We think we've found the record. On Sunday night, six - count 'em six - petition circulators were posted outside the King Soopers at 9th and Corona in Denver. The reason: They are on a mission for your John Hancock. With 11 initiative campaigns still striving to obtain the more than 76,000 valid voter signatures they will need to collect before August 4th's signature submission deadline, the pace will likely get even more frantic over the next 21 days.
In an effort to make your next trip to the grocery store a little less confusing, we've outlined the basics, including pro/con perspectives, below.
1. State Sales Tax for Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities – Initiative 128 – Circulated by Lamm Consulting
This measure would increase the state sales tax by one-tenth of 1 percent to create a fund that would benefit children and adults with developmental disabilities by providing them with long-term health care services and support. Pro: More money for kids. Con: We already pay too much in taxes; the focus should be on creating greater government efficiency, which could help find money for people who need support.
2. Education Funding – Initiative 126 – Circulated by Lamm Consulting
House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, is behind this initiative, which has been called a permanent extension of Referendum C and will allow the state to keep any and all excess tax revenue that would have otherwise be refunded under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Supporters, including state Treasurer Cary Kennedy, say the money would go toward education; critics say government can't be trusted and point to other recent tax increases where money has been used for purposes other than those sold to voters.
3. Limited Gaming – Initiative 121 – Circulated by Lamm Consulting
This measure would allow the voters of Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek to revise limits on gaming, if they choose to do so. Casinos would be permitted to extend casino hours of operation and increase bets of approved games up to $100. Tax revenues attributed to the changes would be deposited into the Limited Gaming Fund and allocated as follows: 22 percent to the locally impacted communities, and 78 percent to supplement existing state funding for student financial aid programs. Our take: It's a win-win for everyone. Gamblers eager to throw down more cash can do so, with two important constituencies benefiting in the process. Of course, gambling creates its own host of problems for individuals, but government cannot keep every man from his vices.
4. Severance Tax – Initiative 120 – Circulated by Lamm Consulting
Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, are co-sponsors of this measure. It would lock in place the existing mineral taxes already going toward the Department of Natural Resources (currently half of revenues), and allocate the remaining balance to a new transportation trust fund. The other half - which is not affected - would continue to be distributed through the Department of Local Affairs. The General Assembly would be responsible for appropriating the revenue and interest, giving first priority to relieving congestion on the I-70 corridor. An interesting note: This initiative, according to signature gatherers we spoke with, is being confused by another (see 113 below) that would increase taxes on energy producers with the new revenue going toward higher education and other priorities. Backers of Initiative 120, including state Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, like it because it increases transportation funding - a long forgotten priority - without increasing the tax burden on working families or energy producers.
5. Severance Tax – Initiative 113 - Cirulated by Field Works
Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter is responsible for this severance tax initiative, announced to less-than-glowing reviews by Colorado's higher education establishment. Ritter’s initiative would eliminate a tax credit given to energy producers for a portion of the property taxes paid to local communities. The change, according to supporters, would result in about $300 million of new revenue for the state. The new revenue would be distributed as follows: 60 percent would be appropriated for college scholarships for Colorado residents, 15 percent would be allocated to environmental interests, 10 percent to the clean energy fund, 10 percent would go toward transportation in the impacted communities and 5 percent would be given to the department of public health and water quality control division. Critics say the $300 million projection could be seriously off as energy producers talk about packing up and heading out of Colorado in the face of more taxes and regulations here. Foes also question why 40 percent of an initiative touted under an education banner will go toward other, unrelated projects like the clean energy fund, which is a loosely-defined slush fund for Ritter's new energy office.
6. Colorado Housing Investment Fund – Initiative 103 – Circulated by Lamm Consulting
This measure would create a Housing Investment Fund that would subsidize "affordable" housing, administered by the Division of Housing. Revenue for the fund would be generated by a real estate transfer tax imposed on each real estate transaction at a rate of 4 cents for each $100. Pro: It would help poor people buy houses. Con: It's one more financial burden for potential home buyers struggling in a tough economy and housing market. Now is not the time to add extra costs to the price of a home.
