The People v. Free Exercise of Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states." -- Defense of Marriage Act

Congress is prohibited from restricting the free exercise of religion, yet an act of Congress invalidates Fran and Anna Simon's Jewish wedding -- sanctified by Rabbi Jamie Korngold. [more]

This is part 2 in a 3-part series. Read part 1.

How'd I do?

The election is over, the votes are (mostly) counted, and it's time to take stock of how well my recommendations did.

Overall, I recommended a NO vote on 13 issues. Seven of these passed and six failed. I recommended a YES vote on 7 issues. Of these, four went down and three passed. I suppose a monkey throwing darts in a pub would've done better, but I'm sure the monkey wouldn't have felt so smug.

My biggest disappointment? Not being chosen to attend CNN's bloggers' party on election night. I blame this totally on my not self-identifying as either liberal or conservative. However, the fact that I admit to living in Boulder should be good enough for them.

The biggest positive? I learned that if you actually put something on your site that people are interested in they will find it. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, I had more hits than in the entire previous history of my site.

Some thoughts on specific races:

The voters wisely rejected three of the biggest insults to our system of government, Amendments 38, 39, and 40. Unfortunately, they did not reject the fourth insult, Amendment 41, the so-called ethics in government amendment. This change to our state constitution prohibits almost any gift to almost any government employee. The supporters claimed that the preamble's statement of the purpose of the law overrode the actual language in the measure. I'm eager to see either another election or a court case to clarify that we will not be penalizing government employees with no influence for gifts that are not meant to influence public policy.

Amendment 42 passed, putting an increase to the minimum wage in our constitution. Interestingly, this was probably a symbolic measure, given the new democratic control of the state government and the U.S. Congress.

We once again showed that we are not ready to recognize the rights of gays in passing Amendment 43 (defining marriage as between a man and a woman and declaring the invalidity of gay unions) and rejecting Referendum I (domestic partnerships.) The only consolation is that this has no affect, other than emotional, since the definition of marriage already exists in both state and federal law.

Was anybody surprised that Amendment 44 (legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana) failed? Although I voted for it, I admit it was a bit silly, given that possession would still be a federal violation, and it would also still be a crime to grow or sell pot making it about impossible to actually obtain your legal reefer.

Referendum E, property tax relief for disabled veterans, passed easily. As I argued, this is a federal issue that we should not have to solve at the state level, and it only helps a small percentage of disabled vets, but I guess I can't begrudge a few vets this small benefit.

I was kind of puzzled that Referendum F, adjusting recall deadlines, went down. It seemed to me to be a simple case of adjusting the deadlines to fit with reality. But I guess people felt nervous that someone was trying to take advantage of them.

Referendum H, eliminating the state income tax deduction for wages for undocumented workers, passed narrowly, and I voted for it. However, I don't see it being more than symbolic, as few employers are liable to actually admit they hire undocumented workers.

Referendum J went down, mirroring Amendment 39. Voters wisely determined that these were just sneaky ways to cut school spending.

Referendum K passed, mandating the state to file a lawsuit against the federal government to enforce immigration laws. As I stated, this is nothing more than a waste of money, and makes people feels like they did something on the issue.

Local Issues:

Boulder County Issue 1A, Transit and Trails tax, went down. Too bad. We have good trails and transit here, but there is lots of room for improvement and providing leadership for the rest of the country. I hope the county commissioners make good on their promise to try and fund as much of this as possible without this new tax.

Boulder Issue 201 passed, allowing the fire training center to proceed. Let's hope the city can make good on their promises to do it right this time.

Issue 202 also passed, allowing the city to set a national standard for dealing with the issue of climate change.

Boulder citizen initiatives 2A and 2B both were flawed and both went down. Does it say something that of the nine citizen initiatives on the state and local ballot I only voted for one (and that in spite of its flaws)? There's obviously a reason we have a representative democracy.

Boulder Valley School District got its massive capital funding bond issue passed. I hope they make wise us of this money, because I can't see them passing another bond issue for quite a while unless they do exactly what they promised on this one, for the amount of money they promised, in a timely manner.

