Short descriptions of complex issues might be helpful, but remember – missing out on the details now might mean people will regret election results far into the future!
I would vastly prefer if all voters would take serious time to study the issues at stake in our elections. Some of this year’s ballot measures are relatively complex with lots of “pros” and lots of “cons.” But I understand the time before Election Day is only getting shorter, so here’s the condensed version of my Election Guide. Readers can just click the titles for each section to access links to my more detailed write-ups.
State Amendments
Amendment 79: Abortion Rights In The State Constitution: Vote YES. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, it set off a scramble for states to pass either restrictive abortion laws or permissive / protective laws to preserve reproductive rights. Amendment 79 would enshrine abortion rights in Colorado’s state Constitution. For reproductive rights supporters, it’s necessary to do this so state legislators or initiative proponents of the future can’t easily take these rights away – and you’d better believe some legislators or operatives would if they could.
Amendment 80: School Choice in the State Constitution: Vote NO. Parents and guardians can already completely legally enroll their students in private schools, charter schools, or homeschooling programs. There’s no need to make these things “rights” under the Constitution, and there is no definition of what these “rights” would entail anyway. Would it involve funding requirements for private school vouchers? Nobody would know for sure until it’s taken to court. I’ve already called it “too vague for our Constitution,” and I’m sticking to it.
Amendment G: Homestead Tax Exemption For Veterans: Vote YES. Amendment G would allow a modest property tax break for veterans who have disabilities yet aren’t considered 100% disabled under federal standards. It’s a good-faith benefit for veterans, and it won’t break the state’s bank.
Amendment H: New Judicial Discipline Commission: Vote YES. Passing Amendment H would establish a new Independent Judicial Discipline commission, which would be in addition to an existing commission. It would also establish a new tribunal to hear cases that involve Colorado Supreme Court Justices. These are basically volunteer positions except for minimal costs for legitimate expense reimbursements, so it would increase the number of committees and people able to investigate accusations of judicial misconduct without a major cost increase.
Amendment I: No Bail for First Degree Murder: Vote YES. Passing Amendment I would clear up a discrepancy in our Constitution that was created when the state banned the death penalty. In today’s Constitution, judges must deny bail for “capital offenses” if proof is evident, but banning the death penalty technically meant murder in the first degree would no longer be considered a capital offense. Amendment I would clear this up, and I think it’s necessary because releasing a potentially violent criminal when “proof is evident” might be extremely risky.
Amendment J: Same-Sex Marriage in State Constitution: Vote YES. We’ve had federally-protected rights to same-sex marriage since 2015, but there’s still a line in our state Constitution saying marriage is only between a man and a woman. Passing Amendment J would strike that line from our state Constitution, which a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling made functionally irrelevant anyway. This simple change would put our Constitution in line with modern reality.
Amendment K: Election Deadline Cleanup: Vote YES. This amendment, supported by many county clerks in Colorado, would simply change a few dates on the election calendar. For the most part, it would extend some time periods for parts of our election processes, giving election workers more time to get their jobs done. Passing Amendment K probably won’t affect most Coloradans at all, unless you’re an election worker or campaign organizer.
State Propositions
There are lots of factors in wildlife management, so it will be worth spending some time studying up on Prop 127.
Proposition 127: Ban Trophy Hunting of Mountain Lions and Bobcats: I will vote NO on this initiative, and I’m fully aware this will disappoint some of my friends. I have not been convinced that we need to completely ban sport hunting at this point, as opposed to making incremental adjustments like what Colorado Parks and Wildlife literally did this year to end the April hunt and prohibit electronic calling devices. I believe this initiative would let people who have very little understanding of wildlife management and/or hunting make a binding decision for people who really understand the issues, but face disadvantages in voting numbers. Gray wolf reintroduction through Prop 114 in 2020 was very largely Front Range voter-supported, while rural residents who didn’t want the wolves were outvoted, and some of the problems rural opponents very plainly predicted have come to pass. I’m not at all saying that problems with 114 mean there will be problems with 127, but I am saying 114 made me wary of this type of snap decision-making as opposed to extended and comprehensive public process.
