I'm not sure I'd vote for a 21yo (or a 25yo, for that matter), but I dont see real harm here; if we trust them to drink or serve in the military, they should be able to sit in the lege if they get elected. Doug Bruce opposes it, so that's enough to settle the matter.<\/p>\n
Amendment W – Judicial Ballot Format — YES<\/b><\/p>\n
Revises the ballot format for judicial retention elections to something simpler.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/Dd4UZb<\/a>)<\/p>\n The revised format is much clearer, IMO, as well as saving space. The opposition argument that it will confuse people is nonsensical. Also, Doug Bruce opposes it for some shaking-fist-at-sky reason.<\/p>\n Amendment X – Industrial Hemp Definition — YES<\/b><\/p>\n Revises the state constitutional definition to the federal law or state statute definition.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/RPr38U<\/a>)<\/p>\n Sounds like it creates consistency (and gets an industrial \/ technical definition out of the state constitution, which was put there when Amendment 64, legalizing recreational marijuana, was passed), and positions Colorado better for national industrial hemp production standard changes. Also, Doug Bruce opposes it.<\/p>\n Amendment Y – Congressional Redistricting — YES<\/b><\/p>\n One of two ballot measures putting redistricting of congressional districts into a neutral board with defined priority criteria.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/VfcemB<\/a>)<\/p>\n It's a complicated measure, and I'm not convinced it will get rid of the usual law suits over proposed maps, but getting redistricting out of the direct<\/i> hands of the state lege majority is a Good Thing. Also, Doug Bruce opposes it as a fiendish Democratic plot.[2] <\/p>\n Amendment Z – Legislative Redistricting — YES<\/b><\/p>\n Second redistricting bill, focused on state legislative districts.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/vJ8gtB<\/a>)<\/p>\n Same thoughts as with Amendment Y.<\/p>\n Amendment A – Slavery and Involuntary Servitude — YES<\/b><\/p>\n Not allow slavery and involuntary servitude as a criminal punishment.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/CaXfqf<\/a>)<\/p>\n The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, as enacted by Colorado, has a loophole allowing the use of these punishments for convicted criminals. This amendment removes that exception, and looks to be backed by a wide array of liberal and conservative committees. This does not apparently impact prison labor or work-release programs (and hasn't in the many other states that have passed similar measures). In short, it seems mostly a feel-good measure, and one that I'm willing to vote on alongside Doug Bruce.<\/p>\n Amendment 73 – School Funding — YES<\/b><\/p>\n Increases K-12 funding through increased income taxes, and fiddling with property taxes.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/t7KXDi<\/a>)<\/p>\n More complication on top of Colorado's already complicated (and inadequate) school funding process, but it does look to increase funding and shift more of the funding from property taxes to income taxes, which seems reasonable. Its main opposition seems to be Doug Bruce and other conservative groups, whose main argument seems to be that school funding isn't related to academic achievement and that the state should just grab money it needs from other programs. <\/p>\n I dont think the law is perfect (there's some inflation-related bracket questions), but I think it's an improvement on the status quo.<\/p>\n Amendment 74 – Compensation for Regulation — NO<\/b><\/p>\n Requires the government to compensate property owners if laws or regulations have any effect on property value.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/4W11nZ<\/a>)<\/p>\n Also known as the "If the state passes a law saying I can't let a mercury mining company build a toxic dump on my property next to a school, I should get paid for that 'loss'" bill. This is a horrifyingly awful law that would effectively block any further regulation on what a property owner does, for fear that they could come back and point to the potential loss of revenue. <\/p>\n It's fronted by a farming group, but largely funded by extraction industry money (and is, in large part, a reaction to Prop 112, below). Also, Doug Bruce thinks it's peachy.<\/p>\n Amendment 75 – Campaign Contributions — YES?<\/b><\/p>\n Allow larger campaign contributions if a rich candidate self-funds their campaign.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/6sd8fX<\/a>)<\/p>\n I think it's an arguable idea, but it basically tries to solve the campaign finance problem by increasing<\/i> the money thrown into the system, which seems problematic. The opposition includes both conservative and liberal folks, and I need to research this one further before the election. Leaning "Yes" but not definitively so.<\/p>\n Proposition 109 – Bonds for Highway Projects — NO?<\/b><\/p>\n One of two transportation funding issues. Allows bonds be issued for a laundry list of highway improvement projects in the state.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/jxbyNS<\/a>)<\/p>\n The main sticking point for me is that the state basically borrows the money, but is required to pay it back out of existing revenue (and without any provision for maintenance). Opposed by a mixed group (including Doug Bruce). I want to read more arguments on this one regarding that funding question; I agree we need to spend more on such projects, but that spending should be funded by the taxpayers, not sucked out of existing programs.<\/p>\n (If 109 and 110 both pass, then where the two conflict then the one with the most votes prevails; where there is no conflict, provisions of either one will occur. Also, if neither of them pass, then a state senate bill provides a different bond issue for transportation will be triggered for November 2019.)<\/p>\n Proposition 110 – Sales Taxes and Bonds for Transportation Projects — YES<\/b><\/p>\n The second transportation funding issue. Allows bonds, paid back by a sales tax increase, to go to state, local, and multimodal transportation projects.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/2ZCDLj<\/a>)<\/p>\n I like this one better, simply because it actually funds what it's trying to do. I also like that it gives more flexibility in how the money is spent (both state and local roadways), and includes funding for stuff other than just highways. I don't like higher taxes, but this seems a worthy cause for them. <\/p>\n Proponents are both citizen groups and a lot of municipalities. Doug Bruce opposes it, because taxes. Joe Caldera opposes it, because mass transit.<\/p>\n Proposition 111 – Limits on Payday Loans — YES<\/b><\/p>\n Limits APR and unfair\/deceptive trade practices on payday lending.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/zUuHfQ<\/a>)<\/p>\n Payday loaning is highly lucrative through extortionate interest rates (averaging 129%) and fees. I am not at all convinced by the opposition (including Doug Bruce) who say that this will end the practice in Colorado, only that it will help avoid the cycle of increasing debt that low income workers trapped in through these loans.<\/p>\n Proposition 112 – Increased Setbacks for Oil \/ Natural Gas Development — YES<\/b><\/p>\n Increases the setback from occupied structures and water sources for such development.<\/i> (https:\/\/goo.gl\/YVUNSd<\/a>)<\/p>\n If nothing else, the fear-mongering campaign being run by the extraction industry on this would make me vote for it. Also, Doug Bruce is against it. On the contrary, those resources won't be going anywhere if they are needed in the future (or if a change in this statutory scheme is needed), and keeping such drilling and extraction far away from vulnerable areas for the time being sounds like a fine idea to me.<\/p>\n—————-<\/del>
[1] http:\/\/www.sos.state.co.us\/pubs\/elections\/Initiatives\/ballot\/contacts\/2018.html<\/a>
[2] https:\/\/www.coloradoan.com\/story\/opinion\/2018\/09\/30\/opinion-amendments-y-and-z-rigged-help-democrats\/1448672002\/<\/a>
[3] Bruce's campaign group positions can be found at http:\/\/13issues.com\/sites\/13issues.com\/files\/2018BI<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n