Colorado

2010

Signature Deadline in 2010: August 2, 2010
Number of Signatures Needed to Qualify: 76,047 (statutory initiative); 76,047 (constitutional amendment)
Gubernatorial Election in 2010: Ritter (D)
US Senate Election in 2010: M. Bennet (D)

 

In 2008, the Colorado legislature responded to rampant allegations of fraud and deceit and crafted new laws to ensure the integrity of the initiative process. The reforms included: prohibiting signature gathering firms from paying by the signature; requiring petition circulators to register with the state and complete training courses; and allowing third party review of submitted signatures, among many others. Due to these reforms, Colorado was the only state to receive an “A” grade in BISC’s “Ballot Integrity Report Card.”

Three dangerous initiatives that would devastate local governments and exacerbate the Colorado’s current fiscal crisis appear to have qualified for the 2010 ballot.

Amendment 60 would overturn voters’ decision to opt out of Colorado’s TABOR limitations and allow their local governments to retain additional funds for investment in their communities. The initiative also cuts property tax rates in half over a ten-year period. In addition to the local revenues slashed by Amendment 60, the statutory Proposition 101 would slash state and local revenues to the tune of $1.7 billion by reducing the state income tax, motor vehicle fees, and telecommunications fees.

Making matters worse, the proponents of these measures have also submitted signatures for Amendment 61, which would ban all state financing through debt and severely limit local financing tools, requiring voter-approval for their use. Often times, the timing of state revenue intake doesn’t correspond perfectly with the payment schedules for public services, requiring the state treasurer to carefully manage cash-flow. However, Amendment 61 would ban many of the tools used to maintain this balance, potentially devastating the state’s ability to deliver timely and quality public services. The amendment would also ban Certificates of Participation, a means by which the government finances building renovations and new construction projects. As if this weren’t enough, the initiative mandates the repayment of all outstanding Certificates of Participation, a seemingly impossible task given the state’s current financial crisis.

Thus far, 17 other initiatives have been filed for the 2010 ballot. The Colorado anti-choice movement is also at it again, circulating a new version of their controversial “personhood” amendment. Despite a drubbing at the polls in 2008 (the amendment lost 73%- 27%), Personhood Colorado made no substantive changes to their amendment for the 2010 ballot. The constitutional amendment would end a woman's right to choose, ban several of the most medically safe forms of birth control, restrict common fertility treatments, such as in vitro fertilization, and put an end to stem cell research. Perhaps most dangerous is the possibility that criminal investigations could be launched against women for their miscarriages.

The so-called Save Our Secret Ballot campaign (SOS), a multi-state ballot initiative and referenda campaign, based in Las Vegas, that is organizing for the 2010 election, filed a ballot initiative that would prohibit employees from forming a union through majority sign-up and enable corporate intimidation of workers. However, proponents have missed the 6-month deadline for submitting signatures, and must start from scratch if they wish to qualify their initiative. SOS Ballot is an attempt to strengthen corporate influence and enable corporate intimidation. The campaign is a deceptive, misleading and frivolous multi-state ballot initiative and referenda campaign based in Las Vegas.

Additionally, ballot initiatives have been filed that would:

• Allow grocery stores to sell alcoholic beverages;
• Require state and private employers to verify the immigration status of all employees;
• Legalize same-sex marriage;
• Legalize same-sex civil unions; and
• Allow the legislature to disregard voter-approved funding levels for any program in formulating the state budget.

2009

In 2009, a local so-called car impound initiative, which was really an effort to target illegal immigrants, was rejected by Denver area voters. The measure would have required police to seize the vehicles of every unlicensed driver they stop, and was pushed by Daniel Hayes, who doesn't even live in the Denver area. A strong local coalition of groups called Coloradans for Safe Communities won by organizing effectively and effectively educating voters about the fact that the requirement would have drained city resources, crowded impound lots, and punished drivers who simply forgot their licenses.

2008

For more 2008 election information, click here.

 

For additional information please check with the Colorado Secretary State: http://www.sos.state.co.us/