Colorado ballot initiative news
From Ballotpedia
| ||
| Propositions • | Recall | • Law |
Here you'll find a collection of ballot news stories from Colorado.
Beer and wine grocery sales may be on Colorado ballot
DENVER, Colorado: Blake Harrison, a Denver attorney and candidate for the State House, filed an initiative to allow the sale of wine and full-strength beer within grocery stores. The initiative, also known as Initiative 29, was filed this week with the Colorado Legislative Council. A hearing on the proposal is scheduled for December 1st.[1] According to the submitted proposal, grocery and convenience stores would be allowed to set aside 5% of their floor space for beer and wine sales. State law currently only allows the sale of reduced-strength beer. In turn, liquor stores would be able to designate 5% of their shelf space for food sales, which are currently not allowed.[2]
In the past couple of years, two similar bills have been shot down. In 2008, a legislative proposal died in committee after a 5-1 Senate Finance Committee vote. The measure was opposed by liquor-store owners who argued the bill would severely impact their businesses. In 2008, however, the general assembly passed a law to allow Sunday liquor sales. In 2009, Rep. Liane "Buffie" McFayden attempted to pass a similar bill but it was defeated in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee.[3]
Colorado Supreme Court rules on Secret Ballot title challenge
DENVER, Colorado: Earlier this week the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the three measures (Initiatives 22-24), also known as the Colorado Save Our Secret Ballot (2010), do not violate the state's single-subject rule.[4] The challenge was filed by Philip Hayes of the AFL-CIO. According to court documents, Hayes argues that the ballot language violated the state's single-subject rule, which is a constitutional requirement that amendments address only one topic so as not to confuse voters.[5] In reaction to the news, Mark Grueskin, legal representative of Hayes said that the court fairly addressed their challenge. However, Grueskin added,"We still think people will be confused by these measures: They purport to create exceptions to federal law and guarantee certain rights that will have to be litigated in the future."[6]
The ballot title reads as follows:
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the right to vote by secret ballot regarding employee representation, and, in connection therewith, guaranteeing the fundamental right of individuals to vote by secret ballot where state or federal law requires or permits elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation?[4]
Colorado Governor to propose TABOR reforms
DENVER, Colorado: Last week Gov. Bill Ritter announced that he is currently working with groups to propose an initiative that addresses eliminating portions of TABOR for the 2011 state ballot. According to Ritter TABOR makes it difficult for state lawmakers to make necessary budget cuts and that the inability to do so is affecting the state financially. In the state of Colorado, TABOR Has been in effect since 1992, which requires voter approval of tax increases that exceed an index created by combining inflation and population increases. According to Ritter, Colorado has been restricted to 6% growth, unlike other states that are not restricted. However, Ritter added,"I’m not going to blame all the ills of the state on TABOR, but TABOR’s been in place since 1992, and basically everything under this 6 percent line that we lived under, there was just a wrestling match for the dollars."
On the other hand, Republican lawmakers said that they are prepared to fight in support of TABOR should an initiative be proposed. Rep. Kent Lambert said that he agrees that all necessary budget cuts should be implemented but so long as they follow the state constitution and law. Jon Caldara, president of Independence Institute said,"They want to take what has saved out budget, which is TABOR. I don’t think it’s going to be as easy to sell this time."[7]
Clean government amendment case to be heard by Colorado Supreme Court
DENVER, Colorado: This fall the Colorado Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments regarding the Colorado Clean Government Initiative (2008), also known as Amendment 54. Amendment 54, approved in November 2008, aimed to close a remaining loophole in Colorado election law by banning the practice of "Pay to Play". However, months after it's approval, legal challenges have risen against the approved measure citing that it is unconstitutional. In June 2009 a Denver judge put a temporary end to the amendment, after which the Colorado Attorney General appealed the case.[8] Denver Judge Catherine Lemon ruled that supporters' arguments for approving the amendment were false due to the lack of corruption in the state and the presumption is unconstitional. Additionally, lawsuits argue that the amendment's language is too vague and broad.[9]
Colorado Springs rejects placing TABOR measure on ballot
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado: Late last week, the Colorado Springs City Council voted 6 to 3 against placing a measure to revise the local Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) on the November 3, 2009 ballot in El Paso County. The proposed measure, sponsored by Councilman Tom Gallagher and proposed by local resident, Douglas Bruce, fell short after two council members changed their positions at the last minute.[10] The same issue was discussed earlier this year in April 2009. The measure proposed limiting the growth in government revenue and spending and refunds surplus revenue to taxpayers. In other words, any new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy increase and tax extension would still require voter approval.[11]
Government spending in Colorado Springs is governed by two separate TABOR provisions:
- A local version approved by voters in 1991.
