(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(D) Julie Gonzales
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
40%
20%
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Hetal Doshi
50%
40%↓
30%
(D) Jeff Bridges
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
50%↑
40%↓
30%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Wanda James
(D) Milat Kiros
80%
20%
10%↓
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Alex Kelloff
(R) H. Scheppelman
60%↓
40%↓
30%↑
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) E. Laubacher
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
30%↑
20%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
55%↓
45%↑
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Shannon Bird
(D) Manny Rutinel
45%↓
30%
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
In the range of arguments being made by opponents of Proposition 103, one we’ve seen voiced by just about all of them is that the funds raised are not incontrovertibly required to be spent on education. Even though Prop. 103 very clearly specifies that the funds from restoring sales and income tax to 1999 levels must be spent on education, hypothetically the General Assembly could pass a bill thwarting these provisions, and spend the funds however they want.
That would be a move we could only describe as politically suicidal–and the argument would by the same token work against any statutory initiative. We don’t think this amounts to a plausible objection (certainly no more plausible than anything else opponents have claimed), but we can report that Gov. John Hickenlooper has taken it off the table today. FOX 31’s Eli Stokols Tweeted a few minutes ago:

So much for that.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments