NOTE: YES is always a vote to CHANGE the law; NO means existing law will remain the same.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
An amendment to add new language to the Colorado Constitution is successful only if YES votes are 55% or more. Repealing an existing amendment requires only a simple majority (50% + 1) which applies only to Amendment J.
Remember that constitutional amendments cannot be changed by the legislature without a public vote. If a proposal doesn’t work well, supporters cannot be forced to correct it. The legislature can refer changes to voters but only with a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and House.
Amendment G – Veterans Property Tax Exemption
Will allow veterans with certain disabilities that make them unemployable but who are not 100% disabled to claim the homestead property tax exemption (exempts 50% of first $200,000 in home value).
Comment: I’ll vote YES.
Amendment H – Judicial Disclipline Board
Creates a new judicial discipline board, appointed by the Colorado Supreme Court and Governor and confirmed by the State Senate. This board will preside over ethical misconduct hearings involving judges. Makes disciplinary charges available to the public if a board determines complaint falls within board’s jurisdiction and orders a hearing.
Comment: Intended to resolve a concern that the current Judicial Discipline Commission does too much in secret and is unduly influenced by the judges whom it reviews. I’ll vote YES.
Amendment I – Bail in First-Degree Murder Cases
When the Legislature abolished the death penalty, it became unclear whether someone charged with first-degree murder could be denied bail. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that judges cannot deny them bail. This amendment would restore the ability of judges to deny bail to people charged with first-degree murder when “proof is evident or the presumption is great.”
Comment: I’ll vote YES.
Amendment J – Definition of Marriage
In 2006, Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in state law as between one man and one woman. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry, so all states are legally required to recognize same-sex marriage. The one-man, one-woman definition still appears in the Colorado Constitution but is legally unenforceable. This amendment would repeal that definition.
Comment: If a provision of the constitution is declared “unconstitutional” or becomes obsolete for other reasons, it still remains written in the constitution until repealed by voters. Whatever the vote, the result will be symbolic.
Amendment K – Election Deadlines
Moves the deadline to submit signatures for ballot issues ahead by one week; does the same for judges to declare whether they will seek another term. Current deadline is three months before an election. Requires that ballot questions and text be published in local newspapers 45 days before the election, approximately 30 days earlier than currently. Supporters say this gives election workers more time to prepare and mail ballots. Opponents say it’s unfair to take one week away from signature gathering so other options would be better.
Amendment 79 – Constitutional Right to Abortion
Would make abortion a constitutional right in Colorado and repeal the existing ban on taxpayer funding for abortion. In 2022, the Colorado legislature created a statutory right to an abortion. In reality, there are no limits on the “right” to have an abortion in Colorado, except the ability to compel taxpayers to pay for abortions through public and private health insurance programs, which this amendment would repeal.
Comment: Not only would this allow taxpayer funding of abortion, it would also prevent any future legislature from enacting modest guardrails like limitations on abortion after viability and requiring parental consent when a minor seeks an abortion. I’ll vote NO.
Amendment 80 – Constitutional Right to School Choice
Creates a right to school choice in the Colorado constitution, including neighborhood public and charter schools, private schools, home schools, and “future innovations in education.”
Comment: School choice should be a fundamental right, and families should be able to select the education option that best fits their needs. The spirit of this amendment is good although it does not create a specific school choice system. I’ll vote YES.
NON-CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
Require a simple majority vote and can be amended by the Legislature in the future.
Proposition JJ – Retain Additional Sports Betting Funds
When sports betting passed in 2019, the law authorized the state to collect up to $29 million a year in tax revenue. State economists now anticipate collecting more this year, so the excess would have to be refunded to taxpayers. Proposition JJ would put the overage into water conservation projects.
Comment: Ordinarily, I vote against proposals to retain excess revenue, but in this case, I’ll vote YES. The tax refund does NOT go to general taxpayers but to casinos and sports betting operations. I’d rather have it go to water conservation.
Proposition KK – Tax on Firearms and Ammunition
Creates a 6.5% tax on sales of firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition and exempts money collected from the state limit on tax revenue. Funds would be used to fund crime victim support, mental health support and school safety programs.
Comment: Firearms are already heavily regulated and heavily taxed. This amounts to a 50% increase in the sales tax on firearms. I’ll vote NO.
Proposition 127 – Prohibit Hunting of Bobcat, Lynx and Mountain Lions
Prohibits hunting or trapping of bobcats, lynx and mountain lions, except in certain circumstances. Proponents says hunting causes animals pain and trauma and is unnecessary. Opponents say wildlife management should be left to Colorado Parks and Wildlife based on science, not regulated by voters.
Comment: It’s already illegal to hunt lynx because they are endangered. Voters have no business passing virtue-signaling laws based on emotion. Colorado Parks and Wildlife may not always be right, but it usually does a good job managing wildlife populations – except when voters interfere. I’ll vote NO.
Proposition 128 – Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence
Requires someone convicted of certain violent crimes to serve at least 85% of their sentence in prison before being eligible for parole or earned-time sentence reduction – up from 75% in current law. Makes anyone convicted of a third violent crime ineligible for parole or sentence reduction.
