I touched on this topic a month back, but I’ve finished going through the ballot proper, and here are my thoughts.
First, a side note: Damn, I am tired of the advertising campaigns around these, pro and con. “Amendment 69: Do we really want to pass a law to kick grandmothers out into the street in the cold of winter?” They don’t say, “Amendment 69: It will do A, B, which will lead to C and even grandmothers being forced out of their homes.”
So, for example, the Unholy Triumvirate (one assumes) of 47, 49, and 54 are being advertised against as putting the entire economy at risk, without ever laying out how they get from Point A to Point D. Now, I’m not particularly fond of those amendments, but to call it manipulative and fear-mongering wouldn’t be an exagerration.
Both sides do this, for what it’s worth*. They jump straight to the worst/best-case-scenario as if that were the actual law being passed. Feh. Give me some facts and let me draw the conclusion.
*To be fair, the Yes on 47 flier I have before me is very straightforward about what the amendment is about, even though I disagree about its merits.
I’ll note that, as a general note, I dislike on principle constitutional amendments regarding anything other than profound statements of personal rights or fundamentals of governance. Using it as a way to make ostensibly legislature-proof laws is sloppy and hazardous to our democracy.
Since the last review, the ballot has changed some. Four union-backed Amendments — 53, 55, 56, and 57 — were pulled in exchange for a big chunk o’ change to combat some anti-union measures (47, 49, and 54). Those others will remain on the ballot (too late to remove them), but votes on them will not count.
* 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. Poorly written and , to my mind, premature (albeit in a perfect world it would make great sense, and thus be unnecessary). No.
* AMENDMENT 47 – Right to work – Would outlaw agreements requiring workers covered by union contracts to pay fees for representation. Again, in a perfect world, “forced-unionism” wouldn’t be necessary. As it is, all those folks professing love and sympathy for the poor workers who have to pay union fees are the sort of folks that unions were designed to address. Definitely 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. Definitely No.
* AMENDMENT 49 – Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions – Would ban governments from taking deductions directly from employee paychecks for any nongovernmental special interest group. Read: union dues. No.
* AMENDMENT 50 – Limited Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek – Would allow casino towns to vote on whether to increase bet limits to $100 from $5, expand hours of operation and add games. While I’m philosophically inclined to allow it, there’s no convincing argument made that it’s necessary to vote yes. Probably No.
* 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. A state constitutional amendment for a sales tax increase? Bad way to do it. Probably No..
* AMENDMENT 52 – Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways – Would allocate more severance tax money to transportation. Instead of water projects? Stupid. No.
* AMENDMENT 53 – Corporate fraud – Would impose tougher sanctions for fraud committed by businesses, executives. Generally speaking, all for it. Yes.
* AMENDMENT 54 – Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors – 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? There’s something to be said for some of the provisions here, but it’s a ham-handed approach, and doesn’t prove its case. No.
* AMENDMENT 55 – Just cause – Would require an employer to provide a reason for firing a worker. Current labor laws make it difficult enough. Probably No.
* AMENDMENT 56 – Health coverage for employees – Would require employers with 20 or more workers to provide health care coverage for workers. 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. Employers should be held accountable for unsafe workplaces. Probably Yes.
* AMENDMENT 58 – Severance taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry – Would reduce energy company tax breaks and use revenue to pay for college scholarships and other programs. Explain to me again why are we subsidizing energy companies? Yes.
* AMENDMENT 59 – Education Funding and TABOR Rebates – Would lift constitutional limits on state spending and direct additional revenue into an education fund. I’m no TABOR fan, but this one hasn’t convinced me. Probably No.
* REFERENDUM L: Would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21. Let the voters decide. Yes.
* REFERENDUM M – Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the state constitution about land value increases. It’s not clear they are all that obsolete. No.
* REFERENDUM N: – Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor. In this case, there’s no reason for the provisions. 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. Retains citizen initiatives but makes constitutional changes a bit harder. Yes.
I talked to my Father this morning and he and my Step-mother did the Early Voting/Mail in ballot. He laughed that home with the LWV booklet and the Blue Book it still took them 20 minutes to wade through all the State/County/City proposals, the Candidates and the Judges.
We need to do our mail-ins this week. I’ll set aside a good block of time for it. 🙂
One issue that has received very little attention is what’s behind the unprecedented deal between more mainstream business interests, and organized labor in Colorado. It was business that approached labor to put together the deal to cooperate against 47, 49, and 54. Why would they do that, when they’re used to dealing with labor from a position of strength?
Consider the landscape: Democrats tend to be more favorable to organized labor. The country, and the state of Colorado, appear to be poised to move toward the Dems. What are the ramifications? I think we don’t fully know.
But i am quite sure of this, from having observed events over the last few weeks: business interests have great concern that Amendment 47 could touch off a very unpredictable struggle that could indeed adversely impact the economy, far beyond the direct impact of the changes to the law. The predictions that the economy could be at serious risk may not be far off the mark.
As far as the campaigns focusing on issues that skirt the simple mechanics of what the amendments would (or would not) do, they’re trying to win. The campaigns (on whichever side of the issues) don’t exist in a vacuum, they take into account public perceptions and prejudices. Are they wise to follow these strategies? Time will tell.
Would i run a campaign differently, if it were up to me? Yes, absolutely. But i can flatter myself that i’d be looking at the big picture, rather than one specific campaign. I expect that consultants don’t get paid for thinking that way.
I have little doubt that the business interests considered any money they could fork over against the anti-union proposals paled in the face of the potential costs of the “anti-business” proposals they got the unions to withdraw. (It’s noteworthy that the unions were willing to give in on those; it makes me think that was the plan all along, and/or that they actually believed that the proposals would negatively impact businesses and employment in Colorado.)
And, yes, I realize that the campaigns jump to “voting for/against this amendment means al-Qaeda will take your little girl’s puppy and grind it into anthrax dust” because they think it’s the way to “win.” I just find it really annoying.
Great job on on Amendment 50. The only ones that are voting yes on that are the ones who will gain from it, or think they will gain.
We have a bunch more on our blog: http://KeepVegasOut.com/
Thanks again!
Well, I’d assume that’s the case, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I just need more convincing than I’ve received that it’s necessary to change the status quo.