I covered 3 of the 9 propositions (the “Ugly Three“) earlier this week. Here’s what else is hitting the ballots, and what I think (for what it’s worth):
Amendment P: Regulation of Games of Chance: This moves control of bingo and raffles and the like from the Dept. of State to the Dept. of Revenue (which regulates casinos and runs the state lottery). While nobody’s claiming that State has done a bad job, this just seems like the efficient thing to do, and both departments support it. YES.
Amendment Q: Temporary Location of the State Seat of Government: Sets up a process for the state seat of government to be temporarily moved in case of a disaster. The state constitution declares that Denver is the seat of government, and this can only be changed by an amendment in a general election. This amendment sets up a legal process to be able to move the seat in case of an emergency. Sounds like good Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity planning to me. YES.
Amendment R: Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property: If an individual or business uses government-owned land or equipment for private purposes (e.g., ranches leasing government land for cattle, skiing and river rafting companies, vendor contracts in national parks), then even though the property is exempt from property taxation, the use of the property creates a “possessory interest” that is taxable. This amendment would eliminate these taxes if the possessory interest is less than $6K (indexed to inflation). This would exempt most cattle grazing leases, and would reduce property tax income to the state by $160K next year (which exceeds the administrative costs of dealing with small leases). This strikes me as a covert tax cut for one group of folks, which doesn’t strike me as fair. NO.
Amendment 62: Application of the Term Person: Whoo-boy. Besides the Ugly Three, this is the one getting all the national press. It basically identifies a “person” (which class gets all the various rights of the state constitution) as existing from “the beginning of biological development,” vs. the previous common law interpretation of birth being the trigger. It’s very clearly an anti-abortion measure, and carries with it all sorts of probable Unintended Consequences (Are women now legally liable to criminal charges if they don’t treat their pregnancy and personal symbiotic health with their fetus the same way the treat a baby? Would a legitimate medical decision made by a pregnant woman and her doctor to save her life that endangers or kills a fetus, even to save the life of the mother, be considered illegal as if we were talking about her toddler?). This sort of measure has been soundly defeated by the Colorado citizenry before, and I hope it will be again. NO.
Amendment 63: Health Care Choice: Oooh, the dreaded Obamacare is gonna get us! That’s the driver for this silliness, which adds “health care choice” as a constitutional right, prohibits the state from forcing (or enforcing from others) any mandate for health insurance, and forbids the state prohibiting direct payments for health care services. The first clause is simple posturing (unless it means that people have a constitutional right to choose what health care they receive, regardless of cost, which I’m pretty sure is not the intent), the second is a feeble attempt to prohibit federally mandated coverage by 2014, and the third addresses a problem that doesn’t exist and isn’t included in any health care reform. NO.
Proposition 102: Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs: The pretrial services programs in Colorado provides recommendations to courts about whether an accused should be released on bail (and if it should be a secured bond — no money down, just liability — or a secured bond). The programs can also provide monitoring of the accused while out on bail (interviews, drug treatment, drug testing). This proposition would require a secured bond (coming up with the full bail amount, or paying a bail bondsman a fee) except for a first offense and nonviolent misdemeanor. The proponents make the general claim that violent sex offenders should have to pay for bail (assuming they’re eligible in the first place), and that’s fine, but they don’t make the case that there’s a big problem with that right now. Instead, this proposition would end up hurting poor defendents most (either requiring an expensive secured bond to get out or sitting in jail until trial), and cost the taxpayers for the ones who can’t afford it (estimated $2.8M/year for local jails). Show me it’s needed and how we can afford it, and it’s a new ballgame, otherwise, NO.
We also have a local measure, Issue 3A, which increases the property taxes for the Littleton Public School District, totaling $12M. Given the drastic belt-tightening the district has already gone through, and that my daughter attends (and will be attending) LPS for some years to come, I have no hesitation in voting YES.
Amendment 62, the Personhood thang, looks to be going down. Again. This time in the 70ish percent NO range.
3A, the Littleton property tax issue for schools, is passing by a somewhat comfortable margin.
Of the above, as of this point, all are going the way I voted except the gambling thang. Which is hardly the biggest concern I had this election.