Boulder City Charter Amendments, 5 (November 2011)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Five Boulder City Charter Amendment measures were on the November 1, 2011 ballot in the City of Boulder which is in Boulder County.

All five measures were approved

The first measure sought to amend the charter so as to change names and titles as set forth in the proposed ordinance.

  • YES 20,084 (88.55%)Approveda
  • NO 2,596 (11.45%)

The second measure sought to change the penalty amount for violating the charter to $1,000.

  • YES 15,220 (70.31%)Approveda
  • NO 6,428 (29.69%)

The third measure sought to clean up the language of the charter in regards to elections.

  • YES 20,231 (90.34%)Approveda
  • NO 2,164 (9.66%)

The fourth measure sought to set further rules in regards to petitions in the city.

  • YES 17,486 (78.8%)Approveda
  • NO 4,703 (21.2%)

The fifth measure sought to end personhood for corporations.[1]

  • YES 18,392 (73.72%)Approveda
  • NO 6,556 (26.28%)[2]

Personhood Amendment

Opponents to the proposed amendment state that the definition in the language was too broad, a lot of entities fall under 'corporations' and if this measure was approved it could create more problems. Though proponents of the measure noted that the goal was to strengthen democracy and lessen corruption.[3]


The Camera had given its endorsement to the first four of these measures, not including the personhood question, stating that the proposed amendments will help residents as clarification on rules and cleaning up language is good for the city.[4]

Text of measure

Amendment Question 2D

The question on the ballot:

Shall Sections 12, 64, 65, 68, 72, 89, 101, 104, 105, and 108 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7799 to reflect organizational changes in names of positions and departments, specifically including without limitation, to change the title of the director of finance and record to chief financial officer, to move the duties of the city clerk to the city manager’s office; and to eliminate obsolete references to the employee that was to take the role of city marshall in the last century and related details as specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 7799?[5]