PPC Homepage

PPC 2010 Colorado Ballot Initiatives Sample Ballot

by | 8:00 pm, November 1, 2010 | 16 Comments

For those of you voting along at home, we here at PPC have looked over the initiatives on this year’s Colorado general election ballot and developed a set of recommendations. These are the opinion of the PPC board, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of PPC’s contributing authors (who are not only free to disagree with us, but encouraged to write about it, here, if they do).

(Read the recommendations after the jump…)

The most controversial choices here are bound to be our NO votes on Amendments 60, 61, and 101. While it’s hard to not look fondly on any effort to limit the taxing and borrowing power of state and local governments, we believed these amendments included too many unnecessary and poisonous elements along with the highly desirable limitations and TABOR-strengthening provisions.

AMENDMENT P

YES

Regulation of Games of Chance Text of Bill
WHAT IT DOES:

Alters Article XVIII of the state Constitution to establish a licensing authority for games of chance (including raffles, bingo, etc.).  Moves the licensing authority currently held by the Secretary of State to an independent authority to be established by the Legislature.

 WHY WE VOTE YES:

Oversight of charitable raffles, bingo, and other such gaming is currently performed by the Secretary of State, while casino gambling is regulated by the Department of Revenue. The proposed change would grant the SoS’ longstanding request to transfer oversight authority to the DoR, to consolidate similar functions of government under one department. The Amendment does not appear to increase the authority of the state government, and holds the potential for a small increase in efficiency through consolidation of similar functions.

AMENDMENT Q

YES

 Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government Text of Bill
WHAT IT DOES:

Establishes a Constitutional process whereby, in a defined emergency situation, the Governor may convene the Legislature and Supreme Court away from Denver, for the purpose of designating through legislation an emergency capital for a defined temporary period. Defines Denver as the permanent state capital, along with a process under which this designation may be changed through a vote of the people.

 WHY WE VOTE YES:

The Colorado Constitution (Art. VIII, Sec. 3) currently requires a two-thirds vote in a general election to change the location of the seat of state government for any reason. In the event of a disaster or emergency that rendered Denver unsafe or unusable, this existing provision would bar the core branches of state government from relocating and continuing operations. Amendment Q would provide a constitutional process for temporarily relocating the functions of the state government in an emergency, while preserving the original intent of Art. VIII, Sec. 3 that the voters must approve any permanent relocation.

AMENDMENT R

YES

 Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property Text of Bill
WHAT IT DOES:

Exempts from property taxes those possessory interests in real property less than or equal to $6,000 (with inflation adjustments). In other words, it exempts things like ranchland leases or park concessions with a lease value of $6,000 or less from property taxes.

 WHY WE VOTE YES:

The measure will help reduce the operating costs incurred by small ranchers and lease holders, and is at least a start on eliminating what would appear to be an unfair instance of property taxation on land not owned by the lessee.

AMENDMENT 60

NO

 Property Taxes Ballot Question |  Text of Measure
WHAT IT DOES:

  • Overrides actions by the state government and Colorado Supreme Court which weakened TABOR. Restores tax laws and limitations changed or weakened without voter approval.
  • Provides a mechanism for citizens to enforce TABOR by lawsuit, and to petition for tax reduction measures in all districts.
  • Requires enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes, and prohibits them from levying mandatory fees or taxes on property.
  • Specifically defines a mill levy freeze as a tax increase.
  • Establishes sunset provisions on all revenue increases.
  • Rescinds tax increases since 1992 which have exceeded approved ballot language/titles.
  • Cuts school district tax rates in half, replacing lost revenue with state aid.
  • Separates tax bills from other property levies, and tax measures from debt measures on November ballots.
 WHY WE VOTE NO:

“No” votes on Amendments 60, 61, and 101 were difficult recommendations to make, given the immediate appeal any tax reduction, debt  limitation, and TABOR-strengthening proposal. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details with these three amendments.

