When you go to the polls to vote over the next 2 weeks, or fill out your mail-in ballot, I hope you’ll join me in voting “No” on Amendments 46-58. I also hope you’ll vote “Yes” on Amendment 59, Referenda L, M and N, and most importantly “Yes” on Referendum O.
The key reason why I will be voting “No” on all of these except for Amendment 59 is that nearly all of them benefit various special interest groups, and not the state as a whole. Many of them (Amendments 50, 51, 52, and 58, most notably) have noble causes they are trying to fight for. Everybody believes that community colleges, helping those with developmental disabilities, improving our roads, and giving scholarships so that college is an option for everybody, are important causes. They all deserve to be funded. Unfortunately, amending the constitution is not the way we should go about doing that.
Amendment 59 is the lone exception to this. K-12 education is not a special interest. It is a fundamental right for every child born in America to have a first-class public education. Amendment 59 makes sure that, in the future, when we have a strong economy (along with the tax dollars that go along with it) we can fund our schools properly. Everybody has seen the test scores in math and science compared to students around the world, and we all know how low we rank on that list. If we properly fund our school system, we can ensure that children who grow up here are learning the basic skills that they need to succeed in a global marketplace. Colorado should be a leader in education, not last in the country in funding it.
All of the Referenda are good measures, none more so than Referendum O. O would encourage people to try to make statutory changes to Colorado law, rather than changing the constitution. That way, if times change and circumstances require a change in the law, the state legislature can react quickly and make the changes instead of waiting for an election–or doing a costly special election.
One of the best things about Referendum O is that it makes it so citizens have to get signatures from fellow Coloradoans in each of Colorado’s Congressional districts. That way signature gatherers in Denver can’t get an amendment on the ballot that would affect the entire state with only Denver area signatures. It gets people from all different areas involved in the process.
The most important reason for passing Referendum O is to make it so that when Coloradoans vote in election as important as this one, they are not inundated with initiatives that cater to special interests–presented by both sides of the aisle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: kwtree
IN: Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke
BY: spaceman2021
IN: MLK Day 2025 Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Air Slash
IN: Scott Bottoms is Doing What Now?
BY: bullshit!
IN: Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke
BY: bullshit!
IN: Scott Bottoms is Doing What Now?
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke
BY: ParkHill
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: MLK Day 2025 Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Why at http://www.coloradoballot.net/…
…how many times must that be said?
If the only reason you have for opposing Amend. 51 is you don’t want to amend the constitution (that’s the only reason you suggested), you need to re-think it.
I didn’t make that clear in my diary.
Please convince me why this is more necessary than all of the other special interests that need money.
…as I’ve not convinced myself yet. Maybe different programs need funding… you may call these different programs “special interests” if you like. They are the parts that make up the whole of the budget. If the state’s revenue increased (because of increased income tax rates, or increased personal income, or increased sales tax rates, or increased sales, etc.), the legislature (TABOR aside, for the moment) would have to decide which “special interests” received the funds (e.g. transportation, education, tourism, heath care, etc.). Is that a problem? One could argue that this amendment is simply one way of increasing revenue and directing the legislature to do some specific thing with that revenue.
Also, I suppose one could argue that tying the lands of the legislature with heavy-handed citizens’ initiatives is a bad idea (anti-republican, perhaps). But this “preferred form of government” argument is different from the “anti-special-interests” point that you raise, it seems. Further, funding this particular “special interest” doesn’t take money directly from any other “special interest.” It increases the total pot. So, why would one have the need to prove which special interest is more “necessary”?
Lets just fund everything anyone wants this way as the money is “free.” After all, it will have no effect if we have a 1,385.02% sales tax. (sarcasm off)
…given your preference for absurd extremes, I think I’ve stated your viewpoint accurately.