I’ve been doing these sorts of analyses for several years here on the (woefully under-uitilized) blog. So let’s look at what’s on the ballot in the way of Amendments and Propositions this year.
So two things first:
One, the idea of the legislature referring issues to the citizenry to approve (and, better yet, letting citizens themselves propose such things) was one of the great Progressive reforms from over a century ago, along with statewide votes for US Senators and women’s suffrage.
Has putting up measures been an unalloyed success? Certainly not. It has, in fact, led to state constitutions full of clutter and cruft, badly written laws and amendments, and too often, populist measures that hamstring government’s abilities to deliver services to those that need them.
That said, this limited effort at direct democracy helps break lawmaking out of the hands of partisan politicians who are most interested in what their more wealthy lobbyists want to see in the way of law. That’s a good thing, far outweighing cases of human frailty, to which the citizenry at large is no more prone to than their elected representatives.
Second — boy, howdy, do we have a lot of measures on this year’s ballot in Colorado: seven Constitutional amendments and seven propositions for new laws. So … we’d better get started.
As a guide, ballot proposals with a letter were put there by the legislature (cowards). Those with numbers were put on by citizen initiative.
Constitutional Amendments
Amendment G: Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities: NO?
I feel a deep, but not unlimited, appreciation for veterans, especially those whose service has left them unable to work. This proposition would expand an existing homestead-style property tax exemption (on the first $200K value of their house) to vets with a disabilities as judged under an alternate VA criterion, impacting some 3700 veterans int he state.
But … I’m not seeing it. It seems to complicate property tax matters significantly, to the tune of some $1.8M a year. Seems there should be a better way here. I’m not sure of my NO vote — I want to do a bit more research — but that’s the way I’m leaning.
Amendment H: Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality: YES
In current judicial discipline proceedings, matters are handled by other judges, and the proceedings themselves stay confidential unless the disciplinary panel of judges selected by the state supreme court decides on public sanctions. That just feels a little too cozy and self-adjudicating to me.
The new arrangement would have an independent board consisting of judges, lawyers, and citizens, and charges would be made public at the beginning of processes — which sounds like sauce for the gander to me.
Amendment I: Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder: YES?
I swung from maybe-no to maybe-yes for this. My initial reaction was to not go along with something that further cracks down on bail, which is the reverse of (good) current trends.
(Bail is a one-size-fits-all way to let rich people get out of jail while awaiting trial, and to keep poor people in jail, getting more poor because they lose their jobs because they are in jail, and making them desperate to get things done with.)
But this one requires a bit more reading before treating it as a straightforward bail question.
Colorado law already allow judges to deny bail for particularly heinous crimes such as first degree murder where (a) the death penalty could be imposed, and (b) “the proof is evident and the presumption is great” of guilt.
That’s how things stood since the state became a state … until in 2020 the state (appropriately) abolished the death penalty. Good move, state, but, oops. Suddenly a vicious axe murder where the accused was found standing over the body with a bloody axe in their hand became a case where judges were required to offer bail because no crime could incur the death penalty.
This measure basically restores the bail status quo ante.
On that level, I’m inclined to vote Yes. There is the potential for miscarriage of justice (they only seem guilty) to occur, but I think the overall rule feels sound.
Amendment J: Repealing the Definition of Marriage in the Constitution: YES!
In 2006, Colorado (back in its red-leaning days) passed a “Definition of Marriage” constitutional amendment: one man + one woman = Constitutional Marriage!
In 2015-2015, both the state supreme court and SCOTUS ruled (correctly) that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, invalidating that amendment … which still remained on the books.
The current SCOTUS seems to be licking its chops to overturn that Obergefell precedent, which could suddenly make that wretched Colorado DOMA provision take effect again. Bah.
And the only argument presented against this new amendment is … well, gay marriage is icky and sinful and wrong, so we should await SCOTUS to get rid of it so we can go back to respecting good, pure, honest, different-sex, Christian marriages like those celebrated at the Church of Elvis in Reno, Nevada.
Double bah.
Amendment K: Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines: NO?
Basically requires various election filings and public publication of ballot measures in newspapers to happen sooner. The argument is that it will make life more convenient for election officials. To me, it’s just feels designed to make it more difficult for citizens to impact elections. I’m unconvinced it’s necessary or beneficial, thus No.
Amendment 79: Constitutional Right to Abortion: YES!
The 2022 SCOTUS Dobbs ruling basically said there was no federal protection for abortion, so states could do what they wanted. So here’s where Colorado can follow that guidance. Not only does this amendment establish the right to an abortion in the state constitution, it gets rid of language that prohibited the state from covering it under Medicaid or state employee health insurance.
There are basically two arguments offered against this:
- It might make it hard to pass new laws restricting abortion! Duh.
- People shouldn’t have to pay taxes to cover things they object to! Please try that argument with the IRS as to why you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support “welfare queens” (or the “military-industrial complex”).
Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice: NO.