To everybody reading this, I hope you voted, and thanks for indulging my rants!

Ballot Summary and Recommendations

Summary of my recommendations (so far) for this November's election. Follow the links to see my analysis of each issue. Check back between now and November 7 for more.

When in doubt, vote No!

State of Colorado Proposals:

• NO on Amendment 38: Petitions


• NO on Amendment 39: School District Spending Requirements


• NO on Amendment 40: Term Limits for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges


• NO on Amendment 41: Standards of Conduct in Government


• NO on Amendment 42: Colorado Minimum Wage


• NO on Amendment 43: Marriage


• YES on Amendment 44: Marijuana Possession


• NO on Referendum E: Property Tax Reduction for Disabled Veterans


• YES on Referendum F: Recall Deadlines


• YES on Referendum G: Obsolete Constitutional Provisions


• YES on Referendum H: Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction


• YES on Referendum I: Domestic Partnerships


• NO on Referendum J: School District Spending Requirements


• NO on Referendum K: Immigration Lawsuit Against Federal Government

Boulder County Measures:

• YES on Issue 1A: Transit and Trails Tax

City of Boulder Measures:

• NO on Issue 201: Fire Training Center


• YES on Issue 202: Climate Change Plan


• NO on Issue 2A: Annexation by Vote


• NO on Issue 2B: Water Quality/Fluoridation

Boulder Valley School District Measure:

• NO on Issue 3A: Facilities Improvement Bond

Correction, Sort Of

Yesterday, I reported that the Boulder Daily Camera's sample ballot had a number of errors, some of which might even inadvertently affect the way people vote. Well, what do you know, today the Camera republished the section, with every single one of the errors I reported fixed. However, they did not state why they republished it, nor did they say that they were changing anything.

Go figure.

Anyway, make sure you vote, but even more important make sure you know what you're voting for!

Sample Ballot Caution

I was using the Quick Reference page of the Daily Camera's Voter Guide to mark my voting selections, to create a cheat sheet to bring with me when I voted the other day. That is a very good idea, by the way. Even having my planned votes right in front of me, and even with no line because I voted early at an off hour, it still took me 25 minutes start to finish. There will be long lines on election day!

When marking my selection, I noticed some serious errors in the publication. Some of these errors were serious enough that, had I not spent hours reviewing all of the issues, I could easily have marked the ballot contrary to my own intentions.

Errors include:

• The abbreviation for every party except Republican is defined. Probably not going to confuse many people, but it sure gives people who think the Camera has a liberal bias something to whine about.


• House District 4 is labeled as District 2. This means that District 2 is listed twice (once correctly.) For someone who is using this guide to plan their votes, this could lead to researching and planning to vote for one candidate, but being presented with a different choice on election day.


• Amendment 38, possibly the most dangerous item on the ballot is described as "limiting initiative language". In fact, this issue would make petitions easier, not limit them. If someone has seen enough ads to be aware of this issue and have an opinion but relies on this title instead of reading the description, it could lead to casting an unintended vote.


• The worst error is on Amendment 43. The camera labels this one "domestic partnerships", while in fact this amendment would limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. In fact, there is another issue, Referendum I, which does deal with domestic partnerships. Unfortunately, people who vote for Amendment 43 will largely vote against Referendum I and vice versa. If someone fills out this sample ballot based on the ballot title given by the Camera, they are likely to vote exactly opposite to their intentions.


• The Camera labels Referendum E as "extending property tax exemptions for seniors." In fact, this measure would provide property tax reductions for disabled veterans. Another case of a description that has nothing to do with the actual measure, and potentially leads people to misvote.

The State of Colorado provides perfectly acceptable and politically neutral titles for every one of these issues in its Blue Book. I don't understand why the Camera couldn't have used them.

In fact, this document, with these errors, was published last month. I sent them a letter identifying the problems on October 28. However, as of today, November 4, the Voter Guide is still posted on their website with every single one of the same errors, and no correction has been published.

