These Amandments are scary because the language is, of course, law talk. Just reading the Amendment proposal its self once, without dissecting every word and phrase, can leave people with the wrong idea or just plain confused.
If you disagree with any of my choices, please let me know.
No Longer on the ballot but will appear
on it because they were already printed
Amendment 53
Amendment 55
Amendment 56
Amendment 57
Amendment 46 - Prohibition on Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Colorado Governments
I am voting NO because it "would end all affirmative action programs, including equal opportunity measures in higher education and public employment." (electionunspun.org)
"The measure is pushed by Ward Connerly, a black Republican who has been vilified by civil rights groups for supporting anti-affirmative action policies." (Rocky Mountain News)
Amendment 47 - Prohibition on Certain Conditions of Employment
I am voting NO because it takes away union rights
Amendment 48 - Definition of Person
I am voting NO because abortion must remain legal. McCain and Palin believe government should be smaller, support our freedoms, and give us choices in our lives. I believe, as the founding fathers did, that government is supposed to expand our rights, not take them away. Whatever your belief is, that is fine. Just don't take away others' rights.
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." (The American President)
Amendment 49 - Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions
I am voting NO. "Public employee unions see this as the Independence Institutes's latest effort to undermine public-employee unions."(ballotpedia.org)
I am voting NO because it "would end all affirmative action programs, including equal opportunity measures in higher education and public employment." (electionunspun.org)
"The measure is pushed by Ward Connerly, a black Republican who has been vilified by civil rights groups for supporting anti-affirmative action policies." (Rocky Mountain News)
Amendment 47 - Prohibition on Certain Conditions of Employment
I am voting NO because it takes away union rights
Amendment 48 - Definition of Person
I am voting NO because abortion must remain legal. McCain and Palin believe government should be smaller, support our freedoms, and give us choices in our lives. I believe, as the founding fathers did, that government is supposed to expand our rights, not take them away. Whatever your belief is, that is fine. Just don't take away others' rights.
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." (The American President)
Amendment 49 - Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions
I am voting NO. "Public employee unions see this as the Independence Institutes's latest effort to undermine public-employee unions."(ballotpedia.org)
***Changed my mind***
Amendment 50 - Limited Gaming
I am voting NO. On a second look, there two things. First, "If a tribe was to establish a new casino in the state it would not have to pay the taxes to support the community colleges, thereby sapping business away from the mountain towns and decreasing revenue for the community colleges.[4]"
I am voting NO. On a second look, there two things. First, "If a tribe was to establish a new casino in the state it would not have to pay the taxes to support the community colleges, thereby sapping business away from the mountain towns and decreasing revenue for the community colleges.[4]"
Second, "A state gaming regulator... Meyer Saltzman, ... stated concerns about a provision in the amendment that would take authority away from regulators to raise taxes on the industry.
Also see the comment below from Scott Yates from keepvegasout.com
Amendment 51 - State Sales Tax for Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities
I am voting YES. 2/10 of a percent added to sales tax over the next two fiscal years. When I see someone with a developmental disability, think about how lucky and easy my life is. My mom works with that population. Check out the supporters. There is no organized opposition, only the premise that tax increases disproportionately affect poor people, but it's pretty small. (Extra $0.02 for every $10. Extra $.20 for every $100. Extra $2 for every $1000.) (ballotpedia)
Amendment 52 - Severance Tax - Transportation
I am voting NO. This would "...result in cuts in the programs that are funded by severance tax revenue now, including grants for water projects, clean energy projects, species conservation, mineral extraction administration, and low-income energy assistance.[1]" (Ballotpedia)
It would be "used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor. (Ballotpedia)
The I-70 corridor sucks but I say find a way other that taking money away from clean energy projects and low-income energy assistance.
