Ballot Cheatsheet: Part 2

Missy Votel - 10/24/2024

Lift from the knees. This year’s Legislative Blue Book is a big one – containing 14 statewide ballot issues, and a slew of local, regional, state and national races. Oh, and don’t forget the judges and regents, which we won’t get into here lest we put everyone over the edge (if you really want to know, go to: judicialperformance.colorado.gov)

But have no fear – the Telegraph is here to help you with the heavy lifting. We’ll try not to bore you to tears as we sum up the reasoning behind each measure, as well as pros, cons and how we’re voting (and why), in case you need some sort of half-assed moral compass. However, in the end, we encourage everyone to think for themselves - you do you. Just vote.

So buckle up, grab something highly caffeinated (or stronger) and hunker down. Nov. 6 will be here before we know it.

? Amendment G - Property Tax Exemption for Vets with Disabilities

In a nutshell: Would expand the number of veterans with disabilities who qualify for reduced property tax under the state’s homestead exemption laws. (All Colorado residents over 65 who have lived in their homes for more than 10 years also qualify for exemption under the homestead exemption.)

Placed on the ballot by the Legislature, and passes with 55% of the vote

Those in favor say: Veterans who are unable to hold a steady job need property tax relief as much or more than other veterans who qualify for the homestead exemption and are still able to work.

Those against say: Expanding this exemption will make property taxes more complicated, harder to administer and reliant on determinations by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

How We’re Voting: Yes. No-brainer.

? Amendment H - Judicial Discipline Procedures

In a nutshell: Would create a new, independent board to handle disciplinary proceedings for judges accused of misconduct. Examples of misconduct include: improper demeanor, alcohol and drug use, dishonesty, retaliation, conflicts of interest, inappropriate communication, and harassment of staff.

Currently, a select panel of judges oversees judicial misconduct cases and recommends disciplinary actions. However, cases remain confidential unless public sanctions are recommended.

Placed on the ballot by the Legislature and passes with 55% of the vote

Those in favor say: Colorado judges should not have direct influence and oversight over the discipline of their colleagues. Amendment H will enhance transparency, integrity and independence of the judicial process. This measure is recommended by nearly all of the General Assembly and Judicial Branch.

Those against say: The current system works fine – judges understand how to review cases, hold hearings and make impartial, hard decisions. The amendment transfers authority to attorneys and citizens, who cannot fully understand judicial ethics and challenges. The existing system of checks and balances, such as nominations and retentions, ensures only the best remain judges.

How We’re Voting: Yes. Clarence Thomas, anyone? (See? This is easy ... )

? Amendment I- Bail Exception for First Degree Murder

In a nutshell: Would create an exception to the right to bail for criminal defendants, allowing judges to deny bail for first-degree murder defendants.

Until 2020, a person accused of a crime in Colorado had the right to bail unless the offense was punishable by the death penalty – as long as the “proof was evident and the presumption was great.”

However, the state abolished the death penalty in 2020, and the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that people charged with first degree murder are eligible for pretrial release and can’t be denied bail.

Placed on the ballot by the Legislature and passes with 55% of the vote.

Those in favor say: The measure restores a longstanding statewide legal precedent that was inadvertently eliminated. In addition, the legal standard provides a safeguard against judges routinely denying bail.

Those against say: A person is considered innocent until proven guilty. If an individual is ultimately found innocent, they would have spent time in jail for a crime they did not commit. This raises significant concerns about justice and fairness. In addition, judges can set restrictive bail conditions if they believe a person is especially violent or likely to commit another offense.

How We’re Voting: Yes. OK, the waters are beginning to get murky, but people meeting this high standard would likely be a danger if released. This would just restore the previous precedent.

? Amendment J - Repealing the Definition of Marriage

In a nutshell: Would repeal the horrible 2006 Constitutional amendment that stated only a marriage of one man and one woman was legal in Colorado.

Placed on the ballot by the Legislature and passes with a majority vote.

