2018 Colorado Statewide Ballot Measures Discussion
AMENDMENT V
Amendment V reduces the minimum age for citizens to be members of the Colorado House or Senate from 25 to 21, and it adds a 12-month residency requirement in the district in which the candidate is running.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the average age of a Colorado legislator in 2015 was 55, a decade older than the average age of the state’s adult population. (Ballotpedia)
There are 10 states that have a minimum age of 18 years old to serve in the state House. New Hampshire has a 30-year age requirement to serve in the state Senate. Some states have a minimum age requirement of 21 to serve in the state House, but a higher requirement to serve in the state Senate. Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware set 24 as the state House threshold. (Ballotpedia)
21 is 3 years past the age at which one can vote. A yes here means that a 21-year-old person can run for either house of the State Legislature. It would be up the voters to decide if that person is qualified. In legislatures around the country, age has been no guarantee of either maturity or good sense, as the Colorado Republican group that calls itself the “Hateful Eight” has demonstrated.
We recommend a YES vote.
AMENDMENT W
In Colorado, we use the “Missouri Plan” for retaining judges. Voters are asked if they wish to retain judges after they have served an initial term of at least 2 years. If retained, they will then serve a term of 6, 8, or 10 years (District Court, Court of Appeals or CO Supreme Court, in that order).
On current ballots, the question is, “Shall Justice/Judge xxxx of whichever Colorado Court be retained in office?” It is asked separately for each person. The proposal here is to ask the question once for each category of judges, shortening an always-long ballot and, perhaps, encouraging voters to weigh in on downballot items. Amendment W also (finally) adds “or her” to the language of each question.
County Clerks overwhelmingly support this measure, not just for the clarity it may bring but for the chance to save paper and have ballots that can be mailed with no more than 2 stamps. After some determined layout work by the Pitkin County Elections Department staff, our ballots just slip under the bar and will take 2 stamps.
We recommend a YES vote.
AMENDMENT X
Amendment X addresses the definition and regulation of industrial hemp. Colorado Amendment 64, which legalized recreational use of marijuana in 2012, defines industrial hemp in a way that is consistent with existing federal law.
As long as this definition remains in the Constitution, it will be difficult for our Legislature to change the regulations if, as is expected, the federal government makes changes that will make it easier for farmers to engage in the cultivation of industrial hemp, something the vast majority of Coloradans are anxious to see. The vote to refer this Amendment to voters was opposed by only 5 State Reps, all Republicans.
Amendment X moves the definition to statute (state law) and will now say, “ ‘Industrial hemp’ has the same meaning as defined in federal law or as the term is defined in Colorado statute.”
We recommend a YES vote.
AMENDMENTS Y AND Z
Amendments Y and Z create Independent Redistricting Commissions for drawing district maps, Y for Congressional districts and Z for state legislative redistricting. The proposals are a reaction to the endless quest of Democrats and Republicans to win state legislatures in census years (years which are multiples of 10, 2010, 2020, and so forth) and then redistrict their states to their own advantage. This is called gerrymandering, a practice popularly attributed to Gov Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who, in 1812, devised the practice to benefit his ever-so-fittingly named Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of his districts looked like a salamander.
Amendments Y and Z represent a kind of negotiated truce as both parties find themselves more worried about the consequences of coming out on the short end of redistricting than they are hopeful that they could grab the tainted prize in 2020. If fairness enters into the equation, so much the better. All 100 members of the Colorado Legislature support the plan, as do the State Chairs of both parties, which is quite amazing.
Both Y and Z transfer to the new Redistricting Commissions the authority previously held by the Legislature. They “establish a process for selecting commissioners, new requirements for transparency and ethics and a procedure for judicial review of commission maps; and establish and prioritize the criteria the commission must use for adopting the state’s U.S. congressional district map.” (Blue Book p. 8)
Each Commission will consist of 12 members, 4 from the state’s largest political party, 4 from the state’s second largest political party and 4 who are not affiliated with any political party. Final approval of maps requires 8 votes, including at least 2 unaffiliated commissioners, plus the approval of the Colorado Supreme Court. The Commissions will be required to submit reports explaining the extent to which each district would be competitive.
