BD notes the current array of ballot initiatives coming up here in Colorado this fall. I’ve really not paid much attention to them as yet, and don’t know much beyond the blurbs below. So my initial reactions …
* 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.
I tend to mistrust these kind of “let’s not reverse-disriminate” laws, not because philosophically I don’t think a color-blind society makes sense, but because they tend to be pushed forward by people who are anything but color-blind. Probably No.
* AMENDMENT 47 – Right to work – Would outlaw agreements requiring workers covered by union contracts to pay fees for representation.
As a person who was once in this situation (as a teacher in LAUSD) I have sympathy for both sides. That said, again, while philosophically this makes sense (why require people to pay for representatives when they do not choose to belong to the union in question), it ignores that those workers in fact benefit from union negotiations, and in arrangements like this would get a free ride. Probably No.
* AMENDMENT 48 – Definition of person – Would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization.
If you want to ban abortion, then be up front and ban it, don’t play with semantics. While the whole abortion debate (internal and externals) is too muddled by emotions to make rational arguments one way or the other, my inclination is to vote pro-choice and let each person decide for themselves. No.
* AMENDMENT 49 – Public payroll standards – Would ban governments from taking deductions directly from employee paychecks for any nongovernmental special interest group.
Read: union dues. No.
* 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.
I’m inclined to approve this, again from a personal freedom aspect (and aware that gambling can be a serious vice). And while (as BD points out) low-stakes gambling has turned the towns it was legalized for into “wall to wall mini-Vegases,” without it they would have been real ghost towns by now. Probably Yes.
* 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.
I’m certainly in favor of funding services for those with developmental disabilities, and I certainly think it should be paid for. That said, I need to read more. Undecided.
* AMENDMENT 52 – Severance tax – transportation – Would allocate more severance tax money to transportation.
Unknown. Undecided.
* AMENDMENT 53 – Corporate fraud – Would impose tougher sanctions for fraud committed by businesses, executives.
Generally speaking, all for it. Yes.
* AMENDMENT 54 – Campaign finance curbs – Would bar sole-source government contractors and unions with exclusive bargaining powers from making contributions to political candidates.
Wow, what’s that, three anti-union measures on the ballot? No.
* AMENDMENT 55 – Just cause – Would require an employer to provide a reason for firing a worker.
As an employer / manager, even within an at-will company it’s already difficult enough for me to let people go, even without a “just cause” provision, due to internal HR rules and wanting to avoid potential law suits. Probably No.
* AMENDMENT 56 – Health coverage for employees – Would require employers with 20 or more workers to provide health care coverage for workers.
While I suspect this is one of those that will have unintended consequences, some action is better than no action. Yes.
* AMENDMENT 57 – Safe workplaces – Would allow an employee to sue for damages in addition to any settlements from the workers compensation system.
I want to read the fine print on this one, as it seems quite possible to be abused — but I think that all workers should have a safe workplace, and that it’s up to the employer to provide same, and if they don’t they should be held accountable. Probably Yes.
* AMENDMENT 58 – Severance tax – Would reduce energy company tax breaks and use revenue to pay for college scholarships and other programs.
It seems to me that energy companies should not get most of the tax breaks they have. Where the money should go seems a bit vague, but I’m inclined toward this. Yes.
* AMENDMENT 59 – K-12 schools funding – Would lift constitutional limits on state spending and direct additional revenue into an education fund.
Hmmmm … does this do away with TABOR? Or is it an end-run around current education funding baselines? Undecided.
* REFERENDUM L: Would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21.
I don’t see why not. Yes.
* REFERENDUM M – Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the state constitution about land value increases.
Awww … I love those obsolete provisions. That said … Yes.
* REFERENDUM N: – Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor.
See above. I’d like to read it first, though. Probably Yes.
* 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.
My experience with petitioned initiatives is that they tend to be reactionary and poorly written. I also think they are an important way for the population to be heard. Increasing the threshold (which in Colorado is particularly low) seems like a fine idea. Yes.
#48 strikes me as being something like the legislative attempt to define pi to be 3.2
Having experience with a bunch of 21-year olds, I think they can wait another four years before they join the legislature. Recent results on evaluation of risk also suggests to me that 21-year-olds are not ready to be legislators yet. But maybe I’m just becoming a curmudgeon.
