Amendment P - YES
Amendment Q - YES
Amendment R - YES
Amendment 60 - NO
Amendment 61 - NO
Amendment 62 - NO
Amendment 63 - NO
Proposition 101 - NO
Proposition 102 - NO
Statewide Amendments
I support all of the letters and oppose all of the number on the ballot. We have a body of legislators that have been elected to research, hear from lobbyists (including citizen lobbyists) and make thoughtful decisions about how our state is run. Sometimes, the legislature determines that their best recommendation requires a change to the constitution, and thus, a vote of the people. The lettered amendments are those items. The numbered amendments are issues that special interest groups have determined would not be successful if they brought them through this thoughtful and educated process. They are changes to our constitution which should not be done lightly. Often, these amendments sound good at first blush, but when thoroughly researched, turn out to be a very bad idea. Unfortunately, once our constitution is changed, it is very difficult to change back. Having said that, here are the details on each amendment and the specific reasons for my recommendations:
Amendment P - Regulation of Games of Chance - Vote YES
This moves the licensing of games of chance such as bingo and raffles, from the Department of State to the Department of Revenue, and Allows the state legislature to change the current minimum period of five years that a corporation or organization has been in existence with a dues-paying membership during the entire five years in order to qualify for a license. I believe this is a good idea. The Department of Revenue already regulates lotteries and other games of chance. It is logical to group all of them together. Additionally, this will free up the Secretary of State office to focus on the other areas they oversee. Plus, the last two Secretaries of State, Mike Coffman and Bernie Beuscher agree with this move.
Amendment Q - TEMPORARY LOCATION FOR THE STATE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT - Vote YES
Creates a process for moving the state seat of government to a temporary location in case of a declared disaster emergency. This seems like a good idea to me. The only argument against is that the law already provides for this. If the legislature has determined that this change is necessary, I believe them.
Amendment R EXEMPT POSSESSORY INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY - Vote YES
Eliminates property tax for businesses or individuals who receive a benefit worth $6000 or less from the use of government owned real property; and adjusts the threshold of the exemption for inflation. This is a little complicated, but what it amounts to is that collecting and distributing property taxes, in this obscure situation, often ends up costing more than the tax itself. It is a very small amount of tax money that is literally more trouble than it's worth.
Amendment 60 PROPERTY TAXES - Vote NO
This is a long and complicated amendment. One thing it does is require "enterprises and authorities" to pay property taxes. This could mean that schools, rec centers and water districts would have to pay property tax. This would bring in revenue, but would clearly have to be offset by higher water and recreation fees and a shifting of dollars in school budgets. It would also be a logistical nightmare to assess these properties to even determine what the tax should be. This actually expands government in some very in-efficient ways. Additionally, this amendment "Repeals prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue" and "Repeals all voter approved property tax increases, extensions and abatements which occurred after 1992". Voters have already spoken in these cases and this amendment would overturn the democratic process. There are many more reasons why this is a bad amendment, but those are the things that are most egregious to me.
Amendment 61 LIMITS STATE AND LOCAL BORROWING - Vote NO
Among other things, this amendment bans the state from incurring any debt by loans in any form and it requires bonded debt for local districts, enterprises, and authorities to be repaid within ten years. While we all have concerns about the national debt, state and local governments do not have the same fiscal problems because of debt. State and local enterprises can draw direct lines between the money they borrow and how that money is used to support the community. Often, borrowing is for capital investments in buildings and infrastructure that will last much longer than ten years. Bonds and other tools to finance these projects are not only reasonable, they are sound. This allows us to spread the cost of these projects out over time and requires future tax payers to pay for the benefit they get out of these projects. This amendment would make it almost impossible for Colorado to provide a solid infrastructure for residents and businesses. This is part of why so many chambers of commerce have come out against this amendment.
Amendment 62 APPLICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF PERSON - Vote NO
I'm going to give the full synopsis of this amendment: Defines a person as a human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being; Makes the definition of "person" applicable to the sections of the Colorado Constitution that relate to protecting the rights of all persons in the following ways: ensures full rights to life, liberty, and property; allows open access to courts for every person; and protects a person by ensuring due process of law; and Does not define "biological development".