A minority group’s voting strength must not be diluted under a redistricting map, which means no “cracking and packing.”
Paid lobbying of the Commissions must be reported within 72 hours.
Our former State Rep and esteemed student of politics, Roger Wilson, expresses concern about some subtle issues: “This unfairly excludes members of minority parties (a different issue from voting strength). Commissioners will be chosen by lot, so they may be less qualified to analyze complex statistical and topographic data. Software and data provided by non-partisan legislative staff will drive final maps with little transparency concerning underlying algorithms. This initiative will probably pass due to outward appearance of fairness.”
We can also add that unaffiliated has never meant non-partisan.
Notwithstanding these concerns, we think Amendments Y and Z are a step forward and well worth a YES vote.
AMENDMENT A
Colorado’s Constitution was written and ratified in 1876. Article II is the Colorado Bill of Rights. Section 26 prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime for which a person has been convicted. By removing the exception, we say that slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited in all circumstances.
A no vote would leave in the state constitution the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude in the case of punishment for a crime. A no means that anyone convicted of a crime could be subject to labor without consent in prison.
This question appeared on the ballot in 2016 as Amendment T. It was defeated 50.32% to 49.6%, largely because it was nearly impossible to read the ballot and figure out how to vote. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula rates the readability of the current ballot item as grade level 22 (grad school); Amendment T scored grade 20. (Ballotpedia) Go figure.
We recommend a YES vote on Amendment A.
AMENDMENT 73
Half of all the school districts in Colorado have 4-day school weeks and the poorest of them will soon go to 3 days of school per week. Many students in those districts are losing weight.
Whether it’s per pupil spending or teacher salaries, Colorado consistently ranks between 30th and 47th by available metrics. Colorado teachers are paid thousands of dollars less annually than the national average. Many teachers and support staff in the state qualify for welfare. As a result, Colorado school districts have trouble recruiting and retaining well-qualified faculty.
The new jobs being created in our rapidly growing state require a well-educated workforce. Businesses will continue to relocate to and invest in our state as long as they can meet their staffing requirements. Our schools need to be preparing students for those jobs. School districts need additional resources beyond those already provided to succeed in that mission.
Amendment 73 raises a total of $1.6 billion a year, exclusively for education, by making changes in the state’s tax structure:
The current, flat income tax in Colorado is 4.63% for everyone. Amendment 73 raises the income tax for people with taxable incomes over $150,000 and below $200,000 by .37% on the income between those 2 amounts. The tax on the first $150,000 remains unchanged, so the 91.8% of Coloradans who have taxable incomes between $0 and $150,000 will see no change in their income tax. Income between $200,000 and $300,000 (3.2% of Coloradans) will be taxed at 1.37%. Income between $300,000 and $500,000 will be taxed at 2.37%. Income over $500,000 will be taxed at 3.62%. Table 3, page 43 in the Blue Book details the effect of these changes on taxes paid.
The corporate tax would rise from 4.63% to a 6% fixed rate.
On the other hand, property taxes levied by school districts (and not other government entities) would drop from 7.2% to 7% and the non-residential tax rate would drop from 29% to 24%.
The base per pupil funding would increase from $6769 to $7300 per year for 2019-2020. (It was $6546 in 2017-2018.) See Table 1, page 42 of the Blue Book to see how the funds would be allocated quite precisely to each district in the state.
Altogether, most people will see no change in their taxes at all. For the few whose taxes will go up, people will need to assess the benefits that will accrue to them as a result of residing in a better educated, more gainfully employed state as opposed to their unwillingness to fund any government activity or pay a penny more in taxes than they must. We think the answer is obvious: vote YES on Amendment 73.
AMENDMENT 74
Plainly, Amendment 74 is a disgrace. It was advanced by the gas and oil industry to protect themselves against the possibility that Proposition 112 (2500 foot setbacks) might pass. It requires that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.
74 is written to sound as if it’s about just compensation for homeowners, but it really comes after local or state governments who do their jobs by regulating big oil and gas or financial interests.
We already have Eminent Domain laws that provide for just compensation in the event that government actions reduce property values, and parties can and do sue whenever they are dissatisfied with an offer.