I would be disinclined to vote for 21-year-old … but I think I should be offered the choice.
Don’t forget that 48 would also criminalize most forms of birth control. The pill, IUD, and morning after pills all prevent a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus.
I recall a story about a woman who fought a ticket (unsuccessfully) claiming that her unborn child qualified as a passenger, letting her drive in the HOV lane.
If 48 were to pass, it would open a whole can of worms. Could you be cited for having two people in the driver’s seat? Would having a drink qualify as giving alcohol to a minor? Could you claim an embryo as a dependent?
Dave, like you most citizens want to help people with developmental disabilities, but most don’t know how bad it is. This is a very private issue that only has a public solution. Disability is a natural part of life and through no fault of our own it can happen to anyone of us, our children or grandchildren. 51 is a statutory ballot measure that would raise the money needed to help.
Currently, more than 12,000 children and adults who have developmental disabilities — such as Autism, Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy or Mental Retardation — are on waiting lists for lifelong care and support. There are more people who need care than currently receive services.
Thousands of people have been waiting more than 10 years. Many of them need help to eat, dress, bathe or use the bathroom. Others need constant guidance and supervision because of major medical issues, lack of basic life and safety skills, or because family caregivers can no longer provide care due to age, illness, or death. Still others are young children with autism who cannot access early intervention services that are so desperately needed and proven to be effective.
Contrary to public belief, for people with developmental disabilities and their families, there is absolutely no safety net, or back up options for the vital services they need, such as 24/7 supervision, help with daily tasks, a place to live, job training or nursing services.
Solving this urgent problem is critically needed and long overdue. With new funding, Colorado can immediately provide a safety net for children and adults with developmental disabilities. Raising taxes is never easy, but the state budget is so tight there is no other way to provide the critical services so desperately needed.
VOTE YES ON 51 and let others know how important this amendment is for Colorado. 51 is a real grassroots campaign with no million dollar donors or deep pocket supporters — just real people in real need asking their neighbors and friends to help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZQUBOudhns
Thanks for the info, Darla.
Dave,
FWIW, today’s (September 19, 2008) Rocky Mountain News printed my OpEd opposing Colorado Amendment 56 (the one which would require businesses with more than 20 employees to purchase health insurance for all its workers) and supporting free market health care reform instead:
“Free market reforms healthier than Amendment 56”
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/19/hsieh-free-market-reforms-healthier-amendment-56/
Thanks, Paul (and grats on the article). Paul writes the GeekPress site that is a prominent part of my normal reading habit.
And, that plug aside, Paul, I must confess (courteously) that I disagree with most of the points you make.
Purely as starters, while ideally employers and employees both have the right to negotiate whatever they want related to salary and benefits, in practice (a) employer priorities are not those of employees, and (b) the relationship is an unequal one; employees need a job more than employers need any given applicant. While there are professional / technical levels of the job market where that relationship is closer (speaking as someone who hires highly trained professionals and has to bargain over salaries to a certain degree), at the bottom of the market, where something like this is most needed, the power of the employer in the negotiation far outweighs that of the applicant. Burger King or Joe’s Heavy Lifting of Rocks, Inc., will not find it difficult to find someone else if an applicant holds out for health insurance.
That’s the principle, by the bye, behind the minimum wage. Doctors don’t need a minimum wage. Day laborers do.
While excessive legally mandated benefits might have a business impact, doing something like this on a state level makes that less of a problem; someone headquartered in Centennial, CO, is going to balance the costs of moving their operation and employees to, say, Kansas vs. the cost of health care. Ideally, national standards would be even better. That leads to greater pressure to outsource to other countries, of course, but it’s all a trade-off.
Where I do agree with you is that health insurance is not a “right,” as we ordinarily think of them (as in the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights). Couching it as such (similar to the Four Freedoms) muddies the waters. What I would say, however, is that access to reasonable health care is a personal and societal *necessity*, and that failing to meet that need is not a matter of bad bargaining between employers and employees but a breach of the social contract *and* a significant harm to society in both direct and indirect ways.