7. Safe Workplace – Initiative 93 – Circulated by Lamm Consulting
This initiative is one of many union-backed measures and if passed, would place further regulations and financial burdens on Colorado employers. Initiative 93 would insert a broadly-worded guarantee to a "safe workplace" in state law, which would no doubt be construed liberally by plaintiffs' lawyers. Most workers-compensation claims are, at the outset, handled in special administrative courts, usually by judges with experience in handling employment law. But this initiative provides a new, parallel right of action in District Court. What does a "safe and healthy" workplace mean? This initiative purposely avoids the question, hoping sympathetic juries with an eye on business "deep pockets" will provide the answer. Pro: More money if you get hurt on the job - potentially lots more. Con: This measure is bad for businesses that already pay for workers compensation insurance, but will have to buy additional general liability insurance to protect itself against other, broadly-constructed lawsuits. What's bad for business is bad for the economy.
8. Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance – Initiative 92 – Circulated by Lamm Consulting
This initiative would require businesses of 20 or more employees to provide health insurance for both the employee and his dependents. Businesses operate in a free market both on for customers and business and for talented employees. The government already has a litany of restrictions on private workplaces. An individual considering employment relationship with a company knows what benefits he will be offered, and may factor that information into his decision. In the short term, it would increase the marginal cost of hiring a 21st employee so much that it would create a disincentive for businesses to grow, consequently hurting job creation statewide. Pro: Workers, particularly those represented by unions, would no longer have to negotiate to obtain health insurance as it would be mandated by the government. Con: Businesses will be forced to take on a costly new liability, regardless of employees' need or desire for company-sponsored health insurance.
9. Discrimination/Preferential Treatment by Colorado Governments – Initiative 82 – Circulated by Field Works
This initiative is the countermeasure to Amendment 46, known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (already approved for the November ballot), which would eliminate race and gender preferences in government hiring, education and contracting. Initiative 82 shares the exact same language as Amendment 46, except that it adds a sentence reading, “preferential treatment means adopting quotas or awarding points solely on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.” The initiative also provides a blanket exemption for race preference programs approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. While Amendment 46 would actually eliminate race and gender preferences, Initiative 82 would allow the practice of using race and gender in government hiring, education and contracting as long it is not using a quota system. A vote for 82 is a vote for the status quo, while a vote for 46 would be a vote for abolishing preferences and discrimination in public hiring, contracting, and education. As a recent Face The State undercover investigation revealed, an Initiative 82 petition circulator was caught on tape lying about Amendment 46. Amendment 46 backers now say they will file a complaint with the Secretary of State.
10. Just Cause for Employee Discharge or Suspension – Initiative 76 – Circulated by Field Works
This measure is backed by Protect Colorado’s Future, a coalition of unions and advocacy groups opposed to a "Right to Work" measure that has already been approved for November’s ballot. Colorado law currently grants employers the freedom to fire any employees without reason, so long as the decision is not made because of an employee's sex, race, national origin, or other protected status. This measure would require employers to give “just cause” in terminating someone’s employment. Even if slowing business, strategic downsizing or other belt-tightening require workers to be laid off, businesses would need to provide "documented" evidence, which would then become fodder - all in the public record - for a lawsuit from an aggrieved worker. Initiative 76 invites the government and unelected judges into the company boardroom to second-guess business decisions. Pro: You couldn't get fired because your employer doesn't like your hair color. Con: Small business owners would lose their ability to hire and fire for what they deem right and wrong, and employers could no longer contractually define causes for termination.
11. Liability of Business Entities and Their Executive Officials – Criminal Liability – Initiative 74 – Circulated by Field Works
Protect Colorado’s Future and its union cohorts are also behind this one, which would create a new criminal liability regime to hold CEOs and other corporate executives personally liable for the corporation's actions. Petitioners are labeling this the “Joe Nacchio Initiative,” but Nacchio’s conduct of defrauding Qwest retirees was criminally prosecuted under federal law. State law already provides sanctions for criminal activity perpetrated by individuals, such as fraud, embezzlement, and the like. This measure, according to those opposed, would paint business leaders with the scarlet letter of criminality for a broadly defined and constructed set of business acts and omissions. Proponents' invocation of Nacchio-style fraud, already covered by current law, is a convenient way to raise voter interest while downplaying the initiative's true effect.