 1, 2017. It would then increase the minimum wage by 90 cents each year until January 1, 2020. Thereafter, the minimum wage could increase based on the Colorado consumer price index. If there is deflation, the minimum wage would not decrease, but rather be stagnant.

In 2006 when the federal minimum wage was $5.15/hour for most workers, CO voters approved Initiative 42 enshrining a state minimum wage in the constitution. Initiative 42 tied the state minimum wage to the Colorado consumer price index; the state minimum wage actually decreased on January 1, 2010 from $7.28 to the new federal minimum wage of $7.25. (The federal minimum wage can only increase through congressional action.) When workers who earn “wages plus tips” don’t earn enough in tips to make the state minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference.

Initiative 42 added Section 15 to Article XVIII in the constitution, and Amendment 70 would amend that language. The federal government allows states and local governments to set minimum wages higher than the federal level. However, neither current Colorado law nor Amendment 70 allows local governments to adopt a minimum wage higher than the state’s.

Recommendation: yes/for

The entire Article XVIII, Section 15, even with the additions proposed by Amendment 70, is under 100 words, but they are powerful words.

I support a higher minimum wage. I support a living wage. I’d like to see the state allow local governments to set higher minimum wages to account for differences in the cost of living. Perhaps then people could live closer to work and commute shorter distances.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the youth labor participation rate for older teens (age 16 to 19) has dropped from about 52% in 1996 to about 35% in 2014. With a higher minimum wage, employers are even less likely to hire youth for entry-level, minimum-wage jobs. Perhaps that is good – those jobs can go to people who need more than just spending money , though some teens contribute to their household’s income and all teens need to learn job skills if only the soft skills of showing up on time, being polite to customers, etc. Meanwhile, the rate of volunteering for older teens, where they can acquire many of the same skills, has more than doubled from 13.4% in 1989 to 28.4% in 2006.

Those tip jars at counter-service restaurants may not fill up as fast if a higher minimum wage fuels higher restaurant prices, but minimum-wage workers who don’t get tips, such as child care workers and home health aides, will see a big financial benefit.

Website for the Yes Side (Colorado Families for a Fair Wage)
http://www.coloradofamiliesforafairwage.org/

Website for the No Side (Keep Colorado Working)
https://keepcoloradoworking.com/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 70 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution increasing the minimum wage to $9.30 per hour with annual increases of $0.90 each January 1 until it reaches $12 per hour effective January 2020, and annually adjusting it thereafter for cost-of-living increases?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 70 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/101Final.pdf

Amendment 71 – Increase Thresholds for Petitioners to Amend the Constitution

The last time CO voters saw reforms to the citizen initiative process was on the 2008 ballot. That year voters rejected Referendum O (though this blog recommended a yes vote). Recently “Building a Better Colorado” has successfully revived the issue.

Petition signature requirements would remain the same for proposed statutory changes. For constitutional changes,
1) the number of votes to pass the initiative would increase from a simple majority to 55% of the votes cast unless the amendment is solely repealing part of the existing constitution, and
2) the number of petition signatures required would go from 5% of all the votes cast for Secretary of State candidates in the previous election to 2% of the registered voters who reside in each state senate district.

Note that although the percentage number decreases from 5 to 2, there are more registered voters than votes cast for any particular office. For instance, in Boulder County 5% of the 2014 Sec of State votes cast is 6,772 and 2% of the registered voters is 5,050.

After 2 initiatives to limit fracking did not get enough signatures to make the ballot, this ballot issue has become a proxy fight between their supporters and the oil and gas industry.

Amendment 71 would amend Article V, Section 1 and Article XIX, Section 2 of the constitution.

Recommendation: no/against

The initiative process is not the citizen-grassroots effort some may imagine, but rather a very expensive process often involving powerful special interests. Requiring a number of signatures from each senate district will make the process even more expensive and less of a grassroots effort.

Currently, petitions ask voters to name their county. Everyone knows their county, but many people don’t know their senate district. Will the petitions ask for the senate district? In counties such as Boulder with multiple senate districts, this adds extra complexity. If the voter doesn’t know the senate district, would the petitioners have to get that data or would it be the responsibility of the Secretary of State’s office? If Building a Better Colorado wants to ensure votes are collected from a wider geographic area, it would make more sense to use county boundaries or groups of counties, perhaps similar to Colorado’s 22 judicial districts.

I’m in favor of making it more difficult to change the constitution when a statutory change could achieve the same goal though opponents of Amendment 71 will remind people that in 1996 Colorado voters approved Amendment 15 (Colorado Campaign Finance Act) which was a statutory change, only to later have its provisions weakened by the legislature. In response, people gathered enough signatures to get Amendment 27, a constitutional change, on the ballot.

It should be more difficult to add completely new sections to the constitution while not increasing the difficulty of removing items from the constitution, but I’d prefer just the higher vote threshold, not the new geographic signature requirements. This initiative would make it more difficult to get an issue on the ballot that would fix language already in the constitution.

Website for the Yes Side (Raise the Bar—Protect the Constitution)
http://raisethebarco.com/
Building a Better Colorado collected signatures to put this charter amendment on the ballot.
http://www.betterco.org/

Website for the No Side (Raise the Rafters—Vote No on 71!)
http://voteno71.org/
Be the Change USA has a list of reasons to oppose 71.
http://btc-usa.net/no-on-amendment-71/amendment-71-the-corporately-financed-initiative-designed-to-eliminate-the-citizens-right-to-initiative/


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 71 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution making it more difficult to amend the Colorado constitution by requiring that any petition for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment be signed by at least two percent of the registered electors who reside in each state senate district for the amendment to be placed on the ballot and increasing the percentage of votes needed to pass any proposed constitutional amendment from a majority to at least fifty-five percent of the votes cast, unless the proposed constitutional amendment only repeals, in whole or in part, any provision of the constitution?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 71 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/96Final.pdf