UPDATED Voters Guide to 2008 Colorado Amendments

No one has tried to put out a comprehensive set of comments and recommendations regarding amendments and referenda on the 2008 Colorado ballot.  Half of all Colorado voters will vote by mail in less than 30 days.  We think it is time to fix that information gap. 

Since we published this the first time, the No campaign on Amendments 47, 49, and 54 has kicked in.  Protect Colorado's Future can't seem to come up with any real reasons to attack 49 and 54, and probably wouldn't even bother but for the right to work initiative.  Edited (9/22) to add:  The opponents at Protect Colorado's Future are reported to have refused to debate the issues on KBDI.

Peter Blake of the Rocky Mountain News published a public plea to the Colorado Supreme Court to rule on the illegal property tax hike.  He says that if every tax increase amendment passes and the property tax is found to be constitutional, the state will rake in BILLIONS.

We borrowed this list from the Rocky Mountain News and added our comments.  The Rocky's comments are in brown.  Some of them are quite flaky.

*COLORADO AMENDMENT 46

Colorado Civil Rights Initiative

Would prohibit the state from granting preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity in hiring, education and contracts.  A similar initiative has been passed in several states and the world hasn't ended.  For centuries, society discriminated against minorities.  In the late 1960's a series of laws were passed which reversed this discrimination, but which created favorites based solely on the color of one's skin.  This initiative says that both kinds of discrimination are illegal.  If we are to live in a colorblind society, It needs to be...colorblind.  Yes.  Updated (10/2)  Rocky endorses.

*COLORADO AMENDMENT 47

Right to work

Would outlaw agreements requiring workers covered by union contracts to pay fees for representation.  This wouldn't be necessary if Bill Ritter hadn't issued his executive order unionizing the state government.  Bill Ritter and his union allies cannot be trusted to leave the labor peace act in place.  This needs to be in the constitution.  Yes. 

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 48

Definition of person

Would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization.  The unintended consequences of this initiative are almost certainly worse than leaving Roe alone.  All of society's laws and customs would have to be reworked to accommodate this initiative.  For example, could a woman who has a natural miscarriage on the day after fertilization (a not infrequent event) be prosecuted for child abuse resulting in death simply because the egg did not attach to the uterus?  This "definition" says that she could be. 

I watched the KBDI Debate on this issue.  Whenever the proponent, Kristi Burton, was asked a specific question about the personhood amendment impacts, her cute answer was "this is a very simple amendment." She proceeded thus to dodge every question about its impact.   I consider those tactics the very definition of sleazy politics, something I would not expect from a Republican.  She proceeded as though she had complete contempt for the intelligence of anyone who watched.  I don't like to be treated like a complete idiot deserving only contempt, and when a politician (make no mistake, she is a politician) treats me with contempt, I will say so.  I'm saying so.  NO! NO! NO!  

Edited (9/22) to add:  The Rocky Mountain News opined:

But we oppose Amendment 48. It not only attempts to go too far, it leaves voters guessing as to how far it would get. It is Election Day's version of a turn at the roulette wheel.

Edited to add: (9/25) The Denver Post has guest editorials for and against this.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 49

Public payroll standards

Would ban governments from taking deductions directly from employee paychecks for any nongovernmental special interest group.  As far as we can tell, this is a non controversial good government initiative with little or no opposition.  Yes.  Edited to add:  A very strange mailing has hit the streets since we wrote this.  It features Deputy Sherriff Jeff Shaw, a man who guards our safety between donuts.  I haven't a clue how Amendment 49 might impact his safety and the mailing leaves me, and others ignorant.  It's hard to fight good government initiatives without facts.  Whomever put this out has no facts or they would be using them.  (You may think the donut comment heartless, but I will be publishing my experiences with a Colorado Springs cop after the election.  The stuff is written and copies are in public official's hands. One of the file names is "Have another donut, officer."  Perhaps that is the threat that Jeff Shaw sees, a public that actually wants him to do his job.)  Edited (9/25) The Gazette endorses this and rebukes Bill Ritter. Edited (9-29) The Denver Post Endorses with the comment:

Amendment 49 has been lumped together with two other ballot measures being targeted by unions, and lots of money is being spent to convince voters its something it's not.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 50

