Voter Guide Explanation

2024 Nov 5 Colorado ballot

State Ballot section for Amendments and Propositions.

PLUS Apapahoe County and Aurora City Ballot Proposals

 

The following is a summary and explanation of the Colorado Blue Book, the voter guide for the 2024 State Ballot for Amendments and Propositions.  These summaries are done in good faith to be truthful, accurate and honest from a layman, general voter perspective.  I have no legal standing and I am not a legal consultant.  The goal is that you find these explanations useful in guiding your decision making.  When in doubt feel free to consult the actual text in the Blue Book.

 

 

       

  

 

  

Amendment K, Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines

A Yes vote will make deadlines 1 week earlier for citizen signature referendum petitions and for judges to file to seek another term and for ballots to be published in newspapers 30 days before the election.

 

A No vote will keep things the way they currently are, which is 90 days in advance for referendums and judges, and newspapers are 15 days in advance.

 

 

 

Amendment 79, Constitutional Right to Abortion (this summary / title is misleading, this amendment is NOT about allowing or not allowing Abortion). 

 

This amendment is about allowing / not allowing the state to use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.  People who want abortions should pay for their own abortions, why are the taxpayers being changed for this?  If the taxpayers are being charged, then they should have a say in the matter; all abortions should be voted on by the taxpayers.

 

This is like a person who is removing / covering up a tattoo, it’s their choice, they should pay for it; why are we the taxpayers being charged for it?

 

A Yes vote will allow state and local governments to use taxpayer money to fund abortion services.

 

A No vote will continue to ban state and local governments from using taxpayer money to fund abortion services.

 

Background:

Currently abortion is legal in Colorado without any restrictions.

In 1973 the US Supreme Court allowed the right to abortion, but let the states decide which pregnancy term (1^st 3 months, 2^nd 3 months, last 3 months) to allow the abortion.  In 1984 Colorado voters banned using government (taxpayer) money to pay for abortions.  In 2022 the Colorado legislature added reproductive health care to Colorado statutes.

 

Also in 2022, the US Supreme Court reversed its 1973 decision and removed the right to abortion (this DOESN’T mean it is illegal; it just means it is not authorized by the US govt); this lets the states decide their own choice.

 

This Amendment has nothing to do with allowing / not allowing abortions; they are already allowed in Colorado (and no longer banned federally).   This bill is about allowing / not allowing using taxpayer money to pay for abortions.  

 

Argument for a No vote: A No vote ensures that State taxpayer money will not be used to perform abortions that users should be paying for. This was already voted on in 1984 and the voters banned using government (taxpayer) money to pay for abortions.  This law has been in place since 1984, but now it is coming up for a vote.

 

Side Note, not pertaining to this amendment but concerning why the Federal Government reversed its 1973 decision in 2022.  For example, let’s say there is a law that says that you can cut down trees in a certain forest.  If you cut down a tree there, then you can blame the government for letting you do it.  If this law was removed, then there is no law allowing you to do it (likewise there is no law saying you can’t do it).  This way, the federal government has removed itself from being blamed for the trees being cut down; the blame has shifted to the person who cut down the tree (although it is legal, or not illegal, in this example).  Of course, the key to the analogy is unborn children, not trees.

 

 

 

Amendment 80, Constitutional Right to School Choice

 

A yes vote for this amendment will modify the Colorado constitution to create the right to school choice for K-12 and create the right for parents to direct the education of their children, and define school choice to include public schools, charter schools, private schools and home schools. (But see below for actual details; this is a very misleading summary.)

 

A No vote maintains the system as is.  Kids in public schools can transfer to another public school but if they want to go to a private school they will pay the additional tuition costs.

 

Background:  

Currently students may attend any public school for free (not really free, it is paid for by property taxes, also called public funding) even if they do not live in that school district. This includes charter schools and on-line schools. Parents may choose private schools or home schools. 

