Login or register to post comments

Printer-friendly version

Email this Story

With 18 amendments and referendums, this year’s state ballot will likely feel daunting to most voters. But it’s also one that has very few “housekeeping” items.

There are measures on the ballot that would change laws on discrimination, abortion, gambling, campaign finance and labor unions. There are three tax-raising proposals, one that would hike state sales tax to benefit people with developmental disabilities, and two separate severance tax measures that would hike fees for the oil and gas industry and benefit the state’s highways and higher education, respectively. Other measures address the workplace, affecting CEO accountability, employees’ health insurance, the work environment and how workers can be fired.

Following is a guide to Colorado’s ballot issues that strives to be comprehensive yet simple to understand.

Amendment 46: Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Government

This amendment to the Colorado Constitution would prohibit any discrimination or preferential treatment in public education, government jobs or government contracting, effectively eliminating most “affirmative action” programs.

Supporters say such programs can promote discrimination and result in more qualified people being passed over for someone less qualified. The notion that someone could be discriminated against based on age, race or sex is outdated and breeds divisiveness, supporters would say.

Baloney, opponents say. The measure targets carefully tailored programs that have proven successful in promoting diversity and giving a chance to deserving people who wouldn’t otherwise have one, opponents say. They might also point out that there are already federal laws against discrimination.

Amendment 47: Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues

The practice of collective bargaining allows workers to organize their negotiations with management over pay, workplace conditions and other workers issues. Some of these collective bargaining agreements require everyone in the workplace to pay dues to the labor union, even if they choose not to be a member.

Amendment 47 would make this illegal. Proponents say it makes Colorado more business friendly while preserving the right to form a union and strike. No one would be forced to pay union dues that partially support political causes one might not agree with, supporters say.

Opponents of this amendment mock its “right to work” slogan, arguing that it’s a ploy to weaken workers’ rights. This law would allow employees to benefit from improved pay and conditions secured by the union without paying their fair share of the negotiations costs, all the while neutering overall worker protection in the process, opponents say.

Amendment 48: Definition of a Person

Should Amendment 48 pass, a fertilized egg would be given the same legal rights under Colorado law as a full-fledged human being. This means a pregnant woman’s unborn child — or someone on its behalf — could sue the mother for even thinking about that abortion. The woman could also be prosecuted for making a medical decision that could be life saving.

The Colorado Blue Book states as an argument in support of Amendment 48, “the measure may establish the legal foundation to end the practice of abortion in Colorado.” Supporters also claim that by clearly spelling out the definition of a person, it would prevent the law from being applied unevenly.

 Vote no on Amendment 48 if you want abortion to remain a private choice left to a woman and her doctor.

Amendment 49: Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions

Amendment 49 would prevent government entities, including school districts, state, county and city governments, from allowing automatic paycheck deductions for labor unions or professional organizations. It would continue to allow most other types of automatic deductions, including taxes.

Supporters say allowing public employees to automatically give to labor or professional organizations is an unnecessary government function. The law would protect employees from the sometimes cumbersome process of opting out of automatic deductions they may not have signed up for or agree with, supporters say.

Opponents say this measure is another ploy, similar to Amendment 47, to damage labor unions. While interfering with local jurisdictions’ abilities to make their own rules on automatic deductions, it issues a blanket edict taking away an individual’s choice as to whether that person wants to support a union or professional organization using an automatic paycheck deduction, opponents say. They say there is a hypocrisy in allowing public employees to give to charities or other nonprofits but not unions.

Amendment 50: Limited Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek

Colorado has allowed limited gambling in three historic mining towns since 1991. Limited means a maximum bet of $5 and the only games allowed are blackjack, poker and slots.

Amendment 50 would allow the individual gambling towns of Cripple Creek, Black Hawk and Central City to vote to raise the maximum bet to $100, allow craps and roulette and allow the casinos to stay open past 2 a.m. Of the estimated $300 million in additional state tax revenue this measure would raise in five years, 78 percent would be allocated to the state’s community colleges, the rest to the gambling cities and counties.

Supporters say this will give the economies of these towns a boost, loosen some of the strictest gambling laws in the nation and lead to a more educated workforce through the community college benefit.