Each contains excellent elements, particularly those parts aimed at overturning the recent Colorado Supreme Court rulings which permitted “fees”, mill levy freezes, and other revenue-increasing end runs around TABOR. Unfortunately, in each of the three amendments, these salutary elements were paired with overreaching and unnecessary provisions which would wreak havoc on the already troublesome budgeting process.

We urge the sponsors of these measures to strip them down to the vital elements, and try again.

AMENDMENT 61

NO

 State and Local Debt Limitations Ballot Question |  Text of Measure
WHAT IT DOES:

  • Restores Constitutional prohibition on state use of debt by loan. Defines quite firmly what constitutes a “loan”
  • Repeals legislative power to limit local government debts, replacing it with mandatory voter approval for use of debt in loans by any unit of government.
  • Requires ballot title to specify the use of funds, and prohibits voter-approved debt from being diverted to other uses.
  • Limits non-enterprises from borrowing in excess of 10% of the assessed value of their tax base.
  • Overturns court rulings weakening TABOR definitions.
  • Prohibits approved debt from continuing past its stated term, and taxes established to pay that debt from being continued after it is paid (ie: prohibits another mill levy tax freeze).
 WHY WE VOTE NO:

See Amendment 60.

AMENDMENT 62

NO

 Definition of Person (aka “Colorado Fetal Personhood” Initiative) Ballot Question |  Text of Measure
WHAT IT DOES:

  • Adds to Article II “Bill of Rights”,  the term “person” as used in the state Constitution to apply to “every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being”.
  • Specifically applicable to Article II’s Sec. 3 “Inalienable Rights”, Sec. 6 “Equality of Justice”, and Sec. 25 “Due Process of Law”.
 WHY WE VOTE NO:

As with the previous incarnation of this amendment in 2008, the amendment seeks to outlaw abortion, by making specific sections of the Colorado Constitution’s Bill of Rights applicable to all humans from the “beginning of the biological development of that human being”.

Vague law is bad law, and the proposed language is so vague that it would include as a rights violation anything that causes the death of a fetus from the moment of conception, including spontaneous abortions and accidental miscarriages.

Furthermore, the plain intent of this measure is to outlaw abortion in all forms and all circumstances in the state of Colorado…without actually saying so. The measure is a sneaky attempt to slip an abortion ban into the state Constitution without once mentioning the word “abortion”. This is dishonest and deceptive, and that alone should dissuade Coloradans from voting for this amendment.

AMENDMENT 63

YES

 Health Care Choice Ballot Question |  Text of Measure
WHAT IT DOES:

  • Prohibits the State of Colorado from requiring any citizen to participate in any private or public health care plan.
  • Bars the state from prohibiting, restricting, or penalizing giving or receiving direct payment for medical services.
  • Excludes emergency services required by law, and health benefits associated with worker’s comp insurance.
  • Specifically states that this provision is an exercise of US Constitution Amendment 10.
 WHY WE VOTE YES:

This amendment blunts to some degree the odious individual mandate included in “Obamacare” by prohibiting the state from passing any enabling legislation to support it. It also prohibits the state from banning fee-for-service healthcare (a development witnessed in other countries when they implemented socialized medicine), while not tampering with legal obligations regarding emergency care. The amendment is a step towards protecting the rights of individual Coloradans, and the separation of powers (state versus federal, in this case) under the U.S. federal system.

PROPOSITION 101

NO

 Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees (Statutory) Ballot Question |  Text of Measure
WHAT IT DOES:

  • Lowers car ownership taxes in 4 increments to $2 for new cars and $1 for used cars; sets combined registration charge at $10; terminates all but a few taxes/fees and clarifies any new charges are (TABOR-applicable) tax increases.
  • Sets the 2011 income tax rate at 4.5%, with 0.1% annual decreases to 3.5% in each year in which income tax net growth exceeds 6%.
  • Terminates as of 1/1/2011 all program-related charges on telecommunications service accounts, and defines any such charges added in the future as (TABOR-applicable) tax increases.
 WHY WE VOTE NO:

See Amendment 60.