Gaming

Would allow casino towns to vote on whether to increase bet limits to $100 from $5, expand hours of operation and add games.  This initiative does one thing that we like and one thing that we detest.  First, it returns local control to the citizens most impacted by gambling, those who live in the three cities.  Second, it assigns any additional taxes that result from this measure to fund something that voters would not eventually have to fund anyway.  We consider that feature a fatal flaw.  If the casinos want to bring this forward again without a restriction on where the funds are to go, then it would deserve consideration.  In this form, it does not.  No.  Edited to add:  (9/25)   Denver Post Opposes.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 51

Sales tax for disabled services

Would increase the state sales tax (by 2 cents on every $10) to fund services for those with developmental disabilities.  Just another special interest tax increase.  No.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 52

Severance tax - transportation

Would allocate more severance tax money to transportation.  This initiative focuses on fixing I-70 through the mountains.  If you must vote for higher taxes on resources, which you will pay in the end, then this initiative is preferable to amendment 58.  As taxpayers, we will eventually have to pay for the things this tax increase initiative proposes to use its proceeds for and you will love it if you are a skier from Denver, less so if you are an old guy from Colorado Springs.  Even so, if amendment 58 were not on the ballot, this would be a NO brainer (pun intended).  A very reluctant Yes.  Very reluctant.  Hold your nose.  Updated (10/1) Denver Post opposes because it stops their bait and switch tactic.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 53

Corporate fraud

Would impose tougher sanctions for fraud committed by businesses, executives.  This is a poison pill to try to get rid of amendment 47.  I guess that the good news is that it was put on the ballot as a law and not a constitutional amendment.  The bad news is that employees might find that their employer is going to jail over some minor transgression.  We hear that employers who are in jail can't run their businesses and are unreliable paymasters.  Don't worry, though.  If amendment 55 passes, the employer can't fire you because his business is going under as that wouldn't be "just cause."  Those of you who know the history, or who will learn the history of this blog might think this author would support this initiative.  You would be wrong.  A BIG NO!  The funny thing is that if this is passed, it will be equally easy to pass a similar law or amendment making other kinds of unsavory activity by union officers, politicians, and lawyers criminal.  You can bet that will happen.  We won't be able to build jails fast enough.   Amendment 53 removed from the ballot by proponent in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 54

Campaign finance curbs

Would bar sole-source government contractors and unions with exclusive bargaining powers from making contributions to political candidates.  The Rocky Mountain News was deceptive in describing this.  One of the uglier practices in government is for the winners of elections to pay off their supporters with public money through no bid contracts and other gimmicks.  No bid contracts almost always carry a higher price to taxpayers than contracts awarded through competitive bidding.  This doesn't bar contractors and unions from making contributions as the Rocky states.  Rather, it just says that they can't be awarded sole source contracts after they make those contributions.  There is almost no opposition to this good government initiative.  Yes.  Edited to add:  See our comments on Amendment 49, above.  It is very hard to see how this initiative impacts law enforcement personnel in any way.  The flyer leaves this author clueless.  Edited to add (10/1) Rocky dislikes this intensely, as does the Denver Post.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 55

Just cause

Would require an employer to provide a reason for firing a worker.  Again, the Rocky hasn't a clue.  This amendment does much more than just requiring a reason.  It mandates acceptable reasons.  We wrote about this amendment:

The initiative does much more than "having companies simply explain their reasons for firing employees."  It lists acceptable reasons, and a business downturn isn't one of them.  If an employer discharges an employee because he has no work for him, the employee can get his job back with back pay and attorneys fees.  That thuggish provision has the potential to put every small business in Colorado out of business and will send bigger companies to other states.

If I were running a business in Colorado with this in the constitution, every employee would be part time and would be told they might be scheduled to work for as little as an hour a month.  This initiative is a disaster as it will convert every employee in Colorado into a part time employee and Colorado into France.  NO! NO! NO!  Edited to add: (9/25) Another Rocky Editorial in opposition.

Amendment 55 Removed from the ballot by Proponent in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business. 

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 56

Health coverage for employees

Would require employers with 20 or more workers to provide health care coverage for workers.  Edited to add:  There is very little information out about this.  It is another poison pill attack on amendment 47, and given how bad the other poison pills (54, 55, and 57 are), this suffers from guilt by association.  In 1993, when Hillary was pushing her health care plan, she wanted businesses with five or more employees to provide coverage.  She stood on the capitol steps and proclaimed that if businesses couldn't do that, they shouldn't be in business.  I owned a marginal business at that time with 7 employees, and she was right, her plan would have put me out of business and my employees on unemployment.   How many businesses with 20 or more workers will this law close down leaving their workers both without health care and without a job?   NO!  Edited 9/22 to add:  The Rocky published a guest editorial opposing this amendment.

