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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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
November 02, 2008 05:12 PM UTC

Key Ballot Initiatives "Poised For A Loss"

  • 84 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Denver Post reports:

Several amendments on Tuesday’s statewide ballot appear headed for defeat, including the controversial “right to work” and “personhood” measures, according to the latest Denver Post poll.

Five of the six measures included in the poll garnered support from less than 40 percent of the 625 registered voters who participated in the survey.

Amendment 59, which would send more money to Colorado schools while loosening the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, was the exception. The measure received 41 percent support and 38 percent opposition, with 21 percent undecided…

“Work for less,” “eggmendment” — going down the hardest.

Fifty-seven percent of voters said they were against Amendment 47, the so-called right-to-work measure that would prohibit mandatory union fees as a condition of employment. The measure garnered 29 percent support, while 14 percent said they were undecided.

“We know for a fact that the ballot language is confusing to people,” said Kelley Harp, a spokesman for Amendment 47. “When people are read a short description of the measure, they support it overwhelmingly.”

Nearly two-thirds of voters were against Amendment 48, which would declare that a fertilized egg is a person. Twenty-five percent supported the measure, and 12 percent were undecided…

The massive oil industry ad campaign against Bill Ritter’s severance tax amendment may be working, though the Yes on 58 campaign vows to fight for every vote–this year’s big nailbiter?

Amendment 58, which would eliminate a tax break for oil and gas companies and use much of the money for college scholarships, received 45 percent opposition and 36 percent support. Nineteen percent were undecided. The measure, backed by Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, gained some ground since the previous poll in late September, which showed 41 percent against and 28 percent in support.

“Every other public poll has Amendment 58 winning in a tight race,” said George Merritt, a spokesman for the campaign backing the measure…

So sorry, Josh Penry:

Forty-three percent of voters were against Amendment 52, which would redirect oil-and-gas severance tax revenue from state and local water projects toward highway-improvement projects. Thirty-four percent supported the measure, and 23 percent were undecided…

Finally, growing opposition to Amendment 46, the duplicitously-named “Civil Rights Initiative,” indicates that Coloradans might be reading this stuff after all–and seeing through proposals that are intended to misdirect them.

Amendment 46, the anti-affirmative-action measure that would ban governments and public colleges from considering race or gender in hiring, admissions or awarding contracts, received 42 percent opposition and 38 percent support. Twenty percent were undecided.

A poll follows.

Why are so many ballot initiatives headed for apparent failure?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

84 thoughts on “Key Ballot Initiatives “Poised For A Loss”

  1. I really thought I’d see it winning by 20 points on election night. None of the recent polls have it above 52 yes, and while I still think it will pass (albeit regrettably) I think that it’s going to be much closer than anyone thought.

    I still think the only amendments to pass will be 46, 50, and 59.  

    1. …instead of spinning his wheels in here where he wasn’t going to change anyone’s mind.

        And special thanks to Bob Ewegen for keeping Libby occupied with name-calling when he might have been out doing some real damage.

      1. Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

        SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

        Section 16. Right to work.

        (1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT”.

        (2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:

        (I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND

        (II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.

        (2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.

        (3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.

        (4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.

        (5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “LABOR UNION” MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.

        SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.

        1. The previous 273 times you posted the text didn’t do it but the repitition 274 times changed my mind.

          Libertad – get a clue. Repeating something, anything, just annoys people. You’re your own worst enemy here.

          1. …let him keep doing it.  It’s not like you or I want those amendments to pass.  If he wants to shoot himself in the foot, who are we to stand in his way?

  2. “We know for a fact that the ballot language is confusing to people,” said Kelley Harp, a spokesman for Amendment 47. “When people are read a short description of the measure, they support it overwhelmingly.”

    You guys are the morons who wrote it. You’re blaming yourself for it’s defeat.

        1. The Chamber was blackmailed, along with the business community.  The “poison pill” amendments put on the ballot would have destroyed many businesses in Colorado, but the unions were willing to play economic terrorism with no regard for what would have actually happened to many of their own union folks had those amendments passed.

          What an eye opener.  We now know where their priorities lie, if we didn’t before.

          PS Pam, can you tell your teacher’s union buddies to get off their asses and try to graduate more than a third of our minority kids in DPS?  Oh, yeah, they’re too busy being political to actually do anything that benefits the kids they are supposed to be teaching.

            1. It was Ritter and his EO.

              Chamber was absolutely blackmailed.  They came out against all the amendments because of the inclusion of the poison pill ones.

