How I’m voting in the 2022 Boulder Colorado elections and Voter Guide

Posted on by ericmbudd

Elections this year in Boulder, Colorado and across the nation are incredibly important. We say that every year. But this year we have candidates and issues who we need to protect democracy and strengthen our communities. I hope you enjoy reading my guide and voting this November.

For more than five years, I’ve written a voter guide for every election in Boulder. I want to start with a thank you to local journalists Shay Castle (Boulder Beat), news and opinion writers at the Boulder Daily Camera, Boulder Reporting Lab, and the Boulder Weekly. Without their dedication and terrific reporting, guides like this wouldn’t be possible. I’ve also linked to great reporting from The Denver Post, Colorado Sun, Colorado Newsline, Colorado Chalkbeat and other outlets. Consider subscribing!

You can subscribe to Shay Castle’s Patreon to get weekly local news, or you can subscribe to the Boulder Daily Camera and Boulder Weekly which support a number of local journalists and editorials.

November 8th, 2022 General Election in Boulder, Colorado

  1. Federal Offices
  2. State Offices
  3. County Offices
  4. Judicial Retention Questions
  5. State Ballot Measures
  6. County Ballot Measures
  7. Local Ballot Measures

Federal Offices

United States Senator – Michael Bennet (Democratic)

I am voting for Michael Bennet. Senator Bennet has been a strong supporter of key parts of the Democratic platform like environmental protections, the child tax credit, and immigration reform. Without him and a Democratic advantage in the Senate, many of President Biden’s major accomplishments wouldn’t be possible.

While I often want to see Senator Bennet take more progressive positions, he is and will continue to be an important part to keep and expand Democratic majority in the Senate.

Additional Reading

Michael Bennet hopes to become Colorado’s longest-serving senator in decades. Who is he? – CPR News

Representative to the 118th United States Congress – District 2 – Joe Neguse (Democratic)

I am voting for Joe Neguse. Congressman Neguse has been an outstanding champion for Boulder County and Congressional District 2. I’ve appreciated both his leadership and accessibility in the community. I have included some links below to highlight some of the important work and community engagement he’s been doing in the district.

Additional Reading

Colorado 2nd Congressional District: Rep. Joe Neguse, Marshall Dawson – CPR News

Joe Neguse Didn’t Come to Congress to Fight Wildfires. Climate Change Had Other Plans – Time

Rep. Joe Neguse talks firefighter pay, federal funding during Summit County visit – Summit Daily

From brush clearing to thorny issues, Rep. Joe Neguse tries a new twist on the town hall – CPR News

State Offices

Governor/Lieutenant Governor – Jared Polis / Dianne Primavera (Democratic)

I am voting for Jared Polis / Dianne Primavera. In general, I think the Polis administration and legislature has some great accomplishments — funding transportation in the state, reforming policing, passing the reproductive health equity act, universal preschool, and helping Colorado families and businesses through the pandemic. There are likely many more accomplishments I could list.

Polis’ Republican opponent simply has policy priorities that I don’t agree with, and in my opinion an incoherent campaign not worthy of consideration.

I’ll take the opportunity to say that in a second term, and hopefully with support of the legislature, I’d like to see even more progress on key issues for the state. The top on my list are more funding for housing and statewide zoning reforms, improving decarbonizing and improve public transportation, strengthen and codify abortion protections, further protections for LGBTQ rights and overturning Colorado’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Additional Reading

Gov. Jared Polis wants a second term as Colorado’s governor: What you need to know – CPR News

School Officials to GOP Candidate: Stop Spreading Bogus Claim Students ‘Identify as Cats’ – The Daily Beast

How the conservative parents’ rights movement — fueled by LGBTQ backlash — is shaping Heidi Ganahl’s campaign – CPR News

Heidi Ganahl pressed on election denial, tax cut plan during governor’s forum – Denver Post

Guest Opinion: Jared Polis: The secret is out, Colorado is an amazing place to live – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Heidi Ganahl: Let’s make Colorado affordable and safe again – Daily Camera

Secretary of State – Jena Griswold (Democratic)

I am voting for Jena Griswold. Secretary Griswold has been a progressive leader in the Secretary of State at a time when our democratic system has been under the most attack. Some criticism of Jena has been that she is too political — yet upholding our democracy itself has in fact become political.

Republicans have attacked voting itself and access to the ballot across the country. Here in Colorado, we’re trying to make it easier and simpler for everyone to vote. While it seems that Secretary Griswold’s opponent is well-qualified and potentially worthy of the job, the Republican Party is not. I’m very proud to support Jena Griswold for re-election.

Additional Reading

Colorado Secretary of State: Democrat Jena Griswold – CPR News

Erroneous mailers and political tone sticking points in secretary of state debate – CPR News

One Colorado Race Will Be About Voters’ Faith in Elections. It’s Not Looking Good. -Politico

Guest opinion: Jena Griswold: Let’s make Colorado number one for voter turnout – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Pam Anderson: Non-partisan professionalism can restore trust in our elections – Daily Camera

State Treasurer – Dave Young (Democratic)

I am voting for Dave Young. Treasurer Young has done a solid job during the pandemic and greatly aligns with my values. A few helpful examples from this Durango Herald article:

“Young… said he’d like to see Colorado’s tax policy changed because he feels TABOR has hampered the state’s ability to fund schools, health care and infrastructure.”


“This year, Democrats in the legislature, with the backing of Young