2024 Ballots - Summary of Voting Recommendations

A REVIEW OF VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON COLORADO’S 2024 BALLOT ISSUES

Please refer to our Spotlight articles for discussions on the Colorado Constitutional Amendments and all Propositions. 

This article presents an overview of the voting recommendations by the Colorado Democratic Party.   For the “No Position Taken” issues, we include a summary of the results of a “Yes” or “No” vote.

Recommended Vote Yes/For:

Amendment G: Modify Property Tax Exemption For Veterans with Disabilities (55% vote)

Amendment H: Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality (55% vote)

Amendment I: Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder (55% vote)

Amendment J: Repealing the Definition of Marriage in the Constitution (50% vote)

Amendment K: Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines (55% vote)

Amendment 79: Constitutional Right to Abortion (55% vote)

Proposition JJ: Retain Additional sports Betting Tax Revenue (50% vote)

Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (50% vote)

Recommended Vote No/Against:

Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice (55% vote)

Proposition 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence (50% vote)

Proposition 131: Establishing All-Candidate Primary and RCV General Elections (50% vote)

See also Senator Bennet’s letter supporting a NO vote on Prop 131 that is printed in full below in this article.

.

“No Position Taken” by CDP:   (Reasons explained below - See also Spotlight on Propositions)

Proposition 127: Prohibit Trophy Hunting of Mountain Lions, Lynx, and Bobcats (50% vote)

A Yes/For Vote: Prohibits the inhumane hunting and killing of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado solely for the purpose of trophies or the fur trade, and institutes penalties for violations. This prohibits the practice of using packs of dogs to pursue and tree mountain lions for the kill. It also prohibits the luring of bobcats into baited traps to be killed. Also this Proposition recognizes limited exceptions to the prohibition to remove such animals as listed above.  (Note: Lynx already are a protected species.)

A No/Against Vote: Continues the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats. And continues to give responsibility to the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission for managing Colorado’s wildlife species, and to regulate hunting and trapping levels to meet their management goals.

The Democratic Party has taken “No Position” on this Proposition 127, based on the position that wildlife management is best conducted by experts in the field regulating government agencies, and wildlife advocates.  

For your personal vote -- you may want to consider the inhumane practices used for trophy and fur trade hunting.

Proposition 129: Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates (50% vote)

A Yes/For Vote: Would establish the new position of Veterinary Professional Association, which would need definition by the State Board of Veterinary Medicine. Per the Proposition, such position would be required to work under the supervision of a licensed Veterinarian.

A No/Against Vote: Continues to recognize the current positions of licensed Veterinarian, Veterinary Technician, and Veterinary Technical Specialist to provide veterinary care in the State of Colorado as regulated by the State Board of Veterinary Medicine, with such “technicians” supervised currently by licensed Veterinarians.

The Democratic Party has taken a “No Position” on this Proposition 129, recognizing that such a decision is best made by experts in the profession and the regulating agencies, rather than at the ballot box.

Proposition 130: Funding for Law Enforcement (50% vote)

A Yes/For Vote: Diverts $350 M away from the State’s General Fund. Thus, those monies would not be available to support essential services needed by Colorado residents for such needs as education, mental health services, and other community services.

A No/Against Vote: Continues current funding through the State budgeting process that supports many public services, including law enforcement. A “no” vote recognizes that an unfunded mandate at such a level is not viable for the State and not fiscally responsible.

The Democratic Party has taken a “No Position” on this Proposition 130 for the reason that it is an unfunded mandate unfortunately intended to create biased messaging or negative ads. Law enforcement agencies deserve sustainably funded plans rather than misleading politically motivated ballot measures.

For your personal vote -- you may want to consider the fact that this is completely unfunded and thus would remove monies away from essential needs for Colorado.  With such a large price tag, a specific and reliable funding stream should be defined.

Proposition 131: Establishing All-Candidate Primary and RCV General Elections (50% vote) 

The Colorado Democratic Party strongly recommends a No/Against vote on Proposition 131.  A summary of our Newsletter’s comments about this Proposition are printed below.  

But one of the best presentations of “why vote no” on Proposition 131 is Senator Michael Bennet’s recent letter -- which is printed below our comments. It best describes the attraction of RCV -- but also explains why Proposition 131 is NOT the appropriate use of RCV. 

Proposition 131 also is NOT endorsed by “Ranked Choice Voting for Colorado”, which is an organization that promotes use of RCV in Colorado.  That organization is staying neutral on this Proposition because even their position cannot support using RCV in the Colorado primary system. See RCVforcolorado.org. 

Per our Newsletter position:

A Yes/For Vote:  Changes Colorado’s current reliable and auditable voting system for primaries and general elections for a unnecessarily complex system of RCV/IRV. 

A No/Against Vote:  Recognizes that there are many problems with Proposition 131’s changes to Colorado’s voting system, including: 

(1) Voter frustration and possible non-participation due to the complexity of 131. 