 

Public schools are funded by property taxes (public funding), private schools and home schools do not receive public funding and instead have their own tuition costs paid for by parents (who also have to pay their mandatory property taxes for the public schools).

 

Argument for a No vote:

What happens if Amendment 80 passes? If a kid goes to a private school, the parents do not have to pay the additional tuition for the private school.  Instead, money supposedly “allotted” for that student in the public school is taken away from the public school and given to the private school.  This is in direct violation of public money goes to public schools, not to private schools. 

 

Parents are responsible for private school costs.  Property tax is for public schools, Not for private schools.  Your property tax is not to be diverted off to private schools.  The reason why they want to make this a Constitutional Amendment is because Amendments are very difficult to change or alter or adjust.  Amendments are the best place to sneak in BAD Policies when voters are not paying attention and are wowed by a misleading summary for a biased or naïve or malicious citizen initiative.

 

If Amendment 80 passes, YOUR PROTERTY TAXES will INCREASE each time a student leaves the public school system, takes your property tax money with them and gives it to a private school to pay THEIR tuition.  YOU will be paying for Public schools AND for private school tuition.  This is fraudulent misuse of public funds.

 

 

 

Proposition JJ, Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue

 

A yes vote will allow the state to keep sports betting tax revenue above the amount previously approved by voters and spend this money for other purposes rather than refunding it. This is anti TABOR and is fraud.

 

A No vote will force the state to refund any taxes that were over collected (over charged) in excess of the agreed upon budget.  This is a TABOR protection for the taxpayers.

 

Background:

Legal Sports betting and casinos in Colorado are taxed up to an approved cap of $29 million.  This is the agreed upon budget.  Any taxes collected in excess of the cap are in violation of the budget and are refunded. 

 

Prop JJ tries to keep the excess money (essentially saying that there is no penalty for overcharging legal sports betting and casinos), not refund it to the taxpayers, keep it and think of ways to spend it on things that are in violation of the budget.

 

Argument against Prop JJ (reason to vote No):

Prop JJ is in direct violation of TABOR protections for the taxpayers.  If Prop JJ passes, the state is free to blow its agreed upon budget to overcharge taxes, not refund the surplus, and to spend it on any non-approved scheme. 

 

We have budgets and we pay taxes to ensure those budgets are met, any excess that is overcharged will be refunded to the taxpayers (this is TABOR); Prop JJ tries to bypass TABOR by promising to spend the surplus on other important, underfunded things.  There may be other important underfunded things, but these have their own budgets, bypassing these budgets is a scheme and is fraud.

 

 

 

Proposition KK, Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

 

A Yes vote will create a New tax of 6.5 percent on the sales from firearms sellers, firearms parts and ammunition, AND this tax collected is EXEMPT from the states revenue LIMIT, AND the excess collected will be used in other areas as deemed necessary (victim support, mental health for veterans and youth, and school safety). This is anti -TABOR and is fraud.

 

A No vote, will not impose the New Tax on firearms sellers.

 

Background

The federal government already taxes handguns at 10% and other firearms and ammunition at 11%.  Cities already tax these products at the sales tax rate approximately 8% and some unincorporated counties about 4%.  This means for every $100 spent, you have to hand over an additional $18 in taxes. 

 

Argument against Prop KK, reason to vote No:

If Prop KK passes, then for every $100 that you spend on firearms or ammunition, you have to pay an additional $24.50.

 

If Prop KK passes, it is expected to collect $39 million per year, which will be spent on a host of programs that already have budgets like: Crime victim services, Veteran’s Mental health services, Youth behavioral health crisis response system, School Security Disbursement Grant Program, and $200,000 to $400,000 for “new administrative costs”. 

 

Furthermore, any excess collected above and beyond the $39 million will not be refunded to the taxpayers, but instead will be spent at the legislature’s discretion on other (frivolous) projects that are already budgeted.  Again, this is AGAINST TABOR protections and is fraud.

