Contact Us Advertising Information Online exclusives Cover Story Buzz Feature In Case You Missed It Summer Scene 2009 Legal Services Email Newsletter Boulderganic 2009 Best of Boulder 2009 Annual Manual 2009 Newspaper of the Future Kids Camp Guide 2009 Wedding Marketplace 09 Jobs available Student Guide 2008 Best of Boulder 2008 Annual Manual 2008 Join Our Mailing List
|
October 30-November 5, 2008
editorial@boulderweekly.com
• Back to Vote 2008 main page
• United States Senator
• U.S. Representative, Congressional Districts 2 and 4
• State Senate
• State House of Representatives
• District Attorney, RTD Director and CU Regent
• County Commissioners and County Assessor
• Statewide Amendments
• Statewide Referenda
• Boulder County Ballot Issues
• City of Boulder Ballot Questions
Amendment 46
Discrimination and preferential treatment by governments
No
If approved by Colorado voters, Amendment 46 would amend the constitution to “prohibit Colorado governments from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or natural origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Exceptions would be made for federal programs and existing court orders, as well as legally binding agreements and qualifications that must be made on the basis of sex.
The terms “discrimination” and “preferential treatment” are not defined in the measure, however, discrimination generally means denying access to someone based on race, sex, age, etc., and preferential treatment usually refers to policies that aid historically disadvantaged groups of people in an attempt to counteract the results of current or past discrimination or to build diversity.
Proponents claim that the amendment is intended to level the playing field for women and minorities.
Meanwhile, opponents say that it is plainly an effort to undo affirmative action-type programs in Colorado. They say that, if passed, the last thing this amendment would do is level the playing field.
“This initiative is deceptively titled the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative when it does exactly the opposite,” says Jessie Ulibarri who directs the campaign for economic justice with the Colorado Progressive Coalition. “It erodes civil rights for Coloradoans. It would eliminate equal-opportunity initiatives in the state of Colorado.”
Boulder Weekly strongly opposes Amendment 46. When it comes to deceptive ballot measures, this is as bad as it gets. The purpose of this measure is to undo any programs that resemble Affirmative Action in our state. The people who put it on the ballot speak out of both sides of their mouths, talking about helping women and minorities in an effort to garner sympathy for this measure. Then there’s the fine print: Women and minorities are exactly the populations that would be impacted negatively if this measure were to pass. Promoted largely by out-of-state interests, Amendment 46 is a disgrace. Vote NO on Amendment 46 and show those rich out-of-staters that Coloradans aren’t as gullible as they think we are.
Amendment 47
Prohibition on mandatory labor union membership and dues
No
If passed by voters, Amendment 47 would prohibit requiring an employee to join and pay dues or fees to a labor union as a condition of employment. Violation of this law would result in a misdemeanor with the highest level misdemeanor fine of between $500 and $5,000.
Currently, all employees have the right to join a union and negotiate with their employer about pay, benefits and working conditions through a union. In the private sector, the decision to be represented by a union has to be approved by a majority vote of the employees, at which point, membership and payment of dues is voluntary. Once a union is in place, however, employees may vote to require that all employees pay their share of the cost of collective bargaining as a condition of their employment, even if they choose not to join the union.
There is no federal or Colorado law that regulates the formation of unions for most state and local public employees, such as teachers and government workers. Employers in the public sector decide how to interact with any prospective union.
Amendment 47 would apply to all employees, regardless of whether they are working in the private or public sector. It would eliminate the possibility of any employee being required to join a union, pay union dues or pay for collective bargaining.
Those who oppose the amendment say that the current system allows for every employee and employer to have a private conversation about whether or not they want to have a union. They say that, under federal law, no worker can be forced to join a union, and he says that federal law supercedes any state law, making this amendment to the constitution unnecessary.
Boulder Weekly sees this measure for what it is: an effort to weaken unions and collective bargaining in this state. In this age of CEO abuses and corporate failure, it’s more important than ever to empower employees and give them a strong voice at the bargaining table. Most of the benefits U.S. workers enjoy — including a five-day workweek and benefits — were won through collective bargaining, not because corporate fat cats felt like giving their workers a day off. Vote NO on Amendment 47 and protect blue-collar rights.