              Now, business had to pay money to the union efforts to defeat 47 in order to get those amendments off the ballot.

              That’s exactly blackmail, eh?

              1. This EO excuse is really nothing more than a hollow scapegoat argument since it had absolutely nothing to do with the private sector in Colorado. In fact, Ritter vetoed 1072 in favor of business over labor.

                As for Chamber paying money to fight off these deceptive and disastrous measures, it’s exactly what they have done in the past when in collaborating to do what’s right for Colorado. They contribute where they see fit just like any individual would.

                And speaking of dirty money, why won’t the proponents of measures disclose who’s funding these measures? They’ve laundered out of state money into Colorado to push a radical agenda and that’s not good for labor or business.  

            1. Business can exist without Labor unions.

              I think it’s completely possible that the bulk of the unions could have ha reformation and become something that protects workers and makes business better, but that’s really not what’s happening now (although I’ll admit that some unions are fantastic).

              1. was before the weekend, before the eight hour work day, before work place safety regulations, before fair wages, before retirement accounts, etc.

                You’re right, business can exist without unions, but who would want to go back to that?

                1. But there’s a balance that’s not served by trying to destroy business out of spite or fear of not being able to force dues out of people.

                  Is there a reason unions couldn’t offer something so appealing that people would choose to join and pay dues of their own free will?

                  I would say there is not.

                  1. There are lots of reasons to join a union (several listed above), and to claim that anyone is being forced to join a union is simply untrue. Perfect example, David Harsayni. He’s a free-loader benefiting from a union in his profession without actually being a member.  

              2.    Most of the working conditions that existed in the early 20th century are gone.  But there is still a need to deal with other forms of hazardous working conditions (not so much Upton Sinclair’s description of conditions, but workplace violence and sexual harassment are still problems).

                  And instead of fighting for higher wages, health insurance has replaced that as the major issue.  

                  And, of course, domestic partnership benefits in states other than those with same sex marriage or civil union laws.  

                1. Sometimes the working conditions can get to be like something Upton Sinclair would write about. For example the working conditions reported on in the Frontline/NYT report A Dangerous Business. Horrifying without any qualification.  

          1. If, if, if…

            LB all you are left with are hypotheticals. The poison pills did their job, strategically they were a brilliant move. I’m sorry that hardball politics is too much for the Colorado GOP.  

          2. 1) This started with 47, 49, & 54 – from people who want to radically change the business/union relationship in this state – to, in practice, eliminate unions.

            2) The unions responded with initiatives that would have decimated businesses in the state. It would have had a catastrophic effect on the economy here.

            3) We faced the unions saying if you take us out, we’ll take everyone out. Their response was not pro worker (as it would have eliminated tons of jobs) but it was pro survival of the unions. So yes, it was blackmail.

            4) The public schools in this state are horrible as measued by their graduation rate.

            5) Primary responsibility for this rests not with the unions, but with the school boards. It takes two to tango and the boards have spent the last several decades rolling over for every interest group in town, including the unions.

            6) Many very good jobs exist in businesses that have no unions involved. The entire high-tech sector provides great jobs and there’s nary a union in sight.

            7) There are many industries where unions are needed because they are the only possible counter-balance to the company.

            8) Some unions are corrupt, some suck, some are so-so, and some do very well. It’s like anything run by people, you get the bell curve.

            I do think the business community & unions, after this election is over, should work together to try and come up with an approach that makes sense in the economy we have today. And the school boards absolutely need to do so.

            And everyone here who pretends that one side is blameless while the other is evil – is full of it.

            1. 47 gets us the freedom to associate.

              54 will bring the sole sources to account. I know union dues will be worked through alternate channels and arrive just fine at the intended destinations.

    1. Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

      SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

      Section 16. Right to work.

      (1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT”.

      (2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:

      (I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND

      (II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.

      (2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.

      (3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.

      (4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.

      (5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “LABOR UNION” MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.

      SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.

      1. For some reason you have broken with your handlers and are being “mavricky” by posting the complete wording of 47.  This is not in your talking points.

        Section 5 specifically is a disaster for police and fire personnel.  The words “any” in the definition, transforms any and all people who help an employee in to a “union”.  This is not the common definition of a union, this is to artificially define any help an employee recieves in to a “union”.

        This section will prevent a lawyer from helping a police office facing a grievance. Grievances are a given for police officers considering the people they arrest are not typically nice people.