I also don’t believe banning sport hunting will prevent state wildlife managers from “culling” (a nicer word for killing) the big cats if they become overpopulated in given areas. Even if I’m wrong on culling (Parks and Wildlife won’t or can’t say), Prop 127 would definitely not prevent all big cats from being shot and killed, because there are exceptions in the ballot measure language allowing killing or wounding in case of public safety or threats to livestock.
I’ll always support detailed and comprehensive discussions on how we manage wildlife as a state, but this ballot measure is just a blunt and hurried “yes-no” decision. I say “hurried” because we have to make this decision by Nov. 5 and I know people are still scrambling for information.
Proposition 128: Require Violent Offenders to Serve 85% of Their Sentence: I’ll vote NO, but can understand some of the arguments in favor. Prop 128 would require people who were convicted of certain violent crimes to serve at least 85% of their sentence with no reductions allowed for what we used to call “good behavior” (example: they’d have to serve at least 17 years of a 20-year sentence), whereas today they can be released on parole after serving 75%, plus “good behavior” reductions are allowed. I’ll oppose this measure because incarceration is expensive, 85% is an arbitrary percentage, and the Parole Board can deny parole if an offender isn’t ready to be back out in society. However, I feel I must emphasize that violent crimes are inexcusable and most people should be able to understand that before committing potentially heinous actions. My heart won’t be broken if Prop 128 passes, but I’m not convinced it’s necessary or in everybody’s best interests.
Proposition 129: Veterinary Professional Associate Program: I’m leaning NO on this initiative, but it’s my closest decision on this ballot and I’m still weighing the pros and cons. By passing Prop 129, a whole bunch of people with no experience in veterinary medicine whatsoever (including me) could authorize an entirely new “mid-level” VPA classification and curriculum that doesn’t exist today. I would prefer the state legislature to take this up, as opposed to a ballot measure where many people just won’t do the research necessary to make a well-informed decision. I can see potential positives, including that there are reports of shortages of veterinary care availability in Colorado and the VPAs might be able to help meet some of the needs. But I really don’t like trying to do this type of thing via initiative, where the vote of a deeply experienced licensed veterinarian can get cancelled out by a person who’s completely uninformed or seriously underinformed.
Proposition 130, $350 Million in State Money for Law Enforcement: Vote NO. It would require the state to allocate $350 million for law enforcement grants or death benefits, but says nothing about where the money should come from or what might happen elsewhere in the state budget. So, why $350 million? I don’t know, but I do know the state legislature and budget staff could look at the situation more comprehensively and possibly choose different numbers. The vast majority of law enforcement in Colorado (local police and sheriff’s departments) are mostly funded through local taxation. State money could certainly help law enforcement in given areas, but it might sap money from other state needs like housing, health care, education, or any of a thousand different and worthy things.
Yes, there is money in politics, but it can go too far. We don’t always know where it comes from, which ought to make people at least wonder what’s in it for wealthy interests.
Proposition 131: All-Party Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting: Vote NO, and this is the strongest “NO” recommendation I’ll make on this ballot. It’s far too extreme of a change to our current election system. It’s being foisted upon us by a wealthy former corporate executive (Kent Thiry of DaVita), and they’ve already raised nearly $18 million in big donations to fund slick ads trying to make us think it’s a new system designed “for the people.” Nearly half of this campaign funding has come from a “dark money” organization of which Thiry is a board co-chair, and other millions or half-millions have come from people associated with Walmart, Netflix, Rupert Murdoch, and of course about $6 million from Thiry himself.
Proponents are claiming it will reduce the power of Democrats and Republicans, but the parties would still be able to nominate candidates through assemblies, or Ds and Rs could still petition onto the ballot – in both cases just like they can today. Passing 131 and establishing an “all-party primary” would actually make it possible for major parties to have multiple candidates on certain general election ballots, whereas today they only get one. It’s possible that minor parties would have a very tough time getting on general election ballots at all, since they’d be up against both major parties and dark-money organizations.
