Local politics matter too

National politics have kept me pretty busy lately, you betcha! Especially with the debates being so entertaining (wink, wink). But in the midst of all of that, we mustn't forget about our local political scene and the issues that, if passed, can have a direct impact on our lives. It's easy to let local politics slide, especially in the middle of a hotly contested, and, let's face it, highly amusing national election cycle, but right now I want to change my focus. Today I'm taking a short break from national politics to focus on state-level issues.

Here in Colorado we've got a longer ballot than we've had in the last 100 years, due to 14 different constitutional amendments and 4 different referenda, not even considering city and county-level issues. It's confusing to the point that I've started compiling a cheat-sheet to take with me to the polls, because I don't want to try to figure out important issues on the fly. Yes, I could get a mail-in ballot like all of the campaigns encourage, but call me stubborn, I like showing up at the polls on election day, that's kind of a ritual for Hubby and me. Our polling place is just a short walk from our house so we grab jackets and head on over after breakfast, enjoying the fall weather and discussing the issues and our hopes for the future. It's nice and I don't want to give that up, even for the convenience of voting from my couch.

Anyway, I've reviewed the first seven amendments to the Colorado Constitution, and here is what I've found so far: Not a single one of them is worthy of a yes-vote, either because I disagree with the basic reasoning behind the amendment, or because the amendment is procedurally flawed. Let's take them in order:

Amendment 46, in essence, revokes Affirmative Action, stopping short of reversing any federally-mandated programs. I'm kind of conflicted on this because on the one hand I don't want the legal system working from the position that I need special treatment because I'm female (like I can't compete with men on a level playing field), but on the other hand we haven't exactly achieved parity for women and minorities in employment and education, so I think some level of legal protection is still needed. In the end I chose a No vote because the amendment as written fails to define certain specific terminology that, in today's litigious society, would certainly result in numerous lawsuits. Once true racial, ethnic and gender equality is achieved, affirmative action legislation will no longer be needed, but it's too early to force such a sea change, our society just isn't ready.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 46.

Amendment 47 allows workers to work in a union shop without having to join the union. Hubby and I have had some intense conversations on this one because he's not a fan of unions while I am. He buys into the whole "right to work" line that proponents of this amendment are trumpeting, while I see this amendment as a potential union-busting tool that employers can (and will) use to weaken the power of collective bargaining. The labor laws of the past century are directly attributable to those union members who put their futures and sometimes their lives on the line to improve working conditions for all Americans, and legal tools such as Amendment 47 will work to undo their efforts, and invalidate their sacrifices. This is a rare occasion in which Hubby and I had to agree to disagree, but I'm firm in my resolve: Amendment 47 would be bad for all Colorado workers.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 47.

Amendment 48 is the most onerous amendment in this entire massive ballot. It decrees that personhood begins at the moment of conception, and if passed, will instantly outlaw all abortions, regardless of the reason. This amendment will eventually be used to overturn Roe v. Wade. It also potentially can prohibit certain forms of birth control, and will open up doctors to murder charges if they treat pregnant women and the treatment causes harm to the fetus. It may also open up pregnant women to child abuse charges if they don't live squeaky-clean lives while they are pregnant. Oh you had a drink? Child abuse! You smoked a cigarette? Child abuse! Amendment 48 will turn back the clock for the women of Colorado to a time before reliable birth control and safe and legal abortions, when we were completely at the mercy of our biology and had no legal protection or recourse. Do we really want to go back to back-alley coathanger abortions, and let the state tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? NO!
AuntieM's vote - NO on 48.

Amendment 49 is another union-busting measure in disguise. It prohibits employers from taking payroll deductions for certain expenses and is being presented as a worker protection measure, but when you read the fine print the only deductions being prohibited are union dues. Proponents of this measure claim that those who want to pay union dues can arrange for automatic drafts from their own banks, but don't want employers to be able to take those deductions directly from paychecks. This measure simply creates more hassle for those who wish to belong to unions by making them take extra steps to pay their dues. It's a ridiculous measure that has no business being included in the Colorado Constitution.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 49.

