OCT 31, 2024 | NEWS | By Margaret Freeman
To ensure that Colorado College students are prepared to vote, here is some information about the statewide ballot initiatives in Colorado. This does not include things on the ballot in El Paso County and only covers statewide issues. Please do your own research in addition to this to ensure that you make the choice that accurately reflects what you value and the changes you want to see in Colorado or wherever you choose to vote. For more information, please refer to the Secretary of State’s website, newspapers such as The Colorado Sun and The Colorado Springs Gazette, and the groups’ websites that support and oppose each initiative.
State Ballot Initiatives
Amendment G
Amendment G would extend the state’s homestead exemption and tax breaks to more disabled veterans. Currently, the homestead exemption applies to people 65 years or older who have lived in their homes for 10 years or more, veterans with certain disabilities received while in the military and spouses of military members who died in the line of duty. The exemption takes an average of $590 off annual taxes for the median household for those who qualify. If Amendment G is passed by 55% of Colorado voters, the tax exemption could be applied to veterans who sustained non-service-related disabilities, increasing the number of people who qualify for tax cuts by 3,700. It is estimated to cut veteran taxes by $1.8 million a year. The amendment would not increase taxes but would mean $1.8 million less to return to taxpayers annually. Currently, no Republican or Democrat lawmakers oppose the bill. However, there are some concerns about it complicating how local governments collect property taxes. If passed, Amendment G would take effect in 2025.
Amendment H
Amendment H would create a new board to oversee any ethical complaints about State Judges. Currently, any disciplinary proceedings against Judges in Colorado are private, but if this amendment is passed, it would make the proceedings public information. As of now, there is a committee of 10 judges who hear complaints about potential misconduct and then choose to either dismiss the complaint, punish the judge in secret, hold informal hearings or have a formal hearing led by judges appointed by the State Supreme Court. Only 14 other states do not have public disciplinary procedures for judges. If 55% of voters passed, Amendment H would create the Independent Discipline Adjudicative Board to oversee the disciplinary process.
The proposed Judicial Discipline process change follows after a blackmail and sexual misconduct scandal related to a judge in 2021. Critics of the Amendment, including The Judicial Integrity Project, say it is not enough to increase the transparency of the process as the State Supreme Court still oversees it. Currently, no campaign committees have been formed to support or oppose the Amendment, although it has bipartisan support in the Legislature.
Amendment I
Amendment I would allow judges to refuse bail to someone charged with first-degree murder. Before Colorado abolished the death penalty, judges did not have to give bail to those who committed crimes punishable by death. But after the death penalty was abolished in 2020, judges were required to post bail for all people as they awaited trial. Under current law, judges more frequently set bail at larger amounts (up to $100 million in one case in 2023). Those in support of the amendment say it will uphold a level of justice in the state that was lost with the abolition of the death penalty. People opposed to the amendment argue that it is unfair to jail someone without bail as there is a chance they could be acquitted in trial. No groups are funding support or opposition for the amendment.
Amendment J
Under the Colorado Constitution, heterosexual marriages are the only legal marriages. Amendment J would remove the line stating that “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state” from the constitution. The passage of this amendment by 55% of voters would remove the phrase, and nothing else would be added. In 2006, before gay marriage was legalized on a national level, Colorado voters passed an amendment making it only legal for men and women to marry. After same-sex marriage was legalized across the country in 2015, this clause was no longer relevant. However, supporters of Amendment J argue that due to the unpredictability of the Supreme Court, it is vital to enshrine gay marriage as a constitutional right within Colorado.
The amendment was proposed by “Freedom To Marry Colorado,” a coalition of many different groups across the state and has endorsements from many pro-LGBTQ+ organizations. They also have support from Boulder County, Planned Parenthood Colorado, One Colorado and Rocky Mountain Equality. The leading opposing group is the “Colorado Catholic Conference.” According to the CCC’s website, “Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary” and that removing the definition of marriage from the state constitution revokes a child’s “natural right to a mother and father.”
Freedom to Marry Colorado, The Marriage Defense Fund, Rose Community Foundation, the One Colorado Foundation and the Human Rights Campaign have given a total of $745,000 in support of the measure. There is no organized funding in opposition to the amendment.
Amendment K
Amendment K would move up several election deadlines by a week to give the county clerks more time to prepare ballots before sending them to voters. Petitions for ballot initiatives and judges’ declaration of intent to pursue another term must all be submitted a week before the current deadline, which is three months before election day. Additionally, all statewide ballot initiatives must be published in newspapers 15 days before the election. Amendment K would require them to be published 30 days in advance. Election Officials who requested this change say they need the extra time to prepare the increasingly complicated ballots, allowing for more time for local election offices to create their parts of the ballot. No groups have been formed in support or opposition to the amendment and State Concurrent Resolution 2, which referred to the ballot initiative passed in the legislature with 95-1 support.