Is this going to turn into Boulder's "butterfly ballot"?

Vote Early, Vote Often (Boulder Valley School District Issue 3A)

I went to the courthouse and voted early today. It was a good thing that I'd gone through all of the issues beforehand. I used one of the new electronic voting machines and there were something like 14 pages. Start to finish, it took me 25 minutes, and that was with essentially no wait time. I'm guessing that on election day it's going to be lots slower and the lines will be long.

I've previously been critical of the electronic voting systems, so I was very curious how it measured up. I had stated two conditions for acceptable use of electronic voting. The first was having a paper backup, and I was pleased to see that the system we are using in Boulder County (at least this year) does indeed print a paper copy of every ballot that can be used for recounts. Second, I said that there has to be a manual backup voting system, and there was in fact the option for anybody to vote manually.

As far as how difficult it is to vote using the new system, it seemed pretty straightforward. Complexity was very similar to the old punch cards (which I still see no reason for getting rid of). Perhaps a bit simpler because you don't have to deal with all of those paper ballots, or remembering to flip them over and vote the other side. Certainly quicker than voting on the new optical scan paper ballots.

One minor problem is that some of the text displayed on the new system (such as the details about the issues and names of judges up for retention) is in very small print. For a system that is supposed to be designed to help disabled people vote, they seem to have forgotten that a large number of people over a certain age have a problem reading small print if they didn't think to bring their reading glasses.

There was one ballot issue that I had not previously reviewed here, Boulder Valley School District Issue 3A. This measure would increase property taxes by about $100 per year for the average homeowner to pay for $300 million in bonds to improve the district's school facilities.

I'll admit I put off deciding because it's a tough issue. There's a very long list of projects, and the bottom line cost will be over $600 million after all the bonds are repaid. Clearly our schools are in need of serious facilities work. Also clearly, our school district officials have let us down by letting things get to this point. Many citizens have serious trust issues with district officials for how they have spent money from previous bond issues (curiously all numbered 3A on their respective ballots).

I also have a concern about what happens if both this measure and Amendment 39 pass. Without Issue 3A, Amendment 39 would force a big budget cut at BVSD. Add in $300 million in additional facilities spending and there will have to be huge cuts from somewhere else, I have no idea where.

So, when it came time to mark my ballot, I voted NO. Hopefully the school district officials can come up with a more palatable plan to make the required facilities improvements over time, rather than waiting until there is an emergency and they can blackmail us into this huge obligation.

An Issue to Sink My Teeth Into (Boulder Issue 2B)

The proponents of Issue 2B would have you believe that you are voting to eliminate toxins such as lead and arsenic from our drinking water. Nothing is further from the truth. This issue is designed to, first and foremost, eliminate fluoridation of our city water supply.

Now, there are many arguments for and against adding fluoride to the water. On one side, there is no doubt that fluoride in the water has improved our dental health. On the other hand, there are increasing studies that show negative impacts of ingesting fluoride, such as reductions in bone density. This last certainly touches me, as I've fractured three vertebrae due to low bone density.

But this issue has not been described in these terms. If passed, it would require the FDA to regulate additives in our drinking water, something they just don't do. This on the basis on miniscule amounts of arsenic and lead added as part of the fluoridation process. This is a backdoor way to ban fluoridation.

By all means, let's have the real debate on adding fluoride to our water. Let's do it in the open and not based on subterfuge and misinformation.

In the meantime, vote NO on Issue 2B.

Annexation Proclamation (Boulder Issue 2A)

City of Boulder Issue 2A would, with a number of exceptions, force a public vote on new annexations by the City of Boulder. As with many citizen initiatives, it focuses on one problem and comes up with a one-sided solution, without concern for any unintended consequences.

Who came up with the list of exceptions? Why force a vote on annexations on not on any other issue that our elected officials vote on? Why can't we just hold our elected officials accountable for what they do, instead of keeping them from doing anything that might possibly cause a problem?

