Besides the six initiated measures, there are also six referenda from the legislature on the ballot in Colorado this year. Here's a rundown on the position the state Party's board of directors has taken on each of them. The reasons given are my own ... in most cases, I think the other board members had similar reasons for voting as they did.
This opinion was unanimous. All the board members said NO.
This measure would provide an exemption from half of the property taxes on residential property for persons who are 65 years of age or older and who have occupied the house as their primary residence for at least ten years. The exemption on any one house would not exceed $100,000. The measure is "revenue neutral" -- it would "restore" the reduced tax revenue by increasing the TABOR revenue limit for state government, thus reducing everyone's tax refund. The estimated increase in the TABOR limit would be (roughly) $45 million in the first year. The measure calls for "state replacement of reduced local revenues" (a la Doug Bruce' initiative #21).
I am opposed to this measure because it is not really a tax cut. It's an income redistribution scheme in disguise. Moreover, it achieves its purpose by tinkering with TABOR, and I don't think that's a good idea. If we're going to cut taxes, let's really cut everyone's taxes. Raising one group's taxes to give somebody else a break (and, in this case, to curry favor with a group of people who always get out and vote) is just plain wrong.
This opinion was unanimous. All the board members said YES.
This measure would make minor alterations to the redistricting procedure (which must be carried out after each decennial census). Briefly, it would start the process about 11 weeks sooner than it starts under current law, and require that the process be wrapped up about six weeks earlier, adding some five weeks to the nine-month timetable. The basic structure of the process would remain unaltered. Only the timetable would be affected.
This looks like a good government issue to me. The revised timetable provides more time for public input, and it allows a couple more weeks for the inevitable legal challenges to be resolved. It also requires the redistricting commission to finalize the new district boundaries by mid-February, 2001. The Libertarian Party will be running candidates from the new districts in 2002 -- knowing where the boundaries are six weeks earlier will be helpful. The only downside I see is that the expenses of the commission might increase a bit. I think the additional expense will be minimal, so I support this measure.
A majority of the board members said NO, but it was not unanimous.
This measure would amend the constitution of Colorado, Article XIV, Section 8, to provide that the county surveyor may either be elected, or appointed by the county commissioners. As the blue book makes clear, the demand for the county surveyor's services is small and decreasing -- under current law this position is always an elected post, and it often goes unfilled because nobody wants the job. We can only hope that many other positions in government will one day suffer the same fate. :o)
I oppose this referendum. When the county commissioners need to do a land survey, they can easily hire someone from the private sector. To allow the appointment of an "official" surveyor would create another opportunity for political patronage, and we need that like another hole in the head.
If the legislature had recommended that the outmoded post of county surveyor be eliminated altogether, I'd stand up and cheer. But this proposal is bad medicine. Vote No!
(Some board members expressed support for this proposal. Sorry, but I'm not sure why they did.)
A majority said YES, but it was not unanimous.
The Colorado constitution is about five or six times as long as the federal constitution. Article XIX, Section 2 (Amend- ments) provides that each general assembly may propose changes to no more than six Articles. So if we're ever to make the constitution shorter, we had better work at it regularly.
This referendum proposes to simplify the Colorado constitution by eliminating language that is obsolete or outmoded. For instance, it would eliminate references to residential status in the territory of Colorado before 1876; it would delete minor details about the creation of the city and county of Denver (which occurred in 1904); and it would delete references to the county superintendent of schools (a post which no longer exists because school districts are, in general, no longer coterminous with the counties).
This looks like another good government measure to me. New constitutional provisions are likely to be enacted with some regularity because of the initiative process. The longer the constitution becomes, the more difficult it is to understand. By cutting old and obsolete provisions out, we can make the (relevant) remainder easier for people to read.
I have reviewed all of the proposed alterations carefully and, in my opinion, none of them will serve to expand the power of state or local government, or to curtail liberty. So I say Vote Yes!
(The only argument I heard against this proposal said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!")
This decision was unanimous. All the board members said NO.
This measure would not only allow the State Lottery Commission to enter into multi-state compacts (thus clearing the way for Colorado to participate in the "Powerball" game); it would also exempt all revenues raised by such a multi-state game from the TABOR revenue limits, and it would create a special fund with such revenues, to be used for the repair and maintenance of public school buildings.
I have several reasons for opposing this measure. In the first place, it would allow government to expand. Since I think government is too large already, I cannot support any further expansion. In the second place, it would weaken TABOR by creating a partial exemption from it. Since TABOR is an important restriction on the size of government, I will oppose every attempt to weaken it.
Third, the proposed school improvement fund would transfer more power from decentralized school districts to the central state government. Since I favor a network of small, almost independent governments over one grand centralized behemoth, I will generally vote against measures tending to concentrate fiscal power in a few hands.
Finally, I am opposed to coercive monopolies. I don't object to the idea that the government should conduct a lottery. But I do object to the law that prevents other lottery operators from sponsoring their own games. In my opinion, a game with a larger jackpot (eg, Powerball) is likely to prove more popular than the current Colorado lottery. In the long run, that will probably make it more difficult to open the field of gambling to true free market competition.
This decision was unanimous. All the board members said NO.
This measure would raise the TABOR revenue limit by $50 million immediately. The money would be placed in a segre- gated fund which would be used to fund special grants to school districts with innovative math and science programs. A new "Grants Commission" would be appointed by the governor and by the state legislature, and charged with the duty of evaluating proposals and doling out the money.
I oppose this measure for the same reasons I oppose the "Powerball" question. This measure would make government larger; it would weaken TABOR; and it would tend to concen- trate fiscal power in a small number of hands. Given the broad powers of the "Grants Commission," this measure would also lead to expanded lobbying by the school districts. It's more payola for the Colorado Education Association (CEA), and I'll vote against it.