If 74 were to pass, every zoning action, every business/industrial or land management development decision, every infrastructure project would produce an avalanche of lawsuits and make it impossible for all government at every level to perform its lawful functions. It would put taxpayers on the hook for potentially vast settlements. Oregon and Washington tried legislation of this sort and wound up wasting billions of dollars.
Amendment 74 represents the dream of the government-hating extreme right. No wonder 13 Issues, the committee that supports 74, is led by Douglas Bruce, author of TABOR.
NO, NO, NO, NO on 74!
AMENDMENT 75
On its face, Amendment 75 has some appeal. It multiplies by a factor of 5 the limit of allowable contributions to the campaign of a person whose opponent contributes or loans funds totaling more than a million dollars to his or her own campaign or to a committee to support or oppose any candidate in the same election or coordinates third-party contributions totaling more than a million dollars to any committee to influence the candidate’s own election.
The current contribution limit for Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General and State Treasurer is $1150. The current contribution limit for State Senate, State House of Representatives, State Board of Education, CU Regent and District Attorney is $400. Those limits would become $5750 and $2000 respectively.
First of all, the new limits hardly address the very serious problem of campaign finance inequity. Then, as Roger Wilson points out, “If the self funded candidate puts in one dollar less than a million, then nothing changes. This seems too focused on a special case and appears to be more of a penalty mechanism than a finance structure. It may also be bypassed if the self funded candidate puts money indirectly into advocacy institutions rather than directly into their own campaign.”
Ballotpedia has an interesting discussion, including extended pros and cons: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2018_ballot_measures
Finally, the Colorado Supreme Court has struck down something similar.
So, we’re taking No Position on 75. It sounds good and it means well but it doesn’t make a meaningful change and it might be illegal.
PROPOSITIONS 109 AND 110
Propositions 109 and 110 are both responses to the need to address our deteriorating roads and bridges and the demands on transportation infrastructure that change has brought. Existing gas taxes and registration fees have proved inadequate to meet Colorado’s transportation needs. 109 is cynical, manipulative and seedy. 110 is responsible, transparent and equitable.
PROPOSITION 109
109 goes by the moniker, “Fix Our Damn Roads.” Its main proponent is Libertarian extremist Jon Caldara. It proposes that the state should borrow $3.5 billion by issuing bonds that will cost a total of $5.2 billion to repay over a period of 20 years. It names 66 specific road and bridge projects. (See pages 60-63 in the Blue Book for the list.)
By refusing to identify a way of repaying the bonds and directing the State Legislature to identify a stream of revenue from general funds, the $5.2 billion repayment will come from other funding categories within the Colorado budget, particularly education, health care and public safety. TABOR and Gallagher fix the pool of money available to the Legislature. Giving more to one category must reduce what is given to others. Only the voters can consent to allocate more resources in one direction without reducing it elsewhere, and that is why so many tax questions are on every Colorado ballot.
109 does not actually produce $3.5 billion in new transportation spending: “In 2017, the state committed $1.5 billion for transportation projects through the sale and lease-back of state buildings. In 2018, the state devoted another $1.0 billion over a 20-year period for transportation projects from existing state revenues. Under current law, the $3.5 billion in proposed borrowing will replace these commitments, resulting in a net increase of $1.0 billion for transportation.” (Blue Book p 57)
109 also does not include any local projects even though many heavily-traveled roads are under local jurisdiction.
In sum, Proposition 109 is irresponsible and dangerous. Vote NO on 109.
PROPOSITION 110
In contrast to the petulant braying of 109, Proposition 110 is called “Let’s Go Colorado.”
Proposition 110 will increase the state’s sales and use tax rate from 2.9 percent to 3.52 percent for 20 years, costing a household earning $83,473 approximately an extra $156 a year. (Blue Book table 1, p. 65)
Unlike 109, 110 will distribute the new tax revenue for transportation in a way that recognizes and respects the needs and responsibilities of governing bodies throughout the state: 45 percent to the state; 40 percent to local governments; and 15 percent for multimodal transportation projects. Every city and county in the state will receive funds for transportation projects based on an existing state formula.
“Multimodal” includes bike paths, sidewalks, and public transit, such as buses, rail, and rides for the elderly and disabled. None of this is in 109.
