2024 Ballots - Voting on Propositions
PROPOSITIONS ON COLORADO’S NOVEMBER BALLOT
(All Propositions require only a Majority Vote to Pass)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY COLORADO DEMOCRATIC PARTY:
Recommended Vote Yes/For:
Proposition JJ: Retain Additional sports Betting Tax Revenue
Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax
Recommended Vote No/Against:
Proposition 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence
Proposition 131: Establishing All-Candidate Primary and RCV General Elections
“No Position Taken” by CDP: (Reasons explained in discussions below)
Proposition 127: Prohibit Trophy Hunting of Mountain Lions, Lynx, and Bobcats
Proposition 129: Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates
Proposition 130: Funding for Law Enforcement
_________________________________________________________________
PROPOSITION JJ - Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue (Support)
In 2019, Colorado voters approved a Proposition (DD) to legalize sports betting at casinos in Colorado and to levy a 10% tax on those conducting such betting operations. Such 10% is calculated on net sports betting proceeds -- the amount kept by sports betting operators after paying winning bets and federal taxes.
The tax revenue (up to $29 Million) is dedicated to fund state water projects, including water conservation and protection projects.
The betting tax revenues for Colorado budget years 2024-25 and 2025-26 are forecast to exceed the $29 Million cap by $1.2 Million and $2.5 Million, respectively. (See Blue Book, p. 31) Under the current law, excess revenue would be refunded to casinos and betting operators -- not to persons who placed the bets.
Proposition JJ allows the State to apply the excess revenues to Colorado water projects, rather than be refunded to the casinos and betting operators.
A Yes/For Vote: Allows the State to spend excess amounts to supplement much needed Colorado water projects. Such projects are needed to support our current and growing population. Estimates of such additional tax revenues to fund water projects would be $900,000 for 2024-25 and $1.2 M for 2025-26.
A No/Against Vote: Refunds any excess revenue to casinos and sports betting operators (not to persons who made the bets).
The Colorado Democratic Party recommends a Yes/For Vote on Amendment G.
_________________________________________________________________
PROPOSITION KK - Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (Support)
This Proposition proposes a 6.5% excise tax on retail sales of firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition to fund crime victim support services, mental health services for veterans and youth, and school safety programs.
Such tax would be paid by retail firearm dealers and ammunition sellers. How revenues will be applied to various programs is detailed in the Blue Book, page 35.
Some tax exemptions include sellers with annual sales of less than $20,000, retail sales to law enforcement officers and agencies, and active duty military members. Private sales between non-retail sellers are also exempt.
This measure is estimated to generate up to $39 M in its first full year. A very small amount ($200K to $400K year) is anticipated to cover State administrative costs.
In short, estimates of fund allocation is: $30 M to cover programs associated with crime victims, $5 M for veterans’ services, $3 M for at-risk youth programs, and $1 M for gun safety.
A Yes/For Vote: Imposes a State excise tax on retail sales of firearms dedicated to fund crime victim support services, mental health services for veterans and youth, and school safety programs. This funding is a way to help mitigate the trauma and mental health harm caused by gun violence.
A No/Against Vote: Continues the current process of inconsistent availability or funding for services to mitigate the harm caused by gun violence.
The Colorado Democratic Party recommends a Yes/For Vote on Proposition KK.
_________________________________________________________________
PROPOSITION 127 - Prohibit Trophy Hunting of Mountain Lions, Lynx, and Bobcats (No Position)
Currently, Lynx are a protected species and all hunting or trapping of lynx is prohibited under federal and Colorado law, with violations punishable by fines, and other legal remedies. Thus, this Proposition is most applicable to mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado.
Mountain lions and bobcats are not protected species and currently are subject to trapping and hunting in Colorado. For the past four years, and average of 880 bobcats and 500 mountain lions were hunted, trapped, or otherwise “harvested” (killed) per year.
The Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission oversees “management” of wildlife species and issues State hunting licenses.
This Proposition recognizes that some of the methods used for such harvesting/killing of mountain lions and bobcats may not be considered “humane” by some Coloradans. The hunting of mountain lions may involve dog packs to chase down the animals, and the hunting of bobcats may use baits, lures, and live traps.
The purpose of such hunting/harvesting is often for trophies or for the commercial fur trade.