Amendment 56 Removed From Ballot By Proponent in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 57

Safe workplaces

Would allow an employee to sue for damages in addition to any settlements from the workers compensation system.  This should be called the trial lawyer's full employment act.  Very little has been written about this initiative and very little information is available on the Internet.  Since it was put on the ballot by the same folks who are pushing 53 and 55, it is intended to destroy Colorado business.  Imagine being an employer who is running a retail business that is held up.  The robber shoots an employee who is already eligible for Workman's compensation.  If this passes, he can sue his employer for something that the employer could not control and would likely win.  Just the threat of a lawsuit might put the employer out of business. NO.

Amendment 57 Removed from ballot in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 58

Severance tax

Would reduce energy company tax breaks and use revenue to pay for college scholarships and other programs.  This is an example of the worst kind of public policy making imaginable.  Bill Ritter is a lover of tax increases and couldn't allow the 2008 season to pass without one.  He couldn't get anything through the legislature in an election year, so he had to do it via the initiative process.  He went looking for a sugar daddy to pay for the political campaign for his tax as new taxes have to be approved by the voters.  He made a deal with the environmentalists that if they paid for the campaign, their pet projects would get 25% of the revenues forever.  Even worse, the 60% of the leftover revenue generated by this tax doesn't fix any problem that voters have routinely said they want fixed.  If this is passed, the voters will be paying a new energy tax AND they will eventually be asked to pay more taxes for higher education, transportation, etc.  NO!!!!! Updated (9/26)  Rocky opposes using the same argument we used. Updated (10/5) Denver Post opposes, again for the same reason.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 59

K-12 schools funding

Would lift constitutional limits on state spending and direct additional revenue into an education fund.  Amendment 23 was put on the ballot with spending increases as a poison pill attempt to break TABOR.  It resulted in a "temporary time out" from TABOR in the form of Ref C.  Ref C was passed with promises that money from it would go to specific places, like higher education.  The Ref C money did go to higher education, but the legislature removed pre-existing funds going to higher education and spent them elsewhere, meaning that the taxpayers were victims of a multi-billion dollar shell game.  This amendment is authored by some of the same people who authored Ref C and is designed to get the voters to pay for more school funding but doesn't protect existing funding from being raided.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  No!  Edited to add:  The Rocky Mountain News acknowledges that it is a shell game.  (9/25)  Mark Hillman exposes the big money behind this.

Referendums

* COLORADO REFERENDUM L:

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

* COLORADO REFERENDUM M

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

* COLORADO REFERENDUM N:

Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor.

* COLORADO REFERENDUM O:

Would increase the number of signatures required on petitions for constitutional amendments to at least 6 percent of votes cast in the previous election for governor.  It does much more than this.  It is designed to take the grass roots out of the initiative process by adding to the number of signatures required and by requiring that they be collected throughout the state.  This effectively allows the voters in one congressional district to veto the good ideas of the voters in the other six.  For those who don't know their history, one major reason that the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation was a provision in the Articles that prohibited amendment unless all states agreed to it.  The legislature knows this and is intent on making the process very cumbersome and very expensive, meaning that only the very wealthy would have access to the ballot.  Absolutely Not.  NO, NO, a thousand times NO.  Edited to add: (9/25)  The Denver Post issued a vacuous two sentence endorsement with no discussion.  If they had a legitimate argument for it, they wouldn't try to slip it past the voters in this way.

Note: It seems to be legal for someone to put something on the ballot and then demand money from those impacted to have it removed.  Our comment about it being extortion is not intended to be a claim that someone committed a crime, but it should be a crime.

No one has tried to put out a comprehensive set of comments and recommendations regarding amendments and referenda on the 2008 Colorado ballot.  Half of all Colorado voters will vote by mail in less than 30 days.  We think it is time to fix that information gap. 

Since we published this the first time, the No campaign on Amendments 47, 49, and 54 has kicked in.  Protect Colorado's Future can't seem to come up with any real reasons to attack 49 and 54, and probably wouldn't even bother but for the right to work initiative.  Edited (9/22) to add:  The opponents at Protect Colorado's Future are reported to have refused to debate the issues on KBDI.

