Mail-in ballots have been trickling back to County Clerks' offices, and early voting began Monday with record turnout. While once 18 measures long, the ballot was trimmed after unions pulled four of their initiatives at the 11th hour. However, there are still 10 Amendments and four referred measures to vote on.
Face the State gave each of 10 remaining ballot initiatives the opportunity to write a short column explaining why voters should support or oppose each measure. The responses are printed below, unedited except in a few cases for length. While we made every effort to reach out to both sides of each issue, some chose not to respond. In those cases, we have indicated the campaign or individual who was contacted, and their response, if any.
Jump to a specific Amendment:
Amendment 46
Amendment 47
Amendment 48
Amendment 49
Amendment 50
Amendment 51
Amendment 52
Amendment 54
Amendment 58
Amendment 59
Yes on Amendment 46: Time For Fairness, Equality in Hiring and Admissions
By Jessica Peck CorryOn Election Day, voters should say Yes to Amendment 46, the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative. If passed this November, our measure would prohibit government at all levels in Colorado from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race or gender in public hiring, public contracting, and public education.
Voters should support Amendment 46 because fairness and equality dictate that our affirmative action efforts—designed initially to fight the effects of discrimination—don’t discriminate. And if we want to promote diversity, we must lay to rest that the false notion that diversity is tied to our biology and not our own unique life experiences.
If we look to the examples of states that have passed similar initiatives, including California, we see that women and minorities can—and do—succeed when their inferiority is not presumed by government officials. In the 12 years since voters passed a prohibition on race and gender preferences in California, the UC system has seen admissions rates of racial minorities rise at 7 of 9 campuses. More importantly, minority students system-wide are much more likely to graduate now than they were previously. And today, as is also the case in Colorado, 56 percent of all undergraduate students are women. The bottom line: women and minorities don’t need to be singled out for special help to succeed.
At the University of Colorado, race and gender segregation are ingrained in the campus climate. Millions of taxpayer dollars are used every year to administer race and gender-segregated guidance counseling, scholarships, orientations, and other educational efforts. And while our opposition suggests that such programs will be eliminated, the fact is that should Amendment 46 pass, only race and gender restrictions on such programs will be lifted.
Amendment 46 acknowledges what we already know, which is that America is becoming an incredibly diverse place where race is no longer so easily defined and gender is no longer the impediment to success that it once was. Our outreach efforts should be tied to economic disadvantage—a variable that doesn’t require the government to discriminate—or pit one race or gender against another.
A Yes vote on Amendment 46 this November is a vote for fairness and equality.
Jessica Peck Corry is the executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative.
No on Amendment 46: A California Import Colorado Doesn’t Need
By Melissa HartAmendment 46 is a California import meant to fool Colorado voters into setting back the clock on equal opportunity programs.
The amendment, which uses enticing language borrowed from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, actually would undo much of the work of that movement, and end modest programs of training, outreach and mentoring.
The author of the initiative, millionaire carpet-bagger Ward Connerly, has no apologies for his bait and switch techniques, even welcoming the endorsement of the KKK when the measure was on the ballot in Michigan.
Why is Connerly so bent on forcing his extremist views on Colorado voters?
The answer could be as easy as cold, hard cash. As of 2007, Connerly and his firm have made over $8.7 million for his role in passing anti-equal opportunity initiatives in other states. The more states he targets with his anti-equal opportunity initiatives, the more money he rakes in for himself and his firm.
If Ward Connerly and the Amendment 46 supporters wanted an honest discussion the Amendment would say, ‘should Colorado end all Equal Opportunity programs?’ But that’s not at all what it says. Instead, the Amendment starts by asking voters if there should be an amendment to the Constitution “concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the State,” and uses the undefined term “preferential treatment” only several lines later. Voters in California, Michigan and Washington, states where the initiative passed, have complained that they didn’t realize they were voting against equal opportunity programs, they just thought they were opposing discrimination.
Colorado needs the flexibility to encourage girls to pursue careers in math and sciences, men to enter nursing, and people of all backgrounds to serve underserved populations. We need the contributions of women and minority business people and the ideas and experiences of qualified students from a range of backgrounds. That's what equal opportunity programs are all about and that is what Amendment 46 is trying to end.