This Proposition prohibits such hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats for trophies or the fur trade, and imposes fines, hunting license revocations, and possible jail time.
However, exceptions are provided for disposing of mountain lions and bobcats when necessary to protect human life, livestock, or personal property, or such animals that pose a threat to agricultural resources. Another exception is if such animal was killed as a result of a motor vehicle accident, or for euthanasia or scientific research.
The cost of this Proposition is estimated at around $400,000 per year -- accounting for lost hunting license fees -- but some revenues may be recovered with illegal hunting fines.
A Yes/For Vote: Prohibits the inhumane hunting and killing of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado for the purpose of trophies or the fur trade, and institutes penalties for violations. Also this Proposition recognizes limited exceptions to the prohibition to remove such animals as listed above.
A No/Against Vote: Continues the inhumane 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.
However, please consider the inhumane treatment in your personal vote.
_________________________________________________________________
PROPOSITION 128 - Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence (Oppose)
Currently in Colorado, a person convicted of certain crimes of violence must serve at least 75% of their sentence in prison (minus any “earned time”) before being eligible for discretionary parole.
This Proposition increases that minimum to 85% of their sentence before eligible for discretionary parole. And a person who commits a third or subsequent crime of violence is not eligible for discretionary parole.
When a person is eligible for discretionary parole, he/she must appear before the State Board of Parole to determine whether the remainder of the sentence must be served in prison, or if the remaining sentence can be under community supervision.
Conditions of community supervision are set by the Parole Board and may include requirements of employment, housing, or substance abuse treatment. Eligibility for a discretionary parole hearing does not automatically mean that such parole will be granted.
The certain crimes of violence under this proposition include 2nd degree murder, sexual assault, other serious assault, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson, and burglary. These crimes of violence already tend to have longer sentences.
Increasing the length of mandatory time served is meant to keep offenders out of the community for a longer time. However, it also can take away the incentive for offenders to comply with prison rules or take advantage of rehabilitation opportunities.
Requiring more time in prison also is very costly -- as the estimate of incarceration is close to $57,000 per year per inmate. As noted in the Blue Book (page 45) these additional costs are estimated in 20 years to increase by $12 M to $28 M per year.
A Yes/For Vote: Imposes a longer minimum time served to 85% of a person’s sentence before eligibility for discretionary parole. Supporters of this Proposition assert that this is meant to keep the offenders away from the community for longer periods of time.
A No/Against Vote: Continues with the current minimum of 75% of a person’s sentence before eligible for discretionary parole. Crimes of violence already usually have longer sentences depending on the underlying crime. Keeping the 75% level is considered to provide more incentive for offenders to take advantage of programs for rehabilitation. This Proposition would punish those persons who have worked to turn their lives around and are proving they are ready to return home. It also will save communities significant costs in both short and long terms
The Colorado Democratic Party recommends a No/Against Vote on Proposition 128.
_________________________________________________________________
PROPOSITION 129 - Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates (No Position)
Currently, Colorado allows licensed Veterinarians, Veterinary Technicians, and Veterinary Technical Specialists to be regulated providers of veterinary care in Colorado. This Proposition establishes a new position of Veterinary Professional Associate (“VPA”) to be a provider.
Per the Proposition language, it is left to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine to determine what exactly a VPA could do. However, the Proposition does indicate that the VPA would be under the supervision of a licensed Veterinarian -- as are the current Veterinary Technicians and Veterinary Technical Specialists.
There is need for additional Veterinarian care in Colorado, especially in rural areas. However, because the new VPA professional would have to practice under the direct supervision of a licensed Veterinarian, this new position may not solve these problems. Nor is it known what tasks would be different from those currently done by Veterinary Technicians, and Veterinary Technical Specialists.
These questions have led to a “No Position” taken by the Colorado Democratic Party. Due to the supervisory requirement, it is unknown how this position would be able to practice in a stand-alone manner to mitigate shortages in rural areas. Also such professional positions are best determined by experts in the profession and regulating government agencies, rather than at the ballot box.
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 (No Position)
This Proposition on its face may appear to be an admirable effort. However, the high price of this Proposition is NOT funded -- it does not raise any revenues to cover its expensive price tag. Rather, it diverts $350 M away from the State’s general fund.
Those funds go toward traditional law enforcement only. No funds are provided for other first responders, such as firefighters, paramedics, EMTs, social workers or behavioral health professionals. Nor are funds provided for the courts or correctional facilities that have important roles in law enforcement.
