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 22, 2008 05:02 PM UTC
25 Comments
Vote No
Loading ...
Anything that encourages more highway construction at the expense of all other modes of transit gets an automatic “no” from me.
do not belong in the Colorado Constitution. These should be in the General Assembly.
That taxes have to be in the Colorado Constitution…
I realize that TABOR makes things very convoluted but why the one and not the other?
because tabor only requires a vote of the people t6o hike taxes, which it does. See my other note about why, if they both pass, the tax increase of 58 goes to highways because 52 is a constitutional mandate. What a mess.
This is not a tax incrrease, it is a reallocation of existing revenue. It absolutely could, and should, have been done by the general Assembly, as Senate Bill 1 did.
As is David’s point that tax changes could be put to statutory revision instead of into the Constitution. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
I was simply taking issue with the idea that Colorado’s FUBAR constitution currently often forces tax changes by a vote rather than by the legislature.
I support neither severance tax diversion, nor do I particularly buy the arguments of the drilling and mining industry. This measure is has less to do with I-70 than it does having to do with being a campaign strategy to siphon votes away from the ill-conceived Ritter proposal. The strategy is based on the assumption that if there are 2 competing ballot issues, they both are likely to fail.
I would support an increase in the severance tax that is part of a better structured distribution to impacted local communities and a relaignment of local taxes.
If both 52 and 58 pass, what happens? Anyway, I tend to agree sxp, I don’t want transportation funding that keeps us stuck in the car-first transportation model.
There is no 62.
Feel free to vote NO on it though, just for kicks.
just to see what happens.
It adds a new 10% tax on food & other essentials only, to provide an additional tax break for our Oil & Gas companies who desperately need the money – to buy additional hookers & blow for the Department of the Interior employees.
It increases welfare for crack addicts, and it mandates forced abortions for all Colorado citizens.
Penry and 52 supporters argue that since it is a constitutional amendment, and since 58 is only statutory, that 52 would take precedent.
58 supporters argue that conflicting amendments have been resolved in the past by putting the measure with the most “Yes” votes into law.
Most legal professionals think Penry is right, BUT the Colorado Supreme Court has never ruled on this sort of predicament. If both pass, expect a swift run to the SC to finally create some precedent in this area.
the tax does go up, al la 58, but because 52 isz constitutional and 58 satatutory, alal the extra money goes for transportation and not a dime to the uses specified in 58.
Penry feels no remorse about that? I guess if his pet project gets $321 million extra, he’s just doing his civic duty.
but it’s hard to refute the idea that constitution trumps statute. To me, it’s a good reason to vote note on 52 regardless of what you do on 58. The danger of 52 is that it takes away existing legislative authority to disburse these funds and locks them into concrete. Just what we need.
Haven’t read them side-by-side, but my guess is that the Constitutional amendment would take precedence where the two are in conflict and the statutory provisions would prevail where the Constitution is silent.
One good thing about this election. We are all getting a great education in Constitutional law.
The problem is the statutory can prevail by raising the tax, since 52 doesn’t address the size of the tax. 52 does specify that increased revenue from the tax, whether by natural growth or presumably by tax increase must go mostly to I-70.
The best thing about this election is that eventually it will be over.
the asphalt and road paving associations just wet their pants.
A-52 is bad for water projects, bad for poor people (LEAP funding is affected), bad for recreationists (zebra mussel eradication monies are affected), and the list goes on. Transportation funding needs to come in a more comprehensive way…and let me remind readers that the three sponsors were opponents of Referendum C & D, the latter of which failed and would have provided billions in transportation dollars.
Do whatever you want on Amendment 58…but Amendment 52 is just a bad idea.
And to answer below, Amendment 58 is statutory and Amendment 52 is consitutional. Likely Amendment 52 would trump 58 on parts that conflict.
Amend 58 eliminates tax breaks to Big Oil. In an economic recession that we are sure to have, (thank you, Bush Republicans,) the state will need more financial resources so the tax burden doesn’t fall on us regular people or many services go unfunded. What the oil companies don’t pay on their taxes, we have to pick up the tab.
Amend 52 is a gift to Big Oil (thank you, Republican Sen. Josh Penry) so they can continue to receive tax credits off their bill.
Voting for 58 and against 52 will make sure Big Oil pays their fair share of taxes.
you have the right way to vote on both issues in my opinion but I don’t think 52 would locked in the tax credit if 58 passes. It speaks only to the distribution of funds. Not so incidentally, Rick Reiter, strategist for big oil, boasted that he paid to put 52 on the ballot, basically just to muddy the waters and get folks like us denouncing a change in severance tax.