This would enshrine the right to K-12 “school choice.” It would not immediately change any laws, but would clearly lay the groundwork that parents should get paid for homeschooling, or that religious schools should get my state tax dollars (see #2’s argument in the previous amendment — I’ll admit to my inconsistency if they admit to theirs).
As a former public school teacher, and as someone whose kid went through public schools — I just say No.
Ballot Propositions
Proposition JJ: Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue: YES
This state (under the insidious influence of Douglas Bruce) fell into the trap of tax measures being required to refund any taxes above certain limits. In the case of the (I didn’t vote for it) legalization of sports betting a few years back, any tax revenues brought in over some voter-approved limit get refunded to the casinos. This proposition keeps the money and sends it to where the rest of it is sent to: water conservation and protection projects.
I am not a fan of “sin taxes” to support things that the government should be paying for. But sending tax refund checks to casinos and betting parlors is ridonculous. Yes.
Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax: YES
Again, sin taxes are often sketchy (if it’s worthwhile funding crime victim services, mental health services for vets and youth, and school safety programs, then pony up and do so without using a whipping boy to make it more attractive and thereby incent the state to keep that revenue flowing as well as incenting bootlegging).
That said a 6.5% tax on guns and ammo isn’t going to break anybody’s bank.
So sure, as reinforced by the Arguments Against of “GUNS! FREEDOM!” and “I will be killed by Venezuelan dog-eaters because I won’t be able to afford an AR-15!”
Proposition 127: Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting: NO?
This would make Bobcats and Mountain Lions (Lynx are already protected) illegal to hunt.
I’m not a hunter, and tend to feel a bit queasy about the whole subject, but neither Bobcats or Mountain Lions are endangered species, so that would tend to make me think that current hunting/culling of those predators is working pretty decently. We do have a surplus of deer in the state, so increasing those predator populations some might not be a bad idea, but I’d rather see the state wildlife folk gauge that based on, oh, science, rather than “Oh, it will be fine if we let mountain lions increase their populations and not worry about hunters any more.”
(As a note, 500 mountain lions are successfully hunted — I won’t use the awful term “harvested” — each year, of an estimated 4,000 stable population.)
Proposition 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence: NO.
Basically this tweaks the formula of what percentage of a sentence for violent offenses must be served, and how earned time impacts sentences. It will probably pass because it is a “tough on crime” proposition, which are always popular, but basically it means that someone sentenced to a 20-year sentence will most likely serve 17-19 years instead of 14-19 years …
… which seems a fairly trivial difference, esp. as it removes some incentives for convicts to behave and better themselves.
Proposition 129: Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates: YES?
This would create a new category of veterinary workers, basically working off of a Masters degree rather than a Doctorate, with an eye to increasing access to veterinary services in rural and less populated areas. It’s sort of like the proliferation of different types of nurses / physician’s assistant categories.
That said, there seems to be some value here, and the “Against” argument that “the state board that would oversee this hasn’t given specific criteria for the role, so who knows what crazy thing might happen?” seems kind of weak.
Proposition 130: Funding for Law Enforcement: NO.
This proposition slices off $350M as a one-off fund to go to recruiting more police and retaining the ones they have (i.e., increase salaries), with the feel-good addendum of the state paying a $1M death benefit to the family of state or local law enforcement offices who are killed in the line of duty.
Despite the advocates’ cry of impoverished police departments, I haven’t seen any actual numbers presented. In general, I don’t think the state should be funding local law enforcement. This just seems like a money grab for law enforcement without any demonstration that it will actually impact crime.
Most law enforcement have pensions that pay out to surviving families, or death and disability insurance that does same. If that’s not adequate, then address that in a more coherent way. And I mean, $1M for the family of an heroic police officer who does in the line of duty sounds great, but why just limit that to cops? Are there no other valuable and/or dangerous professions where the state should start paying out big dollars upon the death of a worker?
Proposition 131: Establishing All-Candidate Primary and Ranked Choice Voting General Elections: YES.
The current system basically guarantees that either the person the Democrats nominate, or the person the Republicans nominate, will win the state or federal position they are running for … and the two-party partisan constituency of electoral districts makes that, in too many cases, a partisan slam-dunk.
Ranked Choice Voting lets people vote for the person they actually like most, rather than being forced to choose between the D and the R, without the fear that they are “throwing their vote away.” And the accusations that it is “difficult to understand” or that it will cost zillions of dollars to explain seems highly patronizing to me.
I am less sanguine about All-Candidate Primaries — I feel it’s less necessary if RCV is in play — but I’m not strongly opposed to it.
Bottom line, this weakens political parties (who are the folk most vigorously opposing it), encourages people to vote for who they want (vs. who they think is likely to win), and arguably promotes more moderate candidates. Those are all good things.
Net-Net
So, there we are: 8 I am inclined to vote for, 6 I am inclined to vote against. I’ll be doing a bit more research on some of those; if I change my mind, I’ll let you know.