Prop*50

Trial on CO's pay-per-signature ban underway

A long-awaited trial is finally underway in Colorado. The law at issue was passed by the state legislature back in 2009. Among other provisions, HB 1326 prohibited paying petition circulators more than 20 percent of their total compensation on a per-signature basis. That's the most common way to pay petition circulators, although it is prohibited in six states besides Colorado. States have sought to restrict paying circulators based on how many signatures they gather because of the worry that such a system may encourage fraudulent behavior on the part of circulators. If more signatures equals more salary, then why not fudge a few? Opponents argue that the logic behind this is flawed, and that such bans make the cost of gathering signatures prohibitively high.

Colorado's pay-per-signature ban was enjoined by a federal judge back in June 2010, and the trial is just now getting underway. Testimony is scheduled to last for eight days over this week and next week, and an opinion would most likely come later in the summer or early fall.

The ban on paying on a per-signature basis is temporarily on hold, pending the outcome of the trial.

Read more in the Denver Post.

Colorado's Prop. 103 fails

With 98% of precincts reporting, just over a third of Colorado voters -- 36.4% -- voted in favor of Proposition 103. Sponsored by state senator Rollie Heath, Prop. 103 would have temporarily raised income and state sales taxes for a period of five years to make up for cuts to education.

Prop. 103 was the only proposed statewide tax increase on the ballot in 2011. Last year, voters in Arizona and Oregon approved tax increases.

In a May 18, 2010, special election, Arizona voters approved Proposition 100, which instituted a temporary 1% transaction and use tax for three years. Two-thirds of the revenue raised goes to public education and one-third to health and human services and public safety.

In a January 2010 special election, Oregon voters approved two tax increases that were enacted by the legislature and then subjected to voter approval through the popular referendum process. Measure 66 raised income tax rates for individuals earning $125,000 or more and households earning $250,000 or more. Measure 67 raised minimum taxes for businesses and corporations.

The last election in which voters approved a tax increase proposed by a citizen initiative was in 2006. That year, Alaska voters approved a new tax on cruise ships, and voters in Arizona and South Dakota approved increases in tobacco taxes.

Read more about Prop. 103 in the Denver Post.

Why did Colorado vote on Nov. 1?

In most states, the 2011 general election falls on November 8. But in Colorado, Election Day this year was November 1. That's due to a quirk in the wording of Colorado's TABOR amendment. TABOR is short for the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which was passed by citizen initiative in 1992. Prior to the passage of TABOR, ballot measure votes in Colorado were restricted to even-year general elections. One of the key requirements of TABOR, however, was that all future tax increases would require voter approval, and TABOR changed the Colorado constitution to permit votes on revenue issues in odd years:

Colorado Constitution Article X, §20(3)(a)

Ballot issues shall be decided in a state general election, biennial local district election, or on the first Tuesday in November of odd-numbered years.

For even-year elections, state law specifies that the general election is held on "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November." That falls on November 8 this year, when most states hold elections. Under the TABOR language, however, Colorado's odd-year election fell on November 1 this year, the first Tuesday in November.

Colorado: Lawsuit filed against TABOR

A bipartisan group of 34 people, many of them former state and local elected officials, is expected to file a challenge in federal court to Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) today. Colorado's TABOR law was passed via the citizen initiative process in 1992. It requires voter approval of tax increases, caps how much revenue the state may collect and spend each year, and requires that any excess beyond the revenue cap be returned to taxpayers. In 2005, Colorado voters approved a temporary suspension of TABOR. The suspension expired in July 2010.

The lawsuit alleges that Colorado's initiative process violates Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the states a "Republican Form of Government," because it prevents the legislature from raising taxes without a popular vote. Attorneys in the case argue that "events have demonstrated that a legislature unable to raise and appropriate funds cannot meet its primary constitutional obligations or provide services that are essential for a state."

The outcome of the case could affect the many laws and constitutional provisions in Colorado that were passed via the citizen initiative process.

Read more in the Denver Post.