- The statewide TABOR passed in 1992.
Grand Junction city council votes against sales tax hike
GRAND JUNCTION, Colorado: A measure that proposed increasing Grand Junction's sales tax was voted down by the city council last week. Council member Bonnie Beckstein said,"As much as I want to see things start happening, the public has definitely stated that we need to slow down, we need to listen to what they’re saying, we need to get their input."[12] The measure proposed a quarter-cent sales-tax increase to pay for either a new police and fire department buildings. Projects to be funded by the sales tax increase range from $53 million to $78 million.[13] However, in the August 19, 2009 meeting, council members feared that the tax increase would be rejected in light of the current recession and 2008's sales tax rejection.[12]
Colorado county votes to put clean energy measure on ballot
PITKIN COUNTY, Colorado: Pitkin County commissioners recently voted unanimously to place a measure on this November's ballot that would allow the county to issue bonds and provide loans to property owners so they can make energy efficient and renewable renovations to their homes. If passed, the county would issue $5 million in bonds to finance the loans, a provision agreed upon after only a first reading. Council-members will be having a special meeting on August 25th to further discuss the ballot language and other details, with a second reading and vote to come the next day.[14]
The bill's specific goals were made by the county's Energy Program Manager Dylan Hoffman, who wrote in a memo, "The program offers low-interest loans to help families and businesses afford renewable energy and energy-efficient upgrades to their properties - without raising taxes. At a time of skyrocketing energy costs, this innovative program allows property owners to go solar, add energy-efficient windows, or make other money-saving energy upgrades without the upfront cost. Savings from the lower monthly utility bills can be used to repay the loans."[15]
The total cost of the program will be funded over a period of time by homeowners. The debt will be part of the homeowner's annual property tax. Should the property be sold, the debt will remain with the property until it is paid.[16]
Colorado county to put lodging tax up for vote
LOVELAND, Colorado: The Loveland City Council has recently approved the placement of a proposed lodging tax in a 6-3 vote, the first of two votes the council will take. The second will come on August 18, where they will decide whether to put the measure on the ballot this November, rather than wait for election season next year. If approved, the bill would add a five percent lodging tax to hotel bills, with the money generated (approximated between $528,000 and $650,000) would go towards promoting tourism and other related activities, mainly by utilizing facilities that already support tourism to better market the city and sponsor local events. A seven-member marketing commission would be established to recommend specific uses for public funds.[17]
Main skepticism concerning the tax proposal is not coming from criticism of its actual content, but rather from the rapidity with which the council wants to have residents vote on the measure. Brian Willms, chief executive officer and president of the Loveland Chamber of Commerce, said at a recent council meeting, "There isn't enough time to get out information to voters. I'm a big supporter of a lodging tax, but this is one initiative I would not support." He added that in his view, a lodging tax would stimulate tourism, bring convention businesses to the town and create jobs.[17] Even those in the hotel and wedding planning industry wanted assurance that they would have access to at least some information about how the money generated will be used and how others would benefit. Bruce Wallace, a local manager of Best Western Crossroads Inn and Conference Center, said outright at an information session, "I think Loveland needs to tell us where the money is going and to justify its use."[18]
Colorado town council to decide on sales-tax initiative
GRAND JUNCTION, Colorado: The Grand Junction City Council must decide by August 19 whether or not to put before voters in November a proposed measure for a sales-tax increase to pay for increased public safety spending. In addition to asking residents to increase the tax by a quarter-cent, council members must also decide which one of five projects, ranging in price from $53 million to $78 million, to pin to the proposal.