Thanks for the website plug, Dave.
I do appreciate your courteous disagreement. And this is one of the reasons I’m deeply grateful to be living in the US as opposed to in mainland China.
Here in the US, we have the freedom to express our views on such issues, including the freedom to disagree. Our disagreements are resolved peacefully via the ballot box, rather than via gunfire between warring factions.
It’s a wonderful freedom, and one we too often take for granted in the hurly-burly of day-to-day political wrangling.
So whenever I’m tempted to get depressed over the tacky campaign ads on television emanating from both major political parties, I just remind myself that it could be a lot worse — we could be living in a country like Burma/Myanmar or China where such ads wouldn’t even be permitted…
As another FYI, this time on the dangers of Amendment 48 (declaring a fertilized egg to be a “person”), my wife Diana Hsieh and our friend Ari Armstrong have co-authored a position paper for the Coalition for Secular Government on the legal implications.
You can find it here:
“Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person”
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
The organization’s website is:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/
Ahhh, the standard business argument against doing anything short of pure slavery…..same arguments used by wal-mart so that it doesn’t do the right thing for its employees. US History is nothing but a story of the haves always arguing why it is always bad idea to do things for the have-nots like freeing the slaves, letting them vote, letting women vote, collective bargaining, ending child labour and so on.
It’s the zero-sum game argument of I’ll have less if someone else has more.
P.S. if you are friends with Ari Armstrong, I know what kind of person you are.
For the record, I found most of the PDF Paul linked to compelling; I didn’t find the arguments about abortion and morality as much so, but the basic assertion that Amendment 48 would have disastrous effects is well put forth.
Looking at Ari Armstrong freecolorado.com site, it’s clear he’s a Big L-Libertarian, philosophically regardless of particular affiliation. Anything that smacks of government spending money or regulating stuff (e.g., taxpayer-funded public libraries) is condemned. Which seems more than a bit whacky to me.
47 is a joke, and I am glad you are leaning in that direction. Part of the problem is that if it passes, unions in union shops will still be legally required to represent the non-union, and now non-agency fees paying employees. So these freeloaders get the benefit of the union without paying for it, and the union must still represent them.
Not so great for employee dynamics if some of them get to freeload off the dues of their fellow workers.
Even still, why dictate what kind of relationship businesses and workers have? Seems very anti-free market to legislate that relationship. If workers want a union shop and they can negotiate one with the employer, so be it.
Hey Dave, take a look in the Big Blue Book of Ballot Stuff at Amendment 54 — I’m not sure it’s anti-Union so much as anti-Conflict of Interest.
I mean… I may simply be reading it too generously, but it LOOKS more as though it’s meant to prevent … I dunno… Lobbying companies turning around and getting the contract for a Guv’mint Project that they just managed to push through.
Sort of an Anti-Haliburton? I dunno. I wouldn’t take your input amiss.
Hey Dave, take a look in the Big Blue Book of Ballot Stuff at Amendment 54 — I’m not sure it’s anti-Union so much as anti-Conflict of Interest.
I mean… I may simply be reading it too generously, but it LOOKS more as though it’s meant to prevent … I dunno… Lobbying companies turning around and getting the contract for a Guv’mint Project that they just managed to push through.
Sort of an Anti-Haliburton? I dunno. I wouldn’t take your input amiss.
Here is what Progress Now says about it:
“Prohibits government contractors and employees with collective bargaining agreements from contributing to a political party or candidate. Limits free speech.”
Most groups link it with 47 and 49.
I think the issue is that teachers, police, and such our government employees and part of collective bargaining. This would unfairly limit their political free speech. There are also concerns that it would dampen donations due to uncertainty.
And on a humorous side note, the anit-gay marriage folks oppose it because “the proposal contains language that could pave the way for state recognition of same-sex couples, since the measure defines “immediate family member” to include “domestic partners”
Margie says – NO – You have to have a very compelling reason to amend the state constitution.
~nods in agreement with Margie~
The Blue Book was very horribly written this year.
I have my inclinations in the Blue Book scribbled in already, but I was going to wait until a bit later to revisit these. Don’t recall what I’d noted about 54.