PROPOSITION 102

N/A

 Criteria for Setting Bail and Type of Bond (Statutory) Ballot Question |  Text of Measure
WHAT IT DOES:

Makes changes to statutory law (not the Constitution) governing the criteria to be considered by judges when setting bond for criminal defendants.

 WHY WE VOTE “PRESENT”:

The measure appears to push judges towards more significant bond terms in cases of violent crime, limiting in such cases the use of personal recognizance bonds.

It’s not clear that this is an issue of such vital urgency that the voters of Colorado should be asked to override normal legislative procedures to address it directly.
Category: 2010, Colorado, Colorado Amendment 60, Colorado Amendment 61, Colorado Amendment 62, Colorado Amendment 63, Colorado Amendment Q, Colorado Amendment R, Colorado Ballot Issues 2010, Colorado Politics, Colorado Proposition 101, Colorado Proposition 102, Elections, Featured, f_Elections 2010, Health Reform, Healthcare, PPC, TABOR
Tags: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Comments

  1.   Denverite
      October 16th, 2010 @ 8:36 am

    This Kansas City experiment in providing unlimited funding to schools clearly demonstrated that funding levels are not what is important for student achievement or eliminating any achievement gaps. It is for this reason I will be voting yes on amendments that are proported to limit school funding.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

  2.   Lorenzo
      October 18th, 2010 @ 6:30 pm

    Good job. Our voters’ guide (www.pueblopolitics.com) supports several of the amendments you oppose, but we agree many of the proposals are a bit sloppy. Just keep in mind Voltaire’s warning that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

  3.   CTBC Director
      October 18th, 2010 @ 9:06 pm

    Denverite –

    the Kansas experiment in providing unlimited funding to schools not only failed to promote achievement – it caused a fiscal train wreck.

    What many people in Colorado may not know is that much of the spending – and additional taxation to fund the extra spending – was court-ordered.

    Colorado may be facing a similar fate – thanks to a Colorado Supreme Court ruling last year:
    http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/10/20/colorado-supreme-court-usurps-legislature%E2%80%99s-role-and-authority-again-claims-power-to-set-proper-school-funding-amounts/

  4.   Val
      October 18th, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

    Ed Hanks, a primary promoter of Amendment 62, told me last night that all birth control pills might be banned. That seems like an extreme position, and I appreciate your “no” recommendation on that one.

    Don’s forget to Clear the Bench Colorado!

  5.   Tony
      October 19th, 2010 @ 7:15 am

    I was very disheartened to read that you are endorsing Amendment P. This measure, which seems simple on the surface, would cause irreparable harm to the many non-profits that depend on revenue from BINGO and raffle games to support their good works in our community. The measure is being opposed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Elks, Easter Seals, churches and many, many other organizations for good reason.

    I ask you to please, look further into this issue and consider rescinding your endorsement. I have written more about the reasons to oppose the measure here:

    http://www.tonysrants.com/colorado/non-profits-line-up-in-opposition-of-colorado-amendment-p/

    Thank you for your consideration!

  6.   Jim
      October 19th, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

    You bunch of whiny liberals are against 60, 61, 62, and 101! Just what I’d expect from a bunch of nanny state “progressives” and Obama loving lefties. Wait, that is the e-mail I was to send to the Daily Kos. Just goes to show how politics makes strange bedfellows (not that there is anything wrong with that, though Ken Buck probably thinks your genes played just a small and minor role in your decision, and the rest was a lifestyle choice).

  7.   Mike
      October 22nd, 2010 @ 9:08 pm

    I voted roughly the same as your endorsements, except I said yes on 101. I am confused as to why you took pass on 102, it is horrible piece of public policy designed to use the law to enrich a specific industry by forcing customers through their doors, and will eventually require substantial expansions of county jails around the state. In case you can’t tell, I voted no on 102.

  8.   T.L. James
      October 23rd, 2010 @ 12:17 am

    Thanks for the input, Mike. I was hoping someone would chime in on 102.

