Colorado Proposition 101, Amendments 60 & 61 (2010), opposition, arguments

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main article: Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61
Below is a list of arguments in opposition to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61.


  • Coloradans for Responsible Reform was opposed to the proposed measure and described the proposed measures as "the evil three" ballot questions. Coloradans for Responsible Reform was led by Rick Reiter who argued that the measures would have devastated the state.[1][2]
  • Twenty-three of 27 Republican State Representatives and five of 14 Republican State Senators signed a letter urging Republicans in the state to vote no on Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. "Yes, these three issues are a direct reaction to poor treatment of taxpayers by Democrats. However, this reaction is so far overreaching that it will ultimately kill Colorado jobs and strip local governments' ability to provide police and fire protection and to educate our children," said the letter.[6][7]
  • John Straayer, a political science professor at Colorado State University, was opposed to Amendment 60, Amendment 61 and Proposition 101. "These initiatives pose to the voters in a stark fashion whether they want the world of Douglas Bruce or an efficient and functioning government system," said Straayer.[8]
  • Colorado Counties Inc., a nonprofit organization that "offer[s] assistance to county commissioners, mayors and councilmembers and to encourage counties to work together on common issues," announced in December 2009 that they were opposed to Amendment 60, Amendment 61 and Proposition 101. Additionally they announced plans to contribute $10,000 for a review of submitted signatures.[8]
  • Gov. Bill Ritter, who attempted to close a $1 billion state budget shortfall, characterized Amendment 61, Amendment 60 and Proposition 101 as "dangerous."[8] In March 2010 Ritter said his top priority was defeating Amendment 60, 61 and Proposition 101.[9]
    • Proposition 101 and amendments 60 and 61 on the November ballot "would set Colorado back a generation and bring to a halt the pro-business environment we have all worked so hard to build," said Gov. Bill Ritter in May 2010 at the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's "State of the State" session.[10]
  • Tom Clark, executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp, said that Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61 would have cut the state's general fund by at least $1.6 billion. The reduction would have been on top of the already implemented state cuts of about $2.5 billion.[11]
  • The Aspen Valley Hospital board of directors announced in mid-June their opposition to Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61. According to reports, the potential impact of the measures was not yet known, however, the resolution stated that Amendments 60 & 61 would have reduced funds by at least $1 billion annually in state taxes. The resolution was adopted at the urging of the Special District Association, whose members include hospital, fire protection, sanitation and other taxing districts.[12]
  • Colorado Mountain College, on June 30, announced their opposition to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61. "The cumulative and destructive nature of the three measures ensures that Colorado will surrender its competitive standing to attract employers, significantly hampering economic growth for the state," said the College Board of Trustees.[13]
  • The Aspen Chamber Resort Association board of directors passed a resolution in opposition to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to the resolution and reports, the board described the measures as "irresponsible" and argued that the measures "would push Colorado deeper into recession — a second, voter-approved recession." According to news reports, Aspen City Council, Basalt Town Council, and the Aspen School District board had also passed resolutions in opposition.[14][15]
  • Rep. Randy Baumgardner argued that the proposed measures were misguided. "These initiatives would be devastating to our local governments and school districts, placing burdensome requirements on their ability to plan and budget appropriately for the future. Additionally, they would cripple the state’s ability to meet demands for a growing population and crumbling infrastructure," he said in an editorial.[16]

Local opponents

Some cities and counties spoke out or passed resolutions against the proposed measures, including:

  • Monte Vista[17]
  • Town of Frisco[18]
  • Ouray County[19]
  • Ouray School District Board[20]
  • Colorado Springs City[21][22]
  • Trinidad School District No.1[23]
  • Moffat County School Board[24]
  • Estes Valley Fire Protection District board of directors[25]
  • Beaver Creek Metropolitan District[26]
  • Steamboat Springs school[27]
  • Routt County[27]
  • Weld County[28]
  • Aurora City[29]
  • The Charter School Institute Board of Directors[30]
  • Town of Windsor[31]
  • District 51 school board[32]
  • Telluride[33]
  • Mountain Village[33]
  • San Miguel County[33]
  • Larimer County Board of Health[34]
  • Larimer County Commissioners[35]
  • Garfield School District Re-2[36]
  • Delta County Board of Education[37]
  • Brush Board of Education[38]
  • Board of Trustees of Aims Community College[39]
  • Cañon City School Board[40]
  • Summit School Board[41]
  • Eagle River Water and Sanitation District board of directors[42]

Local arguments

  • According to Grand Junction city officials the passage of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61 would have ultimately cost the city millions in tax revenue. According to the city's financial services department in 2011 all three amendments could have cost the city the following: $3.6 million in vehicle registration taxes, $2 million in sales taxes on vehicles and $1.5 million in telecommunication taxes.[43]
  • In several school districts across the state, opponents argued that Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61 would have eliminated funding to school districts. Funds provided to districts from the state’s interest-free loan program, they argued, could disappear. South Routt Superintendent Scott Mader said, "It would bring us to our knees. We couldn’t operate," of the proposed measures. Sen. Al White said the measures would "pretty much shut down government in the state of Colorado."[44]
  • Steamboat Springs school officials said the measures would have cost the school system an estimated $1.23 million in revenues in a four-year period and Amendment 60 would have resulted in a loss of $1.5 million.[27]
  • Routt County Finance Director Dan Strnad said the county would have lost an estimated $2 million if Proposition 101 was approved and $1.67 to $3.9 million if Amendment 60 was approved.[27]
  • The Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association Board of Directors was opposed to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61. Chamber Board President Bob Larson said, "The proponents of Proposition 101, Amendments 60 and 61 are presenting these initiatives at a time when businesses and families are strapped. So the idea of tax reductions in any form is tempting. However, when one looks at the true impacts of these things, the impacts are broad and significant in a negative way to many of our local institutions and service providers."[45]
  • The Charter School Institute Board of Directors opposed the proposed measures. Wayne Eckering, chairman of the board said, "Individually and collectively, these three measures are irresponsible. They would cut funding even further to school districts as well as charter schools and limit the ability of schools to make improvements to its facilities."[30]
  • The Fort Collins Board of Realtors was opposed to the proposed measures. The board said, "Realtors have become "quality-of-life" brokers. FCBR firmly believes if any of these measures are to pass, our community's quality of life will be greatly diminished, and the impacts will be overwhelming."[46]

