President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 10, 2007 08:18 PM UTC
10 Comments
wouldn’t vote for it now. As I recall, it was sold on the idea that it would keep surpluses for K-12. The reality that other programs funded by the state would be diminished to meet 23’s requirements was either not known, or not mentioned very loudly. 23’s interplay with TABOR and Gallagher create additional burdens for the State’s other programs. Another voter approved feel good amendment “for the children”.
if K-12 funding had not changed since 2000. A-23 was affected just like everything else in the budget by the pre Amendment C economic downturn. The increase in A-23 funding was to the state’s base funding of education. That meant non-base factors like the number of funded kindergarten slots could be reduced while the base amount was increased. I don’t know if there was a net sum gain for education or not over the passed 6 years but I know A-23 was not a funding windfall for school districts. The reason for A-23 was to restore per pupil funding to the 1989 (I think it was 1989) spending level adjusted for inflation. Again, not a big funding windfall.
All that said, a better plan would have been to get rid of TABOR except for the part about a public vote for tax increases. And, Gallengar (sp?) has shifted funding from the local school districts to the state level. So, even though the state is spending more on K-12, local taxes are less and the net gain in funding for a given school district might well be a zero sum.
So, yeah, I’d still vote for A-23 but it is not the best solution.
One of the primary jobs of the legislature is to balance out funding. If each group goes to the ballot to get their piece of the pie, we end up like California where everything is required to have comfortable funding.
Totally wrong approach.
And who wants the Californication of Colorado?:)
“To be Californicated,” as in “Boy, were we ever Californicated!” I see a future for this word in an Oxford Unabridged Dictionary to come!
It goes back to at least the early 70’s when Dick Lamm rode into the governorship based partly on his opposition to the Winter Olympics being held here.
Yes, I had the bumpersticker, “Don’t Californicate Colordao.” Pretty risque’ back then.
I hate spotting a sharp new trend… 30 years after it’s hey-day! I guess I just illustrated the old adage, “Better to keep quiet and let people wonder…, rather than open your mouth and leave no doubt!”
Amendment 23 is philosophically the same as TABOR. It took a 1992 baseline and added inflation to it. Don’t see how anyone who liked TABOR could oppose 23. TABOR’s biggest problem is that it is a bureaucratic mess and costs a lot more then it saves. The net effect of TABOR is to raise costs and burn infracture. We need education to improve our business base.