I should warn you, dear readers, that today’s column deals with two subjects that are often viewed as both boring and tedious: tax policy and voter initiatives. If you find such things interesting, please read on. If not, consider watching funny cat videos.
Where was I? Oh, right …
Recommended Stories▶
Anyone who has read my various screeds over the years, in which I leapt atop my rickety soapbox to rail against voter initiatives, might find this column a bit surprising. Don’t get me wrong, I still oppose the very concept of voters getting to decide on amending the state constitution or passing initiatives that seem like good ideas but often end up as a political wolf in sheep’s clothing (cough … TABOR … cough).
No less than 27 times since I started my missives here nearly 10 years ago, I’ve inveighed against such efforts, believing as I do that we elect representatives to handle such matters. If we have a pain in our belly, we don’t ask for a majority vote of our neighbors as to whether to have an appendectomy (a word I spelled correctly on the first try, just sayin’) or whether to ignore the pain in hopes it will go away. No, we go to experts in the area, whom we call physicians.
We elect legislators to be the experts on laws and regulations we need or often don’t need. These folks are paid (albeit a pittance really) to immerse themselves in the details, because we, as voters, won’t have the time or often the inclination to do deep dives on things like tax policy. And yet we here in Colorado seem quite wedded to the idea of citizen initiatives, wherein special interests across the political spectrum propose a measure to appear on a statewide ballot, then seek enough signatures to get said proposal on the ballot.
Exactly how many signatures are required is determined by the state constitution, which mandates that for a measure to appear on the ballot, it must receive legal signatures totaling 5% of the total votes cast for the office of Colorado Secretary of State in the preceding general election. The office of the Secretary of State does the actual counting and determines which measures reached the 5% level, which is currently 124,238 signatures. Simple, right?
Now I’m sure we’ve all been pestered by signature collectors of all political persuasions (a word I did not spell correctly on my first try) as we’ve entered grocery stores, big-box stores and elsewhere asking us to sign something that sounds, at least as they put it, quite reasonable. You hear comments like “Would you like to sign a petition to lower your taxes?” or “Please sign our petition to protect children” and such.
This is a silly and dangerous way to do governance (cough … TABOR again…cough). This year there are no less than 14 statewide ballot measures for the voters to consider. You can find a list of them here, as well as who is supporting and who is opposing the various measures. Not that last bit will help a great deal, as the folks that set up the “committees” in favor of, or opposed to particular measure often try to fool voters with clever names like “Yes for Colorado Kids” or “Your Family’s Future Alliance.” So, which is it for you? Do you favor children or families?
I mention those last two because of a story in Colorado Politics where a lawsuit has been filed in an effort to remove a particular measure from the ballot that has already been approved and certified as having the needed number of legitimate signatures, Amendment 87. The two aforementioned groups are on either side of the Amendment 87 issue. The good folks at Yes for Colorado Kids are in favor of the amendment, while the (I’m sure) equally nice folks at Your Family’s Future Alliance oppose it.
But wait, there’s more!
Yet another special-interest group has filed a complaint in court claiming that some of the people who collected the signatures didn’t do it right or were themselves not the right people. The “committee” behind the lawsuit seeking the amendment’s removal from the ballot is called “Protect Colorado’s Future.” Well, heck yes, we need to protect our future, even as we say yes to both our kids and huzzah for our family’s future.
Perfectly clear, right?
So, what is Amendment 87? Simply put, it would introduce a graduated income tax here in Colorado. In other words, if you make less, you will pay less in taxes. If you make a lot more, you’d pay more. The pro side calculates that 97% of Coloradans would see a decrease or no change in their income while the small percentage who make more than $500,000 will pay more.
A graduated tax is a common practice and is, in fact, how our federal income tax system works. Now, there is room for lots of arguments about where the various cutoffs of income should be, but the simple idea of a graduated state income tax appeals to me. As a military retiree, I’m in no danger of my income tipping into the “over $500,000” range, so yes, I think the rich should pay more.
But that’s an argument on the merits, which is, of course, what should have been the argument in the state legislature where people and staffers who spend their lives studying things like tax policy could put their expertise to use. If we voters disagree with their choices, we vote them out at the next election.
And this lawsuit adds an even more ridiculous element to the foolish way we amend our state constitution. In theory, by collecting the needed signatures, the voters have, in fact, spoken, in that a significant number of them want to vote on the proposed state constitutional amendment. The lawsuit seeks to undo even that most basic of protections, claiming that the signatures were collected wrongly somehow.
I’m not going to pass judgment on the lawsuit. I’ll let a judge (you know, an expert in such matters) decide, as it should be. And if it survives the court system, I’ll vote yes on 87, because I guess I’m picking kids over families?
Until we change our initiative process — something we will never do, sadly — we must remain committed to being informed voters who carefully study the measures put before us. I’m afraid that’s the reality.
And that’s a pity.
Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.