Peter Blake of the Rocky Mountain News published a public plea to the Colorado Supreme Court to rule on the illegal property tax hike.  He says that if every tax increase amendment passes and the property tax is found to be constitutional, the state will rake in BILLIONS.

We borrowed this list from the Rocky Mountain News and added our comments.  The Rocky's comments are in brown.  Some of them are quite flaky.

*COLORADO AMENDMENT 46

Colorado Civil Rights Initiative

Would prohibit the state from granting preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity in hiring, education and contracts.  A similar initiative has been passed in several states and the world hasn't ended.  For centuries, society discriminated against minorities.  In the late 1960's a series of laws were passed which reversed this discrimination, but which created favorites based solely on the color of one's skin.  This initiative says that both kinds of discrimination are illegal.  If we are to live in a colorblind society, It needs to be...colorblind.  Yes.  Updated (10/2)  Rocky endorses.

*COLORADO AMENDMENT 47

Right to work

Would outlaw agreements requiring workers covered by union contracts to pay fees for representation.  This wouldn't be necessary if Bill Ritter hadn't issued his executive order unionizing the state government.  Bill Ritter and his union allies cannot be trusted to leave the labor peace act in place.  This needs to be in the constitution.  Yes. 

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 48

Definition of person

Would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization.  The unintended consequences of this initiative are almost certainly worse than leaving Roe alone.  All of society's laws and customs would have to be reworked to accommodate this initiative.  For example, could a woman who has a natural miscarriage on the day after fertilization (a not infrequent event) be prosecuted for child abuse resulting in death simply because the egg did not attach to the uterus?  This "definition" says that she could be. 

I watched the KBDI Debate on this issue.  Whenever the proponent, Kristi Burton, was asked a specific question about the personhood amendment impacts, her cute answer was "this is a very simple amendment." She proceeded thus to dodge every question about its impact.   I consider those tactics the very definition of sleazy politics, something I would not expect from a Republican.  She proceeded as though she had complete contempt for the intelligence of anyone who watched.  I don't like to be treated like a complete idiot deserving only contempt, and when a politician (make no mistake, she is a politician) treats me with contempt, I will say so.  I'm saying so.  NO! NO! NO!  

Edited (9/22) to add:  The Rocky Mountain News opined:

But we oppose Amendment 48. It not only attempts to go too far, it leaves voters guessing as to how far it would get. It is Election Day's version of a turn at the roulette wheel.

Edited to add: (9/25) The Denver Post has guest editorials for and against this.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 49

Public payroll standards

Would ban governments from taking deductions directly from employee paychecks for any nongovernmental special interest group.  As far as we can tell, this is a non controversial good government initiative with little or no opposition.  Yes.  Edited to add:  A very strange mailing has hit the streets since we wrote this.  It features Deputy Sherriff Jeff Shaw, a man who guards our safety between donuts.  I haven't a clue how Amendment 49 might impact his safety and the mailing leaves me, and others ignorant.  It's hard to fight good government initiatives without facts.  Whomever put this out has no facts or they would be using them.  (You may think the donut comment heartless, but I will be publishing my experiences with a Colorado Springs cop after the election.  The stuff is written and copies are in public official's hands. One of the file names is "Have another donut, officer."  Perhaps that is the threat that Jeff Shaw sees, a public that actually wants him to do his job.)  Edited (9/25) The Gazette endorses this and rebukes Bill Ritter. Edited (9-29) The Denver Post Endorses with the comment:

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 50

Gaming

Would allow casino towns to vote on whether to increase bet limits to $100 from $5, expand hours of operation and add games.  This initiative does one thing that we like and one thing that we detest.  First, it returns local control to the citizens most impacted by gambling, those who live in the three cities.  Second, it assigns any additional taxes that result from this measure to fund something that voters would not eventually have to fund anyway.  We consider that feature a fatal flaw.  If the casinos want to bring this forward again without a restriction on where the funds are to go, then it would deserve consideration.  In this form, it does not.  No.  Edited to add:  (9/25)   Denver Post Opposes.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 51

Sales tax for disabled services

Would increase the state sales tax (by 2 cents on every $10) to fund services for those with developmental disabilities.  Just another special interest tax increase.  No.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 52