(2) Concern by election officials that the unnecessary complexity will create additional mistrust at a time when the system needs all the public faith it can get. 

(3) Very large additional costs incurred for our State and Counties to administer and count votes under 131 ($6 M for State and $5 M and $4 M for Counties) 

(4) Lack of choice on the general ballot -- the final ballot may have no candidates for a major political party and may include no minority party candidates 

(5) Manipulation and Lack of Transparency -- it is not feasible to audit the multiple iterations of vote counting that could lead to manipulation of votes and counting 

(6) More “dark money” coming into our elections** that may prevent candidates without large amounts of money from surviving to the general ballot. (See footnote about at least $9 M invested in Proposition 131.)

**Footnote: The emphasis on the attraction of “dark money” to “Jungle” primaries seems likely when looking at Proposition 131 backers who have raised over $9 M funding by the end of September. 

Such backers have been identified as part of a national network of wealthy people who have bankrolled similar ballot initiatives in other states. Some of the names connected with Proposition 131 are Kent Thiry, a Colorado multimillionaire and former DaVita CEO, Walmart heir Ben Walton, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, and Kathryn Murdoch (with Murdoch family connections). Why is so much money targeted at changing our voting system? 

Senator Bennet's October 13Letter regarding his Voting NO on Proposition 131: 

Many of you have reached out to me with questions about Initiative 131. 

This ballot issue would fundamentally transform Colorado’s best-in-the-nation system of elections.  In my view, we are being asked to throw out our excellent system without any persuasive reason to believe the new one will actually be better and with real risk that dark money will play an even more destructive role in our democracy. 

Colorado has spent decades building our exceptional voting system on principles of security, accessibility, and transparency. Initiative 131 adds significant complexity and uncertainty to our elections, which is why many Colorado county clerks and election administrators oppose it.  These officials have borne the brunt of election turmoil and security threats in recent years.  The last thing they need is to absorb a radical overhaul of our elections without their having been adequately consulted. 

Whether you consider yourself a Republican, Democratic, or Unaffiliated voter, BEFORE YOU VOTE, please ask your friends, family, or co-workers whether they can describe to you how the new system will work. 

It’s really complicated, but let me make my best attempt:  Initiative 131 would replace Colorado’s system with an election that would feature all candidates in a single race – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.  The top four finishers of that race would then compete in a second election, where voters would rank the four candidates in preference order.  The ultimate winner would be selected according to a weighted tabulation known as “ranked choice voting.” 

Backers of Initiative 131 claim their proposed system will reduce partisanship, increase competitiveness, and deliver more choices to voters.  I have said that ranked-choice voting in some form, and in some elections, could have a beneficial effect.  But, ranked-choice voting is new and comes in many forms.  I am unconvinced that the largely untested, extreme version we have been asked to consider will work in Colorado – or anywhere else.  

Much of the political discussion about how it will function is based on theory and guesses, not the experience of actual voters.  At a minimum, Coloradans deserve to know how this system will actually work before we choose to adopt it. Colorado, with its excellent existing system and strong voter turnout, should not be the guinea pig for interests pursuing their own experiments. 

The proponents of Initiative 131 should practice on a different state with a broken election system, not Colorado.  Then, we could at least learn from their experience before being asked to transform our own elections.  

The only states with systems remotely similar to the one proposed on our ballot are Maine and Alaska, which are not comparable to Colorado. Alaska, after all, is only the size of Denver.  Maine is not much bigger.  And, in any case, it is much too early to tell what lessons, if any, we should draw from their experiences with the new systems. 

Much more important, Initiative 131 risks handing even more power to wealthy donors at the expense of Colorado voters.  Since Citizens United, our nation’s elections have been flooded with almost $3 billion in dark money.  Colorado is no exception.  This deluge of money mocks the principle of one person, one vote and threatens to shred our exercise in self-government.

Initiative 131 would make the situation even worse.  Campaign infrastructure – including get-out-the-vote operations and volunteer recruitment, among other activities provided by Colorado’s political parties as well as other grassroots organizations – would be eviscerated in favor of dark money. 

Dismantling this grassroots infrastructure in an environment swamped by a completely unregulated and unaccountable system of campaign finance will ultimately cause Coloradans to lose control of our own elections.  Special interests, wealthy donors, and super PACs will be enabled (even more than they already are) to run candidates of their choice – without the vetting that our current system provides.  

Ironically, the campaign underlying Initiative 131 itself illustrates the dangers of our out-of-control campaign finance system.  Coloradans have had no opportunity to debate meaningfully this transformation of our elections or the chance to think through the unintended consequences of these far-reaching changes.

Instead, we have been battered by a one-sided barrage of millions of dollars of TV advertisements to persuade us to abandon our current, world-class election system for an untested experiment.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, we should be deeply concerned that once our elections are changed, they might be changed forever. 

For all these reasons, I will be voting against Initiative 131. . . . Senator Michael Bennet

[Some emphasis added]