Voting Matters : 2022

UPSHOT

STATE QUESTIONS

Legislature initiated – Constitutional amendment

D : No

E : No

F : Yes

Legislature initiated – Statute

FF : Yes

GG : No

Voter initiated

121 : No

122 : No

123 : Yes

124 : No

125 : Yes or No

126 : No

CITY QUESTIONS

Legislature initiated

2I : No

2J : Yes

2K : Yes

2L : Yes

Voter initiated

305 : Yes

306 : No

307 : Yes

CANDIDATES

I don’t support “slate” voting. I once voted for Mike Coffman for Colorado State Treasurer (which he won). Slate voting excuses people from thinking, and responsible adults are required to think at least a little. However, this election, people who believe in the wonder of what our melting-pot democracy purports to promise, cannot vote for republicans, not even a so-called “reasonable” republican. The only reasonable republicans are ones who have been in office for years and managed to retain both their reasonableness and their jobs, such as Lisa Murkowski, and I think there are only five of those left. Any new reasonable republicans will not have the cache to resist the crazy train, so will be ineffectual at best or jump on that train at worst.

There are almost 200 republican 2020-election deniers on the ballot this election (out of 496 republican candidates running for house, senate and governor). Most -- ~70% -- are projected to be elected, according to FiveThirtyEight.com. Even several reasonable republicans will not make a dent in all that crazy. And 2020-election denial is just one benchmark of crazy -- rescinding women’s rights over their own uteruses is another, as is: advocating for killing your opponent (FL’s Luna and MO’s Greitens); refusing to schedule a hearing for a presidential appointment (KY’s McConnell); opining that church is supposed to direct government (CO’s Bobert); asserting senators can be chosen by appointment rather than public election (UT’s Lee, who also asserted that alternate electors chosen by legislatures can be appointed contrary to the public vote, a case being heard by the Supreme Court); or claiming the January 6th coup attempt was a “normal tourist visit” (GA’s Clyde).

And don’t think, as so many people said after the 2016 election, “We shall survive this.” Over a million Americans died of Covid-19 who might not have had we had effective leadership. (This is supported by data: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/27/life-expectancy-us-conservative-liberal-states.) Who you vote for to govern matters. And it’s a binary decision: there is no third party and no widespread ranked-choice voting. So this election your choice is either the crazy train, or democrats.

JUDGES

Here are two online pieces about judging judges: https://www.cpr.org/2022/10/17/vg-2022-general-election-judicial-districts-how-to-vote-for-judges/; and from 2020, https://denverite.com/2020/10/08/denvers-2020-ballot-how-to-pick-all-those-judges/ (scroll down to “Voters should put their trust in the commission.”) Judicial Performance Evaluations start on page 67 of the Colorado Blue Book. All the judges got “Meets Performance Standards,” but it’s helpful to look at the second paragraph of each judge and the percentages that each judge gets from attorneys and other judges surveyed. The ones who may not be so good kinda stick out. You can also google their names along with your favorite litmus test; mine is Federalist Society.

?

COLORADO STATE QUESTIONS

Legislature initiated questions

o???D : No

A “one-time” Constitutional amendment makes no sense. A new judicial district was created in 2020 that’s supposed to be fully functioning by January 2025. If the existing process for selecting judges cannot fill the new district with judges within a five-year window, then there’s something wrong with the process requiring a bigger fix than a one-time amendment. Seems like a lot of work so a few people won’t have to re-apply for different jobs.

?

o???E : No

I didn’t vote for the original “Homestead Exemption” because it was an untargeted tax break based on faulty reasoning, so I don’t support expanding it. In 2021, $162 million wasn’t collected for a tax exemption that is not means based. This new tax break is also not means based, only benefits homeowners, and provides no relief for families of dead veterans who don’t own homes. If we really want to help struggling families – not just homeowning families who lost a spouse in the US’s endless wars – then support public spending on education, healthcare and housing.