Amendment 50 is another one that Hubby and I have discussed in great detail, but on this one we are in agreement. Amendment 50 seeks to allow residents in the three gaming towns to vote to increase the betting limits in Colorado casinos to $100, allow casinos to stay open 24 hours, and let them add games such as craps and roulette. Currently the limit on a single bet is $5, casinos must close between 2am and 8am, and they may only offer slots, video poker, blackjack and blackjack-type games, and live poker. This amendment is near and dear to both our hearts because I worked in Colorado casinos for 11 years, and Hubby still works in the casinos and has recently begun his 13th year in the gaming industry. So Amendment 50 is very pertinent for us. In addition, this amendment specifies that 78% of the increase in gaming revenues will go toward Colorado's community colleges, institutions that are near and dear to my heart because I graduated from one and hope to return to that very school as a remedial English instructor once I have my BA. Hubby and I both have a very personal stake in this one. So you'd think we are unified in our support of this amendment, but that's not the case. We're both quite opposed to it, for a variety of reasons. Hubby is concerned that if the above changes are in the hands of gaming town residents, the largest gaming town (Black Hawk) will immediately implement all the changes proposed and will drive Central City (where he works) out of business becaues Central City isn't as well positioned to take advantage of those changes. Black Hawk has spent the last decade building up its infrastructure to support just such a change (incidentally, in violation of current Colorado Gaming laws, though nothing has been done about that) while Central City has been hamstrung by a building moratorium that was passed by its residents in about 1994, severely restricting construction of new casinos in order to remain in compliance with gaming laws and to preserve the small-town character of their city. This is Hubby's biggest reason for not supporting this measure.
Corruption is also a significant issue in Black Hawk, and we both feel that this will present the Black Hawk powers-that-be with a brand new opportunity to line their pockets at taxpayers (and students) expense. I don't have much faith that the casinos would willingly funnel the full 78% of increased revenues to the community colleges, and so far I have not been able to determine adequately how those increases in revenues will be calculated. Without that information I am unwilling to support this measure. Plus, while I was in gaming, I always swore that the day they put in these changes would be the day I handed in my notice. The gaming industry is a real pressure-cooker of a work environment, and you wouldn't believe how high the burnout rates are. None of the casinos are unionized, so the workers are at the mercy of the casinos and must comply with some pretty draconian rules. If this measure passes, casinos will put even more pressure on their employees to work longer hours with shorter turnarounds between shifts, to avoid hiring additional staff, or to cope with the immediate growth created by such an amendment. Without union protection, employees who stand up against unreasonable demands will be subject to termination without recourse. It has happened before, it will happen again.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 50.

Amendment 51 is for a 0.2% sales tax increase, with the proceeds to go towards services for people with developmental disabilities. While this is a noble goal and a population in need, right now our economy is in such sorry shape that I don't think we need to jack up the sales tax rate right now. Sometimes I wonder about including stuff like this as a constitutional amendment; is it really appropriate? Do we want to mandate specific sales taxes in our constitution, or should it be considered at some other legislative level? Too many questions make it impossible for me to support this amendment.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 51.

Amendment 52 proposes that a chunk of state severance taxes (the tax the state receives for coal, oil and natural gas extracted) be funneled toward roads. Right now they fund water projects, wildlife conservation, low-income energy assistance, varous wildlife conservation, renewable energy, state parks and environmental programs, and regulatory needs. All of those programs are necessary, but they all lack vocal advocacy groups, while in every single election there is at least one initiative to increase road funding. I'm opposed to changing this funding structure because in recent years we've allocated millions upon millions toward roads, and at some point we simply have to say "enough, there are other worthy projects out there that should also be funded."
AuntieM's vote - NO on 52.

Amendment 53 deals with ethics in business, and creates criminal penalties for corporate executives, officers, directors, managing partners or proprietors of for-profit or nonprofit entities if their specific entity fails to perform duties that are required by law. On its face it sounds reasonable, but the fine print reveals that there's a loophole big enough to drive a corporate jet through: an executive can avoid any criminal liability by disclosing his company's activities to the attorney general at any time before criminal charges are filed. This measure won't improve corporate ethics, it will simply allow crooked executives to write their own get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of a letter to the AG, and as long as their lawyers are fast enough to get it delivered before charges are filed, the executive walks away scot-free. It may snare a few careless small businessmen, but the ones who commit theft and fraud on a gigantic scale will always be able to skate.
AuntieM's vote - NO on 53.

This weekend I hope to review the rest of the amendments, as well as the referenda, and will write about them in a subsequent post. In the meantime, I hope that each one of you is doing what I'm doing, finding unbiased information on political issues, learning about both sides, considering that information against your own beliefs and making rational choices. Only with that level of involvelement and dedication by citizens can a representative democracy truly function as such. Anything less and the elected politicians simply become shills for the loudest voices and deepest pockets.

Peace,
AuntieM