Ballot Issue Update

Can't vote straight ticket on these

Can't vote all no or all yes.

Voters and editorial writers will have to know what the are doing.

They'll sort through and make pretty good decisons on some,

---

by: Another skeptic @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 02:26:34 AM UTC

Checked it out

Dan, I checked your website to get more info on these. Geezuz, why are so many of the ballot proposals constitutional amendments? Makes me want to go circulate a petition to make it harder to put constitutional amendments on the ballot.

"Thank you for putting your rank political motives on display." - ArapaGOP

---

by: Aristotle @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 04:01:37 AM UTC

There has been another approach

There has been a recurring effort in the legislature not to make it harder to put constitutional changes on the ballot, but to require more votes to change the constitution than the statutes which should prompt more groups to make their changes statutorily. The sponsor of this annual bill is leaving the legislature at the end of this yar, so I don't know who will take up this battle.

The points of the bill:
1. Require 60% to pass constitutional measures and leave statutory changes at simple majority.
2. Require that for the first 5 years after an initiated statute is passed, it would take 2/3 of the legislature to repeal or alter it.
3. Anything that went into the Constitution at 50%+1, can come out by 50%+1.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 11:33:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I couldn't have said it better myself

Sorry.....I didn't mean to be redundant.....I should read on before posting but I wanted to respond to Aristotle's question re:  constitutional amendment fetish in Colorado. 

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 13:52:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, OQD & Dan n/t

"Thank you for putting your rank political motives on display." - ArapaGOP

---

by: Aristotle @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 22:53:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it was a GJ Republican too

If I recall, who sponsered the bill.  I sent him an email when I read he was retiring saying "thank you" for trying to save us from ourselves.

So there's my instance of reaching across the aisle in this time of increasing partisanship.

And I'm torn.  Of course I want to raise the minimum wage, but do I want it in the Constitution?  No, I don't. 

---

by: poopiscomingout @ Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 19:03:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

because they can.....

  Because it's as easy to do a constitutional amendment as it is a statutory change but at the same time, constitutional amendments are beyond the reach of the General Assembly. 
  The % necessary to pass a constitutional amendment should be significantly higher than a statutory change (or more broad based.....say, require passage in 5 out of 7 C.D.s), but neither the voters nor the legislators will make the change in the constitution. 
  Eventually, the entire state constitution will collapse on its own weight (almost happened w/ TABOR, Gallagher, Amendment 23, etc. but Referendum C dodged that bullet for us), there will be a constitutional convention, and God (and Doug Lamborn) only know what will happen them....

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 13:50:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question

Wasn't there an Eminent Domain Ballot initiative?
What happened to that one?

---

by: tmgt @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 14:29:16 PM UTC

They did not submit their petitions.

They were due in several weeks ago.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 23:37:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why have a no same-sex marriage petition...

When the Colorado constiution defines marriage between a man and a woman???

Obviously the people who started the petition didn't do their research.

---

by: USA1 @ Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 02:52:03 AM UTC

This is just from memory...

... but I think the petition is for an amendment. You know, like Amendment 2.

"Thank you for putting your rank political motives on display." - ArapaGOP

---

by: Aristotle @ Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 03:58:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amendment Two revisited

  Yes, and we all know how THAT ended up.  The taxpayers got to waste millions of dollars unsuccessfully defending a half-baked, hair-brain idea cooked up by the religious right. 
  Given their track record, it's too bad that the Sec. of State couldn't require the religious right to post a bond to cover the litigation costs as a condition of placing this latest initiative on the ballot.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 11:09:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

IIRC...

Colorado STATUTE currently defines marriage between a man and a woman, but the constitution does not.  It's one of those "why oh why does it have to be so easy to amend the constitution" initiatives.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 05:04:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kenny Boy

SHALL THE COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL INITIATE OR JOIN OTHER STATES IN A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DEMAND THE ENFORCEMENT OF ALL EXISTING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Why does the phrase "He got Ken Starr'ed" come to mind.  Boy, I can see this one abused for political purposes.

---

by: ZaBlanc @ Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:08:40 AM UTC

The cut-off for turning in petitions has come and gone.

The only proponents to turn in their petitions in time to be considered for the ballot are, and in this order:
Term-Limits on Justices
Ethics in Government
Minimum Wage
Definition of Marriage
Pot is OK
Defending Domestic Partnerships

The order they are turned in is the order which the Sec. of State's office processes them so if everything goes according to plan, they should be numbered Amendments 40-46 respectively. This is assuming they all turned in enough signatures.

All proponents turned in between 110K and 135K signatures which should be enough to get on the ballot unless there is some horrendous flaw in the circulating.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 22:33:56 PM UTC

Hmm...

I thought the COFair-Equal initiative (which I assume is the "Defending Domestic Partnerships" above) wasn't going to be submitted unless the Perkins anti-partnership initiative was also submitted.

If this is the total, here's my predictions:

Term Limits on Justices: goes down in flames
Ethics in Government: voted down but relatively close
Minimum Wage: close call, passes
Definition of Marriage: passes narrowly
Pot: passes with surprising support
Domestic Partnership Definition: fails (but is not necessary)

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 22:39:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are right

That is the Coloradans for Fairness group (they keep changing their name!)

I think minimum wage will pass by a healthy margin. I hope you are right on the "Ethics in Govt" one because the name is a bit of a misnomer.

The Pot one will be interesting to watch. I am happy they appear to be headed for the ballot becuase it will turn out younger voters. Now, the trick will be to get thoase younger voters to know about and vote the other parts of the ballot.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 23:06:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

paging Jean Dubofsky......you're needed at the Supreme Court

  So the "Domestic Partnerships are Not Marriage" initiative may yet make the ballot but the "No Domestic Partnerships" initiative (i.e., the Kevin Lundborg and Will Perkins' brain fart) is dead? 
  Since the "D.P.s are Not Marriage" initiative was to clarify (and potentially overrule) the Lundborg-Perkins' brain fart, is not the former initiative moot now that the latter one is dead? 
  Won't it be simplier for both sides simply to campaign on Referendum "I" (legalizing D.P.s) and the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? 

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 13:28:58 PM UTC

I think that...

They are doing it as an assurance the Lundberg-perkins issue isn't brought up every single year and they have to gather signatures each year, just in case the Lundberg-Perkins might get enough. It's much easier to try and pass it now and not have to worry about it in the future.

---

by: Aaron @ Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 15:58:05 PM UTC

You may well be right.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:27:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

UPDATE: Term-Limits for Justices makes ballot

The Secretary of State issued a sufficiency statement for the amendment which would limit the number of terms an appellate or Supreme Court justice could serve. It will be Amendment 40

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 23:38:44 PM UTC

UPDATE: 3 more make the ballot

Common Causes' "Ethics in Government" amendment has been certified to the ballot at Amendment 41.

The Minimum Wage Amendment has been certified to the ballot as Amendment 42.

The Anti-Marriage Amendment has been certified to the ballot as Amendment 43.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 01:40:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The last two are certified

Yesterday (Wed), the Marijuana Initiative was certified to the ballot as Amendment 44

Today, the Domestic Partnership Protection Amendment (for lack of a better name) was certified to the ballot as Amendment 45.

An interesting side note to Amendment 45: They turned in over 141,000 signatures, a new record for a statewide ballot question. The notable part is they got all of these signatures in less than 2 months.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 15:29:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]