Local law enforcement currently is funded by local sources (county or municipal budgets) that keeps such funding in line with local needs. State and Federal grants also supplement local funding.
The monies diverted from the State general fund would be at the expense of other important services that support public safety, including education, mental health services and other community needs -- such as housing, jobs, and healthcare.
Such a proposal skips over the State’s budgeting processes that already funds State level law enforcement and death benefits that are covered by current law. At the State level, the Colorado State Patrol and Colorado Bureau for Investigation provide grants to help local law enforcement efforts, along with other grants from federal sources.
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, please take into consideration the fact that this significant amount of money is completely unfunded so would impact other essential needs and services. Such a large investment should be funded in sustainable ways.
_________________________________________________________________
PROPOSITION 131 - Establishing an All-Candidate Primary and RCV General Election (Oppose)
Footnote: Below is our language describing this "jungle" primary Proposition, as well as our support of a “NO” vote on Proposition 131. However, because Senator Bennet's letter is a good description of this Proposition and its impact on Colorado voting, we are leading with his letter. He is recommending a “NO” vote.
First: Senator Bennet’s letter from October 13:
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
Second, here is our Newsletter information about Proposition 131, also supporting a “NO” vote on 131:
Currently, Colorado is the #2 state in voter turnout because it has a clean and easy to understand system for the primary and the general elections. Also, Colorado’s current system has an approved risk-limiting audit system to verify the election outcomes -- providing confidence and faith in our elections.
During major election years, there is a primary at the end of June for each major party and any other party who chooses to go through the primary. Each party has its list of candidates that voters in that party AND unaffiliated voters have the opportunity to select the most qualified candidates on each separate party’s ballot to proceed to the general election.
Then in the general election, one candidate from each of the parties who was selected by primary voters appears on the general election ballot along with ALL candidates from parties who did not hold a primary. Thus, minority party candidates make it to the general election in our current election process. They may not make it at all under Proposition 131.
Under Proposition 131, there is one combined ballot of all possible candidates for a “primary” in each elected office subject to Prop 131. It applies to many important offices -- Congressional candidates and Senators, all State top officials (Governor, SOS, Treasurer, Attorney General), Education elected officials, and all Legislators.
For each of these important offices, each voter ranks 4 of the candidates. Then Ranked Choice Voting/Instant Runoff Voting (“RCV/IRV”) is used to run multiple iterations of the votes to end up with a list of 4 candidates for the general election.
This eliminates all votes that do not survive through the final iterations, and the final ballot may not have any candidates from some of the political parties. Thus, voters may be left with NONE of their choices in the general election. Even the major parties may not have any candidates left on the general election ballot.
This complex system is frequently called a “Jungle” primary because it can be a tangled mess of multiple matrices, without transparency, and may even depress voting due to its complexity. Votes can be tossed out just due to the voters not understanding the method of voting. There is also no known way to audit a Statewide election using this “Jungle” system.
Alaska voters narrowly adopted this system in 2020, and now, after using it in 2022, their ballots in 2024 include a ballot measure that does away with their “Jungle” system and return to the traditional primary and general election voting system for future elections.
Proposition 131 is also expensive to implement due to the multiple iterations of vote counting that require new equipment, new software, and detailed training of staff. The Blue Book (page 56) notes estimated costs at $6 M per year at the State level, and at the County level $5 M for the primary election and $4 for the general election. (County Clerks who run elections were never consulted about this Proposition.)
RCV can work well for non-partisan elections (school boards and municipal elections) and even party-specific primaries. But it is very complicated for partisan elections with many parties and candidates. In fact, “Ranked Choice Voting for Colorado”, an organization which has wanted RCV to get more use in Colorado, is staying neutral in this use of its process -- a sign that this is not the best example for using RCV.
A Yes/For Vote: Changes Colorado’s current voting system for primaries and general elections for a 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.)
The Colorado Democratic Party recommends a No/Against Vote on 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?
https://www.cpr.org/2024/10/03/vg-2024-proposition-131-ranke...
As the article on Colorado Public Radio’s website explains: “The top four vote-getters from the primary would proceed to the general election. Since there would no longer be a single “official” candidate for each party, it’s possible that multiple members of the same party could end up running against each other in the general election.”