Severance tax - transportation

Would allocate more severance tax money to transportation.  This initiative focuses on fixing I-70 through the mountains.  If you must vote for higher taxes on resources, which you will pay in the end, then this initiative is preferable to amendment 58.  As taxpayers, we will eventually have to pay for the things this tax increase initiative proposes to use its proceeds for and you will love it if you are a skier from Denver, less so if you are an old guy from Colorado Springs.  Even so, if amendment 58 were not on the ballot, this would be a NO brainer (pun intended).  A very reluctant Yes.  Very reluctant.  Hold your nose.  Updated (10/1) Denver Post opposes because it stops their bait and switch tactic.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 53

Corporate fraud

Would impose tougher sanctions for fraud committed by businesses, executives.  This is a poison pill to try to get rid of amendment 47.  I guess that the good news is that it was put on the ballot as a law and not a constitutional amendment.  The bad news is that employees might find that their employer is going to jail over some minor transgression.  We hear that employers who are in jail can't run their businesses and are unreliable paymasters.  Don't worry, though.  If amendment 55 passes, the employer can't fire you because his business is going under as that wouldn't be "just cause."  Those of you who know the history, or who will learn the history of this blog might think this author would support this initiative.  You would be wrong.  A BIG NO!  The funny thing is that if this is passed, it will be equally easy to pass a similar law or amendment making other kinds of unsavory activity by union officers, politicians, and lawyers criminal.  You can bet that will happen.  We won't be able to build jails fast enough.   Amendment 53 removed from the ballot by proponent in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 54

Campaign finance curbs

Would bar sole-source government contractors and unions with exclusive bargaining powers from making contributions to political candidates.  The Rocky Mountain News was deceptive in describing this.  One of the uglier practices in government is for the winners of elections to pay off their supporters with public money through no bid contracts and other gimmicks.  No bid contracts almost always carry a higher price to taxpayers than contracts awarded through competitive bidding.  This doesn't bar contractors and unions from making contributions as the Rocky states.  Rather, it just says that they can't be awarded sole source contracts after they make those contributions.  There is almost no opposition to this good government initiative.  Yes.  Edited to add:  See our comments on Amendment 49, above.  It is very hard to see how this initiative impacts law enforcement personnel in any way.  The flyer leaves this author clueless.  Edited to add (10/1) Rocky dislikes this intensely, as does the Denver Post.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 55

Just cause

Would require an employer to provide a reason for firing a worker.  Again, the Rocky hasn't a clue.  This amendment does much more than just requiring a reason.  It mandates acceptable reasons.  We wrote about this amendment:

The initiative does much more than "having companies simply explain their reasons for firing employees."  It lists acceptable reasons, and a business downturn isn't one of them.  If an employer discharges an employee because he has no work for him, the employee can get his job back with back pay and attorneys fees.  That thuggish provision has the potential to put every small business in Colorado out of business and will send bigger companies to other states.

If I were running a business in Colorado with this in the constitution, every employee would be part time and would be told they might be scheduled to work for as little as an hour a month.  This initiative is a disaster as it will convert every employee in Colorado into a part time employee and Colorado into France.  NO! NO! NO!  Edited to add: (9/25) Another Rocky Editorial in opposition.

Amendment 55 Removed from the ballot by Proponent in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business. 

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 56

Health coverage for employees

Would require employers with 20 or more workers to provide health care coverage for workers.  Edited to add:  There is very little information out about this.  It is another poison pill attack on amendment 47, and given how bad the other poison pills (54, 55, and 57 are), this suffers from guilt by association.  In 1993, when Hillary was pushing her health care plan, she wanted businesses with five or more employees to provide coverage.  She stood on the capitol steps and proclaimed that if businesses couldn't do that, they shouldn't be in business.  I owned a marginal business at that time with 7 employees, and she was right, her plan would have put me out of business and my employees on unemployment.   How many businesses with 20 or more workers will this law close down leaving their workers both without health care and without a job?   NO!  Edited 9/22 to add:  The Rocky published a guest editorial opposing this amendment.

Amendment 56 Removed From Ballot By Proponent in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 57

Safe workplaces

Would allow an employee to sue for damages in addition to any settlements from the workers compensation system.  This should be called the trial lawyer's full employment act.  Very little has been written about this initiative and very little information is available on the Internet.  Since it was put on the ballot by the same folks who are pushing 53 and 55, it is intended to destroy Colorado business.  Imagine being an employer who is running a retail business that is held up.  The robber shoots an employee who is already eligible for Workman's compensation.  If this passes, he can sue his employer for something that the employer could not control and would likely win.  Just the threat of a lawsuit might put the employer out of business. NO.