I don’t believe ranked-choice voting is a panacea, partially because I’ve seen it in action. It’s possible for ranked-choice voting elections to produce winners who didn’t get the most first-choice votes (like what actually happened in the 2023 Boulder Mayor’s race). It’s also possible that partisans will strategically tell people to vote for only one or two candidates out of the four so the other candidates can’t get a vote in future rounds of voting (like what actually happened in the 2023 Boulder Mayor’s race).
Most Coloradans never got a chance to decide or weigh in on whether the 131 system is actually the best system out of all the options out there. That seems very “cart before the horse” to me. I don’t mind experimentation in some cases, but this revamping of Colorado’s system of electing candidates for major offices would go far beyond experimentation. It needs more thought, more quality evidence, and more input from broader ranges of people than what a “yes-no” decision can provide.
Proposition JJ, Sports Betting to Fund Water Projects: Vote YES. Prop JJ is not a new tax – it just lets the state keep and use sports betting tax revenue that has already been collected, but the total amount comes in above the current TABOR cap. The revenue would be used for statewide water projects, which we definitely need as the population grows while precipitation amounts remain uncertain.
Proposition KK: Excise Tax On Guns and Ammo For Behavioral Health Services: I’m neutral on this one. Prop KK would use a new tax on gun and ammo sales to fund victim services or behavioral health services, which I think could be quite valuable because Colorado notoriously underfunds services like this. However, I’m a little displeased that Prop KK doesn’t differentiate between the types of weapons that are most likely to be used in crimes of violence – notably certain types of handguns – and rifles or shotgun shells that are mostly used for hunting. I’m a former hunter from a hunting family, and our shotguns were a threat to nothing except ducks and pheasants. Crimes of violence can certainly contribute to the need for behavioral health or victim services, and I’d be a stronger supporter of KK if it was strictly a tax on the guns and ammo most likely to be used in the commission of violent crime.
Boulder and RTD Ballot Measures
Boulder has a few ballot measures this year, and I’ve always believed it’s good to keep in touch with local issues!
Boulder Ballot Question 2C: Pay Raise for City Council: I’m “ambivalent,” which means I have strong feelings both for and against 2C. I honestly haven’t been happy about some things recent Councils have done, especially pushing a ballot measure in 2022 moving our traditional odd-year municipal elections to odd-year elections. I believe it was done in the interest of perpetuating power, which I think is the wrong way to use said power. On the other hand, I know how hard most Council members work, and how much abuse or stress they might endure as part of the work in a very low-paid position. 2C would basically triple pay for Council members, and quadruple pay for the Mayor, which is perhaps a little more than I really support. It’s up to you, the voter, to decide if you’ve been happy and if you think the type of raise you’ll see in 2C is in order.
Boulder Ballot Question 2D: Executive Sessions: I’ll probably vote YES on 2D, but understand some of the arguments against. The ballot measure would allow Council to meet in executive sessions, meaning without public access to the meetings, under eight specified conditions based on provisions in State of Colorado law. To me, the conditions seem reasonable, but voters might want to read the whole measure and decide for themselves. I want as much transparency in government as possible, but can see legitimate reasons to meet in private on a very limited basis. Some people will probably disagree with me based on skepticism or mistrust of Council or of government in general, but my skepticism doesn’t quite run that deep when it comes to the situations spelled out in 2D.
Boulder Ballot Question 2E: Board and Commission Charter Language Clean-up: I’ll probably vote YES on 2E, though I’m not in love with it. It would give City Councils of the future more latitude in setting the structure for city boards and commissions, unless there is language in other parts of our City Charter that 2E doesn’t cover. Much of the 2E language is used to basically re-word some existing portions of the Charter, and I just don’t see it as super-relevant to my life in Boulder.
