![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mishalakI imagine you might be confused. And no wonder with 18 different ballot items to vote on. The first thing I'm going to urge is that you vote no on everything if you don't understand it. That's right, vote down the whole lot of them. Why? Most of them are constitutional amendments. And they're as hard to get rid of as they are to get into the constitution. And special interests will keep trying to stick things in there as long as voters show they're willing stick them in there.
But there are things I'm going to vote for, that I understand and I think are good ideas.
I'm going to vote no on all the numbered amendments except the last two. To be clear that is voting no on 46-57. Then I'm going to vote yes on 58 and 59. And in the next section I'm voting yes on L, M, N, and O.
Now I'll explain why.
In Colorado there are two kinds of ballot issues, Referendums and Amendments, and they each come in two different flavors.
The Referendums are the items identified by letters, this year L, M, N, and O, and they are voted on by the state legislature and placed on the ballot. Many of them are amendments to the state constitution, but sometimes there are also money issues that require a vote of the people. Any increase in state debt or a tax increase must go on the ballot this way, but none were referred to the people by the legislature using this method this year. So all four are constitutional amendments that had to pass both chambers of the statehouse by a margin of 2/3. Stop and think about that. Twice as many elected officials had to be for one of these things as against it to even see it on the ballot. They're generally pretty well thought out and do well at the polls. More on their specifics later.
The second type are what are popularly known as ballot initiatives. They are all officially called amendments, but they are not all amendments to the state constitution. Some are amendments to the Colorado Revised Statutes, that's the official name for the laws of the state. This year we have both variety.
Amendments 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 59 are all to the state constitution. Of these only 48, 50, and 59 are things that should be properly by made to the constitution rather than just being a state law. But it costs no more and is not any harder to amend the state constitution so the jokers sponsoring the other eight decided to shoot the moon and make sure the state government couldn't ever mess about with their pet project without another amendment to the constitution.
Amendments 51, 57, and 58 are actually alterations to existing state law. If there is anything wrong or they become obsolete they can be fixed by the usual rules governing the enactment of state law. So why are they on the ballot rather than going through the legislature? Well two of them raise revenue and so no matter what they would have to go before the people. And rather than having anyone vote against them as a "tax hiker" many legislators prefer to let an outside group do the heavy lifting of getting things like this passed. The other one, 57, is part of the retaliatory package put together by the unions to strike back at the crazy businessmen who want to do some union busting using the state constitution. It probably would never have passed the state legislature, but if the people actually pass it then the legislators will probably leave it alone. I just wish the unions had been more sensible about the rest of their initiatives.
So right there is makes it simpler. Only 48, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, and L-O should be given any consideration at all. The rest should all be voted down as junk that does not belong in the state constitution no matter how good an idea it might be. Part of the way we'll see fewer things like this is if more of them fail, so I'm voting down a few things I think are okay ideas because they're bad things to have in the state constitution.
Amendment 48 - Definition of Person
I don't know that this would have worked as a state law. So this is one of the rare things that actually needed to be a proposed constitutional amendment. But I am against it because this one is to forbid abortion under a different name. How? By defining a person as a fertilized egg and so, theoretically, after tons of lawsuits they hope to get all abortion and many methods of contraception forbidden. Bad, bad, bad idea. Regardless of what someone thinks about abortion this goes way too far. If it actually worked it would even prevent abortions required to save the life of the mother.
Amendment 50 - Limited Gaming
Another misnomer on this constitutional amendment. It should really be called, "Increased & Higher Stakes Gambling". The idea is to raise money by increasing the bet limit, extending the hours, and types of bets that can be accepted. So far gambling has pretty bad for the Colorado towns that have it. Big stream of money that displaced many of the old residents and jobs and replaced them with lots of low paying casino jobs and the money flowing to out of state owners. Now instead of making the gambling addicts go home at the same time the bars close they want to go 24 hour and go as Vegas as they can. I'm not against gambling per say, but the way it has worked out has been bad. So, no on this.