See also


  1. The Daily Sentinel, "Opponent to ballot measures emerges," May 24, 2010
  2. The Denver Daily News, "Anti-tax proposals blasted," June 3, 2010
  3. The Aurora Sentinel, "CU Regents take stand against props 60, 61 and 101," July 19, 2010 (dead link)
  4. Denver Business Journal, "Bipartisan opposition to Colorado ballot measures to cut state revenue, spending," December 14, 2009
  5. The Denver Post, "Candidates weigh in on right side of ballot items," February 28, 2010
  6. The Denver Post, "Colorado Republicans come out against tax-slashing measures," September 13, 2010
  7. Coloradoan, "Gardner's name added to letter opposing anti-tax measures," September 14, 2010
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 The Gazette, "Trio of anti-government ballot measures go too far, critics charge," December 4, 2009
  9. The Gazette, "POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Ritter talks TABOR in Springs," March 30, 2010
  10. The Denver Post, "Ritter says tax-cutting ballot initiatives would cripple Colorado," May 14, 2010
  11. Denver Business Journal, "Three ballot measures are ‘absolutely lethal’ to Colorado," March 5, 2010
  12. The Aspen Times, "Aspen hospital board takes stand against state tax-relief measures," June 16, 2010
  13. Vail Daily, "Colorado Mountain College opposes November ballot measures," June 30, 2010
  14. Aspen Daily News, "ACRA officially opposes state tax cut measures," September 1, 2010
  15. Aspen Daily News, "Estimating the costs of 101, 60 and 61," September 1, 2010
  16. Steamboat Today, "Randy Baumgardner: Ballot initiatives misguided," October 3, 2010
  17. Monte Vista Journal, "City opposes three ballot issues," August 25, 2010
  18. Summit Daily News, "Frisco council against November ballot measures 101, 60, 61" August 27, 2010
  19. Ouray County, "Ouray County Opposes ‘Bad 3’ Ballot Initiatives," August 26, 2010 (dead link)
  20. Ouray County Talk, "Ouray school district board announces opposition to ballot trio," October 1, 2010
  21. The Gazette, "Council gets behind group opposing amendments," September 14, 2010
  22. The Gazette, "Council OK's resolution to oppose 'evil' ballot measures," September 28, 2010
  23. The Trinidad Times, "District opposes ballot initiatives," August 31, 2010
  24. Craig Daily Press, "Moffat County School Board wary of ballot initiatives," September 2, 2010
  25. Estes Park Trail Gazette, "Fire dist. opposes initiatives," September 3, 2010
  26. Vail Daily, "Beav' Metro District opposes ballot questions," September 2, 2010
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 Steamboat Today, "Steamboat officials critical of anti-tax ballot measures," May 19, 2010
  28. Greeley Tribune, "Weld commissioners united in opposition to ballot initiatives," September 16, 2010
  29. The Aurora Sentinel, "Unanimous vote from Aurora City Council to oppose 60, 61, 101," September 15, 2010 (dead link)
  30. 30.0 30.1 The Pueblo Chieftain, "Charter school leaders oppose tax-cutting measures," September 16, 2010 (dead link)
  31. Windsor Beacon, "Town officials stand united vs. Colorado tax-reduction ballot issues," September 18, 2010
  32. The Daily Sentinel, "School board opposes three ballot measures," September 21, 2010
  33. 33.0 33.1 33.2 Telluride Daily Planet, "Local officials oppose ballot measures 60, 61, 101," September 14, 2010
  34. Estes Park Trail Gazette, "Board of health against 60, 61, prop 101," September 23, 2010
  35. Coloradoan, "Opposition mounts to anti-tax measures," October 6, 2010
  36. The Citizen Telegram, "Initiatives would pose difficulties for school districts," September 23, 2010 (dead link)
  37. Delta County Independent, "School board: Ballot initiatives would result in fewer teachers, larger classes," September 22, 2010
  38. The Fort Morgan Times, "Brush school board opposes ballot measures," September 23, 2010
  39. Northern Colorado Business Report, "Ballot measures bad policy, threaten community colleges," September 24, 2010 (dead link)
  40. Canon City Daily Record, "School board passes resolution against November ballot initiatives," September 28, 2010 (dead link)
  41. Summit Daily News, "Ballot series: 60, 61, 101 could cut Summit schools' funding in half," October 4, 2010
  42. Vail Daily, "Eagle River water district opposes state ballot measures," October 4, 2010
  43. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, "Ballot measures would cost city, Grand Junction official says," January 18, 2010 (dead link)
  44. Steamboat Today, "Steamboat schools' funding could be affected by 'anti-tax' ballot measures," April 25, 2010
  45. Steamboat Today, "Steamboat Chamber opposes anti-tax measures," July 13, 2010
  46. The Coloradoan, "Amendments would put quality of life in jeopardy," October 4, 2010