RTD Ballot Measure 7A: Keep TABOR Refunds: Vote YES. Passing 7A would let RTD keep revenue collected in excess of a TABOR cap, and RTD is asking for 7A in part because it has a current TABOR exemption but it’s set to expire in late 2024. This is not a tax increase, and RTD has real needs for expensive items like vehicles, infrastructure, staff and management, security, and other parts of their gigantic mission. It might cost voters some probably-small TABOR refund checks in future years, but for those who care about transit quality, it might be a very small price to pay.
2024 Candidates
The race for President of the U.S. will determine not only which personality wins, but also the very direction of the massive federal government for the next four years.
President of the United States: Vote Kamala Harris / Tim Walz. Trump should never be allowed even remotely near the White House again. Voting for a minor-party candidate is risky because Colorado gives all of its Electoral College vote ONLY to the winning candidate. Between Trump’s abhorrent behavior in and out of office, and the “spoiler” effect that voting minor-party can bring about, I just see Harris / Walz as the only logical choice – but there’s also a strong positive side to Harris’ candidacy. She’s also a former Attorney General of the largest state in the Union, a former U.S. Senator, and she’s been Vice President for the past four years. Walz is a former educator, National Guard member, and is the current Governor of Minnesota. You’ll get competent governance out of the Harris / Walz ticket, and a Harris / Walz win would prevent the dangerous lawlessness and strange sideshows we’ve seen out of Trump and his cronies from taking hold at the highest levels of our national government.
U.S. House, Congressional District 2: Vote Joe Neguse. He’s experienced, accomplished, energetic, and active in his local district. Our little old district in north-central Colorado can boast having the current House Democratic Leader, plus Neguse is a former impeachment manager. I think this one’s an easy decision.
University of Colorado Board of Regents, At-Large (statewide): Vote Elliott Hood. He’s an experienced education attorney running to oversee the largest higher education system in our state. This race is very important for Boulder because we have CU-Boulder, but it’s also important for the entire state (even if people don’t know that) because the CU system educates our future workforce and leaders, does important research, has a medical campus, and provides the societal benefits a campus offers.
State Board of Education, Congressional District 2: Vote Kathy Gebhardt. She’s had a distinguished lifetime of work in the field of K-12 education, and overseeing our K-12 system is literally the job of the Board of Education.
Colorado State Senate, District 18: Vote Judy Amabile. She’s already served four years in the state House, and has a solid record of accomplishment that will easily carry over to the Senate.
Colorado State House of Representatives, District 10: Vote Junie Joseph. She’s been a public servant in this area for five years, and reflects the prevailing values of the district far better than her opponent. (NOTE: not all Boulder voters vote in District 10 – it’s mostly city residents living east of Broadway).
Colorado State House of Representatives, District 49: Vote Lesley Smith. She’s already served as a CU Regent, a member of the local School Board, and a member of the local Water Board. She’s ready for this next step. (NOTE: not all Boulder voters vote in District 49 – it’s mostly the city residents living west of Broadway).
Boulder County Commissioners, District 1: Vote Claire Levy, who is the incumbent and an attorney, plus she has vast experience in local and state politics. I just learned that Raphael Minot is running as a write-in candidate. He might have a political future, but he’s got no political experience at this point in time while Levy has a lifetime of quality political and civic involvement.
Boulder County Commissioners, District 2: Vote Marta Loachamin. She’s the incumbent Commissioner and has nearly completed her first four-year term, and I just can’t say I’m impressed with what little I’ve seen of her opponent’s candidacy. (NOTE: Commissioners run in geographic districts, but all Boulder County voters can vote in this race for the Longmont-area Commissioner).
Uncontested Boulder County Races: Vote Michael Dougherty for District Attorney, and Jeffrey Martin for Coroner. You don’t HAVE to vote in uncontested races, but I see no reason to avoid voting for any of these two candidates.
Judicial Retention Elections: There are 13 judges up for retention on your Boulder County ballot this year. I see no reason to vote against retaining any of them, but there is a gigantic amount of information available at https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2024-judicial-performance-evaluations for those who want to dig deeper. Also, there are links on my webpage to information about each individual judge. I won’t ask for much here, except for people to understand that voting against any judge poses a risk that they might get kicked out of office. That’s OK if there are good reasons.
