Local politics, part deux

Yes, I know I took my sweet time getting back to this, but I have a one-word excuse: midterms. Anyway, I’ll resume where I left off in my analysis of Colorado’s proposed amendments and referenda.

Amendment 54 is the third and final union-weakening measure on the Colorado ballot. In a nutshell, this amendment prohibits labor unions from participating in the political process if their companies hold contracts with the state. It keeps labor unions from being able to participate in the political process or contribute to a political party, organization or candidate. The time frame of this restriction extends two years past the end of the contract. The best way I can explain it is through analogy: you work for a company that makes widgets, and your company is a union shop. You make the best widgets around, and the state gives you a contract to supply them with widgets for the next five years. Under Amendment 54 because your company accepted this state contract, your union is forbidden from participating in the political process in any way for the next seven years. Amendment 54 silences the voice of organized labor, and is a very bad idea.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on 54.

Amendment 55 – Wow, what happened? An amendment that’s actually pro-worker rights made it onto the ballot? What is this state coming to? Seriously, Amendment 55 restricts the reasons that employers can fire employees, albeit to a pretty broad list, but all of the items on the list are legitimate misconduct-type offenses that, in my opinion, would warrant termination. Under Amendment 55 an employer may fire an employee for any of the following reasons:
· Incompetence
· Substandard performance or neglect of job duties
· Repeated violations of an employer’s written policies and procedures related to job performance
· Gross insubordination or willful misconduct that affects job performance
· Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
· Employer bankruptcy
· Documented adverse economic circumstances that directly affect the employer.
These reasons are considered “just causes” under Amendment 55. Under current Colorado law, an employer may fire an employee for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and the employee has no recourse because Colorado is an at-will employment state. That’s a tricky way of saying you’re on your own when it comes to employment issues, unless you are protected by a union. Amendment 55 will go a long way to rectify that. This amendment also makes it possible for an employee who believes he or she was fired or suspended for an invalid reason to sue the employer, presumably for back wages, emotional distress, damage to reputation, etc. This measure will help provide job security and protection for Colorado workers.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 55.

Amendment 56 requires employers to provide health insurance for employees and dependents, either through a private plan or through a plan to be set up by the state, and places percentage caps on how much an employee may be required to contribute toward the cost of this coverage. In all honesty, I wrestled with this decision for quite a while, and Hubby and I spent some time talking this one over. I was on the fence about requiring small employers to purchase health insurance because I know just how painfully expensive it can be to cover a small group – when a group is too small to establish a decent-sized risk pool, the premiums are simply obscene. Then I thought about this state plan and realized that it would most likely present an affordable option, and even if it’s simply a way to buy into Medicaid, that’s better coverage than thousands of Coloradans have today, namely none. Plus, reducing the number of uninsured is the best way to curb increases in health care and bring health insurance premiums down into a reasonable range. When hospitals and doctors aren’t having to increase their rates to cover the unpaid bills of the uninsured, because insurance is now affordable, then everyone wins. After I worked through all of this, my choice was clear: Amendment 56 will benefit all Coloradans, either directly or indirectly, and the creation of a state-established health plan will give employers an affordable choice.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 56.

Amendment 57 is another amendment that will help improve conditions for working Coloradans by stiffening the standards of workplace safety and health with which employers must comply. Under Amendment 57 an employee will also have the right to sue an employer if the employer fails to maintain a safe and healthy working environment and the employee is injured or sickened as a result. We all deserve safe and healthy workplaces, and until we all have unions to fight for them on our behalf, we need legislation to mandate them, as well as a penalty (in the form of the lawsuit portion of this amendment) for employers who choose not to comply.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 57.

Amendment 58 ends a tax credit for energy-producing companies, which was enacted way back when as a means to encourage energy exploration (mining, drilling) in Colorado. We don’t need to spend tax dollars to subsidize energy companies that are making record profits while we struggle to fill our gas tanks and pay our heating bills. Opponents of this measure have tried to use scare tactics that predict skyrocketing energy bills due to energy companies trying to recoup the lost subsidies through rate increases. We may indeed see increases in our energy bills, but that’s all part of the wonder that is capitalism. (Please note sarcasm.) The loss of these tax credits will increase the amount of severance tax these companies pay, which goes to support education, scholarships, wildlife, clean energy, and open spaces. I’d rather take my chances on a higher energy bill and know that my tax dollars are no longer helping to line the pockets of energy company executives.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on 58.