If Amendment 46 passes, it could threaten:
- Public school efforts to encourage girls in math and science careers
- College outreach programs in minority neighborhoods
- The Pay Equity for Women commission
- Public high school programs for teen mothers
- Training and apprenticeships for minority students
Melissa Hart, co-chair of the “No on 46” campaign, is a law professor at the University of Colorado
Yes on Amendment 47
By Ryan FrazierIf you start your own company, nobody would say you must join a chamber of commerce in order to stay in business. Yet thousands of Coloradans are forced to join or pay dues to private organizations against their will at many workplaces across Colorado.
Seem unfair that someone could force you to join a private organization as a condition of employment? It is. But this is what thousands of Colorado workers endure by being forced to join a union in order to get a paycheck.
Amendment 47, the Colorado Right to Work Amendment, is simple – it says that a worker cannot be forced to join a union or pay union dues in order to get or keep a job. But it also preserves a worker’s right to voluntarily join or financially support a union.
Amendment 47 is not anti-union; it’s pro-freedom and pro-worker. The benefits are two-fold.
- It’s a freedom issue. We believe all workers should have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union or pay union dues. Current law in Colorado allows some unions to force workers to pay dues, whether that worker wants to or not. That’s un-American and fundamentally flawed.
- There are 22 right-to-work states already, and studies consistently show that right-to-work states perform better economically than non-right-to-work states. That means more jobs, higher paying jobs and a better economic environment for the entire state.
Amendment 47 is about guaranteeing worker rights for all Coloradans, because the freedom to associate with whom we choose is too important to ignore. It’s also about strengthening this economy by bringing new companies, higher wages, and a better job market.
Amendment 47 will make Colorado a better place to live, work, and to do business. In America, freedom is among our highest ideals. Let’s advance freedom together in Colorado. Please visit www.VoteYESon47.com for more information.
* Protect Colorado's Future, the group opposing Amendment 47, did not respond to multiple request for an opposition column.
Yes on Amendment 48: Empowers Colorado voters
By Kristi BurtonAmendment 48, the Personhood Amendment, is about empowering you, the voter. It's about allowing the democratic process to make decisions that have been made by special interest groups for the last forty years while using your taxes for their own gain. It's about catching our laws up to our science and restoring the intrinsic value of every human being, no matter what stage of development.
The Personhood Amendment doesn't change the constitution in any way, as its opponents claim; it merely clarifies the definition of 'person' or 'persons' as beginning at fertilization. This clarification is necessary because when the original constitution was written biological information now available didn't exist. This left an ambiguity that was seized by special interests for their own purposes. The same special interests tried to keep Amendment 48 off the ballot. They claim they want 'choice', but they don't want to allow Colorado voters to decide this issue.
The Personhood Amendment isn't an attack on women's healthcare, as its opponents' scare tactics would have you believe. Mothers also possess personhood and the amendment in no way endangers their well-being. It merely provides a common sense foundation for making future decisions.
Unless our laws reflect sound science, we continue down a dangerous slippery slope. In the last few decades, the personhood of the unborn has been confiscated. Next will be the lives and dignity of the elderly, sick and disabled. If we don't act now, we will continue with the confused, stale, outdated abortion politics that have dominated the last few decades. People, especially those of my generation, are tired of that. We need to require legislators to take the personhood of every individual into account because every person counts.
Attempting to make their side appear more legitimate, the 'no on 48' crowd continually points out that 75 'health care' organizations oppose Amendment 48. At last count, over 80 organizations and medical professionals support personhood.
Opponents of 48 continually refer to newly formed persons as 'fertilized eggs'. This is familiar strategy. Just as the term 'pro-choice' shifted the debate away from the ugly reality of abortion, the repeated use of the term 'fertilized egg' robs the developing human of personhood. The word 'fetus' dehumanizes a developing baby.
We all have a responsibility to protect innocent life. Colorado voters have an unprecedented opportunity to do exactly that by acknowledging what we know to be true. Yes on 48.
Kristi Burton is the sponsor and spokesperson for the Personhood Amendment. She is 21 years old and a third year law student. She initiated Amendment 48 at the age of 19. She is the founder of Colorado for Equal Rights. The Amendment 48 petition drive set a record by collecting over 130,000 signatures.