Short descriptions of complex issues might be helpful, but remember – missing out on the details now might mean people will regret election results far into the future!
I would vastly prefer if all voters would take serious time to study the issues at stake in our elections. Some of this year’s ballot measures are relatively complex with lots of “pros” and lots of “cons.” But I understand the time before Election Day is only getting shorter, so here’s the condensed version of my Election Guide. Readers can just click the titles for each section to access links to my more detailed write-ups.
State Amendments
Amendment 79: Abortion Rights In The State Constitution: Vote YES. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, it set off a scramble for states to pass either restrictive abortion laws or permissive / protective laws to preserve reproductive rights. Amendment 79 would enshrine abortion rights in Colorado’s state Constitution. For reproductive rights supporters, it’s necessary to do this so state legislators or initiative proponents of the future can’t easily take these rights away – and you’d better believe some legislators or operatives would if they could.
Amendment 80: School Choice in the State Constitution: Vote NO. Parents and guardians can already completely legally enroll their students in private schools, charter schools, or homeschooling programs. There’s no need to make these things “rights” under the Constitution, and there is no definition of what these “rights” would entail anyway. Would it involve funding requirements for private school vouchers? Nobody would know for sure until it’s taken to court. I’ve already called it “too vague for our Constitution,” and I’m sticking to it.
Amendment G: Homestead Tax Exemption For Veterans: Vote YES. Amendment G would allow a modest property tax break for veterans who have disabilities yet aren’t considered 100% disabled under federal standards. It’s a good-faith benefit for veterans, and it won’t break the state’s bank.
Amendment H: New Judicial Discipline Commission: Vote YES. Passing Amendment H would establish a new Independent Judicial Discipline commission, which would be in addition to an existing commission. It would also establish a new tribunal to hear cases that involve Colorado Supreme Court Justices. These are basically volunteer positions except for minimal costs for legitimate expense reimbursements, so it would increase the number of committees and people able to investigate accusations of judicial misconduct without a major cost increase.
Amendment I: No Bail for First Degree Murder: Vote YES. Passing Amendment I would clear up a discrepancy in our Constitution that was created when the state banned the death penalty. In today’s Constitution, judges must deny bail for “capital offenses” if proof is evident, but banning the death penalty technically meant murder in the first degree would no longer be considered a capital offense. Amendment I would clear this up, and I think it’s necessary because releasing a potentially violent criminal when “proof is evident” might be extremely risky.
Amendment J: Same-Sex Marriage in State Constitution: Vote YES. We’ve had federally-protected rights to same-sex marriage since 2015, but there’s still a line in our state Constitution saying marriage is only between a man and a woman. Passing Amendment J would strike that line from our state Constitution, which a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling made functionally irrelevant anyway. This simple change would put our Constitution in line with modern reality.
Amendment K: Election Deadline Cleanup: Vote YES. This amendment, supported by many county clerks in Colorado, would simply change a few dates on the election calendar. For the most part, it would extend some time periods for parts of our election processes, giving election workers more time to get their jobs done. Passing Amendment K probably won’t affect most Coloradans at all, unless you’re an election worker or campaign organizer.
State Propositions
There are lots of factors in wildlife management, so it will be worth spending some time studying up on Prop 127.
Proposition 127: Ban Trophy Hunting of Mountain Lions and Bobcats: I will vote NO on this initiative, and I’m fully aware this will disappoint some of my friends. I have not been convinced that we need to completely ban sport hunting at this point, as opposed to making incremental adjustments like what Colorado Parks and Wildlife literally did this year to end the April hunt and prohibit electronic calling devices. I believe this initiative would let people who have very little understanding of wildlife management and/or hunting make a binding decision for people who really understand the issues, but face disadvantages in voting numbers. Gray wolf reintroduction through Prop 114 in 2020 was very largely Front Range voter-supported, while rural residents who didn’t want the wolves were outvoted, and some of the problems rural opponents very plainly predicted have come to pass. I’m not at all saying that problems with 114 mean there will be problems with 127, but I am saying 114 made me wary of this type of snap decision-making as opposed to extended and comprehensive public process.