Those in favor say: The right of same-sex couples to marry is protected by court rulings and federal law. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its previous rulings – Roe v. Wade, anyone? – this current definition of marriage in Colorado’s constitution could jeopardize same-sex marriage.

Those against say: As much as we hate to say this, there are some out there who still believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. There are also people who think that dinosaurs didn’t exist and the Earth is flat.

How we’re voting: Yes. Marriage is a basic right. And the Earth is round.

? Amendment K - Modify Election Deadlines

In a nutshell: Would modify election-related deadlines, including a requirement that initiative petitions be submitted one week earlier than under current law, giving local elections offices and county clerks more breathing room.

Currently, people must submit petitions three months before election day. Now, it would be three months and a week.

Placed on the ballot by the Legislature and passes with 55% of the vote

Those in favor say: Election deadlines are tight, especially to send ballots to military and overseas voters. This would give election officials more time to format, translate and review ballots for accuracy, which is particularly important as ballots grow longer and more complex.

Those against say: Would give citizens less time to collect signatures and file petitions. More time is unnecessary.

How we’re voting: Yes. This was actually requested by county clerks. Let’s help make thier jobs a little easier.

? Amendment 79 - Constitutional Right to Abortion

In a nutshell: Would recognize the right to abortion in the Colorado Constitution. Although abortion is legal in Colorado, it is not protected any longer under the U.S. Constitution and is not enshrined in the State Constitution.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with 55% of the vote.

Those in favor say: Including the right to abortion in the Colorado Constitution ensures abortion will be available in the state regardless of changing political climates. In addition, Colorado’s Constitution should not ban funding for certain women’s health care services.

Those against say: Placing the right to abortion in Colorado’s Constitution limits the ability of lawmakers to pass policies preventing abortions later on. Also, abortion is already legal in Colorado – a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Plus, taxpayers should not be forced to pay for services to which they morally object.

How we’re voting: Hell. Yes. We’re not sure how a woman’s freedom of choice is different from some of the other “freedoms” that are bandied about, but a person’s ability to make their own health care decisions is a cornerstone of a free society. Let’s not go back.

? Amendment 80 - Constitutional Right to School Choice

In a nutshell: Enshrines the “right to school choice” in the Colorado Constitution for children in K-12 and would define school choice to include public neighborhood and charter schools, private schools, home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education. It also gives parents the right to “direct” the education of their children. Whatever that means.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with 55% of the vote.

Those in favor say: Placing this right in the State Constitution, affirms a parent’s right to choose an appropriate school for their children, including both public and private.

Those against say: The Colorado Constitution already guarantees a free public education, and Colorado has robust school choice laws that allow parents to choose from many public school options or choose to educate their children in private schools or at home. The measure may conflict with current law prohibiting public funding for private education and will end up in a legal battle.

How we’re voting: No. See, we can say no. This is a Trojan horse dressed under the noble-sounding guise of “school choice” that seeks to gut public education and redirect funds to private and home schools.

? Proposition JJ - Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax

In a nutshell: This would allow the state to keep excess revenues collected from the sports betting tax to be spent on water projects outlined in the Colorado Water Plan. Projects include: watershed health; recreation projects; water storage; conservation and drought planning; water efficiency improvements; and engagement and outreach.

In 2019, voters passed Prop DD, which legalized sports betting and authorized the state to collect up to $29 million a year in tax on it. This would authorize the state to keep an extra $2.8 - $7.2 million a year which otherwise would be refunded to taxpayers.

Placed on the ballot by the Legislature and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: This would allow the state to retain additional sports betting tax already being collected to support much-needed water projects. Water is scarce in Colorado, and the state’s economy and quality of life will suffer if it cannot meet its water demands.

Those against say: This is essentially a tax increase. When the state collects more revenue than voters approved, it should provide refunds rather than expand government. State water projects already receive the full amount of money approved under Prop DD.

How we’re voting: Yes. We’re not gambling people by nature, but if tax proceeds are beyond what we ever imagined in 2019, let’s put them to good use.

