Note: Ballotpedia will be read-only from 9pm CST on February 25-March 2 while Judgepedia is merged into Ballotpedia.
For status updates, visit

Colorado Initiative 105 (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 13:33, 6 July 2011 by Text Replacement Editor (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
Initiative 105 or the Federal Farm Sudsidy Tax Initiative would have established a new tax on income from federal farm subsidies over $999 to fund farmer training and outreach at state colleges and universities.

The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association agreed to withdraw this measure on May 6, 2008—as well as the eight others it filed in response to a measure to limit attorney fees—when proponents of that measure (the Attorney Fees Initiative) agreed to also withdraw.[1]

This measure was a citizen-initiated state statute.


The measure was filed by the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, as part of a group of nine initiatives that were intended to "improve the lives of working families and consumers in Colorado," according to John Sadwith, executive director of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association.[2]

"For too long corporate interests have been put ahead of consumer interests in this state," Sadwich said. "The initiatives filed shift the balance of fairness back to the consumer. Real people in this state deserve a break."[2]

The proposals are believed to be a response to a ballot measure filed earlier this year by former State Legislator Mark Hillman and what Hillman calls a coalition of business interests and grass roots activists. Hillman's proposed initiative would limit attorney's contingency fees in civil court judgments.[2]

One of the measures filed by Sadwith and attorney Scott Wolfe imposes increased state taxes on federal farm subsidies, of which Hillman is reportedly a recipient.[2]

The nine initiatives that were filed as a group target doctors, real estate brokers, corporate executives, and homebuilders. The other eight initiatives are:


Douglas Friednash, a Denver lawyer who has been critical of the ease with which such measures can make it on the ballot, called the measures "Draconian and disengenuous." He said the measures "go far beyond what the trial lawyers ought to be concerned about."[2]


The measure did not make the ballot.

See also

External links