This is a ridiculously long ballot, and the closer we get to Election Day the less time people will have for research. Below, you can find my recommendations on ballot measures and candidates, along with a link to the longer blog posts I wrote on every item (just click on the titles). Remember, there is still time for deeper reading, since the deadline to return ballots isn’t until Nov. 8!
State of Colorado Ballot Measures
Amendment D, 23rd Judicial District Judges: Vote YES. It would simply set up a process to appoint judges for Colorado’s soon-to-be new 23rd Judicial District, and they’ll need judges.
Amendment E, Homestead Exemption for Gold Star Spouses: Vote YES. It would grant a property tax exemption to spouses of members of the military who lost their lives as a result of their services. It’s a moderate proposal with humanitarian value that won’t break the state bank.
Amendment F, Changes to Charitable Gaming Operations: Vote YES, though some people have objections. It would allow nonprofits to conduct bingo/raffle games after being in Colorado for three years instead of waiting until their fifth year, and allow but not require people working at the games to be paid.
Proposition FF, Healthy Meals for All Students: Vote YES. It would allow the state to provide funding for free school meals, paid for by eliminating certain income tax deductions on people making $300,000 or more. Growing kids need nutrition for physical development and academic performance, plus this will be a benefit for lower-income families.
Proposition GG, Add Tax Table to Petitions and Ballots: Vote YES. The new tax tables will give people signing petitions and voting at least one (if not two) opportunities to see the real-dollar impacts of income tax ballot measures before voting. Informed voting is better than uninformed voting, especially when it comes to tax policy.
Proposition 121, Reduce State Income Tax Rate: Vote NO. This is the epitome of regressive tax policy. Since income tax is a flat rate in Colorado, wealthier taxpayers would get a much bigger tax break if rates are cut in real dollars than lower-income earners. Prop 121 would also make this tax cut permanent – in other words, it couldn’t be increased again without another vote of the people. That’s bad news if the state needs revenue to deal with future problems.
Proposition 122, Natural Medicines: I’m staying NEUTRAL, at least this year. This is admittedly my fault, but I don’t understand the potential risks or rewards of psychedelic therapy, so I’m not ready to give my unconditional support. I do appreciate the part of 122 that would decriminalize personal use and possession, because criminal penalties can often be worse for individuals than the personal impacts of responsible substance use.
Proposition 123, Affordable Housing: Vote YES, but I’ll recommend reading more and thinking it over. Affordable housing is a crisis right now, and 123 would provide nearly-immediate funding to address the problem, which is a fundamental reason for my support. Prop 123 sets a mandatory spending target without increasing revenue, so it could impact future state budgets if there are bad economic years, but 123 is statutory so legislators could adjust spending if needed.
Proposition 124, Liquor Licenses: Vote NO. By gradually increasing the number of liquor licenses a corporation could hold until 2037, when it would become unlimited, certain corporations that are already big could control even larger percentages of market share. That’s got to be why Total Wine, an out-of-state wine corporation, has sunk millions into the campaign. Your smaller local businesses deserve your NO vote on this one, because 124 would hurt them.
Proposition 125, Wine in Grocery and Convenience Stores: Vote NO. My objection is sort of for the same general reason as it is for Prop 124. Big corporations are spending big on this campaign – Whole Foods, Target, Albertsons Safeway, and Kroger – which is their right but it’s obvious they’ll make mega-multiples of their contributions back in sales volume. They don’t need the extra revenue, and again your small local businesses will suffer.
Proposition 126, Third-Party Delivery of Alcohol: Vote NO, but I don’t hate this one as bad as 124 and 125. Again, out-of-state corporations DoorDash and Instacart are spending millions to buy this election, and the spending will be worth it in spades if 126 passes. But employing a delivery service can be convenient for businesses, and it’s already popular and convenient in the states that have it.
Boulder County Ballot Measures
Issue 1A, Fire Mitigation Tax: Vote YES. Whether current concerns are based upon the Marshall Fire or not, Boulder County has a lot of open land that’s prone to wildfire. 1A is a new tax, but passing it would be worth the money spent if it minimizes damage from inevitable future wildfires.
Issue 1B, Emergency Services Tax: Vote YES. Emergency rescue nonprofits and the people conducting emergency rescues might do their work with some sense of altruism, but they need facilities and equipment to do the best possible job, which costs money. 1B is a new tax, but I’ll say county residents should pitch in.
Issue 1C, Transportation Tax Extension: Vote YES. Plans for this revenue include roadway, multiuse path, and multimodal mobility projects. In short, more people will be better able to move about with the projects envisioned than without them. This is a tax extension, so passing 1C won’t increase the amount of sales tax you’re already paying.
Special District Ballot Measures
Boulder Valley School District 5A: Vote YES. BVSD facilities need upgrades, and plans for 5A revenue include rebuilding New Vista High and building a new school in Erie. It’s a sizeable property tax increase, but voters can at least skim BVSD’s Critical Needs document linked in my blog post to see how much work 5A would fund and decide whether it seems worth it.