? Proposition KK - Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

In a nutshell: Would add a 6.5% excise tax on sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition, with the funds going toward mental health services, gun safety programs and support services for victims. Firearm dealers, manufacturers and ammunition sellers will be responsible for paying the new tax on their retail sales.

Since 1919, the federal government has levied an excise tax on retail sales of firearms and ammunition. This federal tax is currently 10% for handguns and 11% for all other firearms and all ammunition. The federal government uses the revenue to fund wildlife conservation and hunting programs. In Colorado, retail sales of firearms, firearm parts and ammunition are also subject to state and local sales taxes.

Placed on the ballot by the Legislature and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: Gun violence causes substantial physical, mental, emotional and financial harm. Taxing firearm and ammunition sales is an appropriate way to fund programs that reduce the negative impacts of gun violence. Current funding sources for these services are inconsistent and in some cases disappearing, while demand continues to rise.

Those against say: Citizens have a state and federal constitutional right to own firearms. This measure places an additional burden on the ability of law-abiding Coloradans to exercise this right. Furthermore, people may choose to buy firearms in other states to avoid the new tax, hurting Colorado businesses and encouraging illegal purchases of firearms.

How we’re going to vote: Yes. Hey, it worked for cigarettes. Maybe it will work for guns and gun violence, too.

? Proposition 127 - Prohibit Bobcat & Mountain Lion Hunting

In a nutshell: This would ban the trophy hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx in Colorado. Killing of big cats would still be allowed under certain situations, say self-defense or if your livestock are in imminent danger. It would also establish penalties for violations: 364 days in jail, a $1,000 fine or both.

In addition, under current law, Colorado may reimburse landowners for damage to crops, property or livestock caused by any “big game” species, including mountain lions. This measure would remove mountain lions from the “big game” list, making landowners ineligible for reimbursement.

From 2020-23, about 880 bobcats and 500 mountain lions were harvested.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: In addition to causing the animals pain and trauma, mountain lion hunting often involves the use of dogs, and the hunting of bobcats may involve baits, lures or traps. Hunting and trapping these animals, often for trophies or the fur trade, is an unnecessary and outdated practice.

Furthermore, bobcat and mountain lions can naturally regulate their population regardless of hunting or trapping, and there is no consistent evidence that banning hunting would increase public danger. In fact, big cats are valuable for ecology and healthy ungulate populations.

Plus, officials will still be allowed to use lethal and non-lethal methods on big cats when situations warrant.

Those against say: The measure restricts the ability of CPW to make science-based decisions to achieve the state’s objectives. The state currently manages a healthy population of bobcats and mountain lions, proving that its current management practices, which include hunting, are working. Furthermore, hunting lynx is already illegal.

In addition, hunting mountain lions and bobcats provides an important source of income to the state and local communities. Plus, property owners will lose the ability to be reimbursed for any damage caused by a mountain lion. However, if a hunting ban results in a larger big cat population, these damages may become more frequent.

How we’re voting: Yes. Call us crazy cat ladies (personally, we’re allergic), but based on sheer letter volume in support of Prop 127, it’s time to outlaw this unethical, inhumane and outdated practice, even if we hope we never meet a mountain lion face to face.

? Proposition 128 - Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence

In a nutshell: This would make people convicted of certain violent crimes ineligible for parole until they have served at least 85% of their sentences. Currently, people convicted of certain violent crimes are eligible for parole, minus earned time for personal, professional or educational programs, after serving 75% of their sentence.

An estimated 220 individuals per year are sentenced to prison for crimes of violence and serve an average of about 23 years in prison. The measure does not impact parole eligibility of a person incarcerated before Jan. 1, 2025.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: This would increase public safety and ensure that justice is served. People who commit these crimes should be kept away from the public, and victims and their families deserve the sense of security from prolonged incarceration.

Those against say: This would remove the incentive for prisoners to comply with rules or take part in rehabilitation. It will also increase the population and pressures on an already over-taxed prison system. Finally, there is no evidence it will reduce crime.

