How Did I Do? Better than the County Clerk!

Every year after the election I compare how I recommended and voted with how all of the ballot issues actually fared at the ballot box. This time, it took three days for the county to finish counting votes in Boulder County, the slowest in the entire state.

What went wrong? Well, apparently the folks doing the counting were paying attention and noticed some anomalies in the optical scanning that was picking up votes that weren't made. It took hand checking each ballot for paper dust and ink smudges, a very slow process. I guess no other jurisdictions were doing the same type of check, so they were able to finish faster. Please, nobody tell them that their vote counts may not be accurate.

Anyway, back to my own report card. First, I got 100% on the City of Boulder issues. That's right, the city voted with my recommendations on all seven of the questions on the ballot. Are that many people reading and agreeing with my blog, or are the people here just that much smarter? Basically, people agreed to continue funding the city at the current level, but not to give council more powers.

At the county level, I got one out of two. I recommended a NO vote on extending the Worthy Cause tax, and it passed with flying colors (which I could have predicted.) Oh, well. I don't think the money from this sales tax will go to any group that doesn't deserve it. I just wish people were trusted to make their own decisions on who to give to.

We did pass, in line with my recommendation, the new clean energy district, a novel way to fund, with no public expense, small renewable energy and efficiency projects. Boulder folks are smart AND generous.

On the state level, I didn't do as well. State voters ignored my recommendations on nine out of fourteen issues.

My successes: Luckily, Amendment 48, which redefines "person" in parts of the state bill of rights went down narrowly. Amendment 52 also failed -- it would have taken money from water projects, pine beetle mitigation, and other priorities that will be getting more urgent with global warming, and spent it on getting more people in their cars to ski resorts. Two out of three of the attempts by business to cripple unions also failed. Less critically, voters agreed with me that 21-year-olds are not old enough to run for state legislature.

Big losses: Referendum O would have protected our state constitution against the continued onslaught of amendments, but failed because too many people were convinced (incorrectly) that it would decrease their ability to write initiatives. Amendment 50 won, giving state casinos the right to not only stay open all night and increase bet limits, but also prevent their own taxes from going up. Two measures that would have helped with education funding went down -- Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 51, a sales tax to help people with developmental disabilities failed; I guess Coloradans as a whole are not as generous with their sales tax dollars as Boulderites. Amendment 54 passed. Like Amendment 41 in a previous election, it takes a semi-reasonable idea (in this case preventing undue influence by government contractors) and pushes it way beyond reasonable, probably way beyond constitutional.

Mixed blessings: Also failing was Amendment 46, which would have ended affirmative action in the state. No doubt it is still useful, but symbolically it still grates. And Referenda M and N also passed contrary to my recommendation. These remove so-called obsolete clauses from the state constitution, although I wasn't convince in either case that we had the whole story.

Yes, this Insomniac is out of touch with the Colorado voter, and proudly so!

Ethics Schmethics

A poll was published recently showing that most people in Colorado didn't intend to punish regular people when they voted for Amendment 41, our new pseudo-ethics law. Backers of the law are claiming that banning children of state employees from accepting scholarships and banning professors from accepting cash awards are just unintended consequences.

The people who wrote this law are either very stupid or they intended exactly what the new law says. It's not ambiguous. Anybody who actually read the amendment before voting on it knows that. The law bans every government employee in the state at every level (and their immediate families) from accepting any cash gifts over $50, and from accepting almost any other significant gift as well.

This points out something that may get me in trouble. Direct democracy is bad. Ordinary people can't write laws. The founders of our country never intended for there to be an initiative process.

In our recent election, there were seven citizen initiatives on the statewide ballot, as well as two on the city ballot. Every single one of them was fatally flawed. The people who write these proposed laws always come at it from a single point of view. There is no incentive for them to consider any consequences. In fact, the incentive in writing an initiative is to be as extreme as possible because they know that if it passes they won't get another chance to change it for a good long time.

The backers argue not for the law but for some abstract concept which they claim the law supports. For example, in the case of Amendment 41, the backers argued for ethics, which was a high-profile cause at the time. A large majority of the voters never actually read the items they are voting on -- they just read other people's opinions about the abstract concept behind the proposal.

There's almost always a hidden agenda behind the law. For example, I suspect the backers of Amendment 41 are secretly trying to cripple government by scaring people away from it. As I've said before, if I was a government employee after Amendment 41 passed, I would have quit.

And then, in Colorado, the backers of these supposed good ideas almost always draft them as constitutional amendments, so that it will take another vote of the people to fix any flaws that may become apparent (as has happened with 41).

Well, now the state legislature is considering a law that would "clarify" Amendment 41. I have news for them. The state legislature cannot change our constitution without a vote of the people. Amendment 41 is also clear:

Legislation may be enacted to facilitate the operation of this article, but in no way shall such legislation limit or restrict the provisions of this article or the powers granted therein.

That's very clear to me. The legislature can fund the new ethics commission, and it can appoint members to that commission. But it cannot change the fact that the state constitution bans the child of the receptionist at the county courthouse from accepting a scholarship. A court will no doubt agree with that, and then we will have to vote on another law the fix this one.