Amendment 48
Definition of a “person”
No
Amendment 48 would change the Colorado Constitution to define the term “person” as being “any human being from the moment of fertilization” and would apply this new definition to all parts of the Constitution that protect the natural and essential rights of persons, ensuring access to courts and ensuring that no person has his or her life, liberty or property taken away without due process of law.
Those in favor of Amendment 48 are hoping voters will give them a legal foundation to make all abortions and some forms of contraception illegal in Colorado. They also hope that Amendment 48 can serve as a catalyst for overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that gave women the right to have an abortion. At this time, the state constitution does not include a definition of the word “person.”
Those opposed say that Amendment 48 is a direct challenge to a woman’s right to have an abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. They point out that Amendment 48 would also make common forms of birth control illegal, including birth control pills, emergency contraception (the “morning-after” pill), and intrauterine devices (IUDs) because they can interfere with the a fertilized egg’s ability to implant in a woman’s uterus. A broad coalition of doctors and other health-care providers have warned that Amendment 48 could have a negative impact on women’s health care, making it harder for doctors to treat women with fertility problems, cancer and other serious diseases.
Do you want a state in which the government can decide what kinds of contraception a woman can use? Do you want a state where rape and incest victims are forced by law to carry and give birth to their attacker’s babies? Do you want a state where many common treatments for infertility are banned? Do you want a state where women carrying deformed, non-viable fetuses are forced to bring those pregnancies to term, knowing that they will go through 40 weeks of pregnancy and hours of painful labor to deliver a baby that cannot live beyond birth? Do you want a state in which miscarriages lead to mandatory forensic exams?
We at Boulder Weekly do not. Though Amendment 48 is written to sound simple, it would have a devastating impact on women’s lives and liberty. The state should not be able to force any woman to use her body for any cause not of her own choosing. To force rape and incest victims to gestate and give birth to their assailant’s babies is to rape them again, this time with the approval of the state. The decisions a woman makes about contraception, pregnancy and life-saving medical care are hers alone and are not the business of the government — or nosy neighbors.
Those who oppose this measure include not only women’s rights activists, but our anti-abortion governor, Bill Ritter, and the pro-life Colorado Catholic Conference. Other opponents include the Colorado Bar Association, which predicts a legal nightmare concerning property and probate issues, and the Colorado Medical Association, which sees a decline in women’s health care if the amendment is passed.
The people who promoted this amendment — including several national fundamentalist Catholic organizations intent on banning birth control outright and out-of-state anti-abortion organizations — want to enforce their religious point of view by eliminating certain forms of widely used contraception and by making abortion illegal in all circumstances. They don’t care about the consequences to women or to our courts, but we as voters must care.
The consequences of Amendment 48 reach far beyond overturning Roe v. Wade and would place Colorado on the same level as El Salvador and Nicaragua, where miscarriages lead to involuntary exams and criminal investigations. That’s not how to treat women.
Vote NO on Amendment 48.
Amendment 49
Allowable government paycheck deductions
No
If passed, Amendment 49 would prohibit certain paycheck deductions that are currently in place for state employees, such as dues or fees for labor or other organizations. This would apply to all public employers in Colorado, including the state, counties, municipalities, school districts and special interests.
Currently, some public employers automatically deduct dues and fees for labor or professional organizations from their employees’ paychecks. However, these deductions are not mandatory. Employees can choose to stop these automatic deductions if they follow the correct procedure.
Supporters of Amendment 49 say that it is a conflict of interest for elected officials to allow the government payroll systems to collect money for politically active groups that sometimes lobby the same elected officials and contribute to their campaigns. One of the primary concerns for Amendment 49 supporters is that the government officials use these dues to support the special interests that in turn support them. Furthermore, they say that the current practice of collecting money in this manner is an unnecessary government function. If employees want to contribute to these organizations, they can use the automatic withdrawal option at their private bank, thus eliminating the government’s involvement in the process. Supporters argue that the tax dollars used to carry out this system would be better spent elsewhere.
Opponents say that Amendment 49 would limit the ability of public employees to make their own choices about paycheck deductions. Currently, every employee has a right to cancel automatic deductions, so deductions are not made against an employee’s will. Opponents also say that Amendment 49 is inconsistent because it allows employees to contribute to some private groups but prohibits them from contributing to others.