No on Amendment 48: Government Intrusion Is Bad Medicine and Bad Law
By Amanda MountjoySometimes called the “personhood” amendment, Amendment 48 defines the term “person” to include a fertilized egg in the Colorado Constitution. Granting fertilized eggs full constitutional rights is an extreme, deceptive, and dangerous proposition: That’s why the Republican Majority for Choice, the Colorado Gynecological-Obstetrical Society, the Colorado Bar Association and about 80 other state and national organizations oppose Amendment 48.
Amendment 48 is more than a deceptive attempt to ban all abortion in Colorado, even for victims of rape and incest or to save a woman’s life.
For example, sometimes a fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube, instead of the uterus. These ectopic, or “tubal” pregnancies are dangerous because there is no room in a fallopian tube for a pregnancy to develop. Doctors have to remove the pregnancy or it can kill the woman.
Amendment 48 would take that option away from doctors because the life-threatening fertilized egg would have the same rights as your wife, sister, or best friend.
Because it grants fertilized eggs full constitutional rights as a person, Amendment 48 would affect literally thousands of existing laws. The word “person” appears in Colorado Statute 20,000 times: courts and lawyers would be untangling the effects of Amendment 48 for years.
Leading conservative voices in Colorado agree that Amendment 48 is extreme, unworkable and impractical. Consider the following statements:
“While the Church respects those promoting this personhood amendment, the Catholic Bishops of Colorado decline to support its passage because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado.”
- Statement of the Colorado Catholic Bishops on the 2008 Colorado Personhood Amendment, June 5, 2008
“If pre-born baby/fetus/person has a right to a lawyer - similar to a comatose patient or a child - just as the mother does, we’re going to be opening up a litigious nightmare of bloodcurdling consequences.”
- David Harsanyi, Denver Post Columnist, July 20, 2007
“Amendment 48: No - Declares a fertilized egg a person. Life and personhood aren't synonymous. This is unreasonable, inflexible anti-abortion extremism.”
- Mike Rosen: Ballot-issue rundown, Rocky Mountain News, October 3, 2008
"I think there are other strategies and tactics that get us far closer to advancing the cause of human life."
- Bob Schaffer, U.S. Senate Candidate, Rocky Mountain News, 8/6/08
Please, vote NO on 48. For more information on Amendment 48, www.gopchoice.org or VoteNo48.org.
Amanda Mountjoy is the chair of the Colorado Republican Majority for Choice
Yes on Amendment 49: It keeps lobbyists in line
By Hank BrownAll of us would defend a citizen’s right to lobby government or donate to a campaign. But forcing taxpayers to subsidize someone else’s collection and payment of lobbying funds is an entirely different question.
Both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News call Amendment 49 a simple good government reform. I agree!
Amendment 49 establishes “Ethical Standards” for our public payroll systems by stopping government from bundling and funneling money to special interests and their lobbyists. Government should use our limited tax dollars and our precious civil servants’ time to provide crucial public services, not to funnel cash.
Currently many political groups, some unions and some not, collect political contributions from government employees through the payroll system we pay for. Many Colorado governments pass this money to political groups by writing them checks. These groups then use the money to lobby, and even give campaign contributions to, the same politicians who signed the checks.
When endorsing 49 the Rocky Mountain News described it, “Government provides a free dues collection service for major lobbyists.” The Post said, “Amendment 49 will stop the blatant conflict of interest that now allows politicians to collect dues that are used to elect and re-elect those very same politicians.”
Under Ethical Standards, all political organizations will simply have to ask government employees for their money. They won’t be able to just suck it out of a worker’s paycheck. Amendment 49 levels the playing field.
Some opponents say 49 will hurt government employees’ ability to give money to their causes. Nothing in 49 stops an employee from giving as much as she wants toward any organization she supports.
Those who like receiving our workers’ money claim it will inconvenience the workers. But how can that be? In this day of online banking, automatic withdrawals, and credit cards, arranging regular payments to any organization is a breeze.
The silliest claim is that 49 will somehow make it tougher for firefighters, cops, teachers or nurses to do their jobs. The Grand Junction Sentinel calls the claim “laughable,” the News calls it “nonsense.”
Ethical Standards is a tested idea. Currently a dozen counties, representing over half the state’s population, have the language on their books.