This measure comes on the back of a failed initiative from last year which would have instituted a similar tax increase for a $98 million plan. Most council members, when interviewed, expressed reluctance to put another question to voters just one year later, and were skeptical about it's prospects for success. Bill Pitts said that he had asked over 150 people if they would now approve "a second measure and how much they would be willing to pay. All but one said they would reject a November question, regardless of the cost." He added, "I just don't think it'll run just because of the economy."[17]
Others, however, are anxious to try and put something together now, in a non-general election year, "because it wouldn't get lost in a jumble of candidate races, amendments and other ballot measures."[19] Others, such as Linda Romer Todd, are using the current economic state not as discouragement but as motivation, saying "it's during a down economy that the government should step up and build a project that not only addresses needs but puts people to work."[17]
Bundle of three tax initiatives gathering signatures in Colorado
Colorado: Prominent Colorado activists are currently at work trying to collect signatures for three ballot initiatives geared towards lowering current taxes and continuing the lowering trend well into the future. The measures' initiative titles were recently approved by a state panel and now are being circulated so that volunteers and supporters can collect the 76,047 required signatures by next July, in time for the November 2010 election. The first, Initiative 10, has several provisions: creates a flat ten dollar per year per vehicle registration fee, lowers the income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% and then annually until it hits 3.5%, and repeals most television taxes. The second, Initiative 12, focuses on property taxes by limiting the extent they can be raised and strengthens the channels that the public can take to lower them.[20] The third, Initiative 21, seeks to limit the outstanding debt of the state by restricting the financing of capital construction projects through public bonds. As of now, signature-gatherers are all volunteers.
At the center of the effort is Doug Bruce, a former state representative and activist, who originally drafted the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" constitutional amendment to stem how much and how quickly the state government can raise taxes. More wide-ranging support has come largely through opposition to an overwhelming focus on the condition of general revenue by a state commission, as well as unknown quantities of money being funneled into public projects.[21]
Steamboat 700 project discussed at city council meeting
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, Colorado: A discussion was held on July 21, 2009 by the Steamboat Springs City Council on Tuesday July 21,2009 to discuss the issue of the Steamboat 700 project and the proposed ballot measure against it. During the hearing, the council set dates of September 22, 2009 and October 13, 2009 for first and second readings on the annexation. After that time, the status of the referendum will then be decided. If the refendum is approved by the council, they will then schedule a public vote on the matter.[22][23]
The Steamboat 700 is a residential and shopping development that in order to be built up as its supporters wish, requires Steamboat Springs to annex 700 acres of land around Steamboat Springs.[24]
The development plan is headed by Steamboat 700, LLC, a group of real estate professionals.
Cañon City seeks relief from TABOR
CANON CITY, Colorado: This week Cañon City Council unanimously approved a TABOR timeout ballot measure for the November 3rd ballot. The ballot measure asks for the city to be permitted to keep and spend revenues currently restricted by the 1992 statewide TABOR. The measure, if approved, is not permanent but instead has a 10-year limit. The measure is expected to provide temporary relief during the state's economic downturn. If approved, the measure would be in effect from January 1, 2010 until January 1, 2020. After the 10 year relief, TABOR will be reinstated.[25]
Colorado town reform group submits marijuana penalty petition
BRECKENRIDGE, Colorado: A local reform group has submitted 1,500 petition signatures to eliminate specific marijuana penalties the town of Breckenridge, three times more than the required amount. The group, Sensible Breckenridge, circulated the petition in hopes of removing personal possession penalties for persons 21 and older. Personal possession of one ounce or less of marijuana carries a $100 fine.