Amendment 57 Removed from ballot in exchange for $3 million extortion payment by business.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 58

Severance tax

Would reduce energy company tax breaks and use revenue to pay for college scholarships and other programs.  This is an example of the worst kind of public policy making imaginable.  Bill Ritter is a lover of tax increases and couldn't allow the 2008 season to pass without one.  He couldn't get anything through the legislature in an election year, so he had to do it via the initiative process.  He went looking for a sugar daddy to pay for the political campaign for his tax as new taxes have to be approved by the voters.  He made a deal with the environmentalists that if they paid for the campaign, their pet projects would get 25% of the revenues forever.  Even worse, the 60% of the leftover revenue generated by this tax doesn't fix any problem that voters have routinely said they want fixed.  If this is passed, the voters will be paying a new energy tax AND they will eventually be asked to pay more taxes for higher education, transportation, etc.  NO!!!!! Updated (9/26)  Rocky opposes using the same argument we used. Updated (10/5) Denver Post opposes, again for the same reason.

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 59

K-12 schools funding

Would lift constitutional limits on state spending and direct additional revenue into an education fund.  Amendment 23 was put on the ballot with spending increases as a poison pill attempt to break TABOR.  It resulted in a "temporary time out" from TABOR in the form of Ref C.  Ref C was passed with promises that money from it would go to specific places, like higher education.  The Ref C money did go to higher education, but the legislature removed pre-existing funds going to higher education and spent them elsewhere, meaning that the taxpayers were victims of a multi-billion dollar shell game.  This amendment is authored by some of the same people who authored Ref C and is designed to get the voters to pay for more school funding but doesn't protect existing funding from being raided.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  No!  Edited to add:  The Rocky Mountain News acknowledges that it is a shell game.  (9/25)  Mark Hillman exposes the big money behind this.

Referendums

* COLORADO REFERENDUM L:

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

* COLORADO REFERENDUM M

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

* COLORADO REFERENDUM N:

Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor.

* COLORADO REFERENDUM O:

Would increase the number of signatures required on petitions for constitutional amendments to at least 6 percent of votes cast in the previous election for governor.  It does much more than this.  It is designed to take the grass roots out of the initiative process by adding to the number of signatures required and by requiring that they be collected throughout the state.  This effectively allows the voters in one congressional district to veto the good ideas of the voters in the other six.  For those who don't know their history, one major reason that the US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation was a provision in the Articles that prohibited amendment unless all states agreed to it.  The legislature knows this and is intent on making the process very cumbersome and very expensive, meaning that only the very wealthy would have access to the ballot.  Absolutely Not.  NO, NO, a thousand times NO.  Edited to add: (9/25)  The Denver Post issued a vacuous two sentence endorsement with no discussion.  If they had a legitimate argument for it, they wouldn't try to slip it past the voters in this way.

Note: It seems to be legal for someone to put something on the ballot and then demand money from those impacted to have it removed.  Our comment about it being extortion is not intended to be a claim that someone committed a crime, but it should be a crime.

Comments

[Matt Sulentic]

Your comments on Amendment 48 are absolutely rediculous!! I believe it is our government's responsibility to protect its citizens, especially those that are most helpless and don't have a voice. The motive behind this is to stop women from intentionally taking the life of their unborn child simply as a means of birth control, which is the main reason women murder their unborn children. To think that if a woman has a miscarraige she will be charged with a crime is absurd!! What a stupid argument to try to scare people into voting against this amendment! You ought to be ashamed of yourself! Shame on you!

[a watcher]

Thanks, Matt, for commenting.

You inadvertantly bring up a point that I hadn't thought of or seen elsewhere. The personhood amendment would confer citizenship on fertalized eggs. If one checks the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, it says in part:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

This is just another reason that this is a really bad idea, and no, I feel no shame for pointing that out.

[Matthew Sulentic]

If a fertilized egg is not a human being, what is it?

[a watcher]

Amendment 48 doesn't propose to grant "human beinghood" status. It proposes to grant "personhood" status. Those are not the same thing in law or tradition. You and I can and do differ as to whether they should be the same thing. Hopefully we can differ amicably.

It is my view that those who support this do so with the best of intentions, but are so focused on getting rid of one evil that they can't see (or won't admit) that they will substitute many evils in its place.