 

The usual argument for Prop KK is the typical “guns cause crimes, and other negative outcomes, so these taxes help pay for these problems”; how is me paying an extra $24.50 per $100 going to STOP criminals from committing crimes? 

 

Why do I have to be monetarily punished for CRIMINALS.  Criminals are already punished with fees, court costs, fines; why do I have to pay along with the criminals?   This makes as much sense as charging a new car sales tax to cover if a person with a used car gets drunk and crashes their car.

 

 

 

Proposition 127, Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx and Mountain Lion Hunting

 

A Yes vote will ban all hunting of these animals

 

A No vote will continue the current system where the hunting of these animals is allowed but is regulated (just like the hunting of:  deer, elk, moose, bears, fish, pheasants, wild turkeys, etc. is regulated).

 

Background:

Hunting is allowed in Colorado as it is in many other states.  Colorado allows a certain number of permits to be issued to hunt these animals, this is called regulated hunting.  For conservation and preservation purposes a small number of permits are issued as compared to the entire population of each species.

 

For example, let’s consider mountain lions.  There are approximately 4,000 mountain lions in Colorado. In a typical year 500 mountain lions are allowed to be hunted per year.  The population is considered stable, meaning each year there are enough births to maintain the population of 4000.   Likewise, if the population were to drop below 4,000 then fewer permits would be allowed (perhaps instead of 500, it would be 250, until the population becomes stable again).

 

For preservation and conservation purposes, if hunting was banned, then the population could grow too large; when this happens, then the mountain lions spread out and hunt in populated areas like neighborhoods killing domestic pets or to rural farms killing livestock instead of hunting wild animals.  Another negative outcome of having a population of mountain lions growing out of control is starvation; if there isn’t enough prey for them to hunt, catch and eat, then they starve.

 

Also, Lynx hunting is already banned in Colorado since they are banned federally.  Nationally, they are a protected species, meaning their population is not stable, although in Colorado they are considered stable, but the federal law still protects them in Colorado.

 

Also, Colorado law allows landowners to be reimbursed when big game animals cause damage to their property, like: fences, crops, orchards, nurseries (baby trees), livestock and personal property.

If Prop 127 passes, then all hunting of these animals is banned.  Also, Prop 127 will reclassify Mountain Lions and remove them from the “big Game” category. The purpose of this is to no longer reimburse property owners for damage caused by Mountain Lions.

 

Argument for Prop 127 (for a yes vote): Hunting styles can be seen as harsh, it isn’t just a guy with a gun hunting.  Sometimes dog chases are allowed, as well as bait, lures, and traps.  These can be seen as unfair and inhumane.  By banning hunting of these animals, then they are not being treated inhumanly.

 

Argument against Prop 127 (a No vote): To continue to allow hunting of these animals in a responsible manner with preservation and conservation, by the use of regulations.  If someone has an issue with dog chases, traps, bait or lures, then rather than banning hunting entirely, then just make a new proposition banning the use of: dog chases, traps, bait or lures.

 

 

 

Proposition 128, Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence

 

A Yes vote will increase the amount of prison time a convicted person of certain violent crimes must serve before becoming eligible for early release (discretionary parole) or earned time reductions.  Also this makes a new provision that a person convicted a third time or certain violent crimes will be ineligible for discretionary parole or earned time reduction.

 

A No vote keeps things the way they are.

 

Background:

Currently people convicted of certain violent crimes serve 75% of their sentence in prison before becoming eligible for discretionary parole (early release).  Also, they can get further time reductions for “earned time” if they are enrolled and progressing in personal, professional or educational programs. 

 

For example, let’s say a person is convicted of a violent crime and receives a 12 year sentence.  This doesn’t mean they have to spend all 12 years in prison, at the 75% mark, after serving 9 years they can be released on parole.  Parole means if they break any of the rules, they have to go back in for the remainder of the 12 sentence, in this example 3 more years PLUS the time for the new violation.