According to Breckenridge attorney and chairman of Sensible Breckenridge Sean McAllister: "There was overwhelming support for it."
The town clerk now has until July 27, 2009 to check the validity of the signatures.[26]
Colorado Supreme Court hears arguments on Secret Ballot Initiative challenge
DENVER, Colorado: Yesterday, the Colorado Supreme Court began hearing arguments regarding a challenge to the Save Our Secret Ballot initiative by organized labor unions. Earlier this year, a state board approved a title for the initiative. The proposal reads: “The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires or permits elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.” However, AFL-CIO argues that ballot language violates the "single subject rule", a constitutional requirement that amendments address only one topic so as not to confuse voters. Patrick Davis, a political consultant backing the measure, maintains that "This is short common sense language. We don't expect the court to give us much trouble.[27]
If the Supreme Court upholds the state board's decision and clear the title and language, Save Our Secret ballot supporters will be allowed to circulate a petition and gather signatures to move the initiative onto the November 2010 ballot.
This comes in the midst of Congress' discussion of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would remove that requirement from the law, instituting a method called "card check". This would allow union leaders to view signature cards filled out during elections. Davis and other proponents of the initiative maintain that it is necessary to preserve the "fundamental right of an individual to vote by secret ballot," and that any infringement upon that constitutes a violation of basic civil liberties.[28]
Some call foul on Breckenridge's wildfire law, others say its necessary
BRECKENRIDGE, Colorado: Breckenridge passed a an ordinance requiring residents to thin vegetation around their homes because of a recent infestation of mountain pine beetles; making the surrounding forest vulnerable to fires. Some residents said that they aren't bothered by the new law and "if cutting these trees saves my life or my wife's life or a firefighter's life, then it's worth it." Others, however, said that the new law is an encroachment on resident's rights and will reduce property values. Councilman Dave Rossi said that the new law is certainly a change from the town's focus. In the past, said Rossi, the town has encouraged landscaping. "I sympathize with people who don't want to cut trees. I'm a tree hugger," Councilman Jeffrey Bergeron said. "But what I don't buy is the argument that the government can't tell me what to do on my property even if it saves lives and the property of my neighbors." Rossi, however, added that although he supports the thinning of vegetation, he's not sure the ordinance will be very effective.[29]
Personhood amendments proposed in Colorado and Montana
DENVER, Colorado and HELENA, Montana: Last week, anti-abortion/pro-life activists in two states, Colorado and Montana held press conferences to launch petition drives to put "personhood amendments" on the ballot in their respective states.[30]
A "personhood amendment" was on the 2008 ballot in Colorado, where it lost decisively. Organizers of the 2010 ballot measure in Colorado say the 2010 effort will be different in several respects that may overcome problems with the 2008 campaign.[31]
A right-to-life initiative did not make the 2008 ballot in Montana because of insufficient signatures.
Both amendments are sponsored by a new national organization, Personhood USA, that formed in the wake of the loss of the 2008 Colorado Personhood Amendment.[32]
Complications arise in Steamboat 700 annexation proposal
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, Colorado: Residents of a small Colorado city are at opposition with city officials concerning Steamboat 700, a proposed development that would annex 508 acres to the area.[33]
Steamboat 700, according to its website, is a culmination of over 10 years of planning by Steamboat Springs in the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan (WSSAP) and three years of planning by Steamboat 700 LLC.[34] Residents have the right to challenge most Steamboat Springs City Council ordinances by gathering petition signatures and taking them to voters.
Under Steamboat’s Home Rule Charter, petitioners must have signatures of at least 20 percent of the total voters registered in the previous municipal election. Yet only 10 percent is needed under state law. City residents will vote in November on a change in the city’s threshold to match the state level. Public votes on Steamboat 700 wouldn’t be possible until the City Council approved annexation.
See also
References
| |||||
