I do these each election cycle: listing and opining on Colorado state ballot measures — statute and constitutional, citizen-initiated and legislative. Colorado has a big bundle of propositions this year, so let’s see what they look like.
If you want more Official Info on any of these, the Colorado secretary of state’s office has got you covered a couple of different ways. There also useful info over at Ballotpedia. I’d also recommend some of the coverage at the Colorado Sun and CPR.
Amendment 81 – NO
Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities
This would add to the state constitution (!) the requirement for law enforcement to notify ICE whenever someone (whose legal presence in the US isn’t “determined”) is charged with a violent crime, or with any crime if there’s a prior felony conviction.
Bah.
Nothing is defined here as to how citizenship is to be “determined,” and the default is “assume they need to be reported to ICE unless they can prove otherwise.” How much will procedures vary from place to place or DA by DA? What does seem certain is that, inevitably, people with a lawful basis to be here, but who look, y’know, like the wrong kind of foreigner, won’t be able to prove they are citizens to whatever level the locals is satisfied with. Instead, they will get quickly thrown into the ICE system, to who knows what end.
The system seems designed to make mistakes, all on the side of deportation action.
Further, this new constitutional amendment comes into play when someone is just charged with a crime. Not convicted. Presumption of innocence and due process is thrown out the window (substituted by “presumption of illegal presence”), which is just wrong. It will further incent arrests, regardless of probable cause, by some law enforcement of folk who don’t “look” right.
The folk backing this are the usual suspects. Let’s not.
Amendment 82 – NO
Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas
Gives a constitutional right to buy natural gas for cooking and heating, and business to distribute and sell it.
The only thing positive to say about natural gas is that it is arguably less bad for the environment and climate than, say, dirty, ugly coal. Which I can only imagine the people pushing this proposal would like to provide a constitutional right to use and sell as well.
It’s very easy to see this amendment not only preventing some not-yet-seen armageddon, but being used by natural gas providers to fight in court all sorts of environmental and safety regulations that violate their “constitutional right” to transport and sell natural gas.
I don’t approve of forcing folk to get rid of natural gas already installed in their house … but nobody’s actually doing that. If municipalities or the state want to restrict use of natural gas appliances for new sales or new houses — I think that’s up to them (and their voters), not something in the state constitution.
Amendment 83 – NO
Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
This would provide a constitutional right (!) to hunt and fish and require the wildlife management authorities prioritize hunting and fishing as means of wildlife management.
I’ll admit that I’m neither a hunter nor fisher, and actually kind of disapprove of both pastimes — but I don’t consider my disapproval sufficient to agitate for banning such hobbies. But nobody else is proposing that, either, and that would be an appropriate time to float such a constitutional amendment.
I also think this is a trivializing use of the state constitution. But maybe I don’t have enough appreciation for the idea of hunting and fishing warranting protection as a constitutional right, right next to religion and due process and the like.
There are also concerns that such a “right,” as defined, could override previously passed constitutional language that prohibit certain methods of hunting, such as leghold traps, poisons and snares.
Finally, the state constitution shouldn’t mandate about something technical like wildlife management. Bah.
Amendment 84 – NO
Mail Ballot Voter Identification
Colorado mail-in ballots currently require a signature, which is checked against a database to validate the submission. This would additionally require some sort of ID number — Social Security (last 4 digits), state driver’s license number, or some other of a set of ID provided.
But, like the signature, these IDs will go on the outside of the envelope. I understand that’s to protect the principle of a secret ballot … I don’t want my DL number, let alone my SSI number (even the last four digits) on the outside of an envelope I’m mailing in. That creates too much opportunity for ID theft issues, without having demonstrated any significant problem of fraudulent mail-in ballots.
By adding an additional requirement, it also make it more likely that mis-writing, or mis-reading, will force an otherwise legit ballot to be rejected, and will slow down an election process that critics already says is too slow to provide results.
No, this strikes me as just an effort to drum up fear and paranoia about mail-in ballots, both as presuming them as risky for election security, as well as making people worried about using them. Bah.
Amendment 85 – NO
Plain Language Ballot Titles
Requires (in the state constitution!) that ballot titles and question language be written in plain language at an 8th grade reading level.
Colorado already has requirements for plain language in such things. This adds in an “8th Grade reading level” requirement, without actually providing how that’s to be determined (having been in the ed biz in the past I know that reading level indices can vary quite a bit depending on what they focus on).
I see this amendment as (a) a way to challenge ballot propositions that people don’t like, and (b) a way to force ballot propositions to be non-technical (which probably most impacts funding / taxation propositions).
Looking at who supports it is even more reason to oppose it. Bah.
Amendment 86 – No?
Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting
This would set up a process for defining redistricting outside of the normal decennial process, using the state’s Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission to determine how redistricting is being done and preventing it from being used for partisan purposes.
Sigh.