Amendment 79
Amendment 79 would prohibit state and local governments from denying or hindering access to abortion at any time during a pregnancy. It would also allow public funds to be used to pay for abortions, which is currently illegal in the state. Colorado remains one of seven states that has no limits on when in a pregnancy a pregnant person can get an abortion. If Amendment 79 is passed, any future legislature would not be able to take away the right to have an abortion in the state.
The only two limiting factors of abortion in Colorado are that state money cannot be used to pay for it after a 1984 constitutional amendment and abortion providers are required to notify the parents or guardians of a minor wishing to receive an abortion 48 hours before the procedure. Amendment 79 would lift the ban on state funding of abortions allowing health insurance plans that state and local government employees receive, to cover the cost of an abortion. The cost could also be covered by Medicaid.
The amendment would not lift the requirement for parents to be notified in the case of a minor wishing to receive an abortion. Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom is the main coalition supporting the amendment. As of Sept. 25, they have raised over $5.6 million. The Pro-Life Colorado Fund is the main opposing group and has raised $100,000. They are closely tied to the Colorado Catholic Conference.
Amendment 80
Amendment 80 would add school choice for elementary, middle and high schools to the state constitution. School choice is a process where families can opt to send their children to public schools outside of their assigned district based on where they live. It also gives people the opportunity to send their kids to charter schools. If Amendment 80 passes, it would mean the process of school choice would be applied to all K-12 schools including private schools and any future innovations in education.
Those who support the amendment include the conservative group Advance Colorado Action whose president Michael Fields says, “We don’t believe that one size fits all for parents and families, so we should be able to choose what’s the best school for our kids.” He also argues that while many school districts do use school choice, passing this amendment would strengthen those rights. Those who oppose the amendment fear it is a stepping stone towards a statewide voucher system where funds that would go towards public schools are being diverted to private schools.
The Colorado Education Association president Kevin Vick argues “The only reason this would be needed is if people want to further the funding of private schools.” School Choice for Every Child is supporting the amendment but has not reported raising any money. Public Schools Strong has raised $750,000 in opposition to the amendment as of Sept. 25.
Proposition JJ
Proposition JJ would remove the $29 million dollar cap on the tax revenue that the state can keep from sports betting. After a 2019 bill that legalized sports betting in the state, the maximum amount of $29 million taken in tax revenue goes towards water conservation projects. Any more than $29 million is refunded. Proposition JJ would allow the state to keep more than the current cap.
Currently, the money from sports betting taxes goes towards expenses from the Colorado Division of Gaming and up to $1.74 million goes to reimbursing organizations that had their tax revenue siphoned away because of sports bets. Any excess money after those two things are paid then goes toward water conservation across the state. Any more money kept by the state under Proposition JJ would go toward water conservation. The amount going toward gaming and reimbursements to communities would not change. Proposition JJ will not raise taxes.
The issue committee supporting Proposition JJ has raised $490,000 as of Sept. 25. The proposition has also received support from The Environmental Defense Action Fund and Conscience Bay Research. No organizations are formally opposed to the measure.
Proposition KK
Proposition KK would add an excess 6.5% tax on all guns and ammunition sold in the state. The money from the tax would go to mental health support initiatives, gun violence prevention, at-risk youth, veterans and service for domestic violence victims. This proposition would be the first of its kind in the country, increasing taxes by $39,000,000. If passed, the proposition would mean higher taxes on the purchases of ammunition, handguns, rifles, other firearms and manufacturing equipment, parts and accessories for the guns.
Companies making under $20,000 a year would be exempt from the 6.5% tax increase. There have not been enough studies done to determine if imposing taxes on gun sales limits the amount of gun-related crimes.
Despite this, both opponents and supporters say higher taxes will limit people’s access to guns in Colorado.
As the tax is expected to generate $39 million annually, $30 million will go to nonprofits to support crime victims, $5 million will go to mental health services for veterans in living centers, $3 million will go to behavior health service for children in crisis, and $1 million will go to school safety and security. Supporters of the proposition include Colorado Supports Crime Victim Services and other gun violence prevention groups who have raised just under $76,000. The Stop Tax Increases committee was formed in opposition to the proposition.
Proposition 127
Proposition 127 would ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. The only exceptions to the law would be in the case of “protection of human life, property, and livestock.”