Amendment 51 - State Sales Tax for Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities
This is actually an amendment to the Colorado statues, not the state constitution. That makes me a bit more favorably inclined towards it, but I am against increasing the state sales tax generally. I don't like sales taxes I prefer if I'm going to give more to government that it come from income tax. So no. I might have voted for it has it been a slight income tax increase with a note that it would be used for developmental disabilities rather than an absolute mandate that it must be used for that and only that.
Amendment 57 - Safe Workplace
Of all the things I'm voting "No" on this comes the closest to a "Yes" vote. It is an amendment to state law. It does something I think is necessary, that is giving injured workers a bit more leverage when employers are negligent. But I suspect this is not carefully written and will result in unanticipated problems. I think it should be dealt with by the legislature rather than the blunt instrument of a general law and the courts. But I can understand the contrary view in this case and since it is a state law if it needs amending the legislature can deal with it. So though I'm voting no give this one a "maybe".
If you need additional reasons on the constitutional amendments here are a few. They're all special interest items. It is a hodgepodge of anti-union, pro-union, and anti-business measures with a money grab by some west slope politicians to get more money for I-70 and their roads and less for water to boot. They'd be bad legislation (one or two with a good idea at heart) even if they were not going into the state constitution, that fact just makes them worse.
I'm going to single out Amendment 52, the "Severance Tax - Transportation", as the worst of the bunch. This is two politicians' bright idea to steal money from the rest of the state to pay expanding I-70 and other road projects. If that were not enough it is a constitutional amendment so its effects will last forever. It should be entitled the, "Dry Land Highways Amendment" since the big loser in this are the state programs to repair water infrastructure and clean up the mess left by the mining and drilling that's being taxed. Brilliant idea. As an added bonus it diverts money away from programs for heating assistance too. If they'd included a bit about kicking puppies too they could have had a real contender for all time worst constitutional amendment.
So that's why I'm voting against the first 12 of these items.
Now onto the actual good ideas.
Amendment 58 - Severance Tax
An amendment to Colorado statues that takes away a take break given to the Oil and Gas Industry about thirty years ago. Yes. We need more revenue and taking away a take break from years ago and doing it by statue rather than constitutional amendment is the right way to go. Colorado will still have among the lowest severance taxes on the oil and gas industry even after this passes.
Amendment 59 - Education Funding
This is a constitutional amendment. But this one is about TABOR and Amendment 23. For those who don't know that was a complex arrangement of rules that require any changes in taxes except decreases to be voted on and also limits spending in such a way taxes get ratcheted down every year. This ends most of the ratchet effect on state government by putting money that would otherwise be refunded into a fund to fulfill the education spending requirements under Amendment 23. It isn't a perfect fix, but it does make some headway in making sure that the education budget doesn't squeeze out everything else in state spending.
Referendum L - Age Qualification for Serving in General Assembly
Reduce age requirement to serve in the legislature from 25 to 21. I see no problem with this as if someone isn't qualified the voters can decide. Plus it will make it slightly more likely that we'll have a nice crop of qualified candidates for higher office who will be crazy enough to go for it. Heck, in 20 years it might mean that we have a viable candidate for president from Colorado.
Referendum M - Elimination of Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Regarding Land Value Increase
Referendum N - Elimination of Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Regarding Intoxicating Liquors
Two ideas that seem reasonably sensible. They are not used and 2/3 of legislators don't think we'll need to use them either.
Referendum O - Initiative Petition Requirements
Increase the number of signatures required to get something on the ballot as a constitutional amendment *and* requiring that the signatures be at least somewhat gathered in every congressional district rather than just in Denver or Colorado Springs. Not as much as I would like, but it is a good start to making our constitution a little harder for special interests to directly amend. It doesn't close the barn door, but it does ease it closed a bit.
But there are things I'm going to vote for, that I understand and I think are good ideas.
I'm going to vote no on all the numbered amendments except the last two. To be clear that is voting no on 46-57. Then I'm going to vote yes on 58 and 59. And in the next section I'm voting yes on L, M, N, and O.