Furthermore, opponents say that local governments should be allowed to make this decision on their own. Some towns offer payroll deductions as a benefit, and eliminating that benefit will hurt those governments. In the end, opponents say that this decision should be made by local voters based on the needs of local communities.
The Center for Policy Alternatives says that Amendment 49 is an attack on labor unions. They say that Amendment 49 actually has nothing to do with campaign reform, and it is a right-wing effort to support corporate interests over working-class individuals.
They’re right. Amendment 49 is an attempt by certain interests to weaken organized labor in the state. The state’s own analysis of this measure shows that allowing these deductions costs taxpayers nothing; eliminating them would save the taxpayers nothing, despite what proponents of the amendment claim. Boulder Weekly strongly opposes this measure. Vote NO on Amendment 49.
Amendment 50
Limited gaming in Cripple Creek, Central City and Black Hawk
Yes
If passed, Amendment 50 would allow residents of Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek — Colorado’s three gaming towns — to vote in local elections to extend casino hours, approve additional games and increase the maximum single bet limit. If local voters decided to do any of those things, the additional revenues generated as a result of the changes would be distributed to the state’s community college system and to the gaming cities and counties.
Those who support the amendment say that it’s annoying to have the rest of the state voting on issues that impact their neighborhoods alone. They want the right to decide these issues for themselves.
Those who oppose the measure say that it would potentially turn Colorado into a high-stakes, 24/7 gambling state with impacts that reach beyond these communities. They say there are ways to support higher education without supporting big-business casinos.
Boulder Weekly thinks the people who live in these towns should be the ones to decide what happens with the casinos. Ultimately, that’s what this amendment is about — giving control to the locals. They are the ones who will reap the benefits — jobs, for example — and will suffer the consequences — such as traffic and stress on their infrastructure. Vote YES on Amendment 50.
Amendment 51
State sales tax increase for people with developmental disabilities
Yes
If passed by voters, Amendment 51 would amend Colorado statutes to increase the state sales and use tax from 2.9 percent to 3.0 percent on July 1, 2009, and from 3.0 percent to 3.1 percent on July 1, 2010. It would further direct the state to spend the money raised by the tax to pay for services for people with developmental disabilities and to help eliminate waiting lists that currently exist for services. It would prohibit the legislature from reducing the current level of state funding for people with developmental disabilities and exempt the new money from state spending limits.
Those opposed to this amendment say that increasing the state sales and use tax might hurt the state’s economy at a time when the housing market is already weak and families are facing higher gas and food prices. They point out that sales taxes typically burden lower- and middle-income people more than they do wealthy individuals because they take a bigger cut of their income. People who want to help those with developmental disabilities are free to donate, they say.
Those opposed further say that the state could reprioritize its budget to come up with additional funds for developmentally disabled citizens, pointing out that Colorado already spends $4 billion to provide health-care-related services. The $186 million this amendment would take out of the private economy belongs in the hands of taxpayers, they say.
Proponents of the amendment say that many children and adults with developmental disabilities have reached a crisis point due to lack of services. There’s no other public-sector safety net to help them and their families with the overwhelming cost of special equipment, therapy and assistance. With the growing incidence of autism, demand for services is growing, but the supply isn’t increasing. The wait for services can take as long as 10 years. The state will not be able address this need without making deep cuts in other services.
But even more importantly, research has shown that every dollar spent early in a child’s development, the fewer dollars need to be spent on state services later. Intervening early is crucial both in increasing a child’s functionality and independence and in limiting state costs. A public investment of one penny for every $5 purchase is a small price to pay to improve the quality of life of people with life-long developmental disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, autism and Down syndrome.
Though we at Boulder Weekly are not fond of sales taxes precisely because they impact low- and middle-income families more, we support Amendment 51. It makes good sense to invest money into services so that developmentally disabled children can get the therapy and support they need early in life when it does both them and society the greatest good. By refusing to do more to get people off waitlists, we’ll be wasting not only money, but also lives.
Vote YES on Amendment 51 and help developmentally disabled kids reach their greatest potential.
Amendment 52
Use of severance tax revenue for highways
No
Amendment 52 is an initiative that would require the state legislature to spend a portion of state severance tax collections on highway projects. The priority of that highway funding is aimed at relieving congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor.