The well-heeled lobbying groups opposing Ethical Standards are spending millions to scare you to vote no. Don’t be fooled. Amendment 49 helps keep lobbyists in line. Vote yes. Get more information at www.EthicalStandardsNow.com.
Hank Brown is a former U.S. Senator and President Emeritus of the University of Colorado
* Protect Colorado's Future, the group opposing Amendment 49, did not respond to multiple request for an opposition column.
Colorado wins with Amendment 50
By Katy AtkinsonEvery once in a while, an issue comes along upon which the Right and the Left can agree. This year, that issue is Amendment 50, the measure that will generate new funding for Colorado’s community district and junior colleges by allowing voters in the three gaming towns –Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek – to update the gaming laws as they apply to the casinos in their towns.
The Colorado Springs Gazette calls Amendment 50 a “constructive and innovative” way to increase funding for community colleges, without raising taxes. The Boulder Daily Camera agrees with the Gazette, endorsing Amendment 50 as a “smart way to address a serious gap in higher education funding in Colorado.”
Colorado voters approved limited stakes gaming in three mountain towns in 1990. In the first 15 years of casino operations in Colorado, the industry paid more than $1 billion in gaming tax revenues. Voters have not updated gaming laws since their initial 1990 approval. As a result, Colorado is not realizing the full revenue potential of limited stakes gaming.
Amendment 50 empowers voters in gaming towns to increase bet limits up to $100, extend casino operating hours and add the games of craps and/or roulette. Seventy-eight percent of the state gaming tax revenues generated by these changes would be earmarked for community, district and junior colleges. Amendment 50 doesn’t rob Peter to pay Paul, nor does it pick the taxpayer’s pocket to grow government. It optimizes a “voluntary” tax that is only paid by gamblers.
Colorado’s community colleges fill a unique niche in Colorado’s post-secondary education system. For thousands of Coloradans, they provide an affordable gateway to a four-year college degree. Thousands of others have take advantage of community college job training programs to improve their marketability in the workplace. More than half the nurses in Colorado were trained at a community college, as were 90 percent of the state’s first responders. Community colleges help fulfill the promise of a “hand up,” rather than a “hand out.”
Colorado wins with Amendment 50.
No on Amendment 50
By Jerry KopelAre you ready for this headline in March 2009? "Black Hawk votes 51 to 49 to raise casino bets from $5 to $100". That's not 51 percent. That's 51 voters. Amendment 50 would give them the right to decide to raise bet limits, increase gambling hours,and add craps and roulette.
Black Hawk has about 100 "active" voters, meaning persons who voted in the last general election, or have since registered as voters.
Issue No. 1, Why should you wipe out the state's ability to regulate increases in casino gambling by approving pressure from casino bosses in Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek? The three towns have about 1,000 total voters out of 3,101,000 registered Colorado voters statewide.
Issue No. 2. Amendment 50 provides that the three towns vote separately. Each can "revise limits on gaming that apply to licensees in their town's gaming district to EXTEND" gaming hours from 18 to 24 hours daily, raise bet limits to $100, and add craps and roulette.
"Extend" means enlarge, expand, broaden. Suppose Central City votes to extend the gambling hours from the present 18 to 24. Then the residents find it too disturbing. Under Amendment 50 that town's voters cannot reduce the number of hours. Neither can the Gaming Commission nor the legislature, without putting the issue on a future statewide ballot.
Issue No. 3. Since 1991, the state Gaming Commission had decided, under standards set by the legislature, how much to levy on taxes, which by the constitution can go up to 40 percent. Presently, the large casinos are paying 20 percent, the smaller casinos a lot less. In 2007, on $800 million gross profits, casinos paid the state $112 million.
Under Amendment 50, the commission can recommend a tax increase above 20 percent, but that cannot put it on the ballot. Only the legislature, or a successful initiated petition can. Casinos can afford to spend millions to defeat a tax increase, leaving an extra $1.5 billion in casino owners' pockets over the next five years.
Issue No. 4. Will community colleges really see any extra money? Amendment 50 guarantees community colleges a supplement totaling $222 million over the next five years. But it does NOT guarantee the state won't reduce the yearly $160 million general revenue fund appropriation by the same amount.
Vote "no" on Amendment 50.
Jerry Kopel served 22 years in the Colorado House.
