Unions pull four amendmentsUnited Press International reported that a coalition of unions and members from the business group, Colorado Concern, negotiated an agreement where businesses would provide opposition to Amendments 47, 49 and 54. In exchange, the unions agreed to strike their four initiatives from the ballot. The four amendments the union pulled:* Amendment 53 – Criminal Accountability of Business Executives* Amendment 55 – Allowable Reasons for Employee Discharge* Amendment 56 – Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance* Amendment 57 – Additional Remedies for Injured EmployeesThe group, Protect Colorado’s Future, has been the lead proponent for Amendments 47, 49 and 54.2008 Colorado amendmentsSome of the pro or con statements were taken from actual interviews on KBDI Colorado Public Television’s program, “Colorado Decides.” Those quotes are identified by an asterisk.*AMENDMENT 46Colorado Civil Rights InitiativeThis is an anti-discrimination and anti-affirmative action amendment.Pro: Jessica Corry – Colorado Civil Rights Initiative executive director and public policy analyst from the Independence Institute”This initiative is a homegrown effort. For the last decade, we’ve been trying to get something like this on the ballot, and what it specifically would do is prohibit the government from granting preferential treatment or discriminating against any individual or group on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or national origin.”*Con: Kristy Milligan – development director/program manager for Citizens Project on Amendment 46″The language of Amendment 46 is deliberately misleading. By failing to define preferential treatment, the measure essentially criminalizes equal opportunity programs throughout the state of Colorado. Colorado still needs equal opportunity programs to give everyone an equal chance to compete for jobs, education and contracts. Amendment 46 is not about point systems or quotas – these things are already illegal.Voting no on Amendment 46 ensures that we keep modest outreach, recruitment and education programs designed to give everyone the opportunity to participate in our communities. Amendment 46 is dangerous. It could eliminate important programs, like science and math programs for girls and modest outreach efforts to encourage minorities to apply for college.”AMENDMENT 47Right to workThis amendment would outlaw agreements that require workers who are covered by union contracts to pay fees for union representation. It is opposed by the labor unions.Pro: Kelly Harp – representing A Better Colorado”Amendment 47 does three things. It says you can’t be forced to join a union as a condition for employment; you can’t be forced to pay dues as a condition of employment; while it also preserves a worker’s right to voluntarily join a union and to voluntarily support a union financially.”*Con: Michael Amodeo, spokesman for Sen. Ken Salazar”‘The main reason the senator is opposed to Amendment 47 is that it would undermine Colorado’s healthy business climate, the balance that we’ve reached between business and labor that has been in place since the Labor Peace Act. The fact of the matter is that given the economic crisis, we cannot afford that prospect.”AMENDMENT 48Definition of personThis amendment defines the beginning of human life as the moment of conception. Pro: Kristi Burton – sponsor of the amendment”Amendment 48 is really a very simple amendment, one sentence, and proves that laws can really be simple once in awhile. It recognizes the advances in modern medical science that tell us that human life really does begin at the time of conception. At that moment, we have unique DNA that makes us into a unique individual. Amendment 48 basically empowers the citizens of Colorado to take this issue into their own hands and direct the elected officials on how important life decisions should be made. It helps to de-politicize the issue of life and take the issue out of special interest radical groups and let the people have a voice on important issues of life in Colorado.*Con: Fofi Mendez – representative of the No on 48 Campaign”The No on 48 Campaign is made up of over 75 statewide and national organizations that are comprised of nurses, doctors, researchers and health care advocates that are very concerned about Amendment 48. We believe that by putting the definition of person in our Constitution and applying it to the section of our Constitution where it’s applied, you have now provided legal status for fertilized eggs, the same legal status that you and I would have as walking, breathing human beings. And in addition, that’s going to impact literally thousands of laws in the state of Colorado and bring the government courts and lawyers into our personal and private lives.”