Now, I'm as anti-growth as anybody. When North Boulder exploded with new construction over the past few years, I was shocked. Acres of grassland were turned almost overnight into row after row of ugly (in my opinion) houses. I'm not sure how this could happen within the constraints of our 1% annual growth limit. (An issue, perhaps, for another day's rant.)

However, Issue 2A is not the way to solve this. Hampering our elected government's ability to work in good faith on our behalf is not consistent with our founding fathers' vision of how our country should work. We need to elect officials who represent our best interests, and then allow them to do their jobs, while continually monitoring them and letting them know what we think.

Vote NO on Boulder Issue 2A.

Local Climate Change (Boulder Ballot Issue 202)

Issue 202 is the City of Boulder's attempt to come into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Global Climate Change. It would raise money by asking Xcel to tax electricity consumption. The typical household would see an increase of $1.87 per month, while the typical manufacturer would see an increase of $5.20 and an office building might see an increase of $33.

There is a detailed plan for how to spend this money. The plan itself acknowledges that there would be no significant global impact. So why would you vote for this? It's not even taking this money and buying us all solar panels.

Well, you have to start somewhere. If every city in this country did the same thing, there would be an impact. And then the state and federal governments would have to jump on the bandwagon. Pretty soon, we're setting an example for the world, instead of vice versa.

Plus, lowering our greenhouse gas emissions will have the side effects of lowering our energy use, cutting our energy costs, helping to clean the air, reducing traffic, and a whole list of other benefits.

Vote YES on Issue 202.

Train Those Fires (City of Boulder Ballot Issue 201)

City Issue 201 asks us to increase sales and use tax for one year by 0.15%, to raise $3.6 million for a new fire training center. Here are some things to consider:

The estimated cost for the fire training center is about $9.6 million, broken into two phases. The first phase is estimated at $6.1 million. The second phase is about $3.4 million, and consists of a number of upgrades that are nice to have but not critical for safety.

In 2001, a three-year sales tax was passed to build three fire training centers for Boulder County. Although the amount raised was less than projected because of declines in the local economy, a total of $3,775,000 was collected for the Boulder Center. Based on the 2001 estimate, we are only short about $0.9 million to build this center. What has changed in 5 years to make this fire center worth $1.5 million more, an increase of about a third? (The projected cost has more than doubled if you include the phase 2 items.)

The city has already messed up big time on this issue. It purchased property for the center, Valmont Butte, only to find that the property was unusable for this purpose, for a variety of reasons. Miraculously, after this debacle, the city was able to find suitable property THAT IT ALREADY OWNED.

A good fire training center seems like a good thing to invest in and can only enhance the safety of our city. However, I think the City of Boulder needs to get its story straight on this and come back to us with a reasonable plan, not just pulling number out of the air.

Vote NO on Boulder Issue 201.

I Get Around (Boulder County Issue 1A)

Boulder County Issue 1A would impose an additional 0.2% sales and use tax (excluding food and prescription drugs) that would be spent on transit improvements (80% of the revenue) and trails (20%).

The transit improvements would be done in conjunction with spending already approved for RTD. Spending would be controlled by the county Transit Enhancement Plan, providing needed accountability. The projects to be funded include popular items such as Eco Pass, call-n-ride, improved mountain services, improved connections between cities within the county, special transit services for seniors, hybrid and alternative fuel buses, improvements to bus stops, and connections to bike and pedestrian facilities. These are all items that are not currently part of the RTD plan, or which can be enhanced by the use of county funds.

The trails improvements would be spent on building out the regional trails plan. This would add or complete many trails and important connectors that would get significant use. This includes the feeder canal from Lyons to Boulder Reservoir, trails between Boulder and Longmont, the Boulder County portion of the US36 bike path, and many other missing connections.

After 14 years, the tax will be cut by 75% to 0.05%, meaning that there will likely be another election then to continue funding for the various program improvements.