Yes on Amendment 51: There is No Wrong Time to Do the Right Thing
By Marijo RymerAmendment 51 helps people who need it most. It creates a critically needed safety net for 12,400 eligible children and adults with developmental disabilities -- such as Autism, Down Syndrome, or Mental Retardation -- who need, but do not receive, care. It provides new funds through a modest sales tax increase of two-tenths of 1 percent, or two pennies on $10, excluding essentials like gasoline, groceries and prescription medications.
This statutory (not constitutional) proposal helps people like Russell and his mom. Russell is a 63-year-old man with mental retardation who lives with his 85-year-old mother because he needs help to eat, dress, bathe, and use the bathroom. His mother put him on the waiting list more than 15 years ago. Because of age and failing health, she worries constantly about who will care for Russell when she dies.
Amendment 51 helps children like Sam, a 4-year-old with autism and multiple physical disabilities, who could learn to walk, talk, feed himself, and play with other children if he was not waiting at the bottom of the list for services.
Because of a lack of funds, thousands of Coloradans with developmental disabilities have been waiting 10 years or longer for critical services to allow them to live dignified and healthy lives: daily living support, 24/7 supervision, employment training, or transportation. Many of their family caregivers can no longer help due to age or illness. Many will die before their sons or daughters receive the services they need. In fact, more than 9,000 Coloradans with developmental disabilities are being cared for by parents 60 years or older.
Some say Amendment 51 should be placed on the back burner until there is a big fix to TABOR; some say it’s not the time for even a modest tax increase. But – no amount of budget “tweaking” will end it. Waiting another five years for a possible remedy will only worsen the problem. There is absolutely no safety net, no other alternative.
Under Amendment 51, the spare change in our pockets, the pennies on the sidewalk we often just step over, will add up to more than $186 million annually. For most of us, it is an unnoticeable amount, but those pennies will help children and adults who, through no fault of their own, face tremendous burdens every day.
Help get people off the waiting list and into the world. Vote "yes" on 51.
Marijo Rymer is the executive director of The Arc of Colorado.
* There is no organized opposition to Amendment 51.
Yes on Amendment 52
Sen. Josh Penry and Reps. Cory Gardner and Frank McNultyFor two years, Governor Ritter and his Transportation Panel have spent a lot of time gabbing and publishing reports about the sorry state of Colorado's roads and bridges. If the road to a transportation solution were paved with glossy reports, Colorado would have a road-funding fix that looks like an 8-lane superhighway.
But talk isn't worth much. And speaking of not much, that's the best way to describe the Governor's leadership on transportation.
So it comes as no surprise that the Governor and his party faithful are opposing the only plan on the table this election season to increase transportation funding: Amendment 52.
Amendment 52 would reprioritize oil and gas revenues to tackle Colorado's critical road and bridge needs without tolls or new taxes. State severance tax revenues have grown tremendously in recent years, allowing Department of Natural Resources (DNR) programs to expand substantially. Amendment 52 would allow DNR funding to continue at last year's historically high level, but limit the rate of growth for the DNR budget and use the spillover to fund transportation projects, especially the massive needs of Interstate 70.
On the one hand, Governor Ritter and his roads team have been making the rounds talking about how transportation is a priority. On the other, the Governor is trying to pull the rug from under 52. Indeed, some of the same CDOT transportation commissioners who have pleaded for additional transportation dollars have fallen in step opposing 52.
The Ritter Administration screams that Amendment 52 would cut programs vital to the state, but the DNR budget has increased five-fold since 2003. Imagine a budget that's grown from $16 to $90 million in the last 5 years, and would grow at inflation every year thereafter. Only an Administration specializing in illegal property tax hikes could view such a large increase as a cut.
The good news is, Colorado voters see the value of Amendment 52. In a recent poll by the Ciruli Associates, Amendment 52 received 64 percent support from registered voters statewide. 52 was the most popular amendment polled, and for good reason: taxpayers want to see government prioritize their budget, just like families and businesses are doing these days. 52 would do exactly that.
Polls or not, it remains to be seen whether the only road funding plan out there succeeds or fails on the ballot. We like our chances, but a lot of big guns are trained on its defeat.
No on Amendment 52
By Benjamin WatersAmendment 52 purports to be a down payment on our transportation infrastructure along the I-70 corridor while not raising taxes. While such logic is attractive, it is also much more complicated than that. Amendment 52 is bad public policy that will end up costing Colorado much in the long run.