How we’re voting: No. There are already too many people in the prison system. Why add to it and take away any hope that they may someday rehabilitate and return to society?

? Proposition 129 - Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates

In a nutshell: Would allow certain veterinary services to be delivered by the state-regulated profession of “veterinary professional associate,” or VPA, without a state-issued veterinarian’s license. Under current law, a licensed veterinarian, a registered veterinary technician (vet tech) and a registered veterinary technician specialist (vet tech specialist) may provide veterinary care in Colorado.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: Many people struggle to get veterinary care, especially in rural communities. This would provide more options while creating more career opportunities. Also would help take stress of practicing vets

How we’re voting: No. Our vet opposes this – ’nuff said. Seems kinda shady.

? Proposition 130 - Funding for Law Enforcement

In a nutshell: Would direct the state to spend $350 million to help recruit, train and retain local law enforcement and provide an additional benefits for families of officers killed in the line of duty.

Currently, local law enforcement in Colorado is funded through county or municipal budgets, and the state funds the Colorado State Patrol and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. The state also gives technical assistance and grants to local law enforcement agencies.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: Law enforcement is a critical and underfunded public need. This funds that need without raising taxes. Plus, recent legislation has increased costs to local police without providing any new funding. Also, providing additional compensation for families of fallen officers upholds a social obligation.

Those against say: No evidence exists that increased funding to law enforcement makes communities safer. Plus, this only funds traditional law enforcement and not alternatives, such as social workers and behavioral health professionals. Similarly, the funds may not be spent in a way local communities support and they may not get the amounts anticipated due to budget shortfalls.

How we’re voting: No. This money cannot just appear out of nowhere – it will have to come at the expense of another program. While we do not doubt that costs of policing have risen (like everything else) funding should come from the local level or a dedicated state source.

? Proposition 131 - All-Candidate Primary & Ranked Choice Voting

In a nutshell: Would make sweeping reforms to state primary elections and establish a top-four, ranked choice system for certain state and federal offices.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: This gives voters more choices and will increase voter participation. Voters will be more empowered to give a top ranking to their favorite candidate, while still supporting backup choices. Results will better reflect the will of the voters.

Those against say: The new system is complex and expensive, with voters having to vote in two different systems for each election. Taxpayers will also have to pay for extensive voter education and outreach. Even so, some voters will still be confused and incorrectly fill out their ballots, which could change outcomes. The all-candidate primary may also force candidates to spend more on campaigns to stand out in a larger field, inviting even more money into our political system.

How we’re voting: No. We like the idea of ranked-choice voting, but this one hurts our brains.

? Proposition 128 - Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those against say: This would remove the incentive for prisoners to comply with rules or take part in rehabilitation. It will also increase the population and pressures on an already overtaxed prison system. Finally, there is no evidence it will reduce crime.

How we’re voting: No. There are already too many people in the prison system. Why add to it and take away any hope that they may someday rehabilitate and return to society?

? Proposition 129 - Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

How we’re voting: No. Our vet opposes this – ’nuff said. Seems kinda shady.

? Proposition 130 - Funding for Law Enforcement

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those against say: There is no evidence that increased police funding makes communities safer. Plus, this only funds traditional law enforcement and not alternatives, like social workers and behavioral health professionals. The funds may not be spent in a way local communities support, and communities may not get the amounts anticipated.

How we’re voting: No. This money cannot just appear out of nowhere – it will have to come at the expense of another program. While we do not doubt that costs of policing have risen (like everything else), funding should come from the local level or a dedicated state source.

? Proposition 131 - All-Candidate Primary & Ranked Choice Voting

In a nutshell: Would make sweeping reforms to state primary elections and establish a top-four, ranked choice system for certain state and federal offices.

Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and passes with a simple majority.

Those in favor say: This gives voters more choice and will increase voter participation. Voters will be more empowered to give a top ranking to their favorite candidate, while still supporting backup choices. Results will better reflect voters’ will.

How we’re voting: No. We like the idea of ranked-choice voting, but this one hurts our brains. Sorry not sorry. ?