I think just about everybody will be able to find something to like about this proposal, as well as something they would never use. In Boulder we have proven that if you make the transit, trail, and cycling options meet the needs of people, they will use them, and you can make a significant dent in single-occupancy motor vehicle usage. The items identified in this measure would continue to move our region towards world class status.

Vote YES on Boulder County Issue 1A.

Cleaning Up After Ourselves (Colorado Referendum F and Referendum G)

Referendum F updates the recall process for our state (including recall election for both state and local governments). It takes some of the provisions out of the state constitution and puts them into the statutes, where it will be easier to adjust them if necessary. Some of the deadlines are also adjusted to conform more closely to reality and what is feasible. This includes the deadlines for filing signature protests, for holding hearings on such protests, for fixing problems with petitions, and for holding the actual recall election. Looking through this, it seems like common sense changes.

Referendum G removes some obsolete text in the state constitution. Other than to history buffs, these provisions no longer apply today. And I assume that there are copies of older versions of the constitution being kept for historical purposes.

Vote YES on Referenda F and G.

Give Us Your Poor (Colorado Referendum H and Referendum K)

These two referenda are meant to address the immigration issue, as well as to convince us voters that the state legislature has done something on that topic this term.

Ref H simply denies the corresponding state income tax deduction on wages for employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. Employers will still get to deduct those wages on their federal taxes.

I'm sure that if this passes we won't be seeing many employers admitting that they are employing illegals, as this is in itself illegal. Therefore, this seems fairly symbolic. However, it does deny a tax write-off on something that is illegal, and as such seems like a fair thing to do.

I suggest voting YES on Referendum H, but it probably won't matter much either way.


I laughed out loud when I read Referendum K. See if you can follow this:

• The state legislature is referring this measure


• to the voters in Colorado, who are asked to approve


• a law demanding that


• the Colorado attorney General file a lawsuit


• against the U.S. attorney general to demand that


• the federal government enforce existing immigration laws.

Makes my head spin.

This measure is purely symbolic. Other states have tried similar lawsuits and failed. Plus, the state already has two laws direct the state attorney general to take all available steps to get the federal government to cover the state's costs for illegal immigration.

Referendum K is a silly waste of time and money. Vote NO.

Does It Help Puppies, Too? (Colorado Referendum E)

Gosh, who doesn't want to help disabled vets? Those of us who aren't disabled vets certainly feel guilty. Maybe giving them a break on their property taxes is the least we can do.

Referendum E would cut property taxes for 100% disabled vets by half on their homes' first $200,000 in value. The state would reimburse local governments for the cost of this tax break. The state legislature would also have the ability to adjust the amount of the break from year to year, as they recently did with a similar tax break we have already granted to seniors in this state.

Here is the fundamental flaw in this proposal that nobody wants to talk about. It's the sad puppy syndrome. Flash up a picture of a sad puppy (or some other image designed to make people feel guilty), and they will agree to anything. I'm not saying that helping disabled vets is bad (it isn't). But why them? Why aren't we offering to cut taxes for disabled firefighters? What about tornado victims? What about people who shelter lost puppies in their homes? What particular sacrifice or sad story is sufficient to earn this particular charity from the taxpayers of this state?

Regarding disabled vets, yes, our government owes them big time. That would be our federal government, which asked them to serve and then took the second biggest sacrifice it could ask. If we are not providing adequate compensation for this, shame on us.

But, as this Referendum is written, it is just a band-aid applied by a bystander. And, not a very good one. Remember, it only helps those vets with a 100% permanent disability who also own a home in this state. That is less than one percent of the vets in this state.

So, vote NO on Referendum E. And then write to your senators and congressional representative and tell them you are embarrassed to even have to consider this.

Get High With a Little Help from the Voters (Colorado Amendment 44)

Amendment 44 is the only citizen-initiated ballot proposal this year that would amend the Colorado statutes, rather than its constitution. That alone makes it deserve a closer look.

The stated goal of this proposal is to equalize the treatment of marijuana and alcohol in this state, and to provide a "safer" alternative to alcohol use. It would legalize the possession (and private use) of up to an ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and over.

