Boulder Dude

***Dave covered it here so I will do mine now.

Initiated Amendment 38
PETITIONS

NO

Considering the amount of petitions we currently have to deal with, I am not convinced that making it easier is a good thing. Especially since this law would allow petitions of any government entity. We all ready have the Legislature, so let's let them do their job.

All this will do is allow the majority to make a bunch of petty laws that will be challenged in court and over turned...thus outraging the majority causing them to write new and ever so slightly different petitions, and so on and so on.

Granted, the current system is just a dumping ground for things that the Legislature didn't want to deal with during their session, I do not see adding to the silliness as being helpful.

Initiated Amendment 39
SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING REQUIREMENTS

NO

Rural school districts need to repair schools and/or hire teachers.

There is no such thing as one size fits all, and this is a typical Republican top down approach sponsored by State Rep. Joe Stengel, R-Littleton.

Initiated Amendment 40
TERM LIMITS FOR JUDGES

NO

Brought to you by the John Andrews (R-Weasel) who is still very upset that his Gerrymandering of congressional districts was tossed out by the Colorado Supreme Court. Term limited out two years ago, he now feels that the unelected Judiciary needs to feel the same love that the State elected officials get to feel. This is also yet another example of the Authoritarian Rights war on the Judiciary, and there belief that they will always be in power (and by controlling every branch of the government, they are well on their way). The do as I say not as I do "Libertarians" seem to also lining up behind this Amendment as well.

That is two reasons too many for me.

Initiated Amendment 41
ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT

NO

Yes, because what we need is 5 more politos that can be bribed.

If you want to end the corruption in government you go to either public funded campaigns (i.e. campaign funds only from the government), or do what Arizona did with the $5 plan (to get matching funds, the challenger gets one $5 bill for each signature, once threshold has been met, the government matches the funds of the person with private funds).

Since money is not free, money is not free speech.

Initiated Amendment 42
MINIMUM WAGE

NO

This like the Boulder Kyoto fiasco earlier. If you want a minimum wage you make congress pass one, and then you tie their raises to that of the Minimum Wage, or COLA and be done with it.

Initiated Amendment 43***
MARRIAGE

NO!!!11!

If this was a proposal allowing gay's to marry like straights, I would be all for it. But since it is yet another attempt to codify discrimination into the constitution, I will be voting against it.

One other bit of discrimination bit the righties in the ass a few years back. Back when the Klan ran the state (the 20's like a great many other states after the Racist/Propaganda piece Birth of a Nation came out), they enacted a law mandating no government funding for religious (i.e. Catholic) schools. So when they passed a voucher law, it was deemed unconstitutional because it provided government funding to religious schools. I love unintended consequences.

Initiated Amendment 44
MARIJUANA POSSESSION

YES

It is a good start, and I still wish that Carter had been able to decriminalize it back in the day.

Referred Amendment E
PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS

YES

With all the new disabled Vets that the GWoT is generating, I say that this is a good thing. Plus it screws over El Paso County, which is always a good thing.

Referred Amendment F
RECALL DEADLINES

NO

Ummm....

Yeah....

Because it SO hard to do recalls now...

Lake County/Leadville has had at least one a year for someone that has pissed them off for at leat the past decade.

Referred Amendment G
REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISIONS

NO

I like to be contrary sometimes (quit laughing you. ;P ), and I always vote to keep the language, Just like I automatically vote against retention for all the Judges except for ones that did something good in between elections.

Referred Amendment H***
ELIMINATION OF A STATE BUSINESS INCOME TAX DEDUCTION

Text:

A referred amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes, Article 22, Title 39, eliminating a state income tax deduction for a business that pays an unauthorized alien to perform work.

Major Provisions:

Eliminates a state income tax benefit for a business that pays an unauthorized alien to perform work. The business must have known at the time of the worker’s hiring that the person was an unauthorized alien.

NO

Ummm...

Yeah...

Can you say silly and Petty?

There is already a federal law on the books since '86 saying that it is a $100K fine per illegal working for X company. It is not enforced due to it being bad for business, and there is no way that a company is going to tell anyone that they are have Illegals on the payroll.

This is a silly law and does not need to be on the books.

Referred Amendment I
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS

YES

One small step....

Referred Amendment J
SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING REQUIREMENTS

NO

Same as 39, but with a different percentage.

Referred Amendment K***
IMMIGRATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

NO

Yeah, because tossing good many after bad is always a wise choice. I will suspect that yes voters are the same people that keep putting money in vending machines hoping that their Ho Ho's fall.


***The folks that will vote for these laws are bigots, and the usual suspects that passed Amendment 2 (overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court) will be all over these like flies to rotten meat.