Comment: Recently, a district attorney who supports this measure told of a case he prosecuted in which a criminal sentenced to 16 years was out on the street in less than half that time. Prop 128 seems like a sensible reform. I’ll vote YES.
Proposition 129 – Veterinary Professional Associate
Creates a new licensed veterinary professional associate (VPA) with minimum education (master’s degree or equivalent) and qualifications required. Similar to a vet tech, a VPA could perform tasks under the supervision of a veterinarian.
Comment: This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A VPA would not be the veterinary equivalent to a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant. Instead, this law would allow someone who completes a mostly online program to perform surgery on an animal after only minimal training. That’s neither sensible nor humane. I’ll vote NO.
Proposition 130 – Funding for Law Enforcement
Directs the state to spend $350 million to recruit, train and retain local law enforcement officers and provide additional benefits of $1 million for families of officers killed in the line of duty. The amendment does not identify either a revenue source for this money nor areas of the budget to be cut. For context, $350 million is more than the budget for seven entire departments, including Department of Agriculture and Secretary of State.
Comment: When the Left mandates spending through ballot questions, I don’t like it. I’m not crazy about it when the Right does it either, as in this case. Both sides believe they are doing it for a good cause, but they never grapple with the choices required to balance the state budget. Spending for law enforcement is generally a local-government function, except for State Patrol. The death benefit provision for families of fallen officers is certainly the most defensible.
Proposition 131 – All-Candidate Primary and Ranked Choice Voting
Changes the primary election to a single ballot including all candidates – major parties, minor parties and unaffiliated – and used by all voters. Candidates’ party affiliation will be listed. Each voter could choose one candidate for each office. Top four vote-getters from the primary would advance to the November general election, which would be conducted using ranked-choice voting (RCV).
Ranked-choice voting is sometimes called “instant run-off” because it requires the winner to receive an outright majority vote, not simply the most votes (which can be less than 50%). On that ballot, a voter can mark a first, second and third choice.
In Round 1, all first-choice votes are counted. If a candidate gets a majority, that candidate wins.
If no one gets a majority, the fourth-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots that listed the fourth-place candidate as first choice are then re-counted and credited to their second choice in Round 2.
If those second-choice votes give someone a majority, the election is over. If not, then the third-place candidate is eliminated, leaving just two candidates. Ballots that had previously been counted for the third-place candidate are now re-counted and credited to their next choice. Because only two candidates remain, one candidate will receive a majority and be declared the winner.
Opponents say this is complicated and confusing and reduces the role of political parties. Supporters say voters will quickly adapt to this change and that RCV shifts powers away from party primary voters and toward voters in the political center.
Proposition 131 does not apply to voting for President, District Attorney or county offices. It’s not clear if this means elections for county offices and District Attorney would be held on separate ballots using the existing primary system.
Comment: This one is tough. In our political system, both parties seem to be tone-deaf, mostly captive to their respective “bases,” which are very loud but steadily shrinking. That’s why more Colorado voters are now unaffiliated than Democrat or Republican.
Ironically, the Colorado Democratic Party and Colorado GOP both officially oppose Prop 131. For Democrats the reason is simple: they’re dominating elections under the current system, so why change? Republicans oppose it mainly because they want a primary in which only Republicans can vote or they think an open primary somehow favors Democrats. To be sure, nothing favors Colorado Democrats today more than the abject dysfunctionality of the Colorado Republican Party.
So, will Prop 131 make the political landscape better? Its supporters think so. I truly do not know.
An open primary, while different, would be simple. All candidates, regardless of party, appear together one primary ballot; party affiliation will be listed. The strength of this change would be a primary voter could choose the strongest candidate in each race regardless of party. If all taxpayers pay for our elections, then why shouldn’t all taxpayers have the same opportunity to vote in the primary?
Multiple candidates from the same party risk diluting their party’s primary vote. Democrats are definitely more disciplined than Republicans when it’s necessary to cull the field in order to win.
The current primary system probably does us a favor by putting some candidates out of their misery after the primary; this will prolong the agony for four more months.
Some “purist” Republicans believe our party’s recent decline in Colorado is due to nominating “squishy” or “RINO” candidates. If they’re right, RCV would give them a chance to prove it because candidates like Ron Hanks and Dave Williams would likely finish in the top four and thus advance to the general election. The same goes for far-left Democrats like Elizabeth Epps and Tim Hernandez.
That brings us to ranked-choice voting. Americans are accustomed to elections in which the candidate who finishes first wins, even if that candidate doesn’t get a majority. With ranked-choice voting, it’s important to finish first or second and then be the second choice of most everyone else.
Will Coloradans accept the result if a candidate who finishes second in the initial count ultimately wins because he or she was a more popular second choice than the candidate who finished first in the initial count?
Know that if choose to vote only for one candidate and not to rank anyone else, your ballot will no longer be counted if your candidate is eliminated, so you are giving up your vote.
One saving grace: this is not a constitutional amendment, so it could be changed by the legislature. But the legislature is unlikely to make changes until something goes badly wrong.
Prop 131 is a gamble, but “a drowning man will grab even the point of a sword.”