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is proud to join a broad coalition in opposition to Amendment 52. We are joined in opposition by the Colorado Farm Bureau, Club 20, Colorado Water Congress, Colorado Municipal League, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Jim Isgar, House Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Kathleen Curry, several Joint Budget Committee members, newspapers such as the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, Pueblo Chieftain, and the Durango Herald, and notably, the I-70 Corridor Coalition. What would bring such a broad coalition together? Well to put it simply, Amendment 52 is bad public policy from a planning perspective, from a fiscal perspective, from a constitutional perspective, and from a political perspective.
From a planning perspective it undercuts the $2.7 billion needed to keep up with just 80% of our state’s water needs by 2030 as identified in the Statewide Water Supply Initiative. By robbing Peter to pay Paul and taking money that would have otherwise have gone to water projects and laundering it over to transportation, Amendment 52 would cripple water planning efforts while giving a pittance to our transportation needs. It also undercuts the statewide transportation planning process through rigid constitutional mandates.
From a fiscal perspective the amendment cuts funding to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from current projections of $362 million over a four year period under current statute to $228 million under constitutional edict. This is a cut in funding that can ill afford a decrease. From a constitutional perspective this measure puts an earmark in the state constitution, already grappling with the unintended consequences of TABOR and Amendment 23.
Finally from a political perspective Amendment 52 is nothing less than a cynical attempt to confuse voters over another severance tax measure, Amendment 58. Regardless of what you feel about Amendment 58, the so-called “Better Roads Now” constitutional amendment is bad for the state and diverts the focus from a statewide transportation solution. Referendum D failed by less that two-points in 2005. This was the last effort at a statewide solution to our transportation funding woes. Our elected representatives would be well advised to start again and keep their mitts off Colorado’s water.
Yes on Amendment 54: Clean Government
By Tom LuceroAmendment 54 seeks to end the corrupt culture of pay to play in Colorado. Simply stated: any person or company that receives a no-bid contract totaling $100,000 or more is prohibited from contributing to the elected officials who oversee those contracts.
Also, Amendment 54 provides transparency and accountability by requiring information on all no-bid contracts to be published in a searchable database. When Amendment 54 passes, Coloradans will know how their tax dollars are being spent with regards to NO-BID contracts.
Most Coloradans seem surprised to find out that all public contracts are not already required to be competitively bid. We have heard over and over: “What do you mean government awards NO-BID contracts? I just assumed all contracts are competitively bid.” Unfortunately that is not the case. We have identified nearly $400 million dollars in state NO-BID contracts and over $158 million by RTD. We know there are likely millions more in NO-BID contracts. We sent open records requests to over 90 government agencies and counties, not one could give us even summary information upon request.
Unfortunately our opponents have been filling the airwaves with outrageous propaganda, including: Amendment 54 creates loopholes for large corporations; and we silence the voice of individual union members.
First, the language is as clear as it can be: NO-BID contracts totaling $100,000 or more. Please read the language and if you see “exclusions” for large corporations let us know. The reason you won’t read about exclusions is because they do not exist. This fits the pattern of their repeated lies.
Second, they are right that Amendment 54 impacts unions. However, it only impacts the unions in the sense that their political action committees are prohibited from giving. Individual members of the union are still allowed to give to the campaigns of their choice. We know why they’re upset: to date their campaign has raised over $15 million from union political action committees.
Cleaning up the backroom, political insider deals will have far-reaching positive consequences for Colorado taxpayers who are struggling under the burden of paying higher gas prices and shrinking retirement accounts from the Wall Street collapse. YES on 54 will save taxpayers millions of dollars by encouraging state and local governments to competitively bid ALL government services.
Sunshine on NO-BID contracts will have far-reaching positive consequences for the taxpayer as well. YES on 54 will make government more transparent so we don’t have to rely on the news media to break stories on political insider deals. With a searchable, statewide database, taxpayers will know how their tax dollars are being spent.
If you believe competitive bidding is good for taxpayers and you want the tools to know how your tax dollars are being spent, then please vote Yes on 54!
Tom Lucero is chair of Amendment 54 and a member of the University of Colorado Board of Regents.
* Protect Colorado's Future, the group opposing Amendment 54, did not respond to multiple request for an opposition column.