Opponents fear Amendment 50 will lead to an over-proliferation of casinos in these three historic towns, create more gambling-related problems and also handcuff the state by requiring that a large new revenue stream be spent on community colleges.

Amendment 51: State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities

Amendment 51 is a proposal to raise the state sales tax from 2.9 percent to 3.1 percent by July 10, 2010, with the additional revenue going toward programs and services to help people with developmental disabilities. By raising the state sales tax .1 percent gradually over two years, an additional $89 million will come in the first year, and another $186 million the second. On top of state sales tax, residents pay local government taxes too. 

Current funding of $372 million provides these services to 11,800 Colorado residents, with the state providing $184 million of that amount. But there are 9,700 adults and children on waiting lists in the next two years, and that figure is expected to increase to 12,000 by 2012. The disabilities covered include Down syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy and mental retardation, and the programs this budget funds offer everything from full-time care to job training and speech and language development.

Proponents say that lack of care for those with disabilities is at a crisis level, and their needs cannot be met without cutting funds from other programs. In some cases, the money goes toward intervention programs to help children with disabilities, which will later reduce government spending. And the new revenue will not pay for government overhead, but go directly toward improving the quality of life for individuals with disabilities.

Opponents think raising taxes could hurt the state’s already fragile economy, and those who want to help people with disabilities can do so through private funds. Instead of bringing in more money, officials could reprioritize the budget and eliminate government inefficiencies, they say.

Amendment 52: Use of Severance Tax for Highways

A severance tax is the money that a company pays when it extracts a nonrenewable natural resource such as coal, oil, natural gas, gold or silver from the earth. The tax is based on company’s income or the volume of the resource mined.

Amendment 52 would use a portion of severance tax funds for highway projects, at the same time limiting the amount of money the state can spend on state programs such as wildlife conservation, low-income energy assistance and bark beetle control. Priority will be given to addressing congestion on Interstate 70.

Under current law, state programs receive $181 million. If Amendment 52 passes, these programs would receive $92 million, and $89 million would go to highway projects.

Proponents say the proposal creates a new, dedicated source of funding for highways that could amount to $225 million over the next four years without raising taxes. Existing highway revenue is expected to fall short as the purchasing power of gas taxes declines, and this would be a permanent budget item that could aid that shortcoming. In addition, the recent growth in gas and oil production has increased the available money for state programs from $8 million to $100 million in recent years.

Opponents argue that the amendment hurts the state’s long-term water supply needs, by shifting more than $100 million from water projects to transportation projects over the next four years. It could also politicize funding for transportation projects by giving budgeting authority to the state legislature.

Amendment 53: Criminal Accountability of Business Executives

Though businesses can be held criminally responsible already, this proposal would hold business executives responsible for failure to comply with a law if the official knew of the duty and the business’ failure to perform it. This would apply to an officer, director, managing partner, managing member or sole proprietor of a for-profit or nonprofit entity. Criminal penalties would include fines and/or imprisonment.

Those in favor of Amendment 53 say it will foster a healthy and moral economic climate for Colorado and over time attract and retain responsible employers. And it addresses a gap in state law, which currently does not hold individual business executives responsible for a business’ failure to follow state law.

Those who are against this amendment argue that it could negatively impact Colorado business. For example, they say, criminal penalties could drive higher insurance costs, which could be passed along to the consumer. It could also create a fear of prosecution that could prevent the recruitment of top business talent and leave community leaders reluctant to serve on nonprofit boards.

Amendment 54: Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors.

This amendment would prohibit particular government contractors from making campaign contributions during the contract’s duration and two years following. Government projects contract out to private-sector vendors, and though this is regulated by state law, sometimes a project can only be carried out by one provider because of specific constraints.

In this case, the prohibition of campaign contributions would only apply to those contractors with contract values greater than $100,000 in a single year that received three or fewer bids. It also covers labor organizations that represent public employees in a bargaining process. A sample of state contracts showed that about 6 percent of contracts had a value of $100,000 or more, and were not put to bid but awarded on the sole-source basis.

Proponents say this would promote civil trust and government transparency. It would prevent the influence of policy decisions being based on campaign contributions from labor, business unions and other covered government contracts. And, proponents say, it would promote a competitive bidding process for contracts, so that it’s more attractive to enter into these bids.