I also don’t believe banning sport hunting will prevent state wildlife managers from “culling” (a nicer word for killing) the big cats if they become overpopulated in given areas. Even if I’m wrong on culling (Parks and Wildlife won’t or can’t say), Prop 127 would definitely not prevent all big cats from being shot and killed, because there are exceptions in the ballot measure language allowing killing or wounding in case of public safety or threats to livestock.
I’ll always support detailed and comprehensive discussions on how we manage wildlife as a state, but this ballot measure is just a blunt and hurried “yes-no” decision. I say “hurried” because we have to make this decision by Nov. 5 and I know people are still scrambling for information.
Proposition 128: Require Violent Offenders to Serve 85% of Their Sentence: I’ll vote NO, but can understand some of the arguments in favor. Prop 128 would require people who were convicted of certain violent crimes to serve at least 85% of their sentence with no reductions allowed for what we used to call “good behavior” (example: they’d have to serve at least 17 years of a 20-year sentence), whereas today they can be released on parole after serving 75%, plus “good behavior” reductions are allowed. I’ll oppose this measure because incarceration is expensive, 85% is an arbitrary percentage, and the Parole Board can deny parole if an offender isn’t ready to be back out in society. However, I feel I must emphasize that violent crimes are inexcusable and most people should be able to understand that before committing potentially heinous actions. My heart won’t be broken if Prop 128 passes, but I’m not convinced it’s necessary or in everybody’s best interests.
Proposition 129: Veterinary Professional Associate Program: I’m leaning NO on this initiative, but it’s my closest decision on this ballot and I’m still weighing the pros and cons. By passing Prop 129, a whole bunch of people with no experience in veterinary medicine whatsoever (including me) could authorize an entirely new “mid-level” VPA classification and curriculum that doesn’t exist today. I would prefer the state legislature to take this up, as opposed to a ballot measure where many people just won’t do the research necessary to make a well-informed decision. I can see potential positives, including that there are reports of shortages of veterinary care availability in Colorado and the VPAs might be able to help meet some of the needs. But I really don’t like trying to do this type of thing via initiative, where the vote of a deeply experienced licensed veterinarian can get cancelled out by a person who’s completely uninformed or seriously underinformed.
Proposition 130, $350 Million in State Money for Law Enforcement: Vote NO. It would require the state to allocate $350 million for law enforcement grants or death benefits, but says nothing about where the money should come from or what might happen elsewhere in the state budget. So, why $350 million? I don’t know, but I do know the state legislature and budget staff could look at the situation more comprehensively and possibly choose different numbers. The vast majority of law enforcement in Colorado (local police and sheriff’s departments) are mostly funded through local taxation. State money could certainly help law enforcement in given areas, but it might sap money from other state needs like housing, health care, education, or any of a thousand different and worthy things.
Yes, there is money in politics, but it can go too far. We don’t always know where it comes from, which ought to make people at least wonder what’s in it for wealthy interests.
Proposition 131: All-Party Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting: Vote NO, and this is the strongest “NO” recommendation I’ll make on this ballot. It’s far too extreme of a change to our current election system. It’s being foisted upon us by a wealthy former corporate executive (Kent Thiry of DaVita), and they’ve already raised more than $9 million in big donations to fund slick ads trying to make us think it’s a new system designed “for the people.” About half of this campaign funding has come from a “dark money” organization of which Thiry is a board co-chair, and other millions or half-millions have come from people associated with Walmart, Netflix, Rupert Murdoch, and of course from Thiry himself.
Proponents are claiming it will reduce the power of Democrats and Republicans, but the parties would still be able to nominate candidates through assemblies, or Ds and Rs could still petition onto the ballot – in both cases just like they can today. Passing 131 and establishing an “all-party primary” would actually make it possible for major parties to have multiple candidates on certain general election ballots, whereas today they only get one. It’s possible that minor parties would have a very tough time getting on general election ballots at all, since they’d be up against both major parties and dark-money organizations.
