Wednesday, October 13, 2010

2010 ballot questions

Cheat sheet

P: yes
Q: yes
R: yes
60: no
61: no
62: yes
63: yes
101: no
102: yes

Supreme Court
Bender – no
Martinez – no
Rice – no

Appellate Court
Daily – yes
Gabriel – no
Lichtenstein – no
Richman – no

County Court
Yuma Judge Sara Wagers-Johnson – yes, she’s awesome, we need more like her
Phillips Judge David Colver – yes
Kit Carson Judge Michael Grinnan – yes

13th Judicial District - vote to remove term limits on DA. I still support term limits on legislators and commissioners, but the requirements for DA make the field of qualified candidates pretty small; we should remove the term limits on this office.

The shortest reasoning I can give you on the ballot questions:

P - this moves the regulation of bingo and raffles to the Dept of Revenue from the Dept of State. It is a smart consolidation of similar functions into one department.

Q - sets up a way to move state government functions if a disaster emergencies is declared. Right now it would take a state-wide vote to authorize the meeting of e legislature at a lace other than Denver; this is smart, just in case.

R - does away with the assessment, collection and payment of possessory interest (property) taxes on low value properties. This is really smart because it often costs more to assess and collect this tax than the total tax bill.
60, 61, & 101 as a package really do go too far. I don't think their passage brings about the end of government, but things would be completely different at every level from the state right down to your local cemetery district and telephone cooperative. I am pretty sure that these three are headed to defeat, so I won't write too much about them right now.
I will make two important points. If you think that state government is too big and needs to shrink (as I do) guess what, we get to (or have to) do that anyway as the Democrats have handed us a near $1 billion gap to close in the next fiscal year. These three would add about $730 million to that gap. Also, I am positive that passage of 60 and 101 would end state subsidies for higher education; I’m not using a scare tactic, I’m just calling it like I see it. All of the out-state junior colleges, state colleges and community colleges would close.
If you have specific questions about these three, just flip me an email and I will try to respond.

62 - I encourage you to ignore most of the rhetoric related to this one. It is really a question of whether abortion should be banned in all cases except life of the mother. That is how this would play out if 62 actually passes. It would also ban the morning after pill, most likely, but only most likely. If you are Pro-Life without two of the big three exceptions, you should vote for this; if you aren't, then vote against it.
63 - this would protect your right to health care choice in the Constitution. I really wish that we didn't have to put stuff like this in the Constitution, but after the passage of Obamacare over the objection of a majority of Americans, it is obvious now that we have to pass this. It would keep the government from forcing you to buy health insurance.
102 - this one is more of a coin toss for me. It changes the statutes to keep some people accused of crimes from being referred to a pre-trial services program. I'm a yes because I'm not sure that these programs actually work like they are supposed to work and I'm concerned about some people skipping out if there isn't a bail bond held for their future presence. This is a classic example of what economists call "rent seeking" which is where a person or business tries to use the power of government to drive payments or business to them. That doesn't make the idea wrong, but you should know that the bail bond industry will to make more money if this passes and the pretrial service programs will make less.

1 comment:

  1. Senator Brophy,

    I got your list of ballot recommendations via email, but maybe this is a better forum. While I tend to agree with most of your conclusions, I had a quick question on 101. I know they're all from the same group, and generally toward the same goal, but beyond that simplification, I'm not sure why they're always grouped together. Specifically, 60 and 61 have some *significant* faults which preclude me from voting for them. However, 101's weakness isn't quite so obvious, but its purpose makes a lot more sense. To me, it's a means to reclaim TABOR, putting the tax-and-spenders on notice that if they want to call a tax a "fee," we'll tell them what fees they can charge. If we need that money to balance the budget, asking to raise taxes is still an option, after all.

    My question is I know voting for all three is bad. But what's so wrong with just voting for 101? What sort of negative consequences would 101 have by itself?

    Thanks for all you do, and for keeping everyone up on the inner workings up there under the gold dome.