  9.   Rebel
      October 23rd, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

    I have voted largely in opposition to your recommendations, except for the Amendment 63 and P, Q, R. This election offers us a bright dividing line between those who are on the side of the people and those who are on the side of our corrupt establishment. I think that you should re-name yourselves as the Establishment Press Collective (Farm) just as in the old Soviet Union.

  10.   T.L. James
      October 23rd, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

    Your usual sweet nothings are no substitute for an argument, Rebel.

    Instead of being abusive, how about explaining why you think our positions are wrong? Perhaps you could entice another reader into voting as you have.

  11.   Rebel
      October 23rd, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

    Amendment 60 will reverse, over the next 10 years, the ILLEGAL mill levy freeze which resulted in Colorado residents paying almost twice as high real estate taxes than is allowed under the TABOR. Amendment 61 will RE-INSTATE the ban on the borrowing by the state government, in existence (with some minor exceptions) since 1873, the year when Colorado Constitution was enacted. It will also limit the amount and terms by which credit may be obtained by the local governments. It is important to understand that government debt is nothing more than future tax increases. It will also require that once the government project, for which taxes were increased, is complete, the taxes must be lowered to their original level. Proposition 101 will reduce the state income tax from 4.63% to 3.5% over the period of 10 years or possibly longer (the reduction will be 0.1% annually and only if the state’s revenue growth exeeds 6%). It will reverse the results of ILLEGAL legislation known as “Faster” – which has dramatically increased car taxes by re-naming them fees! It will also eliminate all telecommunication taxes, except those that are used to support 911 services. The telecommunication taxes were introduced in order to expand the telecommunication network (telephone polls and copper wires) into rural areas. In the age of cell phones and privately owned cell towers, these taxes are no longer justified. These are the highlights of these 3 ballot measures (Taxpayer’s triplets). These ballot measures are supported by the Colorado Union of Taxpayers. In addition, they are supported by almost all Colorado Tea Party and 9/12 groups as well as the majority of rank-and-file Republicans.

  12.   T.L. James
      October 24th, 2010 @ 12:20 am

    That’s more like it.

    I agree with those policies. The problem is with all the baggage that comes with them, and the further cluttering up of the constitutional controls regarding spending.

    I’d prefer to see amendments which accomplish the good and necessary elements of these three, restoring and strengthening TABOR protections while cleaning up (or even eliminating) the patchwork of spending mandates created by previous amendments.

  13.   Rebel
      October 24th, 2010 @ 10:23 am

    What baggage???

  14.   George
      October 24th, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

    I, like most Coloradoans, heartily and vigorously disagree with your recommendations on several of the ballot issues. Enough of us will be voting YES on Amendment 101 for it to pass. Amendments 60 and 61 could pass, but the outcome is in doubt at this time. Turnout will play a role in what eventuates. I will vote YES on 101 and 60 but NO on 61 as I see what an utter disaster and debacle our surface infrastructure system is throughout Colorado on a regular basis due to already many years of neglect, mismanagement, and strongly inadequate funding. 60 and 101 need to pass as those are taxes and fees which are absolutely unnecessary, unconstitutional, and contribute mightily to government inefficiency, waste, and pork at all levels across the state. Proposition 102 is one I will vote YES on, but I do not think it will pass despite its vast societal benefits concerning the holding of violent criminals by police and sheriff agencies. I will also be voting NO on Amendment P as it is unnecessary and creates more government inefficiency, over-regulation, and waste.

  15.   Mike
      October 25th, 2010 @ 1:38 pm

    Just an FYI, but the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Colorado Chiefs of Police oppose Prop 102. These organizations are not generally in the business of supporting things they think would endanger public safety.

  16.   Natalie
      October 26th, 2010 @ 12:56 am

    What an complete disappointment to see this voter guide from what I thought was a reasonable website.

    Check out http://www.cotaxreforms.com to get the real scoop and see how moderate these proposals are and how they are phased in over years. If they aren’t passed you can expect another $500 million in illegal tax hikes this next session. State debt tripled over the last decade, mostly without our approval. Limiting FUTURE property tax increases to ten years gives voters the ability to review if it was used properly, for what they said it’d go to, and whether shell games were used.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!