?

o???F : Yes

We voted in 2020 on decreasing the years from 5 to 3 to conduct gaming by nonprofits but it didn’t pass by enough -- 52.4% voted yes, but a Constitutional amendment requires 55%. Here’s what I wrote in 2020: “seems a relatively narrow impact as it’s applicable only to nonprofits; creates the potential for businesses to staff bingo/raffle gaming, which might create a future lobbying effort to expand bingo/raffle gambling that I would vote against.” Still think that way, although maybe charitable bingo and raffles shouldn’t even be in the Constitution – perhaps that’s next election’s ballot question.

?

o???FF : Yes

It seems like a well-crafted piece of legislation, requiring every-two-year reporting and going after federal dollars to replace state dollars. It reduces tax breaks for high incomes. I’m not totally certain meals for kids is the best expenditure for this ~$100 million, but food for kids benefits all kids across the state. There is data that shows better-fed children do better in school, and I want lots of smart, young taxpayers so I can take the Homestead Exemption I don’t support nine years from now.

?

o???GG : No

Part of voter-initiated legislation is getting questions onto the ballot in the first place, which is decided by registered voters signing petitions in support of the question being on the ballot. I’m very careful about what petitions I sign and would definitely look at this information. But I don’t want this on the ballot itself. It is required in the blue book, and if you haven’t done any homework by the time you’re filling out your ballot, maybe you shouldn’t vote on those questions you don’t understand. No doubt, tho, that if voter-initiated ballot measures are held to this standard then legislature-initiated ballot measures should also include this information.

Voter initiated questions

o???121 : No

This is the perennial anti-tax measure, one of which we just passed in 2020 reducing the rate from 4.63% to 4.55%. This one would reduce that 4.55% to 4.4%, reducing public revenue by a little less than a half-billion dollars in the first year. This substantially benefits incomes of $1 million or more while three-quarters of us receive a tax cut of less than one month’s cell phone bill, $63 a year. I’d rather have the half-billion dollars in state services.

o???122 : No

I want to vote Yes on this because we need lots of mental health treatment options. I want to believe these are mainly for medicinal purposes, but I don’t see even a tiny group of mental health care professionals supporting this. In fact, the two orgs purportedly floating this proposition, Natural Medicine Colorado and New Approach, have opaque online presences so who knows who is really behind this. (Over a decade later, I can still recall Mason Tvert as the advocate for decriminalizing pot in Denver.) Speaking of which, Denver already paved the way in legalizing marijuana, so maybe some other place could take the lead on legalizing psychedelics.

?

o???123 : Yes

In Denver over the past two elections (2020 and 2021), we voted for tens of millions to be dedicated to improving services to the unhoused. This statewide revenue source is good because while most of the unhoused people are concentrated in cities, everybody in the state should be contributing towards the solution since unhoused people come from all over. But this will probably be the last time for several years that I vote in favor of more funding towards homelessness services until we see if what we’ve recently passed is helping. (Because what I see on the sidewalks makes me think that perhaps not enough progress is being made, and I don’t think it’s for a lack of money.)

?

o???124 : No

This would most likely increase the number of liquor stores in metropolitan areas, which are already burdened by Colorado’s liquor licensing laws. I don’t know anybody who has trouble getting booze, even with only three “Liquor Home Depots” permitted in the state. Additionally, I’m supportive of measure 125, which will increase liquor supply quite a bit; 125 seems more reasonable to me, and maybe we can revisit allowing for more “Liquors R Us” later.

?

o???125 : Yes or No

It’s been several years since grocery and convenience stores have been able to sell beer, and there don’t seem to have been noticeably more sociological or community costs. Expanding to include the sale of wine seems like an acceptable next step. However, it won't be tragic if it doesn't pass. I'm spoiled by lots of very good wine choices when I go to the grocery store in California; it probably will just be mainstream brands and only a few options in Colorado grocery stores, so protecting locally-owned wine shops could be just as important as being able to buy Gallo at King Soopers.