110 will permit the state to borrow up to $6.0 billion for transportation projects and limit the total repayment amount, including principal and interest, to $9.4 billion over 20 years. The state reserves the right to repay the bonds early without penalty.
Proposition 110 will be good for Colorado and good for Pitkin County.
Vote YES on Proposition 110.
PROPOSITION 111
Prop 111 addresses the problem of predatory lending practices in our state. It would reduce the interest rate on short term loans to a yearly rate of 36 percent and would eliminate all other finance charges and fees associated with payday lending.
Quite amazingly, current Colorado statute allows a charge of up to 20 percent of the first $300 loaned, a charge of 7.5 percent for any amount loaned above $300, monthly maintenance fees up to $30 per month, and an additional annual interest rate of 45 percent. In 2016, the average APR on payday loans in Colorado was an unspeakable 129%. (Ballotpedia)
Obviously, vote YES on Proposition 111.
PROPOSITION 112
To begin with, let us assume that the overwhelming majority of people who will read this discussion envision a future free of fossil fuels and a complete reliance on renewable energy sources for all our power needs with no phony (Iowa Senator) Chuck Grassley biofuels. We all want to get to this place as soon as possible and we are not willing to sit by idly while flames come out of people’s faucets and our air and water are poisoned. What follows is about whether Proposition 112 is the best way to get us there.
Proposition 112 mandates that
new oil and gas development, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500
feet from occupied buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas
designated as vulnerable.
Vulnerable areas are defined by the initiative as “playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government.” (Ballotpedia)
The new, 2500 ft setback requirements would not apply to oil and gas development on federal lands, 36% of the land in Colorado.
The setback requirements would apply to any new oil and gas development and to certain kinds of maintenance permitted on or after the effective date of the measure.
Here’s a map of oil and gas extraction across Colorado: https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/
Be sure to click on the appropriate layers in the menu on the side of your screen: wells, oil and gas fields and anything else you’d like to see.
The following is a very thoughtful discussion of Prop 112 concluding with his recommendation to vote no from a person with impeccable environmental credentials, former State Rep Roger Wilson, who looks at 112 in terms of likely results in the event that the proposition passes:
“Current setbacks of 500 ft from homes and 1000 ft from larger occupancy buildings are a regulation set by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission (COGCC). Since the regulations are currently not legislative or constitutional they can more easily be adapted to conditions. New regulations by the COGCC could increase setbacks without the initiative but they have not responded to public pressure. Proposition 112 sets “one size fits all” requirement of 2500 ft with little alternative to allow for special conditions. This new half-mile setback in all directions will exclude significant amounts of lease holdings from new production. If an old previously drilled well falls within the new exclusion zone it cannot be re-drilled under 112. That will likely make maintenance of old wells difficult for tasks such as repair of a broken well casing – taking existing wells off line early or even leaving them as a greater environmental hazard. The COGCC estimates 54% of total land surface would be unavailable for new production. However it is not clear how much of a change this would be from private land that is currently unavailable, so the actual economic impact is uncertain.
Most of Colorado’s severance tax comes from oil and gas production. Beneficiaries of severance tax include the Department of Local Affairs, local schools, county government operations, the Department of Natural Resources, the Perpetual Base Fund for water projects, and the low-income household energy fund.
Eventually as minerals are depleted, Colorado must seek revenue not based on severance tax. If 112 is passed a new initiative will be needed under TABOR to adjust the tax base sooner than later. In the meantime services provided by severance tax will be put at risk. Vote yes if you want to reduce production; vote no if you are more concerned about the economic impact with the hope the COGCC will add more regulations to protect public health.
An Example of What Proposition 112 Could Do but Does Not and the COGCC Should do:
While increasing the setback to 2500 ft will lower the health and environmental risk to individuals, more effective regulations not in Proposition 112 could include 1) containment of drilling fluids (including fracking flowback) in enclosed containers rather than open pits, 2) inspecting and plugging nearby abandoned wells prior to fracking, and 3) continuous monitoring for VOCs and fugitive methane at every drill site, injection well, storage facility, and transportation depot and pipeline system. Proposition 112 does none of that.”