        So, most others (I am not including you libertad because you obviously want to make police officers face grievance hearings without legal help) have not read this section.  Otherwise, it would never have recieved the signatures to get on the ballot.

        NO on 47, 49, 54

        1. Pam,

          Clearly you miss the sole objective of Amend 47. It gives all Coloradans a choice.

          Certainly if I was a peace officer I would join  and pay every freaking cent of dues because the liberal trial lawyers and lame city fathers have conned the people foregoing real workplace protections for peace officers.

          Today peace officers have the choice to join or not join the union. Most (99.999) because they need legal protection from scumbags.

          It is disgusting that our peace officers are not protected by their employer against, usually, BS suits of brutality brought by child molesters and gangbangers who they arrest.

          Why are you so against giving all Coloradans the same rights our teachers, firefighters and peace officers enjoy today?

            1. You actually think that tens of thousands of Coloradans come here to Pols to get their inside dose of political thought?

              Go warm up the crack pipe Ralphie.

              ps Ewegen supports 49 and he is a known anti worker corporate offshoring thug.

              1. How’s that wide stance thing working out for you?  I still think you should have fought it in court, it was a classic case of entrapment.   So, when do you finish the community service?  And have you walked Jonathan’s dog yet?

                1. How’s your anti union member amendment #49 polling Bob?

                  Union members by choice and this crackhead, Ewegen, thinks it is righteous to hike their transaction costs.

                    1. Position is this. State workers have the Right to Work. Their stupid employer brought them in, therefore the employer pays the full HR cost. No offshoring the cost to the employee as Ewegen supports.

                      So Ewegen you are a liar, because it was in an exchange with you that I decided to oppose 49…just after your editorial.

                  1. After I shared with this board the MediaNews offshoring strategy, he announced he’d taken a raise and was looking to buy a new Mercedes.

                    Later on Bob said the Mercedes thing was a joke, he drives an F250.

                    The pay raise is no joke, nor is the Posts strategy to offshore American jobs.

                    1. hates people who work hard and are successful.  That’s why he still lives in his mother’s basement.  Get a job, loser, and maybe you won’t have to drive your mother’s Yugo any more.    

      2. The status quo is that everyone is free to join or not join a union, and that no person who is not a union member can be required to pay full union dues.

        The status quo is also that any union with majority support can enter into a collective bargaining ageement that binds all employees.

        The only difference is when a union with majority support can require that the portion of its fees attributable to the cost of negotiating the collective bargaining agreement can be charged.  Currently, this requires 75% support of employees.  Under 47, people would be permitted to free ride regardless of the percentage support that a management fee received from employees.

  3. Is how 46 and 47 are considered confusing or misleading.

    Sure, the titles “Civil Rights Initiative” and “Right To Work” do not tell the whole story, but it would be awfully hard for a three word title to do so.

    The text of the Amendments are pretty damn clear and make the titles legitimate. One could say that Affirmative Action is an affront to civil rights, and the text of the Amendment, without specifically mentioning AA, is pretty clear about ending race/gender preference with select exceptions. And Right To Work, as has been discussed elsewhere, is pretty clear.

    It is fine to oppose each of these on merits…but it is like when a Canadian friend of mine was hoping Americans would be smart and vote Obama…I think Obama is going to win, but that doesn’t mean the voters were smart. Similarly, just because Colorado voters might vote the “right” way on an initiative or two is not good proof that they aren’t stupid.

    1. 46: Should affirmative action be outlawed?

      47: Should unions be eliminated?

      That would have made it very clear as to what was going on and people would have been voting on the core question of each initiative.

      1. 47 does not eliminate unions; it DOES make Union Bosses accountable to their members.

        Look when Ritter unionized state workers he and the Union Bosses provided the workplace protection of right to work to each and every state worker.

        Come on, show some intellectual honesty here David, I expect more from you.

        1. many fewer universities in Colorado, and schools like CU already have a HUGE diversity problem (so does DU but it’s private).  If that one school in Colorado that sees a drop in black enrollment is CU, it will be even more embarassing for that university and for our state as it is a public school.  CU needs to be more PROactive in recruiting minority students, not the other way around.  I hope this amendment is defeated.  I am elated it is this close.

          1. If fewer minority students meet the academic qualifications to attend CU and thus are underrepresented, how is that CU’s problem? It isn’t like CU’s main problem with minority representation is the result of the qualified minority students avoiding it. Much of it is a broader question of affordability and a lot of it is the failure of our K-12 system in preparing the students for CU. Yes, I know CU has had a couple high-profile cases of racism that were blown way out of proportion (one idiot does not mean the campus has a race issue) but I don’t see CU as hostile to minority students…the diversity ticket dominates the student government.