 

Furthermore, the sentence can be reduced even more for earned time.  Let’s say the person was enrolled in programs for personal, professional or educational classes for 4 years; this is earned time.  In this case, they could get 4 years reduced from their 9 years and be released after 5 years.  If they violate their probation, they would have to go back in for 7 years plus any additional time for the new crime.

 

A Yes vote for Prop 128 will change the 75% rule to 85%.  Also, there is a new provision for a third offense. If a person is convicted of violent crimes a third time, then they are not eligible for the 85% early release and not eligible for the earned time, early release; they have to serve all 12 years with no exceptions (using the above example).

 

A No vote keeps things the way they currently are.

 

 

 

Proposition 129, Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates

 

A Yes vote will create a new state-regulated profession of Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA)

 

A No vote will keep things the way they are.

 

Background:

In the field of Veterinary care, there are Veterinary Technicians (VT) who are licensed to provide dental procedures and advanced nursing care; Veterinary Technician Specialists (VTS) who are licensed to provide VT duties plus emergency medicine and surgery assistance; and Veterinarians. 

 

A Yes vote for Prop 129 will add another position between VTS and Veterinarian, called Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA).  Prop 129 does not define or describe the duties of the VPA, they say it will be determined later, in the meantime it is “To perform tasks that are within the VPA’s education and training”

Argument for a Yes vote: the new position of VPA may make it easier for veterinarians to delegate tasks and take the workload off overworked veterinarians.

 

Argument for a No vote: this new position is vague and unclear; how can the state regulate this position and issue a license to operate?  How will colleges prepare and provide classes for a vague profession?  Seems like this is hasty and poorly thought out; can’t veterinarians describe the help that they need to delegate like administering controlled substances, administering euthanizations, administering anesthesia, administering pain killers, antibiotics, etc.?

 

 

 

Proposition 130, Funding for Law Enforcement

 

A Yes vote allows the state to raise new taxes to collect an additional (one time) $350 million and to spend it to recruit, train and retain local law enforcement officers AND to provide $1 million to each officer who is killed in the line of duty.  This is anti-TABOR and is taxpayer fraud by career criminal politicians.

 

A No vote will retain current levels of spending for these issues and will keep the current death benefit in place.

 

Background:

Currently Colorado law enforcement agencies are funded by county, municipal, state and federal budgets. These fund the Colorado State Patrol, Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS).  CDPS also funds local law enforcement.  Local law enforcement already gets funds for officer recruitment and retention through these sources.

 

Currently, families of most local officers who have died in the line of duty receive survivor benefits through the officer’s pension.  The Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) pays beneficiaries 70% of the officer’s salary when they are killed in the line of duty.  State officers are covered by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA).

 

A Yes vote for Prop 130 will raise taxes to raise an additional (one time) $350 million. The $350 million is a one -time tax, it will be held over time and administered out yearly until it runs out.

 

Money will be given to CDPS so that CDPS can distribute it to local law enforcement agencies for recruitment and retention of officers and for the death benefit.  They will increase annual pay for officers, provide one-time bonuses for hiring, recruiting and retention, train officers in areas of use of force, restraints, physical fitness, and the one-time death benefit of $1 million (plus whatever their pension and coverages add) for each officer killed while on duty.  The money will be held until it runs out.

 

Argument against Prop 130 (reason to vote No).  $350 million is an incredible amount of money to raise taxes to achieve.  Police are already funded by various sources listed above.  There is no evidence that they are underfunded, can not meet their budget, or that usual money sources have been cut. This seems excessively unnecessary.  The police agencies already have budgets, adding undocumented money invalidates these budgets, therefore the $350 million should be refunded to the taxpayers.  Prop 130 is anti-TABOR and is fraud.

