Will Ballot Initiatives Affect Voting in Battleground State Colorado

LR

Ref­er­en­dum L

Can­di­date requirements

Would lower the age of a can­di­date for the Col­orado House and Sen­ate from 25 to 21.

How — The Col­orado con­sti­tu­tion requires that a rep­re­sen­ta­tive or sen­a­tor in the state leg­is­la­ture be at least 25 years old, be a United States cit­i­zen, and reside in the dis­trict from which he or she is elected for at least twelve months prior to being elected. Ref­er­en­dum L low­ers the age require­ment to 21. The exist­ing age require­ment has been in the state con­sti­tu­tion, unchanged, since 1876.

On bal­lot

LR

Ref­er­en­dum M

Obso­lete con­sti­tu­tional provisions

Would elim­i­nate obso­lete pro­vi­sions in the con­sti­tu­tion about land value increases.

How- It will do this by increas­ing the sig­na­ture require­ment for con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments by more than 15,000, drop the sig­na­ture require­ment for plac­ing a new state law on the bal­lot, add a dis­tri­b­u­tion require­ment (requir­ing at least 8% of peti­tion sig­na­tures to be gath­ered in each con­gres­sional dis­trict), and estab­lish an ear­lier dead­line for fil­ing initiatives.

On bal­lot

LR

Ref­er­en­dum N

Obso­lete con­sti­tu­tional provisions

Would elim­i­nate obso­lete pro­vi­sions in the con­sti­tu­tion about intox­i­cat­ing liquor.

How — The man­u­fac­ture, dis­tri­b­u­tion, and sale of alco­hol bev­er­ages are reg­u­lated by both the state and fed­eral gov­ern­ment. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment reg­u­lates the man­u­fac­ture and import of alco­hol to ensure the con­tent is safe and the label­ing is accu­rate. Col­orado law reg­u­lates such things as stan­dards of health, clean­li­ness, purity, qual­ity, stor­age, and trans­porta­tion of alco­hol that is man­u­fac­tured, dis­trib­uted, and sold in the state. Ref­er­en­dum N repeals two sec­tions of the state con­sti­tu­tion relat­ing to alco­hol beverages.

On bal­lot

LR

Ref­er­en­dum O

Ini­tia­tive Process

Would make it harder for cit­i­zens to place con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments on the bal­lot for voter approval, but eas­ier to call a vote on state statutes.

How- It will do this by increas­ing the sig­na­ture require­ment for con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments by more than 15,000, drop the sig­na­ture require­ment for plac­ing a new state law on the bal­lot, add a dis­tri­b­u­tion require­ment (requir­ing at least 8% of peti­tion sig­na­tures to be gath­ered in each con­gres­sional dis­trict), and estab­lish an ear­lier dead­line for fil­ing initiatives.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 46:

Col­orado Civil Rights Ini­tia­tive (2008)

Affir­ma­tive action

Pro­hibit state from dis­crim­i­nat­ing against or grant­ing pref­er­en­tial treat­ment to any indi­vid­ual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, eth­nic­ity, or national ori­gin in the oper­a­tion of pub­lic employ­ment, pub­lic edu­ca­tion, or pub­lic contracting.

How — The idea of giv­ing pref­er­ence to an indi­vid­ual based on race or gen­der is out­dated for today’s soci­ety. Race, color, eth­nic­ity, and national ori­gin are becom­ing more dif­fi­cult to define as more Amer­i­cans iden­tify them­selves as multi-​racial.

On bal­lot, lit­i­ga­tion pending

CICA

Amend­ment 47:

Right to Work initiative

Busi­ness Regulations

Pro­hibit unions and employ­ers from nego­ti­at­ing “union shop” con­tracts under which employ­ees would be required to pay union mem­ber­ship or “agency” fees as a con­di­tion of con­tin­ued employment.

How — This will enable com­pa­nies to increase prof­its by reduc­ing com­pen­sa­tion for their employ­ees. In the present dif­fi­cult eco­nomic times, com­pa­nies need this assis­tance to improve their bot­tom line.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 48:

Def­i­n­i­tion of Personhood

Abor­tion

Change the def­i­n­i­tion of per­son in the Col­orado Con­sti­tu­tion to include any fer­til­ized egg, embryo or fetus.

How — An amend­ment to the Col­orado con­sti­tu­tion to define the term “per­son” to “include any human being from the moment of fer­til­iza­tion”; and apply this def­i­n­i­tion of per­son to the sec­tions of the Col­orado Con­sti­tu­tion that pro­tect the nat­ural and essen­tial rights of per­sons, allow open access to courts for every per­son, and ensure that no per­son has his or her life, lib­erty, or prop­erty taken away with­out due process of law. But what this is in fact is an amend­ment that would out­law not just abor­tion at any point, but even any birth con­trol that occurs after the egg is fer­til­ized such as the morn­ing after pill.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 49:

Lim­i­ta­tion on Pub­lic Pay­roll Deduc­tions Initiative

Ask First

Bar auto­matic union dues deduc­tions from pub­lic employee payrolls.