[Mike Biles]

I don't know if you've seen this

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_2008_ballot_measures

It has descriptions of all the ballot measures and most importantly it has links to the ACTUAL TEXT of each one.

[Mike Biles]

Oh and this
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_2008_citizen_initiatives

[Ginny Newman]

A fertilized egg is NOT a person. Until the 'egg' can live outside the mother's body, it's a fetus. VOTE NO!

[Robert Julich]

Ginny, you are an idiot. So when the heart is beating and you see it on an ultrasound it's not alive? Are you kidding me?

[a watcher]

This is a forum for civil discussion. Please don't call each other idiots.

As for the heart beating comment, that is not what is at issue here. As a matter of law and custom, Ginny is 99% correct if she limits her comment to "personhood." If she weren't correct, this initiative wouldn't be on the ballot.

The proponents are trying to redefine a legal term in a way that would have impacts that they are unwilling to discuss or admit. In almost all aspects of law and custom, including most pre-Roe religious customs, life, meaning "legal personhood," does not begin until a live birth occurs. It is fair to try to change that, but only after a full and open discussion of the ramifications.

[a watcher]

I have stopped approving comments from both sides of amendment 48 because they have moved away from the focus of this post which is 18 ballot issues and their impact on the law and taxes.

If someone on the Pro 48 side wants to discuss the legal implications of 48 beyond its obvious attempt to do away with Roe, I will approve that kind of post.

For the record and new readers: I oppose Roe because it is bad constitutional law and not on religious grounds. Roe is just one porduct of a completely out of control legal profession that has skewed our society in ways the founders wouldn't recognise. Now you should understand why I want this post to focus on the legalities of 48 and the other ballot issues.

[Chris]

Thanks for your voter guide. I plan to vote the exact opposite from your suggestions. People like you need to prepare to move firmly into the minority category. Your policies have messed things up about as much as possible. It will be 15 to 20 years at least before you will have even a remote chance at political power again. No more playing on peoples fears. Even your churches are moving away from you. All you have left is your little echo chambers. You all keep saying the same things and think it influences anyone other than someone who looks just like you. I am a middle aged white male and your actions will no longer dishonor me. I only wish dueling was still possible, I would take as many of you with me as possible.

[a watcher]

Chris

I have never been challenged to a duel before.

Since you are doubtless anti-gun, I accept your challenge. You bring your knife, I'll bring my shotgun. Twenty paces.

At least have a sense of humor.

I've been around long enough to know that 1) no matter how this election swings, the next one will swing back, and 2) most people can be cordial about the outcome, excepting some natural gloating. I guess you are the exception.

[nele]

Watcher, thanks for a well-written summarization of the amendments. I'm a new Colorado voter and in seeking to find out info about the ballot, came upon your blog. I'm a Democrat and don't agree with all of your positions, but I appreciate your level headed approach (especially when responding to comments)! --nele

[ALEX REEVES]

Amendment 50. Lets keep the gamblers in the state and stop sending them to Vegas and DeadWood and around the country. Casino's are here they are not leaving but the Colorado gamblers are leaving, for better table odds and more higher stakes Slots. Also the slot machines don't get turned off at night, Lets open the doors and let people play to accomodate grave shifts and people that work those hours. As far as the bad aspects of gambling go people are people they will do as they want if they dont get there fix in the casino they will sports bet internet bet. Worked in gaming for 14yrs, people like to come up becuase it's close convienant and local. Higher stakes will create jobs. So in the end with amendment 50 passing, Colorado will win a huge Jackpot.

[Gordon]

At first, I disagreed with your position on Amendment 48, however, after reading it a second time and then reading your response to a few comments, I came to the conclusion that you are correct. Life begins at conception, but not personhood. There is a difference. Thanks for putting up this informative web site. It will definitely influence how I vote in this upcoming election.

[Mick]

NO on 58? SHAME ON YOU. Your special interests are showing, and they're dirty.

[a watcher]

Mick, I'm glad you gave me a chance to write more on Amendment 58. Since you claim that my "special interests are showing," you must be able to name them, especially if they are, as you claim, "dirty."

Amendment 58 is, in the parlance of drug addiction, a temporary "fix" for those who are addicted to raising taxes. Recall the giant hole in the ground that was to be the Auroria campus science building with the legislature claiming that it didn't have enough money to finish it? Not a penny of Amendment 58 money would go for higher education facilities.