Now I'll explain why.
In Colorado there are two kinds of ballot issues, Referendums and Amendments, and they each come in two different flavors.
The Referendums are the items identified by letters, this year L, M, N, and O, and they are voted on by the state legislature and placed on the ballot. Many of them are amendments to the state constitution, but sometimes there are also money issues that require a vote of the people. Any increase in state debt or a tax increase must go on the ballot this way, but none were referred to the people by the legislature using this method this year. So all four are constitutional amendments that had to pass both chambers of the statehouse by a margin of 2/3. Stop and think about that. Twice as many elected officials had to be for one of these things as against it to even see it on the ballot. They're generally pretty well thought out and do well at the polls. More on their specifics later.
The second type are what are popularly known as ballot initiatives. They are all officially called amendments, but they are not all amendments to the state constitution. Some are amendments to the Colorado Revised Statutes, that's the official name for the laws of the state. This year we have both variety.
Amendments 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 59 are all to the state constitution. Of these only 48, 50, and 59 are things that should be properly by made to the constitution rather than just being a state law. But it costs no more and is not any harder to amend the state constitution so the jokers sponsoring the other eight decided to shoot the moon and make sure the state government couldn't ever mess about with their pet project without another amendment to the constitution.
Amendments 51, 57, and 58 are actually alterations to existing state law. If there is anything wrong or they become obsolete they can be fixed by the usual rules governing the enactment of state law. So why are they on the ballot rather than going through the legislature? Well two of them raise revenue and so no matter what they would have to go before the people. And rather than having anyone vote against them as a "tax hiker" many legislators prefer to let an outside group do the heavy lifting of getting things like this passed. The other one, 57, is part of the retaliatory package put together by the unions to strike back at the crazy businessmen who want to do some union busting using the state constitution. It probably would never have passed the state legislature, but if the people actually pass it then the legislators will probably leave it alone. I just wish the unions had been more sensible about the rest of their initiatives.
So right there is makes it simpler. Only 48, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, and L-O should be given any consideration at all. The rest should all be voted down as junk that does not belong in the state constitution no matter how good an idea it might be. Part of the way we'll see fewer things like this is if more of them fail, so I'm voting down a few things I think are okay ideas because they're bad things to have in the state constitution.
Amendment 48 - Definition of Person
I don't know that this would have worked as a state law. So this is one of the rare things that actually needed to be a proposed constitutional amendment. But I am against it because this one is to forbid abortion under a different name. How? By defining a person as a fertilized egg and so, theoretically, after tons of lawsuits they hope to get all abortion and many methods of contraception forbidden. Bad, bad, bad idea. Regardless of what someone thinks about abortion this goes way too far. If it actually worked it would even prevent abortions required to save the life of the mother.
Amendment 50 - Limited Gaming
Another misnomer on this constitutional amendment. It should really be called, "Increased & Higher Stakes Gambling". The idea is to raise money by increasing the bet limit, extending the hours, and types of bets that can be accepted. So far gambling has pretty bad for the Colorado towns that have it. Big stream of money that displaced many of the old residents and jobs and replaced them with lots of low paying casino jobs and the money flowing to out of state owners. Now instead of making the gambling addicts go home at the same time the bars close they want to go 24 hour and go as Vegas as they can. I'm not against gambling per say, but the way it has worked out has been bad. So, no on this.
Amendment 51 - State Sales Tax for Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities
This is actually an amendment to the Colorado statues, not the state constitution. That makes me a bit more favorably inclined towards it, but I am against increasing the state sales tax generally. I don't like sales taxes I prefer if I'm going to give more to government that it come from income tax. So no. I might have voted for it has it been a slight income tax increase with a note that it would be used for developmental disabilities rather than an absolute mandate that it must be used for that and only that.
