{"id":13689,"date":"2008-10-22T14:39:50","date_gmt":"2008-10-22T21:39:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/2008\/10\/22\/colorado-ballot-propositions.html"},"modified":"2008-10-22T14:39:50","modified_gmt":"2008-10-22T21:39:50","slug":"colorado_ballot_propositi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2008\/10\/22\/colorado_ballot_propositi.html","title":{"rendered":"Colorado ballot propositions"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

I touched on this topic a month back<\/a>, but I’ve finished going through the ballot proper, and here are my thoughts.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 <\/em>draw the conclusion.<\/p>\n

*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.<\/small> <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\n

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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

*<\/strong> AMENDMENT 46 – <\/strong>Colorado Civil Rights Initiative – <\/strong>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<\/strong>.<\/em> <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

* AMENDMENT 47 – <\/strong>Right to work – <\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 48 – <\/strong>Definition of person – <\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 49 – <\/strong>Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions – <\/strong>Would ban governments from taking deductions directly from employee paychecks for any nongovernmental special interest group. Read: union dues. No.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 50 – Limited <\/strong>Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek – <\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 51 – <\/strong>Sales tax for disabled services – <\/strong>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..<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 52 – <\/strong>Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways – <\/strong>Would allocate more severance tax money to transportation. Instead of water projects? Stupid. No.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 53 – <\/strong>Corporate fraud – <\/strong>Would impose tougher sanctions for fraud committed by businesses, executives. <\/strike>Generally speaking, all for it. Yes.<\/strong><\/strike><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 54 – <\/strong>Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors – <\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 55 – <\/strong>Just cause – <\/strong>Would require an employer to provide a reason for firing a worker. <\/strike>Current labor laws make it difficult enough. Probably No.<\/strong><\/strike><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 56 – <\/strong>Health coverage for employees – <\/strong>Would require employers with 20 or more workers to provide health care coverage for workers. <\/strike>Some action is better than no action. Yes.<\/strong><\/strike><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 57 – <\/strong>Safe workplaces – <\/strong>Would allow an employee to sue for damages in addition to any settlements from the workers compensation system. <\/strike>Employers should be held accountable for unsafe workplaces. Probably Yes.<\/strong><\/em> <\/strike> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 58 – <\/strong>Severance taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry – <\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* AMENDMENT 59 – <\/strong>Education Funding and TABOR Rebates – <\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* REFERENDUM L: <\/strong>Would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21. Let the voters decide. Yes.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* REFERENDUM M – <\/strong>Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the state constitution about land value increases. It’s not clear they are all that obsolete. No.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* REFERENDUM N: – <\/strong>Would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor. In this case, there’s no reason for the provisions. Yes.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n

* REFERENDUM O: <\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/em> <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-elections-2008"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":131988,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2016\/11\/09\/and-on-the-local-electoral-front.html","url_meta":{"origin":13689,"position":0},"title":"And on the local electoral front","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 9-Nov-16 7:31am","format":false,"excerpt":"From here in the Denver metro area, things turned out ... less awful than nationally.We re-elected our Democratic Senator. The Dems still ended up with a minority in the Senate, but did pick up at least one seat there, leaving them just a scosh down from the center point. I'm\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/vote-ballot-initiative-300x2105B15D.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":30020,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/08\/29\/colorado-personhood-comes-up-short-for-the-november-ballot.html","url_meta":{"origin":13689,"position":1},"title":"Colorado Personhood comes up short for the November ballot","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 29-Aug-12 1:15pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Have to say I'm pleased by this, both because it means we won't have this on the ballot yet again (plus the finite chance that it could have passed), and because it indicates there's not enough support out there for them to have made it happen.I do expect a nasty\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":30788,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/10\/23\/colorado-ballot-propositions-2012-amendment-65.html","url_meta":{"origin":13689,"position":2},"title":"Colorado Ballot Propositions 2012: Amendment 65","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 23-Oct-12 9:02pm","format":false,"excerpt":"So far we've had Civil Service reform (weakening) in Amendment S, and Marijuana Legalization in Amendment 64. \u00a0Tonight, the last statewide initiative on the ballot: Amendment 65, the (kinda-sorta) Campaign Finance Reform initiative. So here's the problem: A lot of people agree that excess money from individuals and organizations distorts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Big Business"","block_context":{"text":"Big Business","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/big-business"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/citizens-united_checks-balances-300x237.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":131696,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2016\/10\/01\/a-look-at-colorados-ballot-initiatives.html","url_meta":{"origin":13689,"position":3},"title":"A look at Colorado's ballot initiatives","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 1-Oct-16 8:17am","format":false,"excerpt":"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.No. 20 - State Health Care System [Amendment 69]I'm going to stand silent for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":13602,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2008\/11\/05\/colorado_ballot_propositi-2.html","url_meta":{"origin":13689,"position":4},"title":"Colorado Ballot Propositions – Recap","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 5-Nov-08 12:20pm","format":false,"excerpt":"For the most part, my vote \"No\" was echoed by most Colorado voters. My vote [State vote]\u00a0 * AMENDMENT 46 -\u00a0Colorado Civil Rights Initiative\u00a0- Would prohibit the state from granting...","rel":"","context":"In "Elections 2008"","block_context":{"text":"Elections 2008","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law\/elections-2008"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":45034,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2014\/09\/08\/ballot-propositions-i-will-soon-tire-of-hearing-about.html","url_meta":{"origin":13689,"position":5},"title":"Ballot Propositions I will soon tire of hearing about","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 8-Sep-14 7:14pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Swear to God I was just wondering today when these would be finalized so I could see what they were. Here are Colorado's ballot issues (and my immediate thoughts on them):Amendment 67 - Personhood -- Oh, look, yet another Personhood amendment. No, I don't want to back-door abortion and birth\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13689","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}