 

 

 

Proposition 131, Establishing All-Candidate Primary and Ranked Choice Voting General Elections

 

A Yes vote creates a new system, instead of the two-party system.  For certain state and federal positions where candidates run for office, a new system will be created for primary elections where all candidates can run for office.

 

A No vote retains the current two-party majority system for primary elections.

 

Background: Currently primary elections are where the two major parties nominate the candidate who they endorse to represent their party.  These two candidates are put on the ballot for the general election for the two major parties. Unaffiliated candidates may also be added to the ballot if they attain a certain number of signatures from voters. The voters vote in the general election and choose among the names/parties on the ballot.  The one with the most votes wins.

 

If Prop 131 passes, then voters vote for four candidates, and they have to be ranked 1^st choice to 4^th choice. There will be rounds of elimination where the top four candidates advance to the next round where one candidate is eliminated, then the next round where one more is eliminated until only two candidates are left.  The one with the most votes wins.  This voting and ranking occurs twice, once for the Primary elections and again for the General election.

 

If Prop 131 passes, then it applies to the following state and federal offices: US Senator, US Representative, Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Attorney General, State Board of Education, Regent of the University of Colorado, State Senator and State Representative.

 

If Prop 131 passes, then the offices that are excluded from the new vote and rank system are the office of the President, district attorneys, and local government offices; voting for these offices will occur the traditional way.

 

Argument for Prop 131, a Yes vote. The only advantage of the new system is that it takes into consideration your 2^nd choice and 3^rd choice and 4^th choice, whereas the current system only gives you a voice for your 1^st choice.

 

Argument against Prop 131, a No vote.  The cost to implement the new system of ranking and voting twice will be $6 million per year for State spending and an additional $9 million per voting year.  With the new system or the old system either way candidates get to run and unaffiliated candidates get to run, so the new system doesn’t improve anything, it is just done differently.

 

 

 

County and City Ballot Issues

 

Arapahoe County, Ballot Issue 1A

Shall Arapahoe County be authorized to collect, retain and spend revenue that exceeds Article X, Section 20 limitations, and continuing each year thereafter so that the funds can be spent on roads, bridges, crime prevention, homeless prevention, etc ?

 

Furthermore, the collecting, retaining and spending will be up to the maximum allowed tax rate of 15.821 MILLS (THIS IS PROPERTY TAX)

 

You can see from the title: “Without increasing the tax rate and without adopting any new tax…” that the title is a complete lie, a MILL LEVY is A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE.  These career criminal political pundits want to raise your taxes to line their pockets and to hide the money into items that already have budgets assigned to them, like: funding roads, bridges, crime prevention, homeless prevention, etc.  This is anti-TABOR and is taxpayer fraud.

 

They expect to over-charge (over collect) $74 million per year, rather than refund this to the taxpayers (TABOR) they plan to spend it to fund things that are already funded like roads, congestion, traffic mitigation, pedestrian and bike safety, etc. 

 

These bureaucrats also falsely claim a $316 million backlog on deferred road maintenance and transportation projects. These things are also funded, but they misspent, mismanaged, misappropriated and gave away the money for these things and want to blame us and to charge us AGAIN for the lost money.

 

 

 

City of Aurora, Ballot Issue 3A

To repeal the restricted breed ban, to allow citizens to own American Pit Bull Terrier,  American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier dogs within city limits subject to City Codes to apply to keeping aggressive dogs.

 

Yes Allow people to own these breeds, or No Do Not Allow

 

On the surface you should allow responsible people the opportunity to be responsible, but in reality, the criminal, negligent, losers will get and mistreat these breeds for nefarious money making schemes.

You decide, are you an optimist or a pessimist? Do you know anyone who works at an animal shelter?

 

 

 

Arapahoe County, Ballot Issue 5A

Shall Joint School District no 28J (Aurora Public Schools) TAXES be increased for ADDITIONAL REVENUES up to $30 Million per year and any year thereafter may be raised by a MILL LEVY (PROPERT TAX) of up to 6 MILLS and to use this money for all kinds of great sounding things (teachers, mental health and Suicide prevention, training for technical careers, skilled trades, health care, computer science, capital construction, new instructional technology, technology upgrades, maintenance, etc).  that are already budgeted and paid for out of current budgets?