*AMENDMENT 49Allowable government paycheck deductionsThis amendment would not let government employers take out deductions from a paycheck for union dues or deductions for special interests.Pro: John Caldera – sponsor of the initiative and president of the Independence Institute”It has to do with a restriction on government. Should the government be the funneling mechanism, the conduit that brings money from public employees to their special interests, some of which are unions, some of which are not unions?It has to do with restrictions on government returning something that Bill Owens did as an executive order eight years ago … back in 2000, Gov. Bill Owens looked at state government and said, ‘Wait a minute, something’s wrong here in that you’ve got organizations that lobby government but yet government writes checks to them.’ In other words, they reach into the employees’ paychecks, pull out the money, bundle it up and give it to these organizations, which then turn around and lobby the very same government that paid them. The Bill Owens executive order was taken away by Gov. Bill Ritter.”Con: Protect Colorado’s FutureAccording to the Protect Colorado’s Future Web site, “Amendment 49 attempts to take away Coloradans First Amendment rights and prevents Coloradans from making voluntary dues payments through their paychecks. A similar proposal has been rejected by California, Oregon, and Nevada voters on multiple occasions.”AMENDMENT 50Limited gamingThis amendment would allow Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek to make decisions on betting limits, expanded hours and additional games. Some revenues that result from this change would go to the state’s community colleges.Pro: Katy Atkinson – political consultant representing Coloradans for Community Colleges”Here’s what Amendment 50 does: It generates additional funding for Colorado’s community, district and junior colleges by allowing voters in the three gaming communities to do three things. They can vote to extend bet limits up to $100; they can vote to extend casino operating hours; and they can vote to add the games of craps and/or roulette. They are allowed to do any combination of those that the local voters see fit to do. Of the new revenues that are generated by any of the changes, 78 percent will go to community colleges and 22 percent will go to the local governments to help with any impact from those changes.”*Con: Scott Yates – from KeepVegasOut.com”There are lots of people who oppose this, but there’s not a lot of money behind the opposition. The people that don’t want it passed are just regular people … I think everyone needs to ask … ‘why would I use my vote to help casinos make more money.’Everyone makes a big deal about 78 percent. They want people to be confused about that. They want people to think that the colleges are getting 78 percent of the money.According to the way the Constitution would be changed, they (the casinos) would get 80 percent of the new money. Colleges get 78 percent of 20 percent.”AMENDMENT 51Sales tax increase for services for people with developmental disabilitiesThe tax increase would provide revenue to support the developmentally disabled.Pro: Marijo Rymer – amendment sponsor and executive director of ARC of ColoradoFrom a YouTube video: “I support this amendment because I’m part of a grassroots coalition of parents, service providers and advocates who work with people with developmental disabilities in our state and who have seen the waiting list for services grow beyond the point where it can be reasonably addressed. And it’s critically important to those people on the waiting list and their families that they be allowed to receive the services for which they were eligible. And the only way funding those services can come about is through an appeal to the voters of Colorado for a very small increase in the state sales tax.More people are on waiting lists in Colorado than those who have currently received them and have absolutely no safety net. And once their parents die or are no longer able to take care of them, there’s no place for them to go. And those 2 cents on $10 will allow that to happen.”Con: State Representative Doug Bruce (R)Bruce directed the NFH to http://nostatetaxhike.com. The Web site information represents his opinion. “Amendment 51 is the hardest tax increase to oppose because its backers play on your emotions and sympathy for specific illnesses. They want to double state aid. Total tax subsidies are already $31,500 per client; that’s pretty generous. We don’t need to double our subsidy in one year, or double the number of people on this welfare program. The more government offers, the more people will take advantage of taxpayers’ politically coerced generosity.”AMENDMENT 52Use of severance tax revenue for highwaysThis amendment would change how oil and gas severance tax is allocated.Pro: Rep. Cory Gardner, State District 63″Amendment 52 will generate nearly $1 billion over 10 years for our transportation system, without raising taxes, no new taxes and without tolls. And if we can put a billion dollars over 10 years into our transportation system, then we’ve taken a great step forward; we’ve made a great initial down payment on many of our basic transportation needs.”*Con: Sen. Gail Schwartz – Senate District 5″I think it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. Unfortunately, we are in a very challenged budgetary environment and this only introduces one more measure into the Constitution that adds to the train wreck.Clearly, these funds are so important; they go to our water projects; they go to LEAP payments and that helps pay for low income households and to pay for those energy bills … as well as it goes to the species conservation fund.”