Boulder Library District 6C: I’m staying NEUTRAL for two main reasons – a) I firmly believe there are good and bad points about this proposal, and b) I’ll guess many voters will decide based on their own cost/benefit analysis. My good points – libraries are undeniably a public good with many public benefits; residents deserve libraries to be accessible and open for reasonably sufficient hours; and it takes dependable funding to provide these services. My bad points – it’s a sizeable property tax increase; the city wouldn’t be decreasing the sales taxes we currently pay and would use the money for items we’re not discussing in this campaign; and there might be other ways to fund better hours of operation.
City of Boulder Ballot Measures
Issue 2A, Climate Tax: Vote YES. Boulder has a reasonably good record of using revenue for projects that can help decrease the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, and 2A would continue this work. It’s a new tax, but only an incremental increase for most residential ratepayers because it’s replacing two other old taxes.
Issue 2B, Authorizing Debt for Climate Projects: Vote YES. It’s very common for larger public projects to require bonding, and 2B would give the city authorization to do so. Fair warning, you’d be authorizing about $53 million in debt with repayment costs up to $75 million, in case you’re debt-averse.
Question 2C, Repeal Library Commission: Vote YES. 2C would amend the City Charter to remove language about the city’s Boulder Public Library system, but the language would only be removed if the Library District measure 6C passes. Passing 2C would prevent a situation in which there would be language about the city library system in the Charter, but also a separate Library District governing system formally established if 6C passes.
Question 2D, Candidates Only Run For One Office At A Time: Vote YES. For the most part, this is a Charter language clean-up measure, which would clarify that a sitting City Council member with time left in their term could run for Mayor, and lose that Mayor’s race without losing their seat on Council.
Question 2E, Even-Year Council Elections: Vote NO. This ballot measure is so bad I will use four paragraphs for a short summary.
2E is a local-partisan measure, and I can’t help believing that it’s on the ballot to help local partisans keep or expand their political power, because every registered voter can already vote. The local-partisan aspect is undeniable, when you look at which Council members put it on the ballot and at the campaign finance reports to see who’s donating (of course there are exceptions). I’ve followed social media on this issue for months, and there were threads right after the 2021 election saying the Bedrooms Are For People ballot measure would have won in an even-year election. That would be a seriously wrong reason to try changing the rules, as would be changing the rules to protect or expand an existing ideological balance on Council.
2E comes with the mostly unspoken assumption that CU students voting in even-year elections would provide some of the desired partisan benefit. Students don’t typically vote in large percentages in odd-year elections, and that’s because a decent percentage of students don’t care enough or know enough about local politics to get deeply involved. And those who don’t vote in local elections – students or non-students – choose not to vote despite getting a ballot and election information literally delivered to them in the mail. Again, that’s a choice – not disenfranchisement or suppression.
In a truly bad deal for those who will live in Boulder moving forward, Council campaigns will decline from being the highlight of odd-year elections to a lower-level concern in even-year elections. News flash – most people are going to care infinitely more about the Presidential election in 2028 than the Mayor’s race. Meanwhile, the detail people need to know about Council candidates to make good decisions will suffer, and this is not trivial since Council oversees a city of 105,000 people with a half-billion dollar budget. Without knowing details about candidates, some number of voters – including those who typically don’t vote in local elections at all – could make uninformed or underinformed decisions on matters of great importance.
Now, scroll to the top of this “short” election summary and then scroll to the bottom, and imagine how long this ballot would be if we added a Council race, a Mayor’s race, and possibly 15-25 total candidates. That’s the type of ballot voters might see in 2026, a mid-term election just like this year. 2E would reduce the amount of attention and participation people with finite amounts of time for politics could give to the full range of races, just due to sheer volume. We don’t have to do this, since we can just keep Council races on odd-year ballots where they’ve been for many decades – and any registered voter in Boulder can still vote the ballots they get delivered to their homes if they want a voice, no matter what year it is.
Question 2F, Repeal CU-South Annexation Agreement: Vote YES/For the Measure to repeal. In my opinion, the project CU seems to be envisioning will be destructive to a nice parcel of undeveloped land. I want flood mitigation at US 36 in southeast Boulder as much as anyone, but the project envisioned might not protect people and property sufficiently in case of an extreme storm like 2013. The project will lead to traffic congestion and noise for residents living near the property, plus these residents are among the City of Boulder ratepayers who would get to pay their share of at least $66 million if not more to get the whole thing done. Meanwhile, the new development will be worth a lot for CU, and check the campaign finance report to guess (seriously, I mean “guess”) how much it’s spent on CU-South advocacy. Still, I’m not completely anti-development and I’m definitely not anti-CU. My preference is for the parties to go back to the table, make the flood detention area larger and the development zone smaller, and with a smaller, less destructive project footprint I might feel differently.
2022 Candidates
Editor’s Note: I’m a Democrat and will be endorsing all Democrats this time around. If you want more information about the Republican or minor-party candidates, just click the link to my blog posts. I wrote at least a page about most of the Republicans and usually a few paragraphs about the minor-party candidates.