On the other hand, recommending a yes vote on 112, Morgan Carroll, former State Senator and current Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, wrote this equally thoughtful piece for the Oct 11th issue of Colorado Politics from the point of view of someone who is completely fed up with trying to get the gas and oil industry to act responsibly:
“Looking at the history of interactions between the oil and gas industry and our communities over the past several years, it’s abundantly clear why the people of Colorado are bringing Proposition 112 forth. Instead of adopting better health and safety standards to residents and workers, the oil and gas industry has rebuffed all prior reasonable legislative solutions and instead chosen to invest over $80 million dollars to undermine all citizen-led efforts that would allow communities to protect themselves from drilling operations that are destroying their neighborhoods.
You don’t have to look far to see real-life examples of the industry’s refusal to comply with even the slightest requests to improve health and safety regulations. Just last year, the oil and gas industry sued the city of Thornton after council members passed a local measure to establish a 750 foot buffer zone between all new oil and gas operations and homes. The measure, which was only a slight increase from the current state setback of 500 feet, was meant to provide relief to nearby residents from disruptive loud noises, blaring lights, nauseating fumes and health impacts resulting from nearby drilling operations.
We are also seeing drilling operations happening in parts of Aurora that are shockingly close to homes and schools. People are frustrated by the loss of property value, the loss of quality of life and fearful about the health and safety consequences for their kids. In the nearby city and county of Broomfield, county commissioners spent two years negotiating the terms of a drilling plan with Extraction Oil & Gas, only to have the company make drastic changes at the last minute.
Extraction’s proposal included several mega-well sites with plans to drill more than 150 wells in close proximity to homes and schools. Public hearings drew thousands of concerned community members who felt compelled to weigh in on the effects that a drilling plan of this magnitude would have on their neighborhoods. Just minutes before commissioners called for a vote on the proposal, and after more than four hours of public testimony from Broomfield citizens pleading for the plan to be rejected, Extraction’s CEO and attorney threatened to sue if the plan was not approved that night.
What is most alarming about this type of industry bullying is that they are also quick to dismiss legitimate concerns about health and safety. During negotiations, Broomfield County commissioners asked Extraction representatives for details about the cause of a massive explosion that took place in Windsor last December. The questions became all the more relevant upon knowing that the explosion took place at a drilling site that is almost identical to the plan proposed for Broomfield. Instead of explaining how they would prevent a similar disaster in an even more densely populated area, Extraction representatives, with a pound of their fist on the podium, refused to answer questions, and just walked out of the hearing.
Quite often, we see city councils and county commissioners trying to ensure that negotiations with the oil and gas industry include measures to protect health and safety. But as we see time and time again, the industry is quick to point out that local authority is preempted by the state, regardless of what the city, county, or community members want. As was the case in Thornton, in Broomfield, and in communities across Colorado that have tried to negotiate with an industry that is unwilling to compromise.
I have seen the power of the oil & gas lobby at the State Capitol firsthand. Representatives can be heard admitting that any bills regarding oil and gas don’t stand a chance of passing unless the industry approves. The industry’s power and influence over every level of our government is exactly why change has not, and will not, happen at the state level anytime soon. That’s why even the most common-sense bills — such as increasing setbacks for schools, holding the industry accountable for earthquake damage, and upholding the Martinez decision to prioritize health and safety — have failed.
In 2017, we witnessed over a dozen fires and explosions at oil and gas sites in Colorado in the eight months following the deadly home explosion in Colorado. Communities were left shaken, and many residents living nearby are still struggling with the decision to stay in their homes or move out. With proposals to drill hundreds of wells in suburban settings in dangerously close proximity to the places we live, work and our children play, there needs to be a solution for keeping our neighborhoods safe. Since the industry will not work with legislators or residents, that solution is Proposition 112.”
The Pitkin County
Commissioners and the Aspen City Council have endorsed 112. We applaud them
all. Fracking in Pitkin County is an “over my dead body” issue, like a dam in
front of the Maroon Bells. 2500 feet is 50 miles too short.
Add to the discussion the fact that the $34 million that oil and gas interests have spent opposing 112 has made it impossible to cast a no vote on 112 that could be interpreted as a principled objection.
In sum, we think YES is the correct vote on Prop 112.
