Here's the 2008 voting guide, please contribute!
From Abdotcom
2008 Voting Guide
This is a general voting guide for everybody to use. I'm splitting it up between federal and local ballot issues to make it easier for other contributors to add their own region's info to the guide. As before, please feel free to contribute and edit, and simply attribute your editorial to yourself. (four tildes in a row will give you a nice name/date signature line) That way we can host a diversity of opinion without editing out other peoples' thoughts. That's just rude!
Federal General Election
President
Gotta go with Obama here. It's been discussed to death, but he's the man for the job. While I have some fondness for McCain's fiscal policy, in the current situation, we seem to be running headlong toward some form of temporary banking-industry socialization to keep the financial industry on at least one foot, and Obama's fiscal platform walks a careful line between protectionism and internationalization, which could be about the right thing for the next year or two. His international policy and local policies are much more cogent than McCain's, and show a greater appreciation for the requirements of being a leading State in the international community. (BTW: Sunda says the socialism comment is wrong and unhelpful for Barak's campaign) Nik 09:40, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Colorado
Colorado's ballot is one of the longest in the history of the state. I recommend spending some time with your blue book to really understand some of the proposed initiatives, as many seem to be worded to obscure their intent (e.g. Amendment 46). I also highly recommend knowing what you're doing before you walk in. The language on the ballot is insufficient to really understand the issues at hand. Nik 13:35, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Congressional Offices
United States Senator: Udall vs. Schaffer (plus some third party candidates)
The irrepressible Wayne Allard is stepping down, leaving the office open for one of our past state representatives to step in. We'll miss him. No we won't. Not at all.
Udall's my pick. Both contenders are experienced and have strong records in the house of representatives. Udall's in favor of minimizing drilling and expansion of the energy industry at the cost of the local environment, and instead putting heavy support behind Colorado's current leadership in development of sustainable energy technologies. Schaffer' something of a radical ideologue -- for example, he's violently opposed to welfare, medicare, and other public assistance campaigns. He's also unquestioningly pro-business, even when common sense dictates otherwise. I think Colorado will benefit from Udall's more open-minded approach. Nik 09:40, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Representative District 4: Markey vs. Musgrave
Vote Markey. Please, for the love of all that is good, vote Markey! Markey is a level-headed centrist. She has some solid ideas for how to represent Colorado, and has a strong focus on economic growth and environmental protection. Sounds good to me. Then there's Musgrave, who I've talked about in my last few voters guides. She's a dangerous, out of control, power-hungry, nutbag of the first order. Just look at her voting record -- she was instrumental in blindly fighting the original banking rescue package, she comes out repeatedly against women and civil liberties, and is generally wrong-headed across the board, unless your's a Bushie sycophant, in which case I advise you not to vote at all. Markey's running a pretty good campaign against Musgrave (unlike Matsunaka and Paccione in the past) and has come out swinging, so this is a great chance to finally put Musgrave out of office. Help us, Voter One Kenobi, you're our only hope! Nik 09:40, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Offices
State Senate District 14: Fries vs. Bacon
Bacon's been an effective legislator since he first stepped into office. He's stuck to his word and done good work, collaborating well with all parties. Bacon, it's what's for Senate District 14. Hmm... Nik 23:42, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Representative District 49: Lundberg vs. Ross
The Colorado Independent did a very cool thing: They created score cards for state legislators to see how effective they were -- how many bills they sponsored or co-sponsored got put into law. So those of you who want an effective, collaborative, government can look to their tops and bottoms lists to help make your decision. Well, Lundberg came in on the bottom 10. Yeah, he's a Republican, which makes life hard in the heavily Democratic legislature, but that also shows a lack of flexibility and tact in an adverse situation. His extreme conservative views are out of step with an increasingly moderate state.