I don’t believe ranked-choice voting is a panacea, partially because I’ve seen it in action. It’s possible for ranked-choice voting elections to produce winners who didn’t get the most first-choice votes (like what actually happened in the 2023 Boulder Mayor’s race). It’s also possible that partisans will strategically tell people to vote for only one or two candidates out of the four so the other candidates can’t get a vote in future rounds of voting (like what actually happened in the 2023 Boulder Mayor’s race).
Most Coloradans never got a chance to decide or weigh in on whether the 131 system is actually the best system out of all the options out there. That seems very “cart before the horse” to me. I don’t mind experimentation in some cases, but this revamping of Colorado’s system of electing candidates for major offices would go far beyond experimentation. It needs more thought, more quality evidence, and more input from broader ranges of people than what a “yes-no” decision can provide.
Proposition JJ, Sports Betting to Fund Water Projects: Vote YES. Prop JJ is not a new tax – it just lets the state keep and use sports betting tax revenue that has already been collected, but the total amount comes in above the current TABOR cap. The revenue would be used for statewide water projects, which we definitely need as the population grows while precipitation amounts remain uncertain.
Proposition KK: Excise Tax On Guns and Ammo For Behavioral Health Services: I’m neutral on this one. Prop KK would use a new tax on gun and ammo sales to fund victim services or behavioral health services, which I think could be quite valuable because Colorado notoriously underfunds services like this. However, I’m a little displeased that Prop KK doesn’t differentiate between the types of weapons that are most likely to be used in crimes of violence – notably certain types of handguns – and rifles or shotgun shells that are mostly used for hunting. I’m a former hunter from a hunting family, and our shotguns were a threat to nothing except ducks and pheasants. Crimes of violence can certainly contribute to the need for behavioral health or victim services, and I’d be a stronger supporter of KK if it was strictly a tax on the guns and ammo most likely to be used in the commission of violent crime.
Boulder and RTD Ballot Measures
Boulder has a few ballot measures this year, and I’ve always believed it’s good to keep in touch with local issues!
Boulder Ballot Question 2C: Pay Raise for City Council: I’m “ambivalent,” which means I have strong feelings both for and against 2C. I honestly haven’t been happy about some things recent Councils have done, especially pushing a ballot measure in 2022 moving our traditional odd-year municipal elections to odd-year elections. I believe it was done in the interest of perpetuating power, which I think is the wrong way to use said power. On the other hand, I know how hard most Council members work, and how much abuse or stress they might endure as part of the work in a very low-paid position. 2C would basically triple pay for Council members, and quadruple pay for the Mayor, which is perhaps a little more than I really support. It’s up to you, the voter, to decide if you’ve been happy and if you think the type of raise you’ll see in 2C is in order.
Boulder Ballot Question 2D: Executive Sessions: I’ll probably vote YES on 2D, but understand some of the arguments against. The ballot measure would allow Council to meet in executive sessions, meaning without public access to the meetings, under eight specified conditions based on provisions in State of Colorado law. To me, the conditions seem reasonable, but voters might want to read the whole measure and decide for themselves. I want as much transparency in government as possible, but can see legitimate reasons to meet in private on a very limited basis. Some people will probably disagree with me based on skepticism or mistrust of Council or of government in general, but my skepticism doesn’t quite run that deep when it comes to the situations spelled out in 2D.
Boulder Ballot Question 2E: Board and Commission Charter Language Clean-up: I’ll probably vote YES on 2E, though I’m not in love with it. It would give City Councils of the future more latitude in setting the structure for city boards and commissions, unless there is language in other parts of our City Charter that 2E doesn’t cover. Much of the 2E language is used to basically re-word some existing portions of the Charter, and I just don’t see it as super-relevant to my life in Boulder.
