The Watch’s Take on State Referendums and Initiatives

With 14 initiatives headed for the ballot in this year’s election, the 2008 ballot was expected to be the longest since 1912, when Colorado first introduced ballot measures (citizens voted on 22 in that year’s election). However, just hours before the deadline, business and labor groups struck a deal in which business groups would throw their weight behind defeating three initiatives, including the contentious “Right to Work” amendment sponsored by members of the Coors family, in exchange for unions dropping four of their proposed initiatives. The result was a shorter ballot, and threats from lawmakers to outlaw such maneuvering in the name of extortion and bribery.

Even though some of these look like good ideas to us (Criminal accountability for business executives? Additional remedies for injured employees if their employer failed to provide a safe workplace?), you won’t have the chance to vote on them. Scratch 53, 55, 56, and 57 from your list.

Stay tuned next week for The Watch analysis of the ballot’s four referenda.

Amendment 46: Prohibition on Affirmative Action – Bad

Misleadingly written, Amendment 46 promises to prohibit discrimination in state-run programs. However, what it would actually do is to prohibit affirmative action programs that attempt to provide equal opportunities in public education, public contracting and public employment.

The measure is part of a state-by-state push by former California regent Ward Connerly, whose organization supported similar measures in Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma.

The measure is opposed by Gov. Bill Ritter and the Colorado Council of Churches.

“Progress has been made in overcoming the effects of centuries of discrimination against women and people of color, but we are not there yet,” said Jim Ryan, the council’s executive director. “As people of faith, we feel called to stand with them.”

Amendment 47: A Prohibition on Union Organizing – Bad

Known as the Colorado Right to Work Initiative, Amendment 47 has come under fire from both labor and business groups that, in an unprecedented move, have joined forces to defeat the anti-union measure. In exchange for financial support and manpower from major business leaders in opposing Amendments 47, 49 and 54, labor has withdrawn four of their own amendments that had been filed in protest: amendments 53, 55, 56, and 57.

A major backer of the measure is Jonathan Coors; a major opponent is his elder in the Colorado brewing family, Bill Coors.

If approved, the constitutional amendment would prohibit employers from requiring union membership or payment of union-related fees as a condition of employment.

Amendment 48: Personhood Amendment – Bad

This constitutional amendment would begin the definition of “person” at the moment of fertilization, thus granting human and civil rights to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses.

Despite the obvious ramifications for abortion law and women’s rights, the measure would have major impacts on women’s health, creating a tug-of-war over health and human rights when a pregnancy, detected or undetected, could be at stake. Healthcare providers who treat women of childbearing age could become liable for any procedure that could affect an undetected fertilized egg.

In addition, the new definition of “person” could affect the application of other state laws that contain the word “person,” and the courts and legislature would have to determine how to apply laws ranging from property rights to criminal law.

Amendment 49: Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions – Indifferent

Another confusingly written measure, this constitutional amendment would prohibit public employers, including state agencies and public school districts, from using payroll deductions to benefit private organizations, mainly labor unions.

This is one of three amendments being jointly opposed by both labor and business groups (see Amendment 47).

Primary sponsor of the amendment is the Independence Institute, whose president, Jon Caldara, said, “If the unions want their members’ money, they’re gonna have to go to the member directly and ask them first.” Other supporters say that government officials shouldn’t be acting as collection agencies for unions.

Jeanne Beyer of the Colorado Education Association, which represents 38,500 teachers, said, “Our view is that once the employee has earned their salary, it’s theirs to spend as they see fit… It costs little for school districts to collect our member dues automatically.”

Amendment 50: Expanded Gambling – Bad

Amendment 50 would extend the hours of operation of Colorado’s casinos to 24/7, add roulette and craps to the list of games allowed and raise allowable bets from a penny-ante $5 to a high-stakes $100. The measure appears to be intended to raise money for higher education in Colorado, but in fact less than 20 percent of the increased revenues would be targeted for that purpose. On the other hand, the casinos would keep 80 percent of the increased revenues. Opponents also claim that the significant increase in potential revenue would draw new casinos to the state.

Amendment 51: Sales Taxes to Benefit People With Developmental Disabilities – Good

A citizen-initiated statutory amendment, 51 would raise the sales tax .2 percent over the course of two years in order to provide more funding for existing services for people with developmental disabilities such as autism, cerebral palsy and Down syndrome. Many of these services are interventional and would reduce affected people’s reliance on state assistance in the long run. And considering the rapid increase of certain disabilities, especially autism, and the suspicion that they may be caused by environmental contamination, it’s really up to everyone to help deal with the problem of developmental disability.

Amendment 52: Severance Tax Revenues for Road Construction – Bad

Amendment 52, a proposed change to the state constitution, would freeze the amount of severance taxes that are currently directed to the Department of Natural Resources, where it is channeled to the Colorado Water Conservation Board as well as to programs related to mineral extraction administration, clean energy development, low-income energy assistance, and species conservation. The future loss of revenue would result in cuts in those programs.

Instead, severance tax revenues over and above current levels would go to fund transportation projects. While the state is sorely in need of funding for the maintenance of roads and bridges, this amendment would also fund new road construction as well as maintenance and supervision, and would be prioritized for reducing congestion on Interstate 70. The amendment is opposed by Club 20.

Supporters include Colo. Senator Josh Penry (R-Grand Junction), who, along with two other senators, has been accused of withholding emails discussing the measure from public examination.

Amendment 58: Oil/Gas Subsidy Redirected to Education, Conservation – Good

Though at first glance it appears to be a tax increase, Amendment 58 affects only the severance tax lodged against larger oil and gas producers in the state, putting an end to a decades-old tax credit meant to encourage oil and gas development in Colorado. The estimated $300 million in revenue would go toward college scholarships, promoting renewable energy, protecting wildlife habitat, and for alleviating the impacts of oil and gas development on local communities.

Opponents claim that the measure would have negative impacts on industry in the state and would raise energy prices for consumers. However, reports indicate that ending the subsidy would have no impact on energy prices. Funding to oppose the measure comes largely from energy companies such as Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips and Encana.

Amendment 59: Savings Account for Education – Good

This bill would create a savings account for education within the state education fund. While it would put an end to the tax rebate policy created by TABOR, it would create new funds for education without raising taxes. And when it comes to investing in our future, there’s no better place for our dollars than education.