Ross, by contrast, is very focused on key issues like education and health reform. He's practical and moderate, at least insofar as we've seen. We need a change in this seat, to find someone who's a little (or a lot) more capable of getting things done. Ross is my pick. Nik 23:53, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Representative District 51: Bennett vs. Marostica
Marostica has been a Republican who has stepped up to the challenge of being in the minority. He's proven to be a real collaborator and non-partisan. He's extremely business focused, and is the ranking Republican on the finance committee, and has acquitted himself well as such. He mostly steers clear of moral judgements and hot-button issues. His expertise in the home building and development industry could be a real asset, since Colorado is still among the highest rate of home foreclosures in the nation. He's smart, seasoned, and worth retaining. Marostica. Nik 23:57, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Representative District 52: Kefalas vs. McCluskey
Ahh, it's the Kefalas McCluskey Show! They ran against each other a few years ago, and McCluskey won by a small margin. Then Kefalas came back swinging, and has had the seat since then. Kefalas has done well in his first term, and has been a major proponent of environmental protection. He rightfully takes credit for shutting down a uranium mining operation that was threatening a wildlife area. He's done well so far, and deserves a second term now that he's got his chops. Kefalas Nik 00:00, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Representative District 53: Gallup vs. Fischer
Fischer's another pro-environment Democrat, so I'm inclined to like him. He's been in the state house for a couple of terms, now, and hasn't particularly distinguished himself positively or negatively, in my eyes. Gallup is a more or less party-line, pro-business, anti-abortion, pro-mining/drilling Colorado Republican. So between the two, you have more or less a cliche vs. another one. I'll take Fischer, the former water engineer, as a general supporter of the legislation I want to see. Nik 00:11, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
District Attorney 8th Judicial District 1: Larry Somethingorother
Uncontested. Abstain to keep him guessing! Nik 00:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Judiciary
Larimer County and state: Eid, Hobbs, Bernard, Furman, Hawthorne, Jones, Roman, Terry, Carney and Schultz
The Colorado Bar Association advised retaining all of the judges serving larimer county. I'll follow their advice. Retain, across the board. Nik 09:02, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
State Ballot Initiatives
Amendment 46: Discrimination and preferential treatment
This amendment seeks to eliminate preferential treatment based on gender or race within government institutions. In other words, this is eliminating affirmative action from these offices, since there's already protections against outright discrimination. This amendment basically comes down to whether you believe affirmative action remains necessary in Colorado's public institutions. While to some degree, I object to hiring quotas, I am a firm believer in granting scholarships to minorities in order to help the disadvantaged increase their representation in society. I recommend voting against this amendment. Nik 13:35, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 47: Prohibition of mandatory labor membership and dues
This amendment would prohibit employers from requiring that employees join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment. The free marketer in me says "sounds good!", but then I thought further on it and came to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to broadly eliminate terms of agreement between workers and employers. Those agreements are open to renegotiation in every case, and are not a matter of law. All parties stepped into these agreements knowingly and consensually. This is the wrong venue to address this issue -- that is between employers and their employee's unions.
Also, to be sure, this is a union busting amendment, plain and simple. One of the most powerful tools at a union's disposal is to negotiate with employers to prohibit them from hiring non-union labor. So this would be very detrimental to unions. Secondly, if individuals may choose to opt-out, they will end up taking unfair advantage of the union members. A union may, for example, negotiate for better compensation. The non-union workers will receive this higher wage, without contributing to the collective that made it possible. Given this, people will have every reason to avoid joining the union to save the cost of their dues, which puts unfair burden on the paying union members, and ultimate will lead to the dissolution of the union's support and influence. If you care about unions and collective bargaining, that is another reason to vote against this amendment. But I feel the first case is substantial enough to make it unsupportable. Vote no. Nik 13:35, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 48: Definition of Person
This is the anti-abortion ballot measure du jour. In this case, it would re-define a person in the eyes of the law to a couple of cells at the very moment of conception. This comes down to your views on abortion, I suppose, and also to your beliefs on whether the law should be based in something practical or not. To grant a blastocyst the full protection of civil rights (liberty, for example, is hard to come by when you're embedded in a person's uterine lining) as well as to obtain economic goods ("I would gladly pay you in 15 years and 9 months for a hamburger today!") is patently absurd. No, no, a thousand times, no! Nik 13:35, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 49: Allowable paycheck deductions
This is another anti-union measure, this time prohibiting unions from deducting dues directly from their members' paychecks. First, realize that it is already impossible to force someone to permit a deduction -- there are processes in place for opting out of virtually every payroll deduction. At best, this is redundant and also increases bureaucracy substantially as unions and professional organizations will have to handle billing separately. At worst, it does the same thing, and also undercuts unions and their funding. (But not very effectively, if you're totally anti-union, just hit up 47 and go on with your life.) Just retarded, no matter how you look at it. Vote no. Nik 14:23, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 50: Limited gaming
Full disclosure: I work in the industry, and the passage of this bill would create new business for one of our clients, and for company.