I am deeply offended by gerrymandering. I am very big into independent redistricting commissions. Manipulating electoral districts for partisan advantage bugs the fuck out of me, and represent one of the biggest challenges to democratic principles we have.
That said …
When the GOP got the green light from SCOTUS to Do as thou willt with electoral maps under its gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and GOP-controlled states, under Trump’s encouragement, started passing redistricting legislation to gerrymander the shit out of their states to favor the GOP … well, what can you do? It’s matter (for the Dems, and for pretty-blue Colorado) of playing by the rules while the other side gets free license to cheat. It’s a matter of values vs. pragmatic strategy.
So while I largely support this proposal on principle, I consider the partisan issues (and the principles at stake there) to trump (ha!) my deep distaste for gerrymandering — and see it as strategic protection of what I consider vital national policy and governance needs.
And, yes, in its absence, a shift in the political winds in Colorado could mean I’m making it easier for a GOP in charge to exploit that same tactic here. It’s a calculated gamble.
Urg. I could be possibly convinced otherwise, but I think I’m voting against this. I’m only encouraged further in that course as I look at some of the folk behind and supporting it.
Amendment 87 – YES
Graduated Income Tax
Changes Colorado income tax from a flat 4.4% (under TABOR) to a graduated one that translates to a tax reduction for those with income under a million dollars and an increase to those above.
The cost of a dollar of tax is higher for those with lower income, and less with those of higher income, so graduated or progressive income tax has been how we do things on a federal level for a loooooong time.
(Put another way, the $210 reduction that someone making $50K will be much more significant to that person than the extra $13,914 will hurt the person making $5M.)
I am less thrilled by the amendment’s dedication of the next increase of income tax income for (worthy) causes like K-12 education. Dedicated revenue streams from unrelated taxation is a stupid way of doing things, and ends up with someone saying “Oh, we can therefore reduce the general fund contribution to those causes since they are getting that dedicated money”. If K-12 education isn’t getting enough funding, the state legislature’s feet to be held to the fire over it, not dealing with it by further complicating the tax and budget process.
But the overall principle of graduated income tax makes it worth passage.
Proposition NN – YES
Keep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes
This would require K-12 public education to get a 2% bump up every year for the next decade (countering Colorado’s abysmal education spending). It would do this, not through new taxes, but by doing a TABOR claw-back, exempting that amount of money from the amount that would have to be refunded to taxpayers.
(TABOR, the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights,” requires the state to refund all income brought in beyond a calculated cap, factoring in for inflation and population growth, which has basically throttled state government and prevents any sort of strategic investment or saving. “De-TABORing” is highly popular in state propositions.)
So I just got done saying I hate dedicated taxes-to-cause schemes, and I still do. But I love de-TABORing (not least for the way it makes certain folk get apoplectic), and it is for a worthy cause, so I’m probably a YES here.
(This statue proposition was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Why didn’t they have the guts to pass it themselves?)
Proposition 132 – NO
Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes
This one is basically a big ramp-up of definition of drug possession and drug sales when it’s related to fentanyl, including adding minimum prison sentences.
Not that fentanyl isn’t bad stuff, but should it actually be treated worse than cocaine? Heroin? Why does this particular drug need its to have its net cast wider and its punishments ramped up, aside from it being the Problem of the Day.
This isn’t going to reduce fentanyl addictions. It’s not going to actually discourage fentanyl drug dealing (the existing penalties are pretty onerous). So why pass it except to make people feel that Something Is Being Done?
Proposition 133 – NO
Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor
This one’s about expanding human trafficking law related to what is considered sex trafficking of minors, and throwing in some mandatory life-without-parole penalties.
So nobody can be against penalties for sex trafficking minors. I mean, on one level, if this proposition said, “… shall be dragged down the road over broken glass” for traffickers and customers, my gut would probably be in favor.
But aside from that emotional response … what is the actual problem being dealt with here. What are the cases where these monsters are not being convicted or properly punished for sex trafficking of minors? Is this actually going to deter such heinous crimes? Is there anything being gained here except for making people feel that Something Is Being Done?
Mandatory sentencing is also, as a rule, crappy law. Reality is more difficult than huge hand-waving Tough On Crime initiatives. That’s why we have judges, not computers, passing sentences. It’s been noted by some opponents of this proposition that victims themselves who are coerced into cooperating with their captors/abusers could find themselves swept up into some of these mandatory life penalties, which sounds like a bad result, no? There are also some concerns whether the redefined wording could be extended to prosecute those who help a minor travel to Colorado for an abortion from a state where it is illegal; and I would not be at all surprised if some DA or judge out there in the hinterlands tried that.
In short, this just feels like performative getting-tough against a (justifiably-hated) target, with ill-considered ramifications. Why is this change from the current situation actually needed?
Unless …
Weirdly enough, the main groups I see pushing for this proposition are the ones supporting the next two (134 and 135), and are widely advertising for all three measure to pass. This couldn’t possibly be a way to try to conflate “protect children from sex trafficking” with “we have to protect children from those evil trans people” … could it?
Proposition 134 – NO
Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports
This would require K-12 and collegiate sports to be segregated between male-only, female-only, and coeducational, and limit participation in the first two categories to kids whose bodies are defined as sperm-producing vs. egg-producing.
Or, as the pro-134 folk put it, “Protect Girls’ Sports!”
This is, admittedly, one of the more complex and sensitive touch-points around trans rights (which are, as the slogan goes, human rights). I don’t pretend to think that I know the best course for all its different aspects, let alone how to deal with it in context of the American obsession about SPORTS being some sort of holy fixture in the educational firmament that must, must, be kept pure and holy and center-stage at all times.
But I do know that:
- While written as applying to both men and women, it’s clearly really meant to focus on women‘s sports and the idea that sniggering probably-rapist men calling themselves trans are being given permission to hang out in the girls’ locker room. Nobody’s expressing any concerns about trans-boys competing in male sports.
- There are ways (international sports have adopted them) to deal with the presumed physical inequality (not as significant as one thinks) between trans girls and cis girls. I get it that we put a huge amount of prestige (and scholarship money) into sports achievement, so any sort of “unfair” advantage is controversial … but I see in this a lot more attention being given to trans girls having some sort of “advantage,” vs. girls whose parents can afford private trainers and dedicated training time and sport camps and etc. having some sort of “advantage.”
- Women’s sports have always been under-funded, under-attended, under-appreciated — and efforts to focus on it were always “that’s really woke, nobody cares about that” opposed by the same folk who now claim to consider women’s sports as holy and sacrosanct and absolutely in need of legal protection.
- I have known girls involved in school sports. I’ve also known trans kids. Anyone who wants to make this about simple issues is intentionally or unintentionally wearing blinders.
- The number of trans kids, let alone trans kids who want to compete in sports, is passingly small. That means both that it can be argued that only a small number of people are being blocked from sports they want to compete in … and also that only a small number of cases need to be accommodated to treat folk equally by their identified gender. And there are plenty of ways to make sure that slavering cis teenage guys won’t grab an opportunity to invade girls’ locker room.
In short, I acknowledge this is a complicated situation. It’s not a situation I’m willing to thrown trans kids under the bus for, as things stand. Casting this into law may (as the proponents argue) make things consistent, but this is an area I think that inconsistency and experimentation may be of greater value.
Proposition 135 – NO
Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex or Gender
This would prohibit surgery on minors for altering biological sex characteristics, prohibit people from providing such surgery, and prevent public and private insurance from funding such surgery.
Well, that seems to cover all the bases.
Except this is a case where people are demanding a presumptive prohibition where nobody has demonstrated an actual problem. Surgery on minors for affirming gender is nearly, if not wholly, non-existent.
It’s worth noting that the proposition explicitly excludes surgery on minors to deal with biological sex characteristics from genetic issues (e.g., hermaphrodism). It also explicitly excludes male circumcision (because, you know, that’s natural, not weird!).
It also leaves alone cases where minors get breast reductions (or, augmentation) for cosmetic or convenience reasons.
Which makes me think this is less about “minors cannot choose and must not be forced into such surgery by parents and doctors” and more about “trans stuff is icky and sinful and we don’t want people being trans.” Which, in turn, makes me think that this is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent flap, and the next step will be to ban non-surgical gender affirmation treatments (such as puberty blockers and counseling) and then extend the prohibitions to adults, too. Because the real point here isn’t about protecting minors, its about stamping out people being transgender.
Proposition 136 – NO
Income Tax Rate Limit
This would cap the state income tax rate at 4.4%.
Which is where it is now, but it would conflict with Amendment 87 (see above), which would establish a graduated income tax that would include rates higher than 4.4% for upper income payers … thus teeing up endless litigation to keep rich Coloradoans from (gasp) paying taxes!
That’s pretty much the goal here.
(Just a note for our studio audience. I am upper income myself, by most measures, and I don’t particularly enjoy paying taxes, but I don’t carry that around like a fetish or insist that taxation is theft or that the government shouldn’t provide any services except keeping illegal immigrants out.)
Proposition 137 – NO
Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
This would do what is says on the tin: redirect the sales tax for sporting goods (from hunting rifles to footballs) to water and land conservation efforts.
I support water and land conservation efforts.
I think funding them through a semi-arbitrary hijacking of sales taxes for sporting goods (even if those goods have nothing to do with what such efforts protect) is stupid.
The lege should do its job in funding such things. Propositions that complicate the tax and budget code with special carve-outs are ultimately counter-productive.
Ballot Issue 7A – YES
Front Range Passenger Rail
Should we add a 0.333% sales and use tax in a special rail district for the proposed Colorado Connector (CoCo) passenger rail service?
I think that the service sounds like a fine idea, so guess I’ll put my money where my mouth is.