No on 58
By Dan HopkinsAmendment 58 is a massive tax increase. The first eight words on the ballot make it clear, asking voters “Shall state taxes be increased $321 million annually?”
It is also clear the tax hike will passed through to homeowners and businesses.
The advocates of Amendment 58 are trying, unsuccessfully, to convince voters it is not a tax increase. However, they contradict their own argument by contending that somehow the tax increase will be magically absorbed by the oil and gas industry. The facts tell us otherwise.
Ninety renowned economists, including four from Colorado, recently warned, “Amendment 58 will have substantial negative consequences for the state and its citizens.” The economists, in a statement from the National Taxpayers Union, noted the proposal would double the tax rate on oil and gas production in Colorado “leading to heavier dependence on imports and decreased investments in oil and gas development.”
Given the recent events on Wall Street, this isn’t the time to be playing around with our state’s economy. The economists warn, “Despite claims to the contrary, the burden of any tax falls squarely on the shoulders of consumers, workers and shareholders, such as retirees or mutual fund investors.”
There is further evidence this tax hike will be paid by consumers. Two former Public Utility Commissioners, Polly Page (R) and Carl Miller (D), recently issued a joint statement saying, “It is not true that higher taxes on natural gas will be absorbed. PUC rules allow cost increases to be passed through to consumers. A higher cost of production, from something like a new tax, means a higher cost to you, the user.”
It is clear what Amendment 58 will do. Now here is what it won’t do. It won’t do a thing to improve state funding for higher education.
Not one new nickel will flow to our colleges and universities. Instead, some students – good luck figuring out how many – would receive some sort of small grant, apparently in the neighborhood of $1,000. At first, the student’s out of pocket expenses would see a small decrease. But since colleges receive no increase in funding, they will have to raise tuition, wiping out any possible benefit of these grants.
Even worse, much of this new tax revenue doesn’t even go to these grants. Instead it flows to pet projects under the control of the governor.
Bottom line: Amendment 58 is a poorly conceived notion that will substantially increase fuel prices, heating costs, even the cost of groceries while doing nothing to improve funding for higher education.
Enough is enough. A tax is a tax. Vote no on 58.
* A Smarter Colorado, the group backing Amendment 58, did not respond to multiple requests for a proponent column.
Vote no on 59
By Penn R. PfiffnerColorado citizens control how much government grows. If you vote for Amendment 59, you are handing politicians a blank check. Vote No. Don’t throw away the control you should have. Tell politicians they must come to you with specific reasons before taxes go up.
59 is unreasonable
Don’t be fooled by the sales job that this is about education funding. It’s much bigger than that!
59 asks you to forfeit all future TABOR tax refunds —— forever. Forecasters can’t say how much new tax money this measure will cost.
59 is not fair
Every family lives on a budget. It would not be fair for the state government to be the only organization without a budget constraint. The essence of TABOR is having constraints. It’s good to vote on tax rates, but your citizen’s right is very weak without a budget limit to shoot for.
59 looks out for government, not you
It costs a lot to gas up your car these days and to buy groceries. Families can’t afford to be burdened with a higher cost of government.
59 is premature
Referendum C is just over half done with another two years to go. No surplus is forecast until two years after Ref C ends. Do you know what the economy or the government will look like in five years? The cost of Referendum C has nearly doubled, to $6 Billion. That’s an additional $1,000 for a family of four every year forever, on a per capita basis. With this much new tax revenue on top of Amendment 23 education increases, it's unwise to claim that education needs more now.
59 is unnecessary
Proponents say 59 creates a savings account for education. Any meaningful “rainy day fund” needs to discuss all the needs of the state, including transportation. Proponents claim 59 untangles a "fiscal knot" created by Amendment 23. But the increases mandated by 23 will be completed next year.
Amendment 59 is fiscally irresponsible. It is not thoughtful, responsible, or balanced. Its intent is to confuse voters and sneak through a massive tax increase and expansion of government.
Penn R. Pfiffner was a state legislator from 1992 through 2000. He is currently a Senior Fellow in Fiscal Policy at the Independence Institute, and was the President of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers for six years. For information and links, visit www.Strike a Better Balance.com
* Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff initially agreed to write a column in support of Amendment 59, but several follow-up requests for the column were not returned.