CO Ballot Issues 2004

Colorado State-wide Ballot Issues – 2004

Citizen Initiatives
Amend-
ment # Title What it does LP of Colorado Recommendation Result
34 Construction Liability Would force Colorado contractors to pay higher damages for shoddy construction.
Amendment 34 - No
Current laws already exist for property owners and construction professionals to resolve construction defect disputes without immediately turning to the courts. The current system also defines damages in a way that is fair to both property owners and construction professionals: it compensates property owners for the actual cost of fixing their property but limits excessive compensation. Instead of this constitutional amendment, we would prefer a change in the law to allow the property owner to be awarded money due to loss of use of property (currently prohibited). NO
77%
35 Tobacco Tax Increase for Health-Related Purposes A proposal to raise the tobacco tax in order to fund health care and anti-smoking programs. It seeks to raise the tax on a packet of cigarettes by 64 cents for a total of 84 cents. The tax increase would bring in about $175 million a year for programs like the Children's Basic Health Plan, Medicaid, primary care clinics, tobacco-use prevention and treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. The plan would raise the excise tax on other tobacco products like cigars and chewing tobacco by 20 percent.
Amendment 35 - No
Let's reduce the size of government instead of increasing taxes. This proposal unfairly targets poor people for more taxes and the revenue generated is unlikely to benefit them. YES
61%
36 Selection of Presidential Electors A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado. If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all the state's electoral votes. The Libertarian Party of Colorado Board of Directors has endorsed Amendment 36, but the decision was not unanimous; two officers voting to the contrary, and two abstaining. LPCO Members should review the measure carefully and vote their conscience. We have therefore provided both a PRO and CON position on this ballot measure.
Amendment 36 - Yes
The Republicans and the Democrats control the Federal Election Comission (FEC), the Presidential Debate Commission (through state legislatures), ballot access and campaign finance legislation; at the national and state levels. They have outlawed competition by advocacy groups and, adding insult to injury, they fund their national conventions with our (i.e. taxpayer) money.
Amendment 36 provides a tiny crack which Libertarians can use to penetrate this vise like grip the Republicans and the Democrats have on the electoral process. A Libertarian party electoral vote would have to be reported nationally by media, analysts, and historians alike; especially if the presidential election is as close as the last or the current. This would be a huge step forward in breaking the absolute two party domination of the electoral process nationwide.

Amendment 36 - No
In 1971 John Hospers of the Libertarian Party got its first and only Electoral College vote. Few cared then and few will care now.
In the unlikely event that a 3rd party gets an Electoral College vote, it will be the Greens/Naderites. As such, support of A36 is bad for us strtegically since it hands to our enemies a political advantage. We know from bitter experience that if a Green gets such a vote that it will be big news. If a Libertarian gets such a vote that the news will be buried.
The State Board of the Libertarian Party is now on record supporting a move towards allowing direct democracy to override a sacred principle: no ex post facto law. Should A36 pass, Paul Grant, the well-respected libertarian lawyer, will challenge A36 as a violation of ex post facto.
This is the Party of Principle. It is a shame that principle has yielded to self-defeating political expediency.
NO
65%
37 Renewable Energy Requirement Requires power companies to provide a certain amount of renewable energy.
Amendment 37 - No
We support the use of renewable energy sources, especially for the power grid. However, the best approach to accomplish this will be to enable power users statewide to purchase from the supplier of their choice. Colorado utilities are already using renewable energy resources when they are cost-effective. Instead of mandating energy sources, let the consumers vote with their dollars! YES
54%
Legislative Referenda
Refer-
endum Title What it does LP of Colorado Recommendation Result
A State Personnel System Makes it easier to discipline or fire state employees.
Referendum A - No
This proposal will promote "cronyism" to unprecidented levels. Comparing applicant qualifications, rather than testing, could EASILY be manipulated to allow state employees to be HIRED based on their political connections and not on merit. NO
61%
B Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Eliminates obsolete provisions in the state constitution. Referendum B - Yes YES
69%

Also see:

Ballot Analysis from the State of Colorado (PDF)
Description of Ballot Issues by the League of Women Voters of Colorado.
Ballot issues in other counties: Boulder County