We taxpayers will eventually be asked to dig deeper into our pockets for that obvious need. Indeed, that has already happened with Ref C, but the pond scum who wrote Ref C couldn't keep their word once they had the money. There isn't even any pretense that Amendment 58 will solve ANY problem that the voters will want solved in the future.

The history of programs like Amendment 58 is that they provide an excuse for dramatically increased tuition that eats up the scholarship monies, leaving the middle class holding the bag. The poor will have this scholarship. The wealthy won't care. The middle class won't be able to afford to send their kids to college because of the increased tuition and the inability of this fund to pay for a benefit they thought they were getting. Mark those words.

Colorado Springs Utilities projected a 70% increase in rates over the next ten years. Some of that increase will be for higher fuel costs. This "free" tax that doesn't pay for anything that anyone really wants will be paid by those with utilities hookups.

There is nothing...NOTHING in the Amendment 58 tax package that will benefit voters or taxpayers in the long run and much that will hurt us. Bill Ritter is a tax addict. Amendment 58 is his "fix," but only for 2008. There will another "fix" at public expense in 2009.

[Jeff]

I'm a bit dismayed by your opposition to 51. These taxs can include monies directed to early intervention programs, something from which my son benefitted. Because of this program, my son, who has "graduated" from early intervention, is prepared for school in a way he might not have been. He will not be behind the curve right out of the gate. 51 is a two-year tax that goes to clearing off the wait list that includes those children who can receive these sam benefits. I agree it's a special interest, but it's a special interest that can pay dividends in the future.

[Greg]

Thank you for the election guide. I won't say I agree with everything you've written, but it was all written very well. Your point of view was clear and your tone agreeable. Thank you again.

[Tim Zietse]

The gambling industry is based on the idea that gamblers will lose. 50 will encourage them to lose much more to benefit some colleges? That makes only slightly more sense to me than raising tobacco taxes to stop people from smoking and planning on using the tax money for health care. I just got my mail in ballot and filled it out before I found this site. We matched on everything except 48. I'm scared.

[Gualberto]

Your comments on Amendment 48 are way off the mark.
Under the current criminal code a miscarriage, a completely involuntary act, would not (and could not) be made a crime. To say so is either to be completely ignorant of basic criminal law principles or to wish to mislead people.
In order for acts to be held to be criminal the person committing the crime must have committed an actus reus and have the necessary mens rea. These two Latin terms stand for the principle that a criminal must have committed a guilty act that was matched by a guilty mind. There are involuntary crimes, but those require a degree of recklessness that is not present in a miscarriage.
What Amendment 48 would do, for those who really care, is to bring equality under the law to pre-born and post-birth humans.
An example which would be much fairer to make as it actually has happened several times in only the last year is when a crime is committed against a pregnant mother who goes on to loose the child. Colorado law, as it stands, holds that the aggressor cannot be charged as having committed a crime by killing the pre-born child, because the criminal code only applies to persons, and the courts have held that pre-born children are not persons. Here are two links to articles that deal with real problems, not imaginary ones meant to scare and mislead people.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15529047/detail.html
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=88592

[Flamebotdrew]

I really appreciate your views on the amendments. I was wondering why you didn't post any comments on referendum M & N. While I won't vote your way on all the amendments, there were some where you caused me to further investigate and then upon investigation change my vote.

[PDiddy]

So, If amendment 48 passes... will that mean that the legal drinking age will now be 20 yrs. and 3 months?

[Steven]

I was very pleased to find your site. It is good to have some balance to all the 'progressive' guides out there on the 2008 ballot initiatives. I appreciate the time and insight that you have added to each amendment, often including opposing views.

I have found that I agree with you on most of these issues. I disagree with you on 52, though I guess if there wasn't a 58 then we would agree on 52 as well.

For amendment 48, I am still a little undecided. I agree with a previous comment that one large benefit to this passing would be when crimes are committed against a woman whom is pregnant. I believe that crimes committed against a pregnant woman, especially if death to the unborn child occurs, the convicted should be guilty of affecting 2 lives, not just one.

Thank you again for the voter guide.

[BearDog]

Is there some way that you can find information about these judges that are voted on? All you can find is basically they are all approved until the news tells how they have been riding prostitutes and then all of the bad news comes out. There should be some help with how they have been interpreting laws. Thx.

[a watcher]

Try this link:

http://thecoloradoindex.typepad.com/the_colorado_index/2008/10/figuring-out-ho.html