Well, tomorrow is the day that I will do my civic duty and cast my vote. Not just for President and Senator, but for a bunch of local offices where political party really doesn't matter. In addition, there are quite a few ballot initiatives (referendums and constitutional amendments) that require my attention. While, I might get around tomorrow or the next day with who I will vote for in the major national elections, today will focus on these initiatives. For all the nitty gritty details, here is the link to the .pdf form that includes the general idea, the pros/cons, and the legalese.
Amendment 46: Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Governments
What it says: What this does is basically do away with Affirmative Action for Colorado government funded employment, education and contracting. It prohibits discrimination AND preferential treatment. Exceptions exist, however, including: title IX (women have equal sport opportunities), existing court orders (Denver PD has one to promote diversity), and bonafide qualification based job (female guard for a female prison). Also, private entities are not affected (so a private organizations and programs could still offer scholarships/jobs based on race, sex, or creeed).
My Thoughts: While I've never been a fan of affirmative action, I conceptually understood it. However, the thought of treating all applicants equally and based solely upon true qualifications sounds really good. The most convincing argument against this amendment is the lack of definition in the proposal for "discrimination" and "preferential treatment", which leaves open the possibility of lawsuits and a court definition of the law. I'm not a fan of lawsuits, so this is a bit of a big deal.
My Vote: As of now, I'm inclined to vote "Yes". I like the idea of everyone being treated evenly and fairly without regard to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, or religious creed. I'm not sold on the idea, so I still could change my mind before tomorrow morning.
Amendment 47: Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues
What it says: Prohibits joining a union and paying dues as a condition of employment
My thoughts: Joining a union should NOT be required for doing a job. If conditions get bad in the work environment, an employee is free to join the union at any point; however, requiring a worker to join is just not right. The argument against this measure is that all employees benefit from the work the union does (either pay, hours, work conditions, etc.). While that may be true, it still doesn't justify mandating joining a union.
My Vote: Well, if you couldn't tell from above, I'm voting "Yes" on this Amendment.
Amendment 48: Definition of a Person
What it says: "define the term 'person' to 'include any human being from the moment of fertilization' ". This gives the the rights of life, liberty and property of all "persons" to be applied to just newly fertilized eggs.
My thoughts: Well, if you know me at all, then this won't shock you. Personally, I find this to be the single dumbest, narrowest, and worst idea that I have ever had the chance to vote on. There are many problems with this amendment, not the least of which is life does not begin at fertilization (the potential for life...yes; actual life, no). Aside from that, this law would prevent legal dispensing of emergency contraception and common birth controls (that prevent implantation and not fertilization). Further, there are no provisions for incest or rape or the life of the mother being endangered. Taken literally (which is clearly the point), this law would make miscarriage of a baby an illegal act (probably involuntary manslaughter). Think about it, by some action of the mother, a "person" has been killed. Finally, scientific research that uses embryonic stem cells would be fully outlawed. Even if you agree with the general idea (do away with abortion), this law is worded far too poorly to get serious consideration.
My Vote: An emphatic "No" (if only there were a way to add emphasis to a vote).
Amendment 49: Allowable Government Paycheck Deductions
What it says: This proposal limits what a public employee is allowed to deduct from their paychecks.
My Thoughts: This initiative is kind of silly. Reading between the lines it sounds like a way for government to try and close some deduction loopholes. However, not all of the excluded deductions are loopholes, but it closes those legit deductions too. There is no ultimate effect on revenue or expenditures, so I'm confused as to why this is an issue. The government is getting no extra cash out of this, so why screw around with what people deduct from their paycheck.
My Vote: No...let people deduct as they see fit.
Amendment 50: Limited Gaming in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek
What it says: Gives control of betting limits, casino hours, and games available to the communities with casinos (Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek). Currently, the state has a $5 max on any bet, limited hours, and limited games in the casinos. Any new tax revenue goes to Colorado community colleges.
My thoughts: This sounds like a good idea. It gives control of casino rules/regulations to the local communities, while benefitting the entire community college system in Colorado. If an increase in problems is seen (debts, stealing, etc.), then the communities can simply go back to lower limits, hours, and available games.
My Vote: Yes, let the local communities control casino operations and let community colleges benefit.
Amendment 51: State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
What it says: Raise the sales tax from 2.9 to 3% for 2009, and then 3 to 3.1% in 2010, with the extra income being targeted to people/programs for people with developmental disabilities.
My Thoughts: The end result is a 4-cent increase on a $20 purchase in 2010, that results in $89 million in the next year and $186 million the following. This seems like such a minor increase, and the aide to those with developmental disabilities seems a worthy cause. As I was discussing this with a friend, he mentioned that he didn't like the precendent. Small tax increases earmarked for a specific cause, could easily find their way on the ballot yearly and the result being a dramatically increased sales tax.
My Vote: Well, I'm probably going to err on the side of the developmentally disabled and vote "Yes" for the tax increase. If it becomes a yearly thing with a new group each time, I'll have to evaluate each on the merits presented.
Amendment 52: Use of Severance Tax Revenue for Highways
What it says: Require the state legislature to spend a portion of the state severance tax on highways.
My Thoughts: I'm not really a fan of requiring the state to spend the money on a given project. It seems to me the state should plan on spending tax dollars to keep roads and highways in good repair. Where this money comes from is not really something I'm concerned with.
My Vote: No, keep on roads repaired from whatever funds the legislature desires. Plus, the current severance tax is primarily spent on water projects (and since CO is a desert, this is a good thing to spend money on).
Amendment 53: Criminal Accountability of Business Executives
What it says: Holds an executive accountable if their business knowingly fails to perform a legal duty.
My Thoughts: Executives are already on the hook for many of their business actions. Often, if illegalities occur, the executive is going to be on the hook for them. Finally, the executive can report the business and avoid prosecution, so the amendment provides its own stated loophole.
My Vote: A decent idea, but poorly executed. No, from me.
Well, there are more, but I'm sure I bored you enough for now. Stay tuned and I might tack on a few more with my other election votes in the very near future. Until then, stay informed and vote.