            And CU DOES put a lot into minority recruitment. They have the SORCE program run under the student union that spends a good chunk of change reaching out to middle and high schools with underrepresented populations. Again, I just don’t think it is CU’s problem and I don’t think Affirmative Action solves anything.

          1. Do you have an example of another state that passed right to work and had unionization collapse controlling for other factors that might cause a drop in unionization (or at least controlling for the national trend)?

            If not, there is no basis for your claim. I imagine the reason there is lower unionization in RtW states is not because of RtW so much as those low rates helped bring RtW about. If I’m not mistaken, most states that have it have had RtW for decades.

            Indeed, the lower unionization is probably more a symbol of cultural differences in the states that have RtW than any behavioral repercussions from union free-riding.

          2. Just how has that eliminated unions?

            I still believe many will choose to join the union and that is great. However, Union Bosses will now be accountable and thugs like Ernie Duran and Bob Ewegen (Corp Boss) will make better decisions.

            …and YES on 54 to stop corrupt bastards

    1. Right to lifers include the anti death penalty crowd…life is above all comes 1st.

      ps. What is the GOP crown jewel? I mean can you name one situation where the GOP will flip a seat anywhere in the USA (besides that Aurora Colorado House seat)?

      Come on ladies, I challenge anyone to name another seat the GOP will flip?

      1. I’ve got three for you.

        FL-16, Mahoney (D) has put himself in a world of hurt with a sex scandal.

        PA-11 The polling puts Kanjorski (D) a bit behind Barletta (R).

        TX-22 Lampson (D) won this district only because it was former dear leader Tom DeLay’s seat and his name was on the ballot in 2006.

          1. is a lock to flip. And, as a Steelers fan (born and raised on the North Side of Pittsburgh) it’ll be good to have a Rooney in the House. They’re eminently reasonable R’s, and Tom Rooney will represent FL-16 with much more honor and credibility than Mahoney or Foley ever did.

            On the state level…I think Sara Gagliardi loses her House seat in a close race. That’s my out on a limb prediction.  

              1. She fought an uphill battle to get it and now the R’s have a credible candidate to try to take it back.

                Sara is an incredible campaigner though and there is a pretty good GOTV effort going on there in her favor.

                In the end I think she will pull out a win, if only barely.

      2. John Murtha is in a world of hurt after he said: “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”

        Murtha’s being challenged by Republican William Russell, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who moved to Johnstown to run against him.

        “Democratic Rep. John Murtha leads retired Army Lt. Col. William Russell by a little more than 4 percentage points, within the Susquehanna Poll’s 4.9-point margin of error. The poll of 400 likely voters was conducted for the Tribune-Review on Tuesday, amid uproar over Murtha’s statement that some of his constituents are racist.” October 23, 2008

  4. Quite a turnaround if 52 goes down.  Didn’t Ciruli have it up at about 70% awhile back?

    How did the boy wonders snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

    If 58 goes down, it will be because of an inept campaign that waited too long to fire up, thus allowing the opposition to define the issue.  Also forgot the second part of winning big on the Front Range…shaving the margin of loss on the West Slope and in rural areas.  Not smart tactically when you know from the start you’ll be outspent and outmanned.  Maybe Andrew and Cary should have been in charge of this one.

    1. I had seen pro ads long before I saw anti ones.

      I thought the pro-58 message was well done.

      Unfortunately so was the anti one.

      Also, having every paper in the state oppose your issue is hard to overcome.

      1. Glad you’ve seen a 58 ad, Dan.  Still lookin’ for ’em over here on west of the divide.  I’m hopeful about 58 but not at all optimistic.  Ritter et al were behind the curve.  The energy industry captured the critical ground early and held it. Those editorial endorsements are not automatic, they’re cultivated.  I’m unaware of any attempt to outflank or counter industry or Club 20 misreprentations on an organized basis.

    1. I hold alternate opinions to yours on some areas of policy and it drives you bananas. You are a drone of some far left spawning.

      Unlike you I think and rationalize. Just like 49, don’t support it, but support 54 and 47. Why, because unlike you I don’t follow the Bosses.

      Might 47/54 cut into political “donations” or give people the freedom to associate. Yep. Might they hold corporations and governments accountable for their sole source deals. Yep.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

154 readers online now

Newsletter

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