Wanted to see which way the wind was blowing on this one . . . This is the “Protect Petitions” amendment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
on the list.
And if you want, check out this post by Rep. Morgan Carroll on why you too should be against Amendment 38–besides that Doug Bruce likes it.
Amendment 38 is a Landmine of Buried Problems! Kill It!
Hate this possibility. Such a piss poor idea it could only have come from Da’Bruce himself.
are in line with Coloradans. As of right now, it’s 10-0 AGAINST Amendment 38.
Have we found middle-ground both the left and right can agree on? Amendment 38 is a horrible, horrible idea.
Or maybe even he thinks his own idea is so bad it should fail.
Well I hope that the rest of Colorado feels this way. We think our ballot is going to be long this year? If this passes (which is a VERY real possibility) the Colorado Constitution will be re-written every election cycle. Not to mention the fact that we are going to have a very confused electorate.
is the opposition going to buy tv time?
so many organizations have come out against it, I don’t see it passing.
seeing doug bruce with a “protect petitions” sticker plastered at an angle across his belly…i wont soon forget that image.
I was under the impression that there is no opposition group or a “No on 38” PAC. That is why I was worried that it might pass.
Will we really have any choice but to have a constitutional convention and start over.
Do they allow paid signature-gatherers in Colorado, or do they have to be volunteer?
Do they have to be truthful when speaking about their petitions?
If that seems like a nonsensical (if that’s a word) question, let me tell you an anecdote. I spent the years 1997-2005 living in Seattle, and paid signature gatherers were the norm for many ballot issues. This year Washington has an initiative to do away with their estate tax, and one of the local blogs covered how the gatherers misrepresented the estate tax in their pitch, saying it affected everyone (not true) and some other outright lies I don’t remember.
Well, there had been an earlier court case that decided that signature gatherers could say anything they wanted – and I mean ANYTHING – as long as the petition had the actual text of the initiative on it. Well, since they were paid by the signature the gatherers had incentive to sell it any way they could, and they knew full well that most people don’t take the time to read the petition.
So, do the signature gatherers here have the same, uh, “discretion” when it comes to selling their initiatives?
Although Dan and others could answer more authoritatively on the subject.
I don’t think it is legal for a person gathering signatures for marijuana legalization to tell a potential signer that they are signing a petition to increase transportation funding. I also believe there is a certain onus on the signer to be sure s/he reads the language. I can’t give you a specific case.
The problem with this Amendment is the short title is appealing and the devils (for there are more than one) are in the many, many, many details. So, as you know, when people signed up for “Are you in favor of increasing citizens’ role in government” or “Are you in favor of holding government more accountable” they don’t realize what they’re actually promoting.
After all, that’s in line with the way campaigns are waged – they won’t be 100% straightforward since it is a sales pitch.
In WA they weren’t saying that the petition was about something else altogether. But they did make patently false claims about the estate tax there, such as stating that everyone was affected (sorry, your estate had to be worth $2 million, if I recall correctly – and someone who researched it said that there were less than 200 such estates in 2005). Under WA law such a blatent misrepresentation of the issue (re: lying) was okay. It’s not like the text of the initiative gave those kinds of statistics anyway. And you can bet that the TV campaign for it will be free of such an obvious lie.
I already knew I was going to vote against this – back in July (or was it June? It was shortly after Holzman’s last appeal failed), when the Rocky dinged BWB for flip-flopping on 38, it included bullet points about what it would do and I knew it was a terrible idea. But I haven’t encountered a single good idea from Doug Bruce yet so that was no surprise.
The circulator can probably get away with saying anything he/she wants. I have heard some pretty long streches of the truth out there over the years.
However, the ballot title has to be on every page that has signature lines and in each section of signature pages must exist the full test of the proposal. So a lying circulator runs the risk of getting angry people in their face if the signers read what they are signing. Many don’t, but enough do to keep the circulators mostly in line.
Too bad about paid circulators, though. That gives them the incentive to, ahem, stretch the truth.
Can we wear the powdered wigs like they did in Philly?
I am NOT wearing breeches! They typically had 15 buttons…way too much work to simply go to the bathroom!
Pantaloons? I remember we did some sort of constitutional convention in my 7th grade class and I drew ben Franklin. You can bet you ass I wore those for the presentation part.
We’re talking 1876 here, not 1776. I believe suits with tails and top hats are in order.
I was gonna call dibs on writing the Federalist Papers (along with Mr Toodles and One Queer Dood…)
I want a ridiculously bushy mustache, a monocle, spats and a cane. (Would spats be too 1920s?)
Very stiff collars, big bushy mustaches, uncomfortable top hats, heavy very hard shoes…no thanks.
Who wouldnt want a seal skin top hat that has been formed using mercury? And what woman does not find a ridiculously oversized mustache attractive. If, at 25, I could grow facial hair I would have one in a heartbeat, complete with a little comb for grooming.
http://www.voteno38.com.
YAY!
and they are encouraging town boards to vote on resolutions against it. This will help bring it down to the local level.