Ballot mailings and newspaper reviews of ballot initiatives haven't swung into full steam yet, but I want to tag this article before I close it. Note that the "probablies" could change, but are not terribly likely to.<\/p>\n
No. 20 – State Health Care System<\/b> [Amendment 69]<\/p>\n
I'm going to stand silent for the moment on this state health insurance initiative, as I have family members in the health care \/ health insurance industry. That said, (a) in principle I think this is a good thing, and (b) I have not confirmed the numbers make any sort of sense. Recused<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
No. 96 – Requirements for Initiated Constitutional Amendments<\/b><\/p>\n
Though not as zany as, say, California, Colorado's initiative system is a mess because (a) everyone files for a constitutional amendment because (b) nobody trusts the legislature to not rescind any simple law passed that they don't like. The result is a regular stream of poorly written legal changes that cannot be easily fixed. This initative increases the number of signatures needed to get something on the ballot, spread through each state senate district, as well as requiring such amendments garner 55% of the vote.<\/p>\n
I like upping the number, and I like upping the voting threshold, but spreading such measures to require 2% of all registered voters in each district petition would work poorly for Colorado, which has some very conservative and some very liberal areas. I think this proposal tips the balance too much against citizen-led initiatives which, despite their flaws, are also an important tool for the population to directly legislate around the statehouse. Probably No<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
No. 98 – Primary Elections<\/b> <\/p>\n
This one doesn't create presidential primaries (see below), but would make all primary races open ones, available to unaffiliated voters not just party members.<\/p>\n
I'm torn a bit on this — on the one hand, open primaries tend to favor more centrist politicians, which is a good thing. On the other hand, telling the political parties who must be allowed to vote in their own candidate selection process seems a bit unfair, even if the parties themselves operate as quasi-public entities. <\/p>\n
That the Founders were so much against party politics that they didn't provide any US Constitution guidance for how to manage that inevitable development is one of the weaknesses of our political system. I will likely vote in favor of this, preferring pragmatism to principle in at least this case. Probably Yes<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
No. 101 – Minimum Wage Increase<\/b><\/p>\n
Raises the state minimum wage to $12 by 2020, and continues to index it to inflation. My take: if you can't live off of the minimum wage, then it's not really serving its purpose, and the idea that minimum wage jobs are just for teens to get soda fountain money is a horribly outdated notion. The minimum wage is increasingly used a primary source of income, or the basis of it. Yes<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
No. 140 – Presidential Primary Election<\/b><\/p>\n
Yes, this will cost the state $2-7 million. But, yes, this will create a broader base for selecting a candidate than the current cliquey caucus system does. Yes<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
No. 143 – New Cigarette and Tobacco Taxes<\/b><\/p>\n
I need to examine this one more carefully, but I'm not convinced these industries need still higher taxes to deter smokers (smoking seems to be fading away just fine); jack up taxes enough, and suddenly bootlegging and related crime goes up, too. Also, whiile the causes the money would go to all sound good (and are mostly related to smoking), this creates a weird incentive structure: the taxes are meant to reduce smoking, but reducing smoking reduces the money going to these programs. Probably No<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
No. 145 – Medical Aid in Dying<\/b><\/p>\n
Lets a terminally-ill adult, with two physicians' approval, get a prescription for life-ending drugs. The likelihood of abuse seems trivial compared to the opportunity for people to die with dignity. Yes<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Amendment T – Slavery Language<\/b><\/p>\n
Cleans up some antiquated, obsolete language in the state constitution allowing individuals to be held in "involuntary servitude" if convicted of a crime, though other provisions in the constitution forbid this. If this were just language clean-up, I might be better with this, but it's being treated as a "we must scrub this bit of history because it upsets people," which cause I am far less sympathetic toward. Probably No<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Amendment U – Property Taxes<\/b> <\/p>\n
Gives a property tax exemption for interest earnings of under $6K from leasing government property. I need to read more analysis on this one, but my first thought is that we don't need more property tax exemptions, and that some group is trying to pull a fast one. Probably No<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
[h\/t +<\/span>Stan Pedzick<\/a><\/span>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n View on Google+<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n
\n<\/a>
\nYour Guide To Colorado’s 2016 Ballot<\/a><\/span>
\nMedical aid in dying, a boost in the minimum wage and a measure to make it harder to amend Colorado’s constitution are among the 9 measures that voters\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