How — Amend­ment 49 dis­crim­i­nates and inter­feres with the author­ity of local gov­ern­ments to decide which pay­check deduc­tions are avail­able to their employ­ees. These deci­sions are best made by indi­vid­ual local gov­ern­ments based on the needs of each com­mu­nity, not by a statewide vote. Pay­roll deduc­tions are a ben­e­fit that pub­lic employ­ers can offer to employ­ees; elim­i­nat­ing this ben­e­fit does not save any tax­payer money.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 50:

Lim­ited Gam­ing Initiative

Gam­bling

Would allow the gen­eral assem­bly or vot­ers in the cities that per­mit lim­ited gam­ing to extend the hours of lim­ited gam­ing oper­a­tions; to add roulette, craps, or both to the allowed games; and to increase the max­i­mum bet up to $100, with extra tax rev­enue gen­er­ated to be dis­trib­uted 22% to the cities where lim­ited gam­ing exists and 78% for stu­dent finan­cial aid for higher education.

How - Amend­ment 50 makes Col­orado more com­pet­i­tive with other gam­ing states. Col­orado has the most restricted gam­ing in the coun­try. The tourism indus­tries in other gam­ing states ben­e­fit from less restricted gam­ing, and chang­ing Colorado’s gam­ing lim­its could result in more tourist spend­ing in the state. Colorado’s gam­ing lim­its have been in place for sev­en­teen years, and the bet limit of $5 in 1991 equals about $3 today.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 51:

Sales Tax for Devel­op­men­tally Dis­abled Initiative

Ser­vices for Devel­op­men­tally Dis­abled, Sales Tax

Would increase the sales tax, in July 2009 and again in July 2010, to fund ser­vices for the devel­op­men­tally disabled.

How — Deci­sions about how to spend state tax dol­lars are best made through an open and delib­er­a­tive process that con­sid­ers the needs and pri­or­i­ties of the entire state. Amend­ment 51 per­ma­nently raises taxes with­out any dis­cus­sion about whether the mea­sure raises an appro­pri­ate amount of money, how the new money can be spent most effec­tively, or how the needs of peo­ple with devel­op­men­tal dis­abil­i­ties com­pare with other needs in the state.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 52:

Sev­er­ance Tax & Trans­porta­tion Initiative

Sev­er­ance Tax, Transportation

Would cre­ate the Col­orado Trans­porta­tion Trust Fund, to be funded by that por­tion of the sev­er­ance tax that exceeds the amount deposited to the state sev­er­ance tax fund in the pre­vi­ous year, adjusted for infla­tion via the Con­sumer Price Index.

How — Amend­ment 52 could politi­cize fund­ing for trans­porta­tion projects. To pre­vent polit­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions from influ­enc­ing the allo­ca­tion of
trans­porta­tion money, an inde­pen­dent com­mis­sion devel­ops a statewide
trans­porta­tion plan that iden­ti­fies, pri­or­i­tizes, and selects trans­porta­tion projects for fund­ing. Giv­ing bud­get­ing author­ity for some of the money to the state leg­is­la­ture could result in the leg­is­la­ture select­ing trans­porta­tion projects based on polit­i­cal considerations.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 54:

Clean Gov­ern­ment Initiative

Gov­ern­ment Con­tract­ing Reform

Would close a remain­ing loop­hole in Col­orado elec­tion law by ban­ning the prac­tice of “Pay to Play”.

How — By pro­hibit­ing cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions, Amend­ment 54 ensures that busi­ness inter­ests, labor, and other cov­ered gov­ern­ment con­trac­tors do not influ­ence pol­icy deci­sions through cam­paign contributions.

On bal­lot

CI

Amend­ment 58:

Sev­er­ance Tax Initiative

Taxes

Would elim­i­nate a tax credit for prop­erty taxes paid for pay­ers of the sev­er­ance tax, using the rev­enue pri­mar­ily to fund col­lege scholarships.

How — This ini­tia­tive will elim­i­nate a sev­er­ance tax credit that was granted to the Oil & Gas Indus­try back when gas prices were very low. The increased rev­enue will mostly be directed to col­lege schol­ar­ships for Col­orado res­i­dents attend­ing state col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties — as well as the preser­va­tion of native wildlife habi­tat, enhance­ments in renew­able energy and energy effi­ciency, trans­porta­tion projects in coun­ties and munic­i­pal­i­ties impacted by the sev­er­ance of oil and gas, and com­mu­nity drink­ing water and waste­water treat­ment grants.

On bal­lot

CICA

Amend­ment 59:

Sav­ings Account for Edu­ca­tion Initiative

Edu­ca­tion Funding

Would cre­ate a state edu­ca­tion fund sav­ings account within the state edu­ca­tion fund, to be funded from 10% of the monies deposited into the state edu­ca­tion fund, includ­ing rev­enue that would oth­er­wise be rebated under the TABOR rules, which the mea­sure calls for divert­ing to the state edu­ca­tion fund; would also require that state edu­ca­tional spend­ing increase by rate of infla­tion plus 1% through fis­cal year 2010–2011; and restricts spend­ing of the state edu­ca­tion fund to spe­cific edu­ca­tion expenses.

How — With­out this bill, in a cou­ple of years when Ref­er­en­dum C ends, we will again be back in a sys­tem where state rev­enue, adjusted for infla­tion, will drop over time. Reduced income means reduced state spend­ing. And when that last hap­pened it had a cat­a­strophic impact on the state. We can­not lead in the 21^st Cen­tury when we are spend­ing at 19^th Cen­tury levels.

Why - This is a very com­plex bill, for two rea­sons. First the restric­tions of TABOR require sig­nif­i­cant com­plex­ity in address­ing it’s ratchet-​down effect. Sec­ond, it focuses this fund­ing on core edu­ca­tional expenses so that the money is effec­tively spent.

On bal­lot