Still illegal would be possession if you are under 21, possessing more than an ounce, providing marijuana to anyone underage, growing or selling marijuana, or any public use.

Also, unfortunately for Boulder City Council Member Richard Polk, it would not legalize driving while stoned.

Marijuana possession will also remain a federal crime, which means that petty pot smokers would still be subject to arrest and conviction by federal officers and courts.

I also note that, since growing and selling pot would remain illegal, a crime would still have to be committed in order to legally possess your small amount for personal, private use.

That said, I do believe that proponents are probably right, that it likely is safer than alcohol. In fact, I'd bet smoking a joint a day is safer than drinking a can of soda every day.

This law would also free up money and energy spent catching and prosecuting minor drug users.

This seems imperfect, but it's a step in the right direction. I recommend a YES vote on Amendment 44.

Are You 10% of a Man? (Colorado Amendment 43 and Referendum I)

Amendment 43 is deceptively simple -- it adds a clause to the state constitution that says that "only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." Referendum I is more complex, defining a new category of domestic partnership that grants gay partners many of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. If you are my regular reader, you probably know how I'm voting on these.

The problems with Amendment 43 are many. First of all, I believe it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bans the establishment of a state religion, and guarantees the right to freely exercise one's own religion. As I've written before, this line is clearly crossed when a minister is arrested for performing a gay marriage.

Second, Amendment 43 is being added to the state constitution. This document is supposed to contain our state's guiding principles, guaranteeing rights for all of us. Putting it into the constitution only makes it hard to change. This is exactly what the proponents want. As time goes by and people become more accepting of people with different sexual orientations, this abomination cannot easily be undone.

In fact, the exact same limitation that is being proposed here is already a Colorado statute as well as a federal law. So, it is completely redundant and a waste of all of our time, energy, and money.

Look carefully at the words of the proposed amendment. "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." So not only is any other type of union not a marriage, it also isn't valid. I don't know what that means, but I'm suspecting that the authors of the amendment intend it to mean that domestic partnerships are not to be valid. But, for all I know, it also means that trade unions would no longer valid be in Colorado.

It really irritates me when anybody, whether a lawmaker or a petition writer, puts ambiguous words into a measure with the intent that it be clarified in the courts. Not only is that expensive, it also proves that are cowards. They don't have enough confidence in their position to say and argue for exactly what they mean.

Let's look at some of the arguments for Amendment 43. First, there is protecting the definition of marriage. Well, perhaps I should circulate a petition to add the definition of the word "bigot" to the constitution, just so nobody gets confused about who it applies to.

Gay marriage does not threaten any particular marriage, nor does it in any way threaten the institution of marriage as a whole. Nobody is being forced into a gay marriage, nor is any hetero marriage being prevented or questioned.

This amendment is not needed to protect the historical definition of marriage. Marriage on this planet has had many forms over time. The current form -- boy meets girl, they fall in love, get married, have kids, grow old together and die together -- has not been around for that long. Many societies have seen gay marriage, polygamy, marriage of convenience, arranged marriage, harems, concubines, and many other types of "unions". We are now contemplating writing a current "fad" into our constitution.

According to supporters, marriage exists solely to create, nurture, and protect children. Well, they are flat out wrong. Marriages exist for many reasons. When my wife and I got married, we knew we would never have children. When my grandmother remarried in her 60s, there were clearly no children in the plans. I consider this argument to be an insult, and I would not put up with it if it was used to my face.

The amendment is intended to protect marriage against so-called "activist judges". All this means is that proponents of this amendment are afraid that some judge will someday disagree with them. Well I hope so, but disagreeing with religious fundamentalists does not make a judge an activist, it just shows that he is thinking for himself.

Keep your religion out of our constitution, and reject Amendment 43.

On to Referendum I. This proposal would change the Colorado statutes (not the constitution) to create a new legal relationship for same-sex couples, called a domestic partnership. The members of this couple would be afforded most of the 100 or so rights and responsibilities accorded to married couples by Colorado law. It would not, however, provide any of the 1000 or so rights and responsibilities available to married couples by the federal government.