Amendment 54 - Restrictions on Campaign Contributions from Government Sole-Source Contractors
Amendment 51 - State Sales Tax for Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities
I am voting YES. 2/10 of a percent added to sales tax over the next two fiscal years. When I see someone with a developmental disability, think about how lucky and easy my life is. My mom works with that population. Check out the supporters. There is no organized opposition, only the premise that tax increases disproportionately affect poor people, but it's pretty small. (Extra $0.02 for every $10. Extra $.20 for every $100. Extra $2 for every $1000.) (ballotpedia)
Amendment 52 - Severance Tax - Transportation
I am voting NO. This would "...result in cuts in the programs that are funded by severance tax revenue now, including grants for water projects, clean energy projects, species conservation, mineral extraction administration, and low-income energy assistance.[1]" (Ballotpedia)
It would be "used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor. (Ballotpedia)
The I-70 corridor sucks but I say find a way other that taking money away from clean energy projects and low-income energy assistance.
Amendment 54 - Restrictions on Campaign Contributions from Government Sole-Source Contractors
I am voting NO. It could "take away the rights of people, like substitute teachers, firefighters and nurses, to participate in the political process."
I am voting YES. It lessens the tax breaks for oil companies and gives the money to scholarships. The Colorado production of oil is such a small part of the country's oils needs that it should not affect prices.
I am voting YES. Colorado doesn't do a good job of funding education. This guarantees funding for education more than the present system.
I am voting YES. "Would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21." (Ballotpedia) Most other states have done this. A candidate will still have to "convince a majority, first of their party that they deserve the nomination, and then of the general electorate that they are the best candidate. It might inspire young people to pay more attention to politics." (Ken Gordon)
Referendum M - Elimination of Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Regarding Land Value Increase
Referendum M - Elimination of Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Regarding Land Value Increase
I am voting YES. The original provision prevented taking into account plantings like trees and hedges when assessing property value. (CO State Legislation) It is obsolete.
I am voting YES. This is funny. This resolution article seems to say that importing alcohol is illegal in the state of Colorado. (CO State Legislation) Definitely obsolete and not even followed anyway.
I am voting YES. "Would make it harder for citizens to place constitutional amendments on the ballot for voter approval but easier to call a vote on state statutes." (Ballotpedia) This way, crap like Amendment 48 - Definition of Person would need more signatures, as would a lot of these Amendments. More signatures means more people actually wanting it.
Democrats for all Representatives, etc
Um, I picket all Democrats for the senate, etc.
Keep all judges
2A and B YES
2D YES
2E NO - no need to change
Posts
4 comments:
I like your intelligent reading of the amendments.mom
Don't be fooled by the slick sales pitch on Amendment 50! It will cost you. It will cost you some now, even the blue book makes it clear that all taxpayers have to pay for the conversion.
It will cost you later as bankruptcies grow in communities around Colorado. It will cost you when Indian gaming comes to Colorado and revenue dives in the mountain towns. When that happens, all taxpayers will have to fill the gap for community colleges.
I appreciate you linking to us, but what would be even better is if you decided to vote no!
Thanks,
http://KeepVegasOut.com/
Thank you for your opposition to Amendment 48!
You might be interested to read an issue paper published by the Coalition for Secular Government: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
We discuss some of the serious implications of this proposed amendment, such as:
* Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy -- even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
* Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus -- including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
* Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Our paper also develops a strong defense of abortion rights -- not based on vague appeals to "choice" or "privacy" -- but on the fact that neither an embryo nor fetus qualifies as a person with a right to life.
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person.
That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person, and his life must be protected as a matter of right.
So, we argue, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is properly exercising her own rights over her own body in pursuit of her own happiness. Moreover, in most cases, she is acting morally and responsibly by doing so.
Again, the URL for the paper is:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
And more information is here: http://www.ColoradoVoteNo48.com
The sad fact is that Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in America. That's definitely a scary thought.
Thanks again for speaking up about it -- and my apologies for writing such a huge comment.
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
Amendment 51 - Please amend your comment on Amendment 51 to reflect the correct amount of the sales tax increase. It is 2 cents on $10, 20 cents on $100, etc. It is estimated this would amount to $20 per year for a family of three - a small price to pay for those people who have real needs...all 12,000 of them who have been waiting for services they are qualified to get.
Post a Comment