By CHEC Legislative Liaison Carolyn Martin
Ballot Initiatives
One of the primary duties of being a citizen in America is to vote. Mid-term elections notoriously have a low voter turnout. While voting can be a challenge when there are many items on the ballot, it is important that we take the time to investigate the proposals and vote. Abstaining from voting will help bad measures pass, so don’t just skip them.
On the ballot you will receive in the mail in just a few short weeks, there will be 9 amendments to the Colorado Constitution and 4 propositions to change the Colorado Revised Statutes. Each one of these would change different aspects of how we are governed.
I will be voting no on all of them except Amendment 74. In general, a good rule of thumb is, when in doubt, vote NO!
Here is a brief overview of each amendment and proposition on the ballot. Because of space concerns, I cannot elaborate at length, but feel free to contact me if you want help understanding any of these measures. (Also, on the Secretary of State’s website, you can find the full ballot language and information here for each amendment and proposition. Click “Text” or “Ballot Analysis” to view the information.)
- Amendment V: Voting no. Reduction in age for members of the Colorado Assembly from 25 years old to 21 years old. [This is a concern because statesmen need experience in the real world before joining the political class.]
- Amendment W: Voting no. Change the ballot format for the question of retaining judges. [This could add more confusion to the ballot, and eliminate the ability to retain or remove judges on an individual basis.]
- Amendment X: Voting no. Change the definition of industrial hemp to align with the federal definition. [I disagree with this because I believe definitions are best made at the state level instead of handing more authority to the federal government.]
- Amendment Y: Voting no. Change the process by which congressional districts lines are drawn. [While there are issues with the current system, this solution removes voter accountability, and places redistricting in the hands of an unelected committee. The redistricting process would also be politicized by prioritizing ethnic communities and marginalizing conservative neighborhoods. This system has been implemented in California and has impacted them negatively instead of helping.]
- Amendment Z: Voting no. Change the process by which Colorado assembly district lines are drawn. [See notes on Amendment Y.]
- Amendment A: Voting no. Prohibit slavery and involuntary solitude. [Slavery and involuntary servitude are already illegal so this is unneeded at a certain level. Additionally, the change could impact prisoner work programs, causing confusion over the legality of their wages.]
- Amendment 73: Voting no. Raises income tax rates for the funding of the public-school system from preschool through 12th grade. [Amounts to a $1.6 billion tax increase and, as written, it is not subject to the TABOR rules of growth. TABOR – Taxpayer Bill of Rights added to the Colorado Constitution in 1992, places a limit on the growth of government and subjects all tax increases to a vote of the people (unless otherwise specified).]
- Amendment 74: Voting yes. Mandates just compensation for property taken by the government. [The government must pay fair market value for any land they take from a property owner.]
- Amendment 75: Voting no. Expands campaign contributions. [Allows opponents of candidates who finance their own campaigns to accept increased campaign contributions. This constitutional amendment is only further complicating the broken campaign finance system.]
- Proposition 109: Voting no. Authorizes bonds for specific transportation projects. [Allows government to issue bonds worth up to $3.5 billion over 20 years to fund specifically listed projects, essentially, accruing massive debt with no way to pay it back. Further, the real problem with Colorado roads is mismanagement of funds, which this proposition doesn’t fix.]
- Proposition 110: Voting no. Raises Colorado sales tax for transportation funding. [Tax increase would not be subject to TABOR. Again, the problem is mismanagement of funds, not lack of funds. Moreover, an increased sales tax will harm low income families.]
- Proposition 111: Voting no. Sets a limit to the interest payday loan businesses can charge. [Lowers the cost of these loans which may impact their availability. This unnecessarily interferes with the free-market when reforms in 2010 already fixed much of the problem.]
- Proposition 112: Voting no. Limits where oil and gas companies can operate in the state. [Will basically kill the industry in Colorado which in turn will raise gas prices and tens of thousands of Coloradans will lose their jobs.]
Please note that we provide this information and opinion as a courtesy to you, our constituents, but does not equate to an endorsement. If you have further questions about any of these or other legislative issues, please contact me directly.
It’s a privilege to serve you and Colorado families!
Carolyn Martin
CHEC Legislative Liaison
Christian Home Educators of Colorado
720.842.4852
Email
Mailing Address:
Thank you Carolyn, for your thoughtful and helpful condensation of the ballot issues. I will share them with the my bride and 2 of age voting sons of the home.
It’s nice to find a simple breakdown of the issues on the ballot. I only have one objection and that is to your description of what amendment 74 is. It is not for property taken by the government. It’s for property that loses value as a result of a government law or regulation. That’s very different, and in my opinion, a dangerous road to go down.
Hi Carolyn,
I respectfully request that you further research the implications of Prop 112 rather than repeating the profit-motivated position of the oil and gas industry. Yes Prop 112 will increase setbacks from oil and gas operations to 2500 feet in order to protect the health, safety and quality of life for citizens of Colorado. This makes sense because large scale industrial operations do not belong next door to homes and school playgrounds. We all saw a tragic example of this in last year’s Firestone explosion, but scientific research also continues to support this. One example: a Colorado School of Public Health study this year stated that “facilities emit air pollutants that are potentially a major health risk for nearby populations”. There are many more case studies and research citations available at http://www.coloradologic.org. I encourage you to review their website. Bottom line: Jobs don’t mean much without health, safety and quality of life. There are other ways to make money and horizontal drilling means reserves can be accessed from safer locations.
Thanks
As I understand it, Amendment 74 is NOT about Eminent Domain seizure of property, it’s about set backs and the value of property decreasing as a result of those actions. Am I misreading the amendment?
Thank you for the quick summary of the amendments. If only this is how they were described in the booklet they sent. Happy to see the emphasis on the free market and state’s rights 🙂
I have often asked myself, “if by conservative do they mean prioritizing the rights and privileges of others while minimizing those of ethnic communities.” This “summary” answers that question completely and thoroughly.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. This summary made it plain for those of us in “ethnic communities.”
Conservatism is not about prioritizing the rights of any person or group of people over another. It is about adhering to the founding principles of free enterprise not government-controlled enterprise; capitalism not socialism; limited civil government not tyranny; personal responsibility and self-government not government lifetime dependency; securing God-given unalienable rights including conscience, life, property, and parental rights not taking away an individual’s rights; and equality under the rule-of-law not special privilege. We are all equal as American citizens and we all have equal value in God’s eyes. Conservatism stands firmly on those values.
Y & Z would cement in our Constitution special classes of people with special privileges.
While I can appreciate this textbook definition mixed with passion and privilege, I would consider compassion for those who may have experienced this “American” life differently from oneself to be of utmost importance .
What you said about 74 is incorrect. You stated ”
Amendment 74: Voting yes. Mandates just compensation for property taken by the government. [The government must pay fair market value for any land they take from a property owner.]
That part of the law is already in place. The Amendment they want to add is effectively, if any government within the state does anything to lower your property value, by such things like building a road near your home, they must pay you the difference in property value (even is the road is needed for safety). This can open every city up to hundreds of lawsuits for any action they take. Every time they want to add a road, or anything else to improve the city for everyone else they will have to add new cost to that project, i.e. paying out money to a one and everyone that thinks they were effected. In turn this will either break the bank or raise your taxes.
Thank you all for your comments on this blog post! Your input is valuable as we all know that iron sharpens iron. While I admit that I could be wrong on any of these issues, I stand by my comments at this time. I hope that everyone reading this blog will make sure that they investigate these amendments and propositions for themselves before voting and remember that when in doubt, vote no.