Support for Colorado revenue-slashing measures remains low

A new poll released today by the Denver Post and 9News reveals that support for Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 -- already very weak a month ago -- has not improved.  While the percentage of those saying they'll vote "yes" has gone up since late September, a closer analysis reveals this is not in fact a sign of increasing support.  In the late September poll, the "undecided" vote for all three was more than 40 percent.  That's dropped to 20 - 24 percent, and the majority of those who've made up their minds since the earlier poll was taken have decided to vote no. 

While the "yes" vote is up by eight points for Amendments 60 & 61 and nine points for Proposition 101, the "no" vote is up by higher margins:  11 points for Amendment 60 and Proposition 101, and 14 points for Amendment 61.

	October 19 – 21			September 28-30
	Yes	No	Not Sure	Yes	No	Not Sure
Am. 60	18%	59%	23%	10%	48%	42%
Am. 61	18%	63%	20%	10%	49%	40%
Prop. 101	21%	55%	24%	12%	44%	44%

Amendment 60 cuts property taxes by half and requires the states to reimburse school districts for the lost K-12 revenue.  Amendment 61 prohibits state borrowing and restricts local government borrowing.  Proposition 101 cuts or eliminates most vehicle and telecommunications taxes and fees.

A Colorado mystery

Controversy over the financial backing of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 -- anti-tax initiatives that will appear on the November 2 ballot -- has been swirling for months in Colorado. State law requires that any person or group who raises or spends $200 or more on an initiative campaign must register with the secretary of state and file financial disclosure reports. No one registered as a proponent of these three initiatives, even though there is evidence that they qualified for the ballot through the use of professional, paid petition circulators. So who paid for the signature collection effort?

For months, opponents of the three measures pointed the finger at anti-tax activist and former Republican legislator Douglas Bruce. After it became known that the petition circulators had stayed in a property owned by Bruce, opponents filed a campaign finance complaint in January alleging that Bruce was the chief backer of the measures. He managed to evade process servers bearing a subpoena related to that case dozens of times. He was ultimately charged with contempt of court, but a judge dismissed that charge and ordered him to testify in the campaign finance case.  A judge in June found that there was sufficient evidence to tie Mr. Bruce to the three initiatives, and ordered the chief sponsor of each (Mr. Bruce's name does not appear in the list of sponsors on any of the three petitions) to pay a $6,000 fine for the campaign finance violations.

The latest twists in the story come from Mr. Bruce himself.  In contrast to his strident denials of his involvement in the three measures (he frequently characterizes such accusations as ....), an email he sent to supporters on September 23 claims, "You have no idea how much time and money has been spent to get to the finish line," and writes that he has spent over 1,600 hours of his time on the campaign.  He later said that number was a typo, and that he had actually spent only 160 hours.



Today's Denver Post reports that attorneys for the opponents -- a group called Coloradans for Responsible Reform -- have finally deposed Mr. Bruce, and he admitted to them that he had written more than $100,000 in checks to fund the signature drive from the account of his 501(c)(3), Active Citizens Together (ACT).  Under Colorado law, ACT should have registered with the secretary of state as soon as it reached the $200 spending threshold.  Furthermore, Mr. Bruce has admitted that he received the signed petitions, checked them for accuracy, and stored them at his home before turning them in to state officials for verification.  The current complaint goes to an administrative judge, who may order a hearing sometime in the next two weeks.

Mr. Bruce could find himself in trouble with the Internal Revenue Service as a result of this case as well.  IRS rules state that a 501(c)(3) cannot have as its chief purpose political activity, and it is unclear based on its recent activities that ACT can meet that standard.  Read more about how many non-profit groups are pushing the limits of rules regulating political spending this year in yesterday's New York Times.  Another potential legal problem looms in the fact that ACT has not registered as a non-profit with the Colorado secretary of state's office, a step that is required before a group can solicit charitable contributions.

Several of the 24 initiative states have acted in recent years to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules for initiative campaigns, particularly for spending during the signature-gathering phase.  The idea behind such disclosure is that the identity of the individuals, groups or corporations that seek to put an initiative before voters is a key fact that voters should be aware of as they decide how to vote on a proposal.  Because the opponents have had to rely on the courts to force disclosure in the case of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101, it is possible that Colorado voters will not know the facts surrounding the financial sponsorship of these three highly controversial initiatives before Election Day.