 

Now look at the “For” comments and count the times it says, “Without a Tax Increase”.  Four times!   Line 1, line 23, line 34 and line 35.  This idiot who wrote the “For” argument, didn’t even read the Ballot OR they are hoping YOU WILL NOT!  

 

Even the title of the Ballot on the top of page 12, line 2, says “Notice of Election to Increase Taxes and Debt on a Referred Measure”.  These career bureaucrats think you are too stupid to read!

 

Vote Yes to pass 5A to raise your taxes by at least an ADDITIONAL $30 million per YEAR for things that are already budgeted and paid for; show them You really are stupid.

 

Vote NO to reject 5A career criminal, bureaucrat politicians who use scare tactics to scare you into spending an ADDITIONAL $30 million.  Scare tactics that they use here: Other school districts are doing it, good teachers will leave for higher paying districts, the fallacy that more spending means better schools, and the best: high taxes are good for our property values.

 

 No comments were written against 5A (a No Vote), but you have my comments above.

 

 

 

Arapahoe County, Ballot Issue 5B

Line 1 and Line 2, page 14: “Without imposing and new tax, shall the Joint School District No 28J  (Aurora Public Schools) DEBT be increased $1 BILLION with a repayment cost of $1.75 BILLION for the purposes of …..many great things that are already budgeted”.

 

Furthermore on page 14, “And shall …..the Bonds in 2002, 2008, and 2016 be EXTENDED to be used to pay the DEBT ….and shall the MILL LEVY (SCHOOL TAX) be imposed WITHOUT LIMITATION to pay principal, premium and interest or to create a RESERVE for payment…. And issue General Obligation Bonds or other MULTIPLE fiscal year OBLIGATIONS ….

 

Page 15 Argument for a Yes Vote, let’s count “Without a Tax Increase”, Line 1, line 2 (Zero New Cost), and twice on line 31!  Written by an out of touch, delusional bureaucrat, hoping that YOU are too stupid to read this.

 

Perhaps you got the flyer in the mail or you have seen it on street corners!! “Vote Yes on 5A and 5B, Invest in Aurora Schools Without a Tax Increase.”  That’s the fifth time!!

 

Argument for a No vote: $1.75 BILLION dollars!!!  This isn’t Beverly Hills.  We already pay property taxes, use the money wisely, we need honest politicians, not career criminal bureaucrat politicians overcharging us and misallocating our money.

 

No comments were written against 5A (a No Vote), but you have my comments above.

 

 

 

Arapahoe County, Ballot Issue 7A

Regional Transportation District (RTD) Ballot Issue 7A:

Page 20, “Without imposing any new tax or increasing any tax rate, shall RTD COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND All revenues it receives from all sources to provide many great things (maintaining and growing bus and rail services; repairing and improving, bus and rail infrastructure, etc.)”  All of these things already budgeted for. 

 

Furthermore, continued on page 20, All monies collected are “EXEMPT from ANY REVENUE and spending LIMITATIONS.

 

Vote yes to allow RTD to over-collect $50 million a year in taxes, revenue and funds, spend it and mismanage it on dirty needles, assaults, open drug use, filth and crime.  Light rail is usually empty when you don’t need it or it is overly crowded when you do need it.  This is not a model of mass transit success!!  This is anti-TABOR and is fraud.

 

Vote NO to reject this proposal.  Page 21, Line 19, in 2022, RTD over-collected $50 Million, which it did not refund to the voters but instead spent it because TABOR was waived to pay off the light rail enterprise.  Now that it is paid off, it is time to re-instill TABOR.  It is time to end the TABOR exception and to refund the taxpayers their $50 million per year.