Currently, the funds from severance taxes (taxes that are paid by companies that extract nonrenewable natural resources from the state) are evenly distributed between local governments and state programs. The state portion is spent on water projects, mining activity regulation and programs like low-income energy assistance and wildlife conservation. Amendment 52 would limit the amount that the state can spend on these programs, based on the prior year’s amount plus inflation. The remaining amount would then be spent on constructing and maintaining highways, with I-70 being given priority.
Those in support of Amendment 52 claim that I-70 is an important transportation corridor that supports both residents and visitors to Colorado. Amendment 52 would be a way to increase funding for highways by an estimated $225 million over the next four years without raising any taxes, and in turn relieve congestion on I-70. Supporters also maintain that a recent growth in oil and gas production has led to an increase in severance tax revenue that exceeds the amount necessary for state programs.
Those against Amendment 52 believe that the proposition will have a drastic and harmful effect on Colorado’s funding for water issues. They claim that the state’s rapidly growing water demand and aging supply system require the funding that would be diverted to transportation if the amendment were to pass. In addition, those against Amendment 52 believe that if passed, the proposition possesses the possibility of politicizing funding for transportation projects. This could occur since budgeting authority for some money would go to the state legislature, the negative possible result being the selection of transportation projects based on political considerations.
This is a no-brainer. In the arid West, water trumps highways. It’s no coincidence that some of this amendment’s biggest supporters are lawmakers who happen to have districts along the I-70 corridor. That’s not to say we don’t need money for highways; we do. And anyone who’s tried to drive I-70 eastbound on a Sunday afternoon knows we need to do something. But this is not the way to go about it. Vote NO on Amendment 52. And read on to see why Amendment 58 is a better idea when it comes to use of our severance tax revenue.
Amendment 54
Campaign contributions from certain government contractors
No
Amendment 54 is known as the “Clean Government Act.” It proposes to amend the Colorado constitution to prohibit sole-source government contractors (those not chosen through an open bidding process) from contributing to a political party or candidate for the contract’s duration for a two-year period following the contract. Those contributors to ballot-issue campaigns would be prohibited from entering into certain contracts relating to the ballot issue. These prohibitions would be for any contract that does not use a public, competitive bidding process that solicits at least three bids and with a total value greater that $100,000 in a single year.
Governments make many purchases from the private sector in order to meet their needs, with local officials largely determining their own practices. The punishment for violation of this proposed amendment can include loss or disqualification from office for elected or appointed officials.
Those who support Amendment 54 assert that the amendment will help ensure that policy decisions will not be influenced by campaign contributions. Those proponents also believe that the amendment will make it easier to obtain information, since it will require state officials to publish information on government contracts. In addition, those in support believe that it promotes competitive bidding for government contracts and therefore encourages efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Those against Amendment 54 believe that there are too many consequences on political candidates, contractors and elected officials who will have to monitor each contribution in order to ensure that they are not in violation. Also, the amendment may make government contracting a more inflexible practice, since different levels of government have different needs and access to contracting. Rural communities in particular may not have as many options if Amendment 54 were to pass.
This amendment sounds good at first, but it’s a bit odd that it would prohibit contributions after a contract is signed. Doesn’t the real problem occur before a contract is signed? The proponents of this measure say they want to clean up government, but we think this is a way for them to exclude certain interests from the political process, and we don’t like that.
Vote NO on Amendment 54.
Amendment 58
Severance taxes on the oil and natural gas industry
Yes
Amendment 58 proposes to change Colorado statutes to increase the amount of state severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies, primarily by eliminating an existing state tax credit. It would allocate the increased severance tax revenue to college scholarships for state residents, wildlife habitat, renewable energy projects, transportation projects in energy-impacted areas and water treatment grants. And further, it would exempt all oil and gas severance tax revenue from state and local spending limits.
Currently, Colorado’s actual severance tax rate is the lowest of the eight largest-producing western states when each state’s exemptions, deductions and credits are taken into account. In budget year 2007, Colorado’s actual severance tax rate was only 1.3 percent; Montana’s by comparison was 6.8 percent. This amendment would make Colorado’s actual severance tax rate the third lowest, placing our state in the middle.
The money raised by eliminating an existing state tax credit would go to fund a number of improvements and projects across the state, though exactly which programs would be funded is uncertain as Amendment 52 also addresses the spending of severance tax money and conflicts with Amendment 58 in some respects. Amendment 52 amends the Colorado Constitution, while Amendment 58 only changes state law, so Amendment 52 would likely prevail should both pass.