Anyhow, this bill lets casino patrons bet more money at a go, lets casinos offer more games, and lets casinos stay open later. (All at the discretion of the hosting cities -- it is not a blanket allowance) Additional tax revenue from these casinos is earmarked for certain public interest programs, such as community colleges, and will be exempt from many restrictions on spending limits based on tax revenues. Kind of far-reaching, when you look at it, and it essentially creates a targeted super-tax-source that goes directly to the communities hosting these casinos and education throughout the state. As sales and use tax in other areas declines due to financial hardship, this creates some new ways to collect tax revenue without directly hitting individual consumers. It also helps augment the serious negative effects of the statewide smoking ban on casinos, and increases the attractiveness of Colorado as a gaming destination, which will increase the flow of money from out of state. On the other hand, this helps casinos, which you may not be down with. I am down with casinos, so I recommend a Yes vote. Nik 14:23, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 51: Sales tax increase to fund services for the developmentally disabled
Pretty straightforward: Increase sales tax and use it to grow the existing services for disabled citizens in the state. There's an ever-growing waiting list for the available services, so the need is obvious. On the other hand, the way the economy's going, more local taxes may not be the best thing. I'm really wishy washy on this one. I know how hard it is for a family with a disabled member to make do, but it's also a pretty substantial increase of 0.2 percent. (Okay, that sounds small, but apply it to everything you buy) Also, sales tax increases affect lower income people more than higher income residents who save more and thereby don't generate as much sales tax (on a dollar-earned basis), which somewhat undermines the benefit, since the disabled generally save less than others. For the time being, I'm voting no, but depending on how the economy looks in a month, I may feel differently. Nik 14:23, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 52: Use of severance tax for highways
This amendment would force the state to spend a certain amount of the severance tax (taxes on companies that extract unrenewable resources -- so coal, oil, gas and minerals) earned for highway projects. Keep in mind, they already get the money, but the use of the revenue is up to the state and affected communities who share the funds. No point in legislating the expenditure, especially for further road improvements. Come on, how many lanes can we stand on I-25? Let's put a goddamn train in there and stop wasting so much money on pavement! Vote no. Nik 14:23, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendments 53, 55 56, 57: Retracted
These controversial amendments have been pulled from consideration by their sponsors. This happened after ballots were printed, so they will still appear on your paper, but they will not be counted. Vote no, or yes, or whatever, it truly makes no difference Nik 14:23, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 54: Campaign contributions from government contractors
This amendment is a clean-government initiative that purportedly is another anti-union ballot measure, and shares sponsors with 47 and 49. (Wow, there's a lot of them!) This one restricts unions and other government contractors from contributing to related ballot initiatives. What's particularly weird, is that this restriction crosses jurisdictions (so if I'm a contractor in Larimer County, I could get nailed for contributing to an initiative in Weld County), and also inexplicably affects family members of these contractors! The broad reach and poor definitions of this amendment are very troubling and could have massive and unknowable impact on our electoral process. Vote no. Nik 14:23, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 58: Increase severance taxes on oil and natural gas
This ups the taxes on oil and gas extractors. It also eliminates a credit given to the industry to offset the cost of land they have to purchase. The money will go to environmental initiatives as well as education. (Does everything have to fund education? Why do the schools lack for funds?) Sure, why not? If they're wrecking up the landscape and natural environment, let's have them pay for the maintenance of the same. And education. The down-side is that this might affect the economy and pull jobs from this state while the companies drill elsewhere. I'm okay with that trade-off, in exchange for better environmental protections. Vote yes. Nik 14:23, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Amendment 59: education funding and TABOR
(Oct. 15: Nik changed from "No" to "Yes")
There's two somewhat conflicting things in Colorado's taxpayer bill of rights (TABOR). One requires the return (as a tax credit) of educational funds in excess of a certain budgeted amount. The other mandates an increase, pegged to inflation, of educational spending. This amendment seeks to eliminate both, and permit additional funding to go into a "savings account" to fund early childhood education. This is the latest whack at the controversial TAxpayer Bill Of Rights (TABOR), which was cut piece-by-piece since it was passed, starting with Referendum C a couple years ago. The argument is that this funds education without a base tax increase, and creates a growing savings fund so that education can still be paid for even in hard times. As for losing the guaranteed inflationary increases, they say that those increases are too small to be worthwhile, and that they're a hardship when tax dollars drop. And keep in mind, TABOR's provision for all tax increases getting the approval of voters remains in place -- many feel that's the most important aspect of the bill.
These arguments are a bit disingenuous. There is not an increase in the base tax, but losing a potential refund is effectively an increase in taxes, no matter how you look at it. It may also do little or nothing to increase education funding. Now that education will have its own source of income, money in the general fund that was earmarked for education can go to other programs, and keep education spending flat. (And remember, no more requirement for year-on-year spending increases, either.) Because of this, the amendment pretty much takes the steam out of TABOR's tax refund provision, since it makes a huge cost center and effectively opens up the refund moneys to go anywhere.
