As a registered voter, you may have received the 2018 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet in the mail, which includes a listing of all suggested amendments and propositions. If you’re like me, you’ll find it tedious reading, and sometimes difficult to know what you’re actually voting for. This summary includes the major statewide measures and is intended to help you make sense of what the issues are, and what it means when you vote on November 6th, for or against, in laymen’s terms. For more detailed information about your choices, visit: Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly.
And remember, your vote counts!
Amendment V: Lower Age Requirement for Members of the State Legislature
This amendment lowers the age requirement for serving in the state legislature from age 25 to 21. Voters can judge whether a candidate possesses the maturity, ability, and competence to hold political office. If you vote for this amendment, you are allowing younger candidates to run for office, which encourages civic engagement in younger people. If you vote against this amendment, you may believe that younger candidates lack the maturity and expertise to be effective legislators, and that this may hinder the ability to represent constituents effectively.
Amendment 73: Funding for Public Schools
This amendment proposes changing Colorado Constitution and Colorado statues to increase funding for preschool through 12th grade public education, raise state individual income tax for those with taxable income over $150,000, and increase the state corporate income tax rate to provide additional educational funding. In addition, it proposes that property taxes are levied by school districts, while setting a new assessment rate of seven percent for residential properties, and decreasing the assessment to 24 percent for most non-residential properties. Arguments for this change believe that more funding will increase teacher salaries, decrease class sizes, and improve mental health and counseling services for students, improving public education which could increase innovation and the ability to compete in today’s global market. Arguments against this change believe there is no guarantee of increased academic achievement. They believe the state income tax with its heavy burden on homeowners could negatively impact Colorado’s economy, and that individuals will have less money to spend, save, and invest.
Amendment 74: Compensation in Reduction in Fair Market Value by Government Law or Regulation
This amendment proposes changing the Colorado Constitution to require the state or a local government to compensate a property owner if a law or regulation reduces the fair market value of his or her property. For many Coloradans, this property is the most significant asset they own so if a law or regulation causes and loss of value, they can vote for this amendment to protect that asset. Those voting against this amendment understand that the potential liability for large payouts to private property owners may discourage governments from making decisions that benefit communities and protect vital public resources such as water, air, and infrastructure.
Amendment 75: Campaign Contributions
This amendment proposes to change the Colorado Constitution allowing an increase in campaign contribution limits when a candidate loans or contributes more than $1 million to his or her own campaign, by allowing candidates in the same election to collect five times the level of individual contributions currently authorized in the state constitution. The argument for this change is that wealthy candidates have an unfair advantage in elections. Colorado’s current limits on individual contributions are among the lowest in the country, and candidates who rely on individual contributions are at a significant disadvantage in communicating their message to voters, so this amendment offers an effective way to encourage competitive elections. Arguing against this amendment means understanding that an increase in campaign contribution limits will allow all candidates, including wealthy ones, to collect more money, further inflating election spending, which may not be the best way to fix Colorado’s campaign finance system.
Proposition 109: Authorize Bonds for Highway Projects
This proposition is about changing Colorado statues to require the state to borrow up to $3.5 billion in 2019 to fund up to 66 specific highway projects. It directs the state to identify a source of funds to repay the borrowed amount without raising taxes and fees, and it limits the total repayment mount, including principal and interest, to $5.2 billion over 20 years. Voting for this amendment accelerates the construction of highway projects over other programs, without raising taxes or fees. Arguments against this proposition understand that it commits up to $5.2 billion to repay borrowing without creating a new source of revenue, and may divert money from other programs such as education, health care, and transportation maintenance.
Proposition 110: Authorize Sales Tax and Bonds for Transportation Projects
This proposition is about changing Colorado statutes to increase the state’s sales and use tax rate from 2.9 percent to 3.52 percent for 20 years. It would distribute the new tax revenue for transportation as follows: 45 percent to the state, 40 percent to local governments, and 15 percent for multimodal transportation projects. It also permits the state to borrow up to $6 billion over 20 years. Arguments for this change believe that Colorado needs a modern transportation system without a new revenue source, where the state identifies its most urgent needs and prioritizes projects while continuing to meet its obligations to fund education, health programs, and public safety. Those voting against this proposition understand it raises taxes when it could be fully funded through the state budget. The state can fund roads with the money it collects in taxes, as opposed to costly borrowing. It also argues that high sales taxes provide a poor method of funding transportation because increased taxes disproportionately affect low-income individuals.
Proposition 111: Limitations on Payday Loans
This proposition changes Colorado statues to reduce the total cost for a payday loan to a 36 percent annual percentage rate, and expand what constitutes unfair or deceptive trade practices for payday lending. Those voting for this proposition know they are paying too much to borrow small amounts of money from payday lenders and that those loans can exceed 180 percent. If they borrow money to pay off the payday loan, it can lead to a cycle of debt. If this proposition passes, it will be easier to repay loans. Those arguing against this change are concerned that it may eliminate the payday lending business in Colorado, which provides loan options for consumers who may not qualify for other types of credit.
Proposition 112: Increased Setback Requirement for Oil and Natural Gas Development
This proposition amends Colorado statues to require that new oil and natural gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from occupied structures, water sources, and areas designated as vulnerable. Those arguing for this change believe that these operations may adversely impact public health, safety, and the environment. This amendment would provide property owners with greater certainty about the location of new operations in their communities and improve quality of life. Those arguing against this proposition do not want to eliminate new oil and natural gas activity on most non-federal land in Colorado. They believe it’s important for the local economy, and that it generates new jobs.
Recommendations on Retention of Judges
A judicial performance commission conducts the evaluation and makes a recommendation to voters about each judge’s performance and experience. Voters can review those recommendations the results of judicial performance surveys by visiting: Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation.
For more detailed information about your choices, visit Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly.