Opponents argue that the law’s broad scope could have far-reaching consequences; for example, one individual holding a contract in a certain local government could be punished for making a contribution in a separate jurisdiction. It also puts a burden on smaller communities, they say, where only one contractor may be available for projects.

Amendment 55: Allowable Reasons for Employee Discharge or Suspension

Currently, private-sector employees can typically be fired at any time for any reason — this is known as at-will employment. Amendment 55 would prohibit the firing of employees unless there was just cause, such as incompetence, substandard performance, gross insubordination, conviction of a crime, employer bankruptcy or documented economic conditions that directly affect the employer.

This would apply only to for-profit employers that employ 20 or more people and nonprofit employers that have 1,000 or more employees. And employees must work full-time for at least six consecutive months. It would not apply to businesses in which employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. This would mean that an employee could file a lawsuit if he felt as if he was fired without just cause, and it could potentially increase lawsuits in the court system by upwards of 3,500 cases annually.

Those in favor of Amendment 55 say that it allows employees to work freely without fear of losing their job for no reason, and it would improve the business climate in Colorado. It puts into law business practices that are already held by good employers.

Those against it argue that it would prevent businesses from making decisions based on economic factors, such as the need to eliminate unnecessary employees. It could potentially injure those people it’s trying to help by discouraging the hiring of full-time employees, or making employers more inclined to convert full-time employees to part-time or contract employees. Opponents also say that it’s unnecessary because the decision to fire an employee is rarely taken lightly, since it often results in lost productivity and a time-consuming process to replace that employee. Additionally, federal law already prohibits the firing of an employee for reasons based on sex, race, religion or age.


Amendment 56: Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance

This proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution would require every private employer in Colorado with 20 or more employees to provide health insurance to employees and dependents. Those that currently provide health insurance may need to change their plans to meet the additional requirements of the amendment, including paying 80 percent of the cost of the health insurance for the employee and paying 70 percent of the cost of the insurance for the employee’s dependents. Currently, employers in Colorado are not required by state or federal law to provide insurance for their employees.

Proponents believe that health insurance increases access to preventive care, which in turn leads to higher productivity in the work place. Supporters also believe that Amendment 56 increases access to affordable health insurance to working people and their families, better protecting them against the financial burden of catastrophic medical events. They also believe that employers should share in the responsibility of solving health care access problems.

Opponents say that Amendment 56 is an inflexible approach to the complex issue of health care. The financial burden placed on businesses may result in higher costs, lost jobs and an increase in the price for goods and services. If passed, businesses may decrease employees’ wages, bonuses or other benefits to offset the increased health care costs.


Amendment 57: Additional Remedies for Injured Employees

Amendment 57 would require that every private employer in Colorado with 10 or more employees provide a safe and healthy workplace. It would also allow an injured employee to seek damages in court beyond workers’ compensation benefits if the employee believes that the employer failed to provide a safe and healthy workplace.

Supporters of the proposed amendment to Colorado statues believe that the current workers’ compensation system is often inadequate, and the choice of doctors and treatment options are limited. Also, Amendment 57 encourages an increased focus on workplace safety, and both employees and employers benefit from a safe environment.

Opponents believe Amendment 57 is unnecessary, as the current workers’ compensation system effectively balances the needs of employers and employees. State revenue and spending will also increase if Amendment 57 is passed, as new court filings by employees injured at work are expected to increase. The increased liability and legal costs to employers may also lead to higher prices for goods and services, reduced employee benefits and lower wages.


Amendment 58: Severance Taxes on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.

Severance taxes are paid by companies that extract nonrenewable natural resources form the earth, including oil and gas, gold, coal and molybdenum. Amendment 58 seeks to increase the amount of state severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies, primarily by eliminating an existing state tax credit. The increased tax revenue would be allocated to college scholarships for state residents, wildlife habitat, renewable energy projects, transportation projects in energy-impacted areas and water treatment grants. And the amendment to the Colorado statues would exempt all oil and gas severance tax revenue from state and local spending limits.