As someone who didn't like TABOR to begin with, I'm inclined to vote in favor of this bill. I find it helpful to think of this instead as a small tax increase to fund education's "rainy day" account. I'd like to maintain provisions for guaranteed increases, but as a member of one of the lowest-education-funding states, I'm going to have to change my previous advice and vote Yes. Nik 06:05, 15 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Referendum L: Age limits on legislature
Do you think people should be 25 years old or 21 years old before they can be elected to state legislature? Check "Yes" if 21, "No" if 25. I'm voting yes, why not? Nik 17:28, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Referendum M and N: Obsolete provisions
Sure. Strike 'em from the record. Yes. Nik 17:28, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Referendum O: Citizen-initiated state laws
This is an interesting referendum that attempts to limit the number of constitutional amendments in the state. It will do so by lowering the bar for statutory ballot issues and raise the bar (more signatures, and representation from every congressional district) for constitutional ballot items to make it in front of voters. This will make constitutional changes, which are harder to overturn, be less appealing for citizens and special interest groups wanting to change how Colorado law works. This ensures that the law is easier for citizens to affect (fewer sigs required for statuatory changes), but also makes sure that the legislature and other entities have an easier time rectifying any huge mistakes, should that be necessary. As it is, the requirements are identical, so everybody pushed for constitutional amendments, because they're harder to change and just as easy to get on the ballot. Looking at the current ballot, I am all in favor of limiting constitutional amendments. Hell, a lot of that stuff has no business being in the constitution in the first place. That's a big yes. Nik 17:28, 11 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Larimer County and Surrounding Area
County and City Offices
County Commissioner District 2: Johnson vs. Eubanks
The divisive issue for the county commissioners appears to be transportation. They all agree that the Glade reservoir project should be handled cautiously or not go ahead at all; they all agree that the county needs to cut spending and, if possible, taxes; and they all want to maintain growth in the region, without turning Larimer County into one giant metro area. But on transportation, there's a sharp split between those who want to take a regional approach, making way for mass transit, and those who want it handled piecemeal by individual counties.
Perhaps it's because I'm a commuter, but I want to see mass transit that really works. So my vote is for Eubanks. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
County Commissioner District 3: Donnelly vs. Hoffmann
As above, Hoffman's pro-mass-transit, Donnelly, not so much. Vote Hoffman. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
County and City Ballot Initiatives
Referred Issue 1A: County Treatment facility
We've expanded Larimer County's jails a number of times, and they still fill up. The recidivism rate for drug offenders is incredibly high, and they just come and go from jail. This will put in place a detox treatment center to help get these offenders off the streets, ideally, for good. It's not terribly expensive, and it should be a real aid to the community. Yes. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Referred issue 1B: Hidden view estates
There's a waste line in the Hidden View Estates sub-division (in Loveland) that's clogged up and the leaching field is getting flooded by more waste water than it can handle. This is a proposal to issue debt in order to build a new wastewater treatment facility. Most of the people in the area have their own septic systems, however, so the new wastewater treatment facility won't be hooked up to everyone in the area, at least not at first. This is, however, a pretty cost-effective way of building a new wastewater treatment facility, so it might be the best bet. But I gotta say, I'm not really keen on taking out more debt, especially if the local HOAs and whatnot can't contribute substantially to the project. (The HOA owns the leach field and is nominally in charge of its own wastewater management) I'm voting no, pending the HOA taking on more of the financial burden. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
Referred issue 3A & 3B: St. vrain valley school district
St. Vrain valley already has very high taxes, and it doesn't seem to help the schools. I think there are more fundamental problems that money won't solve. No. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
4A &4B: Windsor/severance fire protection district
There's one fire station serving this whole area. That area's grown a TON, so it would be nice to expand emergency services. Yes. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
4C & 4D: Estes valley recreation & park district
This is just maintenance on Estes Valley's park and swimming pool. Apparently they need renovation. I like community stuff. Yes. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
5A: Terry cove public improvement district
Some years back, Larimer County voters decided to shrink the size of government. As part of this, the city and county stopped supporting individual sub-divisions, and instead let the community (i.e. HOA) take care of their roads, garbage collection, snow plowing, etc. Well, Terry Cove is just such a neighborhood, and they haven't been taking care of their road, and so they want the taxpayer to help. I may think this structure is asinine, but that's how we voted, and we can either change the overall structure or suck it up, Cove'ers! No. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
5B: Rainbow lakes public improvement district
Nobody bothered to leave comments in the ballot book for or against this particular tax increase. If they're that disinterested, I don't see why I should care. And I don't want more taxes if they can't even be bothered to explain why they need public works improvements. No. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
5C: Cottonwood shores public improvement district
Same situation as above. No taxes for you! Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
5D & 5E: Estes park local marketing district
A marketing district would be an area, kind of like Centerra, where more taxes are assessed. These initiatives cover the establishment of and taxation of this district. This would make it so that tourists lodging overnight would pay 2% more for their stay, which would pay for general Estes Park marketing by the city. I figure Estes is built on the tourist economy, so it's worth pulling out a few more taxes for marketing purposes. Yes on both. Nik 09:01, 12 Oct 2008 (MDT)
New Mexico
Someone from New Mexico can fill this one in.
Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea
Don't vote. They kill you if you try to.