State Board of Education: Vote Kathy Plomer, a Democrat. I’m very intentionally listing this race first because other races might overshadow this one. This is the first “at-large” or statewide Board race in decades, so Boulder votes will compete directly with votes from conservative areas. At stake is the partisan majority on the Board, and you don’t have to spend much time reading to know that conservatives have vastly different objectives for public schools than liberals. Plomer is indeed a Democrat, but she’s also experienced, having been the School Board President and a two-term member with the Adams 12 School District.
U.S. Senate: Vote Michael Bennet, Democrat. Blow this race off and you can’t be my friend anymore. Bennet has admirable life experience and has been in the Senate since 2009. His opponent Joe O’Dea has never served a day in public office. But what’s really at stake here is partisan control of the U.S. Senate, which is at 50-50 now so one seat could make all the difference. If Dems lose the Senate, President Biden will be unable to get Supreme Court judges confirmed, there could be more difficulty getting other federal judges confirmed, and liberal/progressive bills will die on the vine. And the consequences would actually be worse than what I’m describing here, but this is the short version.
U.S. House Congressional District 2: Vote Joe Neguse, Democrat. Neguse has done a tremendous job in the House, plus he’s energetic and locally engaged. His Republican opponent dissed Boulder while campaigning for some reason in Grand Junction. This one’s a no-brainer.
Governor of Colorado: Vote Jared Polis, Democrat. Polis has done an admirable job through tough times, including the pandemic, natural disasters, and acts of mass violence. Plus, he’s deeply experienced in other ways, as an entrepreneur plus having served on the State Board of Education and for five terms in Congress. His opponent Heidi Ganahl has run a cringe-worthy campaign for this type of race, and I won’t say stuff like that lightly.
Secretary of State: Vote Jena Griswold, Democrat. Griswold has served for four years during some really dark times, including serious threats to election integrity and physical threats to election officials. Most of these threats came from the right wing, if not actual Republicans, and for that reason I can’t support giving this office back to Republicans – especially at this troubling point in history. Griswold’s opponent Pam Anderson has lots of election experience, and while I don’t doubt her personal integrity she is a lifetime Republican who has made and produced literature with partisan statements.
Attorney General: Vote Phil Weiser, Democrat. He’s done an admirable job, he’s used state resources for the right reasons, and he had deep legal experience decades before taking office. His opponent John Kellner has good experience, but not as deep as Weiser’s, and there’s no need to change our Attorney General right now unless you want a conservative direction.
Treasurer: Vote Dave Young, Democrat. He’s done an honorable job managing the state’s financial resources for the past four years, plus he’s served on the state’s Joint Budget Committee and taught math. I won’t say anything bad about his opponent Lang Sias except Young has more directly relevant experience, but there’s no need to change Treasurers right now.
State House District 10: Vote Junie Joseph, Democrat. The job title she’s running for is called “Representative,” and her prevailing values represent the values of the vast majority of this overwhelmingly blue district, while the values of her opponent differ seriously from HD 10 prevailing values.
State House District 49: Vote Judy Amabile, Democrat. She’s done good work with her first two years in office, and I have no doubt this will continue because she’s a quick study and was involved in civic issues long before being elected. HD 49 is not nearly as overwhelmingly Democratic as HD 10, and the values of Amabile’s opponent Katie Lehr will more than likely resonate with a legitimate percentage of voters in this district, but probably not much of the City of Boulder portion.
State Senate District 15: Vote Janice Marchman, Democrat. This district does not include any of the City of Boulder, but I wrote a small amount about this race because many western Boulder County residents who used to be in SD 18 are now in SD 15. Boulder residents with spare resources might want to consider helping Marchman in some way to possibly prevent our western Boulder County neighbors from having Republican representation in the Senate.
Boulder County Commissioner District 3: Vote Ashley Stolzmann, Democrat. She’s been a local elected official in Louisville for nearly 10 years, a period of time that has included serving as Mayor and involvement with regional organizations. She’s paid her dues and should be ready to begin doing the job of Commissioner right off the bat. Her opponent Bo Shaffer is an honorable person with relevant experience, but Libertarians rarely enjoy electoral success in Boulder County.
RTD District O: Vote Lynn Guissinger. The RTD Board of Directors is a non-partisan office. She’s served a four-year term on the RTD Board already, and has deep experience in the transportation world plus she’s an attorney. Her opponent Richard O’Keefe has extensive private sector experience, but it’s not directly transportation-related, and I believe Guissinger brings a more comprehensive package plus four years’ direct RTD experience to this table.
Judge Retention: I see no reason to vote against retention for any of the judges on the ballot. I have seen complaints that it’s not that easy to figure out how to vote on these retention decisions, but voters can read a decent amount about any of the judges on the links I’ve supplied on my blog post.
Uncontested Boulder County Races: There are six uncontested countywide races on this ballot, with the candidates all Democrats, and I see no reason to avoid voting for any of them.