The proponents of this amendment are very open that this is an attempt to establish a precedent that would outlaw all abortions. The language is very general so that it would definitely make no exception for cases of incest or rape, but even if the life of the mother was in danger, it would probably not allow for terminating a pregnancy. Many common forms of birth control would no longer be constitutional under this amendment. This is not about being pro-choice or pro-life, this amendment just goes way too far.
Amendment 63 HEALTH CARE CHOICE - Vote NO
This amendment is a very misleading attempt to opt Colorado out of the Health care reform that was made a federal law last year. One of the provisions allows doctors to receive direct payments for services. This is already legal and happens often. Including this language only generates unwarranted concern and is a clear scare tactic. The most appealing part of the amendment is that it forbids the state from adopting or enforcing any policy that requires a person to join a health insurance program. Whether one agrees with this requirement of the federal law or not, federal law trumps state law. This amendment is an invitation to a long and costly legal fight at the expense of the people of Colorado. As good as it may sound, this is a bad amendment for the people of Colorado.
Statewide Propositions
A quick note about propositions, these are amendments to Colorado statute, as opposed to the constitution. However, it is still the case that these propositions did not find support among our elected representatives or they would not be brought to the ballot.
Proposition 101 INCOME, VEHICLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAXES/FEES - Vote NO
This proposition would reduce or eliminate a number of fees and would also reduce the state income tax to 3.5%. In 2008, the Colorado Legislature raised automobile licensure fees. This was done in order to generate revenue, specifically for the purpose of repairing structurally deficient bridges and to maintain our roads to a minimal standard. The fee is higher for heavier vehicles, because they put more strain on our public roads and bridges. These fees were felt the most by lower income residents and businesses with fleets. However, under the TABOR amendment, the legislature could not raise taxes, which would have had a more proportional impact on those with higher incomes. This proposition would remove this source of revenue entirely, as well as reducing the primary source of revenue for the state, from the current 4.63% to 3.5%. The state of Colorado cannot afford to lose either of these revenue sources. If people are really concerned about these fees, perhaps a serious discussion needs to take place about the tax rate. However, the state has federal mandates and obligations to the citizens and businesses that call Colorado home. Some amount of taxes and fees must be paid in order to meet those obligations. For more information about how the state balances the budget and how 60, 61 and 101 would affect us, please visit www.backseatbudgeter.com.
Proposition 102 CRITERIA FOR SETTING BAIL AND TYPE OF BOND - Vote NO
This proposition is something most of us (hopefully) will never have to deal with so it takes some work to understand and care about. When a person is arrested, judges have some discretion in setting bail. Judges may also release a defendant to a pretrial services program. These programs assess the accused and determine the risk to the community and the likelihood that the accused will return for trial. Some programs also provide services to the accused within the community, such as alcohol/drug treatment and/or testing and monitoring. Failure to comply with the requirements of the program could result in the defendant being returned to jail. At this time, ten counties in Colorado offer pretrial service programs. This proposition would severely limit the judge's option to make use of these programs. It would require more defendants to work with bondsman and in many cases; poor defendants would not be able to make bail, requiring them to stay in jail until trial, at great expense to the taxpayers. This proposition only helps one special interest, bail bondsman.
Colorado State Treasurer Cary Kennedy
www.KennedyForTreasurer.com
Cary Kennedy kept the state out of investments tied to the subprime market, rejected proposals to invest state dollars in risky stock portfolios, and seven months before the banking crisis hit, in a remarkably prescient move, she diversified a 33% chunk of Colorado's investment pool that had been in the hands of one bank. Under Cary's diligent watch, our state's investments have maintained positive earnings and posted a 3% gain this last fiscal year. She has protected Colorado's strong credit at a time other states have been downgraded. She also launched an online tool that allows each Coloradan to see how their tax dollars support different state programs: www.colorado.gov/taxtracks. Please keep our tax dollars safe and vote for Cary Kennedy. |