Amendment 59 permanently funnels excess funds into a newly-created education savings account, to be used specifically for preschool-12th grade education. Under TABOR any excess funds collected by the state must be refunded to the taxpayers. Amendment 59 does away with these TABOR refunds permanently. Funds from the education savings account may be spent at the discretion of the legislature with a 2/3 majority vote, unless the state experienced less than 6% growth (as it will in many years), and then only a simple majority is required. This is another amendment I wrestled with before making a decision, because on the one hand education needs funding, but on the other hand this amendment may not actually increase education funding – if the state is able to draw from this savings account to cover education expenses, they are likely to funnel existing education dollars from the budget into other projects such as roads. So Amendment 59 is actually smoke and mirrors, a way for the state to utilize TABOR funds in perpetuity without actually committing to using those funds for any specific purpose. Yes, education needs funding but this isn’t the way to do it.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on 59.

Referendum L lowers the minimum age for serving in the state legislature from 25 to 21. According to the Blue Book, “All 50 states have age requirements for members of their state legislatures, ranging from 18 to 30 years old.” Also, “Twenty-six states, including Colorado, require that members of the senate be at least 25 years old, with seven of those states having an even higher age requirement.” I wonder just how many 21-24 year olds would run for office if given the chance? I think that requiring a few years’ experience as an adult is a good thing for a publicly elected official, because there’s no denying that age does bring perspective. While I do believe anything that encourages younger people to participate in the political process is a good thing, there are entry-level local offices open to people under age 25. It’s not like they’re completely barred from running for office, and the period between 21 and 24 is a vitally important opportunity for these precocious politicos to get some much-needed experience. I think that Referendum L is unnecessary and unwise.
AuntieM’s vote: NO on Referendum L.

Referendum M eliminates a no longer needed tax incentive for planting orchards by not taxing the increase in land value that the orchards created. This measure was put into place in 1876. This is an attempt to clean up unneeded legislation that is cluttering Colorado’s constitution. This measure is no longer viable because another section of the constitution defines allowable tax exemptions, so this item is simply clutter that needs to be removed.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum M.

Referendum N removes another obsolete constitutional measure that set standards of purity and regulation for alcoholic beverages, functions that have since been taken over by the federal government. Since this measure no longer serves a viable purpose, it should be removed from Colorado’s constitution.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum N.

Referendum O changes the process of putting amendments and referenda on the Colorado ballot. It increases the number of signatures required for a constitutional amendment and specifies that a certain percentage of signatures must come from each congressional district, indicating statewide support for an amendment. The exact number of signatures required varies from year to year, and will continue to vary – currently to get anything on the ballot you have to collect 5% of the number of votes cast for Secretary of State, or 76,047 signatures to get an amendment or referendum on the 2008 ballot. Referendum O will increase that number to 6 percent of votes cast for governor, which would have equaled 93,497 signatures in 2008, and of these signatures 8 percent would have to come from each of Colorado’s congressional districts. Referendum O actually makes it easier to get a referendum on the ballot by reducing the number of signatures required to 4 percent of the number of votes for governor, or 62,331 signatures for 2008, with no requirement of demonstrated statewide support. In my opinion Referendum O seeks to reduce the number of frivolous amendments (hello Amendment 48!) pushed onto the ballot by small but vocal minorities) and amendments that seek to benefit only specific geographic areas or persons within those areas (hello Amendment 50 – did you know that almost all of the petition signatures were gathered in Black Hawk from visitors to the casinos? True.) I like Referendum O because it may well work to prevent massively long ballots such as the one we’re facing this year, and allow us to spend our time considering better thought-out legislative changes.
AuntieM’s vote: YES on Referendum O.