CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 21, 2016 07:29 AM UTC
22 Comments
For that we can go to TRACER–Colorado’s campaign finance tracker, to see that 
Thanks Governor Frackenlooper…Your Big Oily contributors are trying to destroy our state…
Amendment 71 will lock TABOR into law and make it harder to stand up to Big Oil. Voting HELL NO.
Like it's not already locked in? It would be no harder to repeal, just to change. Not much hope of doing either. Not a good enough reason to keep adding detailed plans to our bloated constitution. No reason to continue to use the constitution in place of legislation or the ballot statute process.
With no evidence that changing or repealing TABOR has a snowball's chance in hell any time in the foreseeable future, I personally see no reason to take that pie in the sky unlikelihood into consideration one way or the other. I hope you have better reasons than that one.
I'm voting yes.
The reason why TABOR is going nowhere is VOTERS SUPPORT IT.
Why can't you tax and spend liberals just accept that?
We accept that there is a big enough block of people who are as easily bamboozled as you are. How else, for instance , to explain Trump not being laughed out of the race during the primaries?
Talked to a lady whose son briefly worked for C Springs government. They kept giving him problems to study, then rejected his proposed solutions because they'd cost money. He quit. It was hopeless and he was tired of living in a third world country.
BTW Look at a graph some time. The economy booms with us librul Dems and sinks like a stone with you conservatives. It's because voodoo is no substitute for common sense.
A constitution should be difficult as hell to amend. When it's not, you have unabashedly discriminatory wingnut flavor-of-the-month nonsense like "The English language is the official language of the State of Colorado" and " Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state" elevated to the level of organic law. It's ridiculous.
Like BlueCat, I'm voting yes, although 71 is likely destined for spectacular failure. A 30-second ad about how out-of-state troublemakers want to take away your right to govern yourselves would assure that.
I wish more people understood the concept of small "r" republican government through elected reps whose job it is to do the research and work on legislation on the voters' behalf so when they vote they have a good grasp of what it is they're voting for or against. Our system is not one of direct small "d" democracy for some very good reasons. We elect those who will represent us by majority rule. The intention was that those we elected to the legislature in that way would then legislate, not that we would all legislate by majority rule. We are supposed to be self governing through our elected legislators and executives.
I'm a yes vote. It's bullshit to claimthis locks in tabor, it specically says anything in the constitution now can be taken out by the old rules. But new stuff should go into statute, not constitutional concrete. Anti-frackers can pass all the anti-frCking laws they want — they just have to put themin law, not the constitution. That's as it should be. And you antifrackers who fear you will have to pay just compensation for the taki ng of property rights? Guess what? That is already in the U.S. constitution and. A state abti-fracking ban still faces that challenge in federal court.
I'm in the yes column, too. The state Constitution should be damned hard to change. This amendment also makes it clear that any proposal in the future has to get signatures from each state Senate district across Colorado. At present, signature-gatherers can stand in front of King Soopers on the Front Range, leading to metrocentric crap that either does not benefit the rural areas of the state or flat-out hurts them.
I'm leaning yes. The constitutional jiggery pokery has to stop. I think we also need a constitutional convention.
I'll be a NO vote.
Although I dearly would appreciate the CO Constitution being more difficult to amend, I am more than a bit suspicious that this initiative is not in my best interest.
To wit, of the reported contributions to the "Raise the Bar" committee:
94% came from Front Range addresses.
71% came from members and allies of the fossil fuel industry.
94% came from industry and lobbying organizations.
4% came from out of state.
0.5% came from the western slope of Colorado. (and over 60% ($8500) of the West Slope contributions came from Alpine Bank)
If this committee is unable to obtain support from a broad cross-section of Colorado citizens, why should they get my support?
Vote NO on 71.
For another reason to vote NO on 71, take a peek at the expenditures of the "Raise the Bar" committee.
Over $250,000 went to EIS Solutions and Starboard Group, lining the pockets of the Josh Penry family.
And over $900,000 was spent on signature gathering.
Who else can afford to do something like this besides yuuuge out-of-state groups?
Let's make the CO Constitution impossible to amend by out-of-state special interests as we make it more difficult to amend in general.
That's why I am voting No on 71. I think it would be nice if we still lived in a "small r" republic but that is a situation that is not really accurate. The oligarchy has penetrated state politics, it is not Coloradans being represented. If the legislature and the powers behind the thrones are sick of the fracking wars and think they can head them off in this manner, which following the money like Deep Throat opined, shows us is a major driver behind this, then they are badly mistaken. The small "r" republic is on its death bed and until we revive it I'll vote to keep the safety latch.
I will also vote "nyet", comrades.
When they say it will make it harder to amend, they mean it will make it more expensive. Who does that help? Hmmmm?
It will make it harder period.
Also (in addition to those you imply) helps elections lawyers. Contesting signatures–one side contesting sufficiency, the other insufficiency, in 35 districts? Good times! It would make the Republican Senate candidates petition signature troubles in a mere 7 districts seem minor.
Absolutely a NO vote. Before taking such an extreme step, try incentives for statutes over constitutional initiatives.
The fundamental reason groups have gone for constitutional amendments rather than statutes is that the legislature has not respected the vote of the people. Prime example: After decades of failing to get the legislature to pass effective campaign finance rules, in 1996 an initiative established the Fair Campaign Practices Act as a statute (66% approval). In 2000 the legislature gutted the law. The dirty deed was done by the Republicans in charge, but sadly many legislative Democrats were glad to see them do it. So we came back in 2002 to reestablish most of the gutted provisions in the constitution (66% approval, carried all but 3 counties). The only reason it is now in the constitution is that the legislature did not respect the citizens vote.
We also worked for at least 35 years to get the legislature to pass reasonable effective ethics rules for elected officials. Again, they did not. So in 2006 we passed the Ethics in Government initiative (63% approval). Politicians were clear they would change the law if given a chance, so it was done as a constitutional amendment.
So what is an alternative to the drastic step of Am 71? Offer a "safe harbor" for statutes passed by initiative. That is, provide a period of time–such as five years–when the legislature could alter an initiated statute only by a super majority of both houses of the leg. That would give the law time to work without being subjected to political whims, force the leg to respect the law, while still giving a way to make an adjustment for a truly bad law or bad provision if there was broad agreement from the legislature.
Am 71 is an extreme response to a problem with other solutions. It is not a better system, only a more expensive one. It still makes the constitutional route available to those with deep pockets–that is, the very folks who are supporting Am 71–while making it too costly and difficult for true grassroots groups. That is, of course, exactly what oil and gas and the corporate funders are trying to achieve. It will be the constitution for the rich, only statutes (which they can then lobby the legislature to gut) for the poor.
This (from the Denver Business Journal article)
caused me to wonder, well, what percent of the population of Colorado is from metro Denver, Larimer and Boulder counties. Quick google search: total CO population 5.6 million. Metro Denver: 3 million. Boulder county: approx 300,000. Larimer: approx. 300,000.
So 70% of the signatures came from regions with about 65% of the population. And the outrage is what? It is a bullshit talking point.
And why should one or two state senate districts have veto power over a state-wide initiative? And…..well, my list of objections is extensive and I am out of time.
The fact that my mayor, John Suthers, is on TV every hour telling me that it's "not fair" (boo hoo, cry me river!) and to vote for it, is enough to get me to vote against it. Though I'll read the Blue Book once it comes in the mail to make sure.
Why don't they seek a statutory change rather than a constitutional amendment, so we can fix their bullshit, too, if we need to?
It's the DO-AS-I-SAY-NOT-AS-I-DO INITIATIVE.