Supporters believe that Amendment 58 eliminates a state tax credit for an industry that is currently experiencing record profits. They also say increasing access to college for middle- and low-income Coloradans is critical to ensure the state’s long-term economic health. Colorado’s severance tax rate is currently the lowest among large resource-producing Western states, and passing Amendment 58 brings that rate more in line with other states. And supporters say that a change in Colorado’s severance tax is not a large enough factor to make a significant difference in Colorado’s energy prices.

Opponents say that increasing the severance tax will make Colorado less attractive to the oil and gas industry and, as a result, may lead to a loss of jobs in the state. They also say that the spending plan for the increased revenue is too vague, that the existing tax credit is justified given the higher property taxes paid by the industry, and that the amendment may increase energy prices for Colorado consumers.


Amendment 59: State Fiscal Year Spending and the Proposed Tax Increase

This proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution would eliminate rebates that taxpayers receive when the state collects more money than it is allowed, and spend that money on preschool through 12th grade public education. The amendment would also eliminate the required inflationary increase in public education spending and set aside money in a new savings account for public education.

Supporters believe that Amendment 59 provides a future source of money for educating Colorado’s children without raising taxes. They also believe that a savings account for education would protect public schools and other state programs during an economic downturn.

Opponents say that the amendment is effectively a tax increase, as it permanently eliminates all future tax rebates. The amendment also eliminates guaranteed funding increases for education and places future funding for education at the discretion of the state legislature. And without a spending limit, government is more likely to increase fees, as the amendment weakens the disincentive to raise fees since the additional money created by those fees would no longer be rebated to taxpayers.


Referendum L: Qualifications for Serving in the State Legislature

Should 21-year-olds be allowed to serve as a state representative or senator? Today the Colorado Constitution requires that a lawmaker be at least 25 years old. It’s been that way since the constitution was adopted in 1876. Other states have age minimums ranging from 18 to 30.

Vote yes if you think people considered legal adults at age 21 should also be allowed serve in the state legislature.

Vote no if you think what you learn between the ages of 21 and 25 makes you a better lawmaker.

Referendum M: Obsolete Constitutional Provision Relating to Land
Value Increases

The 1876 Colorado Constitution included a tax break for private landowners who planted hedges, orchards and forests.

The law is no longer used to value property. It’s considered obsolete and is cluttering up the constitution.

Vote yes to clean up the constitution.

Vote no to retain the quaint tax break in the hopes it is someday relevant again.

Referendum N: Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Relating to Alcohol Beverages

Back in 1876 the framers of the state constitution thought it made sense to ban importing, making or selling impure alcohol.

Now the federal government regulates the safety of alcohol and the labeling of adult beverages. And the state regulates the health, cleanliness, purity, quality, storage and transportation of alcohol that is manufactured, distributed and sold in the state.

There is also an old constitutional provision on saloons, which are now regulated by state laws.

Vote yes to remove these outdated and unnecessary provisions from the constitution.

Vote no if you want to cling to a time when hooch was hooch.

Referendum O: Citizen-Initiated State Laws

This referendum seeks to encourage citizens to amend state laws instead of amending the constitution by requiring more signatures on petitions to change the state constitution and requiring fewer signatures on petitions to change state laws.

Today, a group or person needs 76,047 signatures for either a constitutional amendment or a statutory amendment to be placed on the ballot.

If this measure passes, it would take 93,487 signatures for a constitutional amendment and 62,331 for a statutory amendment to be placed on the ballot.

The thinking is, once the constitution is changed, only voters can change it back or amend it. If a state law is changed, state lawmakers can amend the law if it seems too extreme or has unintended consequences.

This referendum would also require that 8 percent of signatures for constitutional initiatives be gathered from each congressional district in the state, instead of from just anywhere in the state. Currently, signatures are usually gathered in urban areas on the Front Range because it is easier, and therefore less expensive.

The provision would also require that drafts of constitutional initiatives be submitted earlier and allow more public comment on all initiatives. And it would give more time to gather signatures for statutory initiatives and make it harder for state lawmakers to amend what the voters have just approved — giving statutory initiatives more clout.

Vote yes if you think the state constitution should be harder to change than state laws.

Vote no if you think the current citizen initiative process is working just fine as is.