U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 03, 2006 05:32 PM UTC

Poll: Amendment 38

  • 30 Comments
  • by: Druid

Wanted to see which way the wind was blowing on this one . . .  This is the “Protect Petitions” amendment.

Do You Support Amendment 38?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

30 thoughts on “Poll: Amendment 38

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

          1. 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?

            1. 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.

              1. 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.

              2. 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.

              1. 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.

                    1. I was gonna call dibs on writing the Federalist Papers (along with Mr Toodles and One Queer Dood…)

                    2. I want a ridiculously bushy mustache, a monocle, spats and a cane. (Would spats be too 1920s?)

                    3. Very stiff collars, big bushy mustaches, uncomfortable top hats, heavy very hard shoes…no thanks.

                    4. 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.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

57 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!