Collection of polling data

Visit NCSL's newly-launched StateVote 2010 website to read a summary of recent polls on ballot measures.  New polls today include nearly all of the initiatives on Colorado's ballot as well as a casino initiative in Maine.

Colorado 'blue book' challenge rejected

The Denver Post reports today that a Denver district judge has rejected a challenge by the proponents of Amendment 62, which would define human life as beginning at conception.  The proponents filed suit against the Colorado Legislative Council, which is responsible for producing Colorado's voter information pamphlet known as the "Blue Book." 

The plaintiffs claimed that the summary of arguments presented against the Amendment 62 in the Blue Book was biased and unfair.  The Blue Book contains the text of every measure on the statewide ballot, as well as an impartial summary of each proposal and a summary of the arguments for and against it.  Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt said that besides the fact that it is too late for the court to do anything about it (Blue Books have already arrived in Colorado households by mail), the court would not intervene in the drafting of the Blue Book because it is a legislative function.

Read Colorado's Blue Book

Colorado "personhood" sponsors sue over state analysis

The sponsors of Colorado's Amendment 62, which would apply the word "person" as used in the state constitution to every human being from the beginning of biological development, filed suit yesterday against the Colorado Legislative Council.  The Legislative Council staff drafts the "Blue Book," Colorado's ballot pamphlet that contains the full text of each measure on the statewide ballot, along with a non-partisan analysis and a summary of the arguments for and against each measure.  Amendment 62 proponents contend that the arguments against the measure presented in the Blue Book are inaccurate and misleading.

The following is an excerpt from the Blue Book:

Arguments Against

1) Amendment 62 may limit the ability of individuals and families to make important health care decisions. The measure could be used to prohibit or limit access to medical care, including abortions for victims of rape or incest, and even when a woman's life is in danger. Amendment 62 may also limit access to emergency contraception, commonly used forms of birth control, and treatment for miscarriages, tubal pregnancies, cancer, and infertility. The measure may restrict some stem cell research that could lead to life-saving therapies for a variety of disabilities and illnesses.

2) Amendment 62 allows government intrusion in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and could limit the exercise of independent medical judgment. The measure could restrict a doctor from using certain medical procedures and treatments. Further, "the beginning of biological development" cannot be easily and conclusively pinpointed. Therefore, the measure may subject doctors and nurses to legal action for providing medical care to a woman of child-bearing age if that care could affect a "person" other than the identified patient.

3) The effects of Amendment 62's change to the constitution are unclear. The measure applies certain rights from "the beginning of biological development," a term which is not defined within the measure, has no established legal meaning, and is not an accepted medical or scientific term. The legislature and the courts will have to decide how a wide variety of laws, including property rights and criminal laws, will apply from "the beginning of biological development."

The sponsors object to the truthfulness of the arguments that passage of Amendment 62 might lead to women being denied treatment for a miscarriage, or that doctors could be at risk of legal action for treating women of child-bearing age.  Finally, they disagree with the contention that the term "the beginning of biological development" has no established legal meaning.

According to The Denver Post, there have been five challenges to Blue Book language since 1996, none successful.  This year's Blue Book has been available online since last week, and 1.8 million copies are already in the mail to Colorado voters.

Colorado 2010 Blue Book

Denver Post coverage

Poll: Colorado's Amendments 60 & 61 and Prop. 101

A poll conducted in late August by Ciruli Associates reveals that a sizable portion of the Colorado electorate is undecided on the three revenue measures on the state's ballot.  Just one, Proposition 101, which would cut the income tax as well as telecommunications and automobile taxes and fees, was leading.  Ciruli attributes the sagging support to the well-financed and widespread opposition to the three measures among Colorado elected officials in both parties and the Colorado business community.

Read more about it in The Denver Post or on Floyd Ciruli's blog, The Buzz.