RTD Ballot Measure 7C: Keep TABOR Refunds: Vote YES. Passing 7C would let RTD keep revenue collected in excess of a TABOR cap, and RTD is asking for 7C in part because it has a current TABOR exemption but it’s set to expire in late 2024. This is not a tax increase, and RTD has real needs for expensive items like vehicles, infrastructure, staff and management, security, and other parts of their gigantic mission. It might cost voters some probably-small TABOR refund checks in future years, but for those who care about transit quality, it might be a very small price to pay.
2024 Candidates
The race for President of the U.S. will determine not only which personality wins, but also the very direction of the massive federal government for the next four years.
President of the United States: Vote Kamala Harris / Tim Walz. Trump should never be allowed even remotely near the White House again. Voting for a minor-party candidate is risky because Colorado gives all of its Electoral College vote ONLY to the winning candidate. Between Trump’s abhorrent behavior in and out of office, and the “spoiler” effect that voting minor-party can bring about, I just see Harris / Walz as the only logical choice – but there’s also a strong positive side to Harris’ candidacy. She’s also a former Attorney General of the largest state in the Union, a former U.S. Senator, and she’s been Vice President for the past four years. Walz is a former educator, National Guard member, and is the current Governor of Minnesota. You’ll get competent governance out of the Harris / Walz ticket, and a Harris / Walz win would prevent the dangerous lawlessness and strange sideshows we’ve seen out of Trump and his cronies from taking hold at the highest levels of our national government.
U.S. House, Congressional District 2: Vote Joe Neguse. He’s experienced, accomplished, energetic, and active in his local district. Our little old district in north-central Colorado can boast having the current House Democratic Leader, plus Neguse is a former impeachment manager. I think this one’s an easy decision.
University of Colorado Board of Regents, At-Large (statewide): Vote Elliott Hood. He’s an experienced education attorney running to oversee the largest higher education system in our state. This race is very important for Boulder because we have CU-Boulder, but it’s also important for the entire state (even if people don’t know that) because the CU system educates our future workforce and leaders, does important research, has a medical campus, and provides the societal benefits a campus offers.
State Board of Education, Congressional District 2: Vote Kathy Gebhardt. She’s had a distinguished lifetime of work in the field of K-12 education, and overseeing our K-12 system is literally the job of the Board of Education.
Colorado State Senate, District 18: Vote Judy Amabile. She’s already served four years in the state House, and has a solid record of accomplishment that will easily carry over to the Senate.
Colorado State House of Representatives, District 10: Vote Junie Joseph. She’s been a public servant in this area for five years, and reflects the prevailing values of the district far better than her opponent. (NOTE: not all Boulder voters vote in District 10 – it’s mostly city residents living east of Broadway).
Colorado State House of Representatives, District 49: Vote Lesley Smith. She’s already served as a CU Regent, a member of the local School Board, and a member of the local Water Board. She’s ready for this next step. (NOTE: not all Boulder voters vote in District 49 – it’s mostly the city residents living west of Broadway).
Boulder County Commissioners, District 2: Vote Marta Loachamin. She’s the incumbent Commissioner and has nearly completed her first four-year term, and I just can’t say I’m impressed with what little I’ve seen of her opponent’s candidacy. (NOTE: Commissioners run in geographic districts, but all Boulder County voters can vote in this race for the Longmont-area Commissioner).
Uncontested Boulder County Races: Vote Michael Dougherty for District Attorney, Claire Levy for Commissioner District 1, and Jeffrey Martin for Coroner. You don’t HAVE to vote in uncontested races, but I see no reason to avoid voting for any of these three candidates.
Judicial Retention Elections: There are 13 judges up for retention on your Boulder County ballot this year. I see no reason to vote against retaining any of them, but there is a gigantic amount of information available at https://judicialperformance.colorado.gov/2024-judicial-performance-evaluations for those who want to dig deeper. Also, there are links on my webpage to information about each individual judge. I won’t ask for much here, except for people to understand that voting against any judge poses a risk that they might get kicked out of office. That’s OK if there are good reasons.