*AMENDMENT 54Campaign finance curbsThis amendment would place controls on campaign contributions.Pro: Tom Lucero – sponsorLucero statements taken from a video at CleanGovernmentColorado.com”There’s an unholy alliance brewing in Colorado. The Denver Chamber of Commerce, union groups and the governor have joined together to defeat Amendment 54. “Yes” on 54 would prohibit government contractors with no-bid contracts over $100,000 from contributing to politicians and would establish a searchable database so that Colorado citizens can research how their tax dollars are being spent. Why would the Denver chamber and unions oppose an idea that would clean up the nearly $400 million in-state no-bid contracts and save taxpayers millions of dollars. Perhaps it’s because these unlikely allies are the biggest abusers of this corrupt system. They want to protect their corrupt backroom deals costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.”Con: Denver Post editorialAn Oct. 6 editorial stated the following: “Amendment 54 pretends to prevent campaign contributors or their associates or family members from winning contracts with state or local governments that total $100,000 and are offered without competing bids. In theory, that sounds like the kind of thing we normally go for. Who wouldn’t expect government to ask for at least three bids for large contracts? Multiple bids should allow market competition to work its money-saving magic. But Amendment 54’s definition of no-bid contracts includes groups like labor unions and voter-approved utility monopolies in ways that would keep those groups from exercising free speech rights. By equating unions that represent government workers – like police and firefighters – as holders of “no-bid contracts,” the language of Amendment 54 would lock into the Colorado Constitution a legal notion in defiance of federal collective bargaining laws dating back to 1935.”AMENDMENT 58Severance taxes on the oil and natural gas industryThis amendment would remove a $321 million tax credit from oil companies, essentially increasing taxes on them.Pro: Rep. Alice Madden, State House Majority Leader”Thirty years ago, the Legislature created a tax subsidy for the oil and gas industry, which at the time was probably a pretty good idea. If you looked at any kind of a tax credit like that today, it would have a sunset, meaning it would end. As a matter of fact, the wind tax credit and the solar tax credit end this year in Congress. It will be up to Congress to decide. We did not do that and TABOR made it permanent so it requires a vote of the people to decide what to do with this. So today, this incredibly profitable industry will make about $25 million worldwide as we speak in this half hour. They’ll net $25 million. Should they continue to get $300 million off their taxes, their already very low tax rate, or should we send that money to middle-class families to help with tuition. (It’s gone up 25 percent, by the way.) And a portion (of the money would go) to local communities … transportation and water needs, wildlife habitat and renewable energy investments.”*Con: nostatetaxhike.com backed by Rep. Douglas BruceFrom Douglas Bruce’s Web site: “You have heard about the proposed tax on energy producers. There’s an old economics saying: ‘If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of it, tax it.’ Do we want less domestic energy production? Of course not. So why increase our dependence on foreign oil, rather than creating good jobs here in Colorado? Do you really think energy companies will meekly absorb a $321 million (first year only) tax? No. They will pass it on to us in higher gasoline prices.”AMENDMENT 59Education funding and TABOR rebatesThis amendment would remove TABOR spending limits and direct new revenue to education.Pro: Andrew Romanoff, a sponsor and the Colorado Speaker of the House”Amendment 59 creates a savings account for education (SAFE) and you can find more details at ColoradoSAFE.org. The proposal forces the state to save money when times are good so that we’re not required to cut services like schools when times are bad. Amendment 59 works in two ways. First, it dedicates the revenue that comes in during periods of prosperity, the revenue that exceeds our current constitutional limits (and) dedicates that revenue to the state education fund. The second part of this proposal, the second part of Amendment 59, replaces the existing constitutional requirement, one that forces us to spend more every year (that’s Amendment 23) with a new requirement to save more.”*Con: Penn Pfiffner, senior fellow at Independence Institute”This is a much bigger issue than just education; and, in fact, what we really should be debating is the public policy issues of how much you want to take out of the private sector and give to government because that’s how big this is. If you pass Amendment 59, there will be no more TABOR surpluses ever. To say let’s just leave the tax rate in but have no more constraints on the total budget is wrong and that’s what Amendment 59 does.”*
