Vote Early!—Colorado Ballot Recommendations ’08, via CU Student Caroline Clark.
I’m a 19-year old, first time voter in a presidential election. The young people’s vote is critical in this election, especially in my home state of Colorado, and here is where I stand on the issues. Please comment if you have any strong opinions—agree or disagree! Colorado
46: [NO] This effectively ends Affirmative Action. I have a lot of mixed feelings about Affirmative Action, but I don’t believe that we are ready to constitutionally prohibit it. As a student at one of the whitest universities in the nation, I have a deep appreciation for diversity (or lack thereof) and I think Affirmative Action is necessary for this.
47: [NO] By prohibiting the requirement to pay union dues, I think it undermines the efforts over the years that have gone into worker’s rights. I just don’t trust that it’s in the worker’s best interests.
48: [NO] This initiative not only outlaws abortion, but also forms of contraception. I believe in a woman’s right to choose—and also to have safe sex.
49: [NO?] I don’t trust this. It seems like there are all these efforts to undercut unions, which I support. I may have to inquire further, however, because I also want people to be able to choose how they spend their money.
50: [NO] This raises the gambling stakes with a portion going to Community Colleges. The education component is important, but all this will do is increase your chances of losing money in Colorado. Isn’t our economy already in shambles? Sure, we can be more competitive with other gaming states, but I don’t think gambling should be our economic focus. We’ve got some pretty sweet mountains, that’s a better tourist attraction for out-of-staters anyway.
51: [YES] This creates a funding source for developmental disability services. I understand that it becomes tricky when “special interest groups” get their initiatives on the ballot, it is a kind of intimidating can of worms. But to me, this promote equality in spite of developmental (dis)abilities, outweighs the precedence.
52: [NO] This diversion of a tax to highway tax is vague. The fact that NO Colorado transportation districts support it seems odd. From what I understand, out of state oil companies (from Houston and LA) are providing financial support to the legislators too, so that makes me nervous.
54: [NO] While attempting to avoid government pay-offs of greedy contractors, it silences the political voice family members of the contractors while maintaining loopholes for big businesses. The language of the amendment is vague and strange.
59: [YES] Ends state subsidies on oil companies and the extra revenues goes to state education. Yay! It’s not a tax increase, but a rechanneling of oil revenues.
REFERENDA:
Ref L: [YES] This referendum lowers the age that one can sit in the Colorado senate/house to 21 years of age. I’m all about diversity, including diversity of age, experience, and perspective. It goes back to the age old question of, if I’m old enough to die for this country, how come I’m not old enough to pass legislature?
These remove obsolete constitutional language. I appreciate the desire to preserve the historical character of the constitution, but given some of my experience meddling through red tape, I believe the more clarity in legislation, the better.
Ref M: [YES] Obsolete land laws.
Ref N: [YES] Obsolete alcohol laws.
Ref O: [YES] This makes it harder to change the constitution and keeps every day law out of it, instead guiding them toward the state statute. It diversifies the percentages within different state districts required of petition signers.
President: Barack Obama
House of Reps: Jared Polis
Senate: Mark Udall
SOME RESOURCES
Incorrect source, offensive, or found a typo? Or do you want to write for Elephant?
Caroline,
As far as 49 goes, there’s some contextual stuff missing from the amendment which could help sway your decision. One important bit is that when employed, some employers present you with deduction options for causes which you may support. If you fail to make a decision and the employer is forced to make an arbitrary decision, you may get roped into submitting to a deduction from your income to a cause which you don’t necessarily support. Not only that, but there is an enrollment period after which you must wait until the next such period (usually a year later) in-order to submit a decision to retract your permission to deduct that money. In plain english, you could get stuck paying for some cause that you didn’t explicitly say you wanted to support for a year, until the next enrollment period–not to mention that it’s your responsibility to know when the enrollment periods are. That’s a possible motivation for voting yes. Just to throw it out there.
And as for 50, it doesn’t actually raise gambling maximum bet, it simply gives the residents of those “gambling towns” the right to decide to increase that maximum. So, firstly, they won’t necessarily decide to do that. Secondly, the money isn’t lost in the economy, it just changes hands–so technically, when more gamblers are attracted, and lose their money in those “gambling towns” because of the increases, the local economy grows. And since the taxation of that growth goes to community colleges, community colleges become more accessible and maintain higher standards of education on top of growth in the state economy. So I voted yes.
Besides, people who don’t gamble now won’t start going to those towns because it’s possible to bet more money. Only the people who already gamble would really be effected. And those people would help to pay for better education on a state level which I’m sure will lower the gambling level (seems like better educated people would be less likely to gamble).
Oh!
And 52. Those companies are supporting it because when highways (particularly 287) are maintained better, it becomes easier, faster, and more efficient for trucks to transport company products–poorly maintained highways give rise to things like lane-blockages and truck maintenance cost increases.
The reason those districts are not supporting the measure is that it only diverts taxes from some projects to highways, regardless of whether or not all the money which was diverted was necessary and whether or not other projects will suffer as a result. And there definitely are projects which will suffer. Think about it.
So yes, definitely no on that one.
This Caroline Clark person should really do some further research before she gives advice on how to vote. Some things she says won’t be a tax increase so “why not”, “just vote for it” well she was wrong. It is a tax increase. I really hope no one is following her advice without conducting their own research first, as I did.
Election 2008 Voting Information
Today, November 4th, is Election Day!
Where and when do I vote?
Find your polling place, voting times, and other important information by checking out these sites and the hotline below. These resources are good, but not perfect. To be doubly sure, you can also contact your local elections office < https://vote411.overseasvotefoundation.org/overseas/eod.htm> .
* League of Women Voters’ site: vote411.org/pollfinder.php
What should I do before I go?
* After you’ve entered your address on Vote411 < http://www.vote411.org/bystate.php> , read the voting instructions and special rules for your state.
* Voting ID laws vary from state to state, but if you have ID, bring it.
* Check out all the voting myths and misinformation to look out for: http://truth.voteforchange.com/
What if something goes wrong?
* Not on the voter list? Make sure you’re at the right polling place, then demand a provisional ballot.
* If you’re voting on an electronic machine with a paper record, verify that the record is accurate.
* Need legal help? Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE.
* If you encounter a problem, try to videotape the situation and submit it to VideoTheVote.org < http://www.videothevote.org/>
Now, everybody go vote!!!
peaceout
jamie jewett