Lynx, classified as an endangered species, are currently illegal to kill or hunt in the state, however, it is still legal to kill mountain lions and bobcats as long as the hunter has the proper registration and the number killed is below a cap set by the state wildlife agency.
The registration includes special training and identification courses for hunting mountain lions and any kills must be reported within 48 hours. The number of mountain lions killed by hunters has been below the cap set in previous years.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife makes about $410,000 a year on lion hunting licenses and will lose money if Proposition 127 is passed.
This proposition comes right on the heels of a highly contested ballot measure that narrowly passed, allowing the reintroduction of gray wolves back into the state. Colorado Parks and Wildlife will not take a stance on the proposition but supports hunting as a tool for wildlife management saying, “For many people, hunting is a continuation of the hunter-gatherer traditions and a way to connect to nature. It also helps maintain a healthy wild animal population.”
Groups that support the banning of lynx, bobcat and mountain lion hunting include Cats Aren’t Trophies and The Wild Animal Sanctuary. Opponents of the proposition are Colorado’s Wildlife Deserves Better and the Concord Fund.
Proposition 128
Proposition 128 would require people in prison for second-degree murder, first-degree assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, arson, burglary or aggravated robbery to serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole.
Currently, prisoners of these violent crimes must serve 75% of their sentence before they can be granted parole for good behavior. If the proposition was passed, it would affect around 400 to 500 prisoners annually.
This proposition is being supported by Advance Colorado who collected 125,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. Advance Colorado says that it would help protect public safety by having people convicted of a violent crime in prison for 10% longer. Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition is against the proposition as it is not clear if it would deter crime and is a “misguided ballot initiative.” Some voters are also concerned with the increased funding that would need to go to keeping people incarcerated for longer.
Proposition 129
Proposition 129 would create and establish education requirements for a new Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA) position. VPAs would be able to do some of the things that vet techs are currently unlicensed to do but only while under the guidance of a licensed veterinarian. This new level of Veterinarian qualification would help to combat a shortage of vets in the state and especially in rural areas.
Under the proposition, people wishing to be VPAs would be required to be at least 18 years of age, have a master’s degree in veterinary care and be registered with the state. All Pets Deserve Vet Care is the primary group supporting it and is backed by the Dumb Friends League, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Supporters of the proposition say it will allow for more animals to have care given that many vets have had to turn patients away in recent years. Keep Our Pets Safe, Colorado Veterinary Medical Association to the Colorado Association of Certified Veterinary Technicians are the groups against the proposition claiming that VPA’s would not be adequately trained to perform surgery.
Proposition 130
Proposition 130 would allocate $350 million to recruitment and funding training for police officers in the state. The proposition does not allow for tax increases and would require lawmakers to find the $350 million in their existing budget. At least $1 million of that would go toward death benefits for the families of officers who died in the line of duty.
Proposition 130 is part of the “Bring Black Blue” initiative in response to the “Defund the Police” movement. There are no formal groups formed in support of the proposition but Advance Colorado was the group that placed the measure on the ballot. Coloradans for Smart Justice is opposed to the proposition and raised $100,500. They claim that it will take away funding from other important institutions.
Proposition 131
Proposition 131 would move general elections in the state to ranked-choice voting. Ranked choice voting would allow voters to rank all the people running for a certain position. Instead of each part nominating one person as they do now, multiple people from the same party could run. After voters rank the candidates, the top four candidates regardless of party go onto the general election. General elections would also be ranked. The candidate with over 50% of the votes would automatically win.
Even if Proposition 131 is passed this election, there is a clause in Senate Bill 210 that a few municipalities in the state must conduct ranked-choice voting before it can be done on a state level. This means that if ranked-choice voting is passed in this election, it cannot take effect until the 2028 election and only after it has been done in certain areas in the 2026 election. Ranked choice voting would only apply to Congress, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, the state board of education and University of Colorado regents and legislative races. Ranked choice voting is used in various elections in other states and for smaller elections in Boulder, Basalt, Broomfield and Fort Collins in Colo. The proposition is supported by Kent Thiry. Thiry is the CEO of the Denver healthcare group DaVita. Thiry ranked choice voting will allow for more bipartisan candidates to be elected. Thiry has also given $1.5 million to the Colorado Voters First committee who is backing the initiative. Groups including Voter Rights Colorado, Coloradans For Accessible and Secure Elections and The Colorado Fund for Children and Public Education all oppose the proposition. It is also opposed by the Colo. Democratic and GOP parties. Both supporters and opponents say that ranked-choice voting will minimize the effect of party lines on elections.
Primary Source used: https://coloradosun.com/2024/10/02/proposition-131-ranked-choice-colorado-explained-election/?utm_campaign=articlebottomlinks