Those who oppose Amendment 58 say that the increase in severance tax could hurt the state economy by discouraging oil and gas companies from further investment in the state. They say that this amendment is being proposed at a time when increased production could lower fuel costs and point out that the industry supports 20,000 to 50,000 jobs in Colorado. In addition, they say that the oil and gas industry pays higher property taxes and so that state tax credit is justifiable. Lastly, they claim that the tax could
raise gas prices in Colorado.
Those in favor of Amendment 58 say that the oil and gas industries are experiencing record-breaking profits at this time and that there are better uses for the state tax credit money in these tough economic times than helping out this very profitable industry. The money would be channeled toward programs that improve the state’s infrastructure, economy and environment. They also say that the amendment would provide additional funding for higher education, and education is vital for the state’s economic future. They refute the claim that the industry would invest less in Colorado. Reserves of fossil fuels are limited, so the oil and gas industries are going to have to come here eventually if they want to extract those resources. Further, by increasing our severance tax, Colorado comes more in line with other states, gaining benefits for its citizens off its resources. In addition, proponents say that the cost of gas is determined by so many factors that a change in our severance tax rate is unlikely to raise prices at the pump.
Boulder Weekly strongly supports Amendment 58. For too long, Colorado has let those who want our state’s natural resources have them for a pittance. But the state needs these severance funds for a range of programs, including protecting our natural environment.
Why let oil and gas tycoons walk off with record-breaking profits when, we, the people, aren’t getting our share of benefits?
Coloradans might be generous, but we’re not stupid.
Vote YES on Amendment 58.
Amendment 59
Education funding and TABOR rebates
Yes
Amendment 59 would amend the Colorado Constitution to eliminate rebates that taxpayers receive when the state collects more money than it is allowed to collect under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Rather than being returned to taxpayers, the rebate money would be set aside in a new savings account for education and would go toward funding public education from preschool through 12th grade. Amendment 59 would also eliminate the requirement that voters passed under Amendment 23 that requires funding for education to increase with the rate of inflation. In addition, the amendment allows the legislature to transfer excess money from various state programs that is currently spent on transportation and state buildings, into the State Education Fund, provided that needs such as transportation have been met.
The new savings account would be a part of the State Education Fund and would take 10 percent of the income tax revenue that is currently deposited in the fund until the account reaches a certain threshold. This money could be spent only if two-thirds of the state legislature votes to spend it. In harsh years where personal income grows less than 6 percent, the legislature may dip into the fund with a simple majority vote.
Those who support Amendment 59 say it provides a future source of funding for education in Colorado without increasing taxes. The money may be used to increase per-student funding and for improvements in preschool through 12th grade, including expanding preschool and full-day kindergarten programs, reducing class size, expanding technology education and providing performance pay for teachers. They say that a well-educated workforce is essential to Colorado’s economic well-being, and this is one way of investing in that workforce.
By having a savings account for education, money for schools will be protected during economic downturns. It also offers a better solution than Amendment 23, which requires funding for education to increase even if the money isn’t there, resulting in cuts to other essential state programs.
Because TABOR limits spending growth and Amendment 23 requires spending increases, the two are in conflict. Amendment 59 would eliminate that conflict, while still setting aside money for education.
Those opposed point out that Amendment 59 permanently eliminates all future TABOR tax rebates and thus amounts to a de facto tax increase that will enable government to grow. By setting aside rebates for education, state money that otherwise might have been spent on education could be used to fund other state programs, allowing those programs to grow, as well. Further, they say that without mandated TABOR rebates, the state is more likely increase fees because the money does not have to be refunded.
As complicated as this seems, it really comes down to this: eliminating the tension between TABOR and Amendment 23, while still setting aside money for education and protecting some of it in what amounts to a “rainy-day education fund.” Although TABOR lovers bemoan the loss of rebates, education needs to be a priority if Colorado wants to retain any economic edge. We’d gladly trade our rebates (which we haven’t gotten in years) to see education fully funded in the state. Though Amendment 59 isn’t perfect, it’s at least a step toward solving these issues of conflict and the serious funding problems that face public education in Colorado.
Vote YES on Amendment 59.
Back to top
|
| |