?

o???126 : No

I have no problem with restaurants selling to-go drinks -- I don’t want to allow third-party services to deliver them. Third-party delivery charges high costs that aren’t passed on to the producers, i.e., the restaurants, and including liquor delivery will only exacerbate that. As far as gig-economy workers upholding liquor laws, yeah, no, that’s not going to happen. Of note, “Wine in Grocery Stores” (seriously) floated 126 and 125, supported by DoorDash and Instacart; “Keeping Colorado Local,” an issue committee run by independent liquor stores, is opposed to 124, 125 and 126.

DENVER CITY BALLOT QUESTIONS

Legislature initiated questions

o???2I : No

I started out as Yes, but as I read and re-read and re-read, the ballot question language remained unclear to me. The first graf of the question says, “…by increasing the City’s mill levy rate 1.5 mills…”; but the last graf starts, “And shall the City be authorized to increase such mill levy beginning in tax collection year 2023 and annually thereafter….” It appears to *initially* be a roughly $12 increase per $100k house valuation per year and I definitely support libraries; but I am not voting to support a mill levy increase “without limit,” which is how the ballot book describes it. Additionally, this looks like it is a new, dedicated funding stream directly to libraries, which would move its funding out of the General Fund. That has bigger implications than simply raising funding for libraries. I’m voting No and library supporters can write a better ballot question next year.

?

o???2J : Yes

This is voting to support the retention and continuation of the Climate Action sales and use tax, which we voted for (and I supported) in 2020.

?

o???2K : Yes

This is voting to support the retention and continuation of the Homeless sales and use tax, which we voted for (and I supported) in 2020.

?

o???2L : Yes

Funny, one of the changes being floated by this ballot question is that voter-initiated ballot questions be one subject, while this measure is comprised of several. That usually kills a City question for me, but I support single-issue ballot questions – questions referred by City Council should be required to follow that too – and the other components – City review of voter-initiated titles, candidates having more time to gather signatures and increasing time to fill a city council vacancy – seem relatively innocuous.

Voter initiated questions

o???305 : Yes

It is ridiculously easy to evict renters in Colorado – Denver averages ~9k annually. As a property owner with a rental, I’d rather pay $75 a year for eviction support than see legislation making it harder to evict people. A deadbeat renter you can’t get rid of can be horrible to deal with. If it continually raises more money than is used (an argument against the measure), property owners can ask the annual amount to be adjusted down. As an aside, you’d think such a progressive measure wouldn’t use antiquated, misogynistic language like “landlord.”

?

o???306 : No

I definitely agree with the intent to expand waste reduction services to all trash generators. But I think this ballot question takes too big a bite of a multitude of pies at once. And then it’ll all fail. I know from personal experience that multi-family buildings’ waste management is a bad, bad neighbor and the City provides little oversight. The ballot question should be re-written for next year so that it picks one, preferably multi-family buildings, and gives the City time to develop its role in oversight. Also, the City is expanding composting to all residential units starting in 2023, and I want that to succeed.

?

o???307 : Yes

The approach of fobbing responsibility onto adjacent property owners has saved a lot of public money, but it’s stupid that individual property owners are responsible for public infrastructure; this is what government is for! The City opposes it, but after decades of knowing it’s a problem has yet to even formulate any proposal. Opposition also says that the annual fee – averaging ~$200 per property – towards the program is high, but when I got a notice issued by the City’s sidewalk enforcement campaign several years ago, a sandstone paver sticking up less than a .25” was going to cost over $800 to fix, IF I could have found a contractor to do it. Most of my neighbors – almost the entire block received notices – had their historical sandstone removed and concrete poured … by a City contractor. Piecemeal responsibility of public infrastructure is stupid. This may not be the best approach, but let’s pass this and force the City to deal with sidewalks.