According to my rough calculation, this means that if this law passes the value of gays will be increased to about 10% of straights. Of course, there would still be a long way to go to even get to the 3/5 of a free man valuation that was guaranteed to slaves in the original U.S. Constitution.

The only significant argument against this proposal is that it takes the heat off the real issue, which is bringing gays up to 100% -- allowing committed couples to marry if they wish.

Vote for Referendum I.

Alms for the Poor (Colorado Amendment 42)

I don't believe that there are people that think the minimum wage should stay the same. There are people that believe that there should be no minimum wage at all, that the government has no business telling businesses how to run their business. Then there are people that believe that the minimum wage needs to be set at a fair level.

Well, the fact of a minimum wage has been settled in the country since 1938. It was put in place to provide workers during the Great Depression with a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. It guaranteed $0.25 per hour to those covered. As President Roosevelt said, it was "legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours".

So, if you accept the fact that there is a minimum wage and that its purpose is to end starvation wages, then it seems clear that the minimum wage needs to be tied in some way to cost of living.

In fact, Colorado Amendment 42 does just that. It would set the minimum wage in this state to $6.85 per hour, an increase of $1.70 over the federally mandated $5.15. It also increases that rate each year based on inflation. This is something our federal government has been unable to do, and now we have to opportunity to make it happen here.

Have I finally found the amendment I'm willing to vote for?

Well, no. People who use the initiative process to put things onto our ballot like turning them into constitutional amendments. This is because it prevents the legislature from messing with them, and maybe helps avoid some nasty conflicts with other laws that are merely statutes.

Unfortunately, this leads to writing nitty gritty details into our guiding document that often cause unintended consequences. For example, the voters in this state have approved constitutional amendments that force spending cuts across the board as well as mandating specific increases. We have to stop doing this.

That is why, although I support this issue, I will be voting against Amendment 42. What happens if Congress gets some courage and changes how the federal minimum wage is calculated? What if the economy drastically changes? Our hard-to-change constitution should not include wage dollar figures, specific formulas for increases, or how much to pay workers who get tips compared to those who don't.

At the federal level, we need to reframe the argument. Either the folks who are opposed to the minimum wage need to convince us that it should be repealed, or we need to raise it to a fair level and ensure that it stays at a fair level, rather than being a hostage to politics.

In the meantime, vote NO on Amendment 42.

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.

Judge Not Lest You Be Accused of Being an Activist (Colorado Amendment 40)

Amendment 40 is another attempt by a small group of Colorado citizens to bypass a proven system of government. We've already looked at Amendment 38, which would essentially castrate elected lawmakers that these cranks can't vote out of office. Amendment 40 would toss out any experienced judges, purely on the basis that they are, in fact, experienced. Kind of like throwing out the baby, the bath water, the soap, the wash cloth, the bubbles, and the wash tub. But at least we get to keep the rubber ducky.

Our founding fathers created three branches of government for very good reasons. Judges are purposefully not elected, so that they are not subject to the whim of the voters and can provide a balance against elected officials who might (gasp!) do something stupid just to get reelected.

Face it, no matter who you are, some judges will make some decisions that you don't agree with. Does that make such a judge an out-of-control activist? Who is more dangerous to our constitutional principles: a judge who allows gays to marry or a judge who allows habeas corpus to be suspended and prisoners to be tortured?

Amendment 40, if it passes will immediately force 5 (of 7) Supreme Court justices and 7 (of 19) Appeals judges out of office. These are all experienced professionals who have served the state for over 10 years each. Some of them will be automatically ousted in spite of having been previously approved by the electorate for retention. Even the judges who aren't getting fired will have to prove themselves in a 2008 retention election, even if already approved by the electorate beyond then.

Under this proposed insult to the state constitution, Supreme Court justices and Appeals judges will be limited to serving 10 years. Doesn't it make sense that the most experienced judges will be the best judges? Every judge is already subject to regular retention elections, possible impeachment, forced retirement at age 72, and other forms of oversight.

In 2009, under this new proposal, a very large number of judicial positions will become open. Maybe if you think your party has a good shot at the governorship this year you like those odds. But remember this, a large number of judges will be forced out in waves every 10 years, creating yet another opportunity for the governor at the time to stack the courts in his or her favor.

Think about this as well: The state will have to find a large number of skilled judges every 10 years all at once. That is likely to create a crisis when the judicial positions are not filled, as well as forcing us to lower our standards and bring in less competent or less experienced judges. Of course, I suppose that's the goal of the proponents of this amendment.

Amendment 40 is an insult to our country's founding fathers, an insult to our way of life (where else in our society do you get fired purely on the basis of having too much experience at a job), and an insult to our intelligence.

Vote NO on Amendment 40.

65 Percent Solution is a 35 Percent Problem (Colorado Amendment 39 and Referendum J)

Two issues on the Colorado November ballot attempt to codify the amount of money spent by school districts on so-called direct classroom expenses. Amendment 39 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution, while Referendum J is an attempt by the state legislature to present a slightly more palatable option. Both specify that school districts must spend at least 65% of their budgets on such expenses (although the two differ in the definition of classroom expenses).

My first question, which I have not heard answered by anybody, is why 65%? Has there been some magical study that showed that spending at least that percentage better teaches our children? Or was that number just pulled out of somebody's hat to create a rallying cry?

If Amendment 39 passes, 166 school districts across the state (out of a total of 178) will somehow have to come up with a combined total of $278 million annually. That's $1.7 million each year for the average district. But these districts won't easily be able to raise the additional revenue, so what it really means is forced budget cuts across the board in "non-educational" areas.

Supporters of Amendment 39 would have you believe that it will magically increase spending in the classroom without increasing taxes. It will not. It is a stealth measure to cut public school spending.

What does this mean? Expect any and all of the following:

• Firing principals, nurses, counselors, bus drivers, and food service workers


• Eliminating teacher training


• No cuts in student testing (which is mandated by law)


• Drastic cuts in college placement, health services, food services, and transportation


• School boards are probably safe, but expect public pressure for them to eliminate meals at meetings or some other drivel


• Deferring building maintenance and repair, as well as new construction


• Major cuts to school administration (this includes things like paying teachers and buying computers)

None of these cuts will be acceptable to the public, and so then what happens? Currently, about 8% of school budgets are already earmarked, which leaves a small group of spending areas that will have to be hit hard.

What about Ref J? In its favor, it wisely puts this rule into a state statute, which at least allows tuning the process as we learn about all the pitfalls to come. And it includes more types of expenses as classroom expenses (specifically principals and support staff). This means that most districts would be compliant at the start: Only three districts would have to make up a total of about a million dollars per year. But it still has the same fundamental problem of defining an arbitrary spending level for every single school district in the state.

In both cases, this is an example of the state trying to shoehorn a one-size fits all solution onto everybody, without regard for local concerns. There is no compensation for different local requirements for transportation, school lunches, utilities, and other expenses that may vary widely.

Ref J at least allows local voters to opt out of this arrangements. Any school district could by simple vote remove itself from having to meet the 65% rule. But Amendment 39 has no such safety clause.

There's another difference that jumps out at you if you read these two measures. Amendment 39 is obviously written by a bunch of ideologues trying to force their world view on the rest of us. Referendum J, as it was written by experienced lawmakers, at least has the appearance of considering all of the impacts, contradictions, and potential confusion of the measure.

So, what happens if a school district doesn't meet these new rules? They can always apply for a waiver, which may or may not be granted. If it is, they have another year to comply or to file for another waiver. If the waiver isn't granted, well, then unspecified sanctions just might be applied by the general assembly.

Or not.

Vote no on Amendment 39. If you strongly support this issue, vote for Referendum J as the lesser of two evils, but I'm voting no.