Amendment 57 - Safe Workplace
Of all the things I'm voting "No" on this comes the closest to a "Yes" vote. It is an amendment to state law. It does something I think is necessary, that is giving injured workers a bit more leverage when employers are negligent. But I suspect this is not carefully written and will result in unanticipated problems. I think it should be dealt with by the legislature rather than the blunt instrument of a general law and the courts. But I can understand the contrary view in this case and since it is a state law if it needs amending the legislature can deal with it. So though I'm voting no give this one a "maybe".
If you need additional reasons on the constitutional amendments here are a few. They're all special interest items. It is a hodgepodge of anti-union, pro-union, and anti-business measures with a money grab by some west slope politicians to get more money for I-70 and their roads and less for water to boot. They'd be bad legislation (one or two with a good idea at heart) even if they were not going into the state constitution, that fact just makes them worse.
I'm going to single out Amendment 52, the "Severance Tax - Transportation", as the worst of the bunch. This is two politicians' bright idea to steal money from the rest of the state to pay expanding I-70 and other road projects. If that were not enough it is a constitutional amendment so its effects will last forever. It should be entitled the, "Dry Land Highways Amendment" since the big loser in this are the state programs to repair water infrastructure and clean up the mess left by the mining and drilling that's being taxed. Brilliant idea. As an added bonus it diverts money away from programs for heating assistance too. If they'd included a bit about kicking puppies too they could have had a real contender for all time worst constitutional amendment.
So that's why I'm voting against the first 12 of these items.
Now onto the actual good ideas.
Amendment 58 - Severance Tax
An amendment to Colorado statues that takes away a take break given to the Oil and Gas Industry about thirty years ago. Yes. We need more revenue and taking away a take break from years ago and doing it by statue rather than constitutional amendment is the right way to go. Colorado will still have among the lowest severance taxes on the oil and gas industry even after this passes.
Amendment 59 - Education Funding
This is a constitutional amendment. But this one is about TABOR and Amendment 23. For those who don't know that was a complex arrangement of rules that require any changes in taxes except decreases to be voted on and also limits spending in such a way taxes get ratcheted down every year. This ends most of the ratchet effect on state government by putting money that would otherwise be refunded into a fund to fulfill the education spending requirements under Amendment 23. It isn't a perfect fix, but it does make some headway in making sure that the education budget doesn't squeeze out everything else in state spending.
Referendum L - Age Qualification for Serving in General Assembly
Reduce age requirement to serve in the legislature from 25 to 21. I see no problem with this as if someone isn't qualified the voters can decide. Plus it will make it slightly more likely that we'll have a nice crop of qualified candidates for higher office who will be crazy enough to go for it. Heck, in 20 years it might mean that we have a viable candidate for president from Colorado.
Referendum M - Elimination of Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Regarding Land Value Increase
Referendum N - Elimination of Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Regarding Intoxicating Liquors
Two ideas that seem reasonably sensible. They are not used and 2/3 of legislators don't think we'll need to use them either.
Referendum O - Initiative Petition Requirements
Increase the number of signatures required to get something on the ballot as a constitutional amendment *and* requiring that the signatures be at least somewhat gathered in every congressional district rather than just in Denver or Colorado Springs. Not as much as I would like, but it is a good start to making our constitution a little harder for special interests to directly amend. It doesn't close the barn door, but it does ease it closed a bit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-11 08:21 am (UTC)Laudable and needed as services for the developmentally disabled are, levying sales tax to fund them seems just plain bizarre to me. Next up, a sales tax to provide cancer treatments, a sales tax for services for the blind, for the elderly, etc. etc. etc. Yes, income and other taxes are the way to go, not earmarks from sales tax proceeds.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-11 05:31 pm (UTC)http://ballotpedia.org/
Good explanation of the ballot issues and the arguments for and against.
I don't agree with all of your list (e.g., I'm voting for every one of the union-sponsored initiatives including 57, and for 50, but probably against O) but your arguments are sound. If every voter -- hell, if one-tenth the voters -- put this much thought into every vote they cast, we'd be living in a much better country.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-19 09:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-23 04:47 am (UTC)