Maybe there should be a special class you have to attend if you want to initiate a change to state law. Or maybe there should be a special commission that reads all the proposed changes and tells us why they are all stupid.

In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to keep voting against all citizen initiatives on principle. Or maybe I should come up with one myself. ... Hmmm, I think I have a couple of ideas.

I'll let you know November after next.

Camera Get the Last Word

The Daily Camera recently published my letter on Amendment 41. After endorsing Amendment 41 prior to the election, the Camera's editors are now calling on the Legislature to enact clarifying legislation to fix the problems they didn't see at that time. In my letter, I pointed out that, since the Amendment was added to our state constitution the legislature could not legally modify it.

Having to get the last word, the editors added a note after my letter, stating that "Amendment 41 allows lawmakers to enact clarifying legislation 'to facilitate the operation of this article.'"

However, the editors conveniently truncated the relevant section (section 9) of Amendment 41. In full, it reads: "LEGISLATION MAY BE ENACTED TO FACILITATE THE OPERATION OF THIS ARTICLE, BUT IN NO WAY SHALL SUCH LEGISLATION LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE OR THE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED."

In other words, Amendment 41 specifically states that the legislature cannot materially change the provisions of the law as voted on by the people of Colorado. I don't know how much more clear it could be. The new law states that government employees can't accept any gifts with a few explicit exceptions. Any clarifying legislation that expanded the list of exceptions would obviously limit or restrict the provisions of the article.

I continue to call on the editors of the Camera to admit that they were wrong to endorse Amendment 41, and to suggest realistic measures to fix it (presumably involving an initiative for our next election.)

I'm Ethics-Challenged

The Daily Camera endorsed Amendment 41 in the recent election. I opposed it.

Well, Amendment 41 passed. And now a number of problems are cropping up. For example, there is some concern that the law would prevent CU profs from accepting awards like the Nobel Prize. There is also concern that children of university employees may not be able to accept scholarships.

These things should be no-brainers. But, go back and re-read the new law. (Or, read it for the first time if you were stupid enough not to read it before voting for it.) Yes, we the enlightened voters of the State of Colorado voted to ban all monetary gifts to all government employees at all levels.

Now the Camera is back-pedalling a bit. They are calling on the State Legislature to clarify the new law. Unfortunately, this doesn't work, because Amendment 41 was written as a constitutional amendment, which can only be changed by a vote of the people. That is unless the courts (read: activist judges) were to weigh in.

Clearly this is exactly the sort of situation that the diabolical authors of the amendment intended, and they are probably giggling to see the liberal university wondering they can keep their elitist awards.

I wrote a letter to the editors of the Camera, which they may or may not publish:

When the editors at the Camera endorse a ballot issue, they have the responsibility to read and understand it first. In the case of Amendment 41, they obviously didn’t (not even its blue book summary.)

The new law enacts a gift ban for elected officials, government employees, and contractors. They cannot accept any monetary gifts. Neither can they (or their immediate families) accept non-monetary gifts with cumulative values over $50 per year. There are exceptions for gifts from friends or relatives on special occasions and for items of trivial value and items received as part of the person’s job duties.

The law does not restrict the limitations to gifts from lobbyists or in exchange for special consideration. The purpose of the law is to provide a clear, unambiguous standard of behavior, and that standard is clearly described.

The Camera’s editorial staff has fallen prey to Amendment 41 campaign materials, or their own wishful thinking about what they want this law to cover. But wishful thinking does not change what was approved by a majority of Coloradans.

Now, the Camera wants the legislature to enact clarifying legislation. But they should know better. Amendment 41 is enshrined in our state constitution. It can only be modified by the courts or the voters. The authors knew that when they wrote it and convinced us to vote for it. And now we’re stuck with expensive court cases and the loss of public employees who don’t want to be held to the impossible standards of the new law. I’d quit now if I had a government job.

At a minimum, the Camera should apologize for contributing to this situation and should be the first to sponsor an initiative in the next election to fix the problems in this initiative.

Making the Trojan Horse Illegal (Colorado Amendment 41)

Sigh. I keep reading these election proposals and hoping to find at least one that is a good idea and worth voting for. So far, no luck. Amendment 41 sounds good at least. It bans most gifts worth more than $50 to most elected officials and government employees in the state, as well as to their immediate families.

However, that's an awful lot of people who can no longer accept random acts of kindness. The amendment creates a 5-person ethics commission to enforce these new rules across all levels of government. Talk about a thankless job!

Suppose I have a friend who works for the city. According to this measure, I could take her out for dinner on her birthday, but not just for the heck of it. Her kid could not accept a scholarship, if it meant that she would have to pay less for his education. Forget about that free toaster from the bank for opening a new account. Her husband could buy her something nice for their anniversary, but he can no longer buy her a spur-of-the-moment gift.

There are some good things about this proposal too. For example, it bans gifts from lobbyists. It also prevents legislators and other statewide elected officials from becoming lobbyists for two years after they leave office.

Amendment 41 has good intentions, but seems to have lots of unintended consequences. And because it is a constitutional amendment, it will be nearly impossible to ever fix those problems.

Vote NO on Amendment 41.