Colorado Libertarian Party Candidates – 2004

Citizen Initiatives
Amend- ment #	Title	What it does	LP of Colorado Recommendation	Result
34	Construction Liability	Would force Colorado contractors to pay higher damages for shoddy construction.	Amendment 34 - No Current laws already exist for property owners and construction professionals to resolve construction defect disputes without immediately turning to the courts. The current system also defines damages in a way that is fair to both property owners and construction professionals: it compensates property owners for the actual cost of fixing their property but limits excessive compensation. Instead of this constitutional amendment, we would prefer a change in the law to allow the property owner to be awarded money due to loss of use of property (currently prohibited).	NO 77%
35	Tobacco Tax Increase for Health-Related Purposes	A proposal to raise the tobacco tax in order to fund health care and anti-smoking programs. It seeks to raise the tax on a packet of cigarettes by 64 cents for a total of 84 cents. The tax increase would bring in about $175 million a year for programs like the Children's Basic Health Plan, Medicaid, primary care clinics, tobacco-use prevention and treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. The plan would raise the excise tax on other tobacco products like cigars and chewing tobacco by 20 percent.	Amendment 35 - No Let's reduce the size of government instead of increasing taxes. This proposal unfairly targets poor people for more taxes and the revenue generated is unlikely to benefit them.	YES 61%
36	Selection of Presidential Electors	A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado. If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all the state's electoral votes.	The Libertarian Party of Colorado Board of Directors has endorsed Amendment 36, but the decision was not unanimous; two officers voting to the contrary, and two abstaining. LPCO Members should review the measure carefully and vote their conscience. We have therefore provided both a PRO and CON position on this ballot measure. Amendment 36 - Yes The Republicans and the Democrats control the Federal Election Comission (FEC), the Presidential Debate Commission (through state legislatures), ballot access and campaign finance legislation; at the national and state levels. They have outlawed competition by advocacy groups and, adding insult to injury, they fund their national conventions with our (i.e. taxpayer) money. Amendment 36 provides a tiny crack which Libertarians can use to penetrate this vise like grip the Republicans and the Democrats have on the electoral process. A Libertarian party electoral vote would have to be reported nationally by media, analysts, and historians alike; especially if the presidential election is as close as the last or the current. This would be a huge step forward in breaking the absolute two party domination of the electoral process nationwide. Amendment 36 - No In 1971 John Hospers of the Libertarian Party got its first and only Electoral College vote. Few cared then and few will care now. In the unlikely event that a 3rd party gets an Electoral College vote, it will be the Greens/Naderites. As such, support of A36 is bad for us strtegically since it hands to our enemies a political advantage. We know from bitter experience that if a Green gets such a vote that it will be big news. If a Libertarian gets such a vote that the news will be buried. The State Board of the Libertarian Party is now on record supporting a move towards allowing direct democracy to override a sacred principle: no ex post facto law. Should A36 pass, Paul Grant, the well-respected libertarian lawyer, will challenge A36 as a violation of ex post facto. This is the Party of Principle. It is a shame that principle has yielded to self-defeating political expediency.	NO 65%
37	Renewable Energy Requirement	Requires power companies to provide a certain amount of renewable energy.	Amendment 37 - No We support the use of renewable energy sources, especially for the power grid. However, the best approach to accomplish this will be to enable power users statewide to purchase from the supplier of their choice. Colorado utilities are already using renewable energy resources when they are cost-effective. Instead of mandating energy sources, let the consumers vote with their dollars!	YES 54%
Legislative Referenda
Refer- endum	Title	What it does	LP of Colorado Recommendation	Result
A	State Personnel System	Makes it easier to discipline or fire state employees.	Referendum A - No This proposal will promote "cronyism" to unprecidented levels. Comparing applicant qualifications, rather than testing, could EASILY be manipulated to allow state employees to be HIRED based on their political connections and not on merit.	NO 61%
B	Obsolete Constitutional Provisions	Eliminates obsolete provisions in the state constitution.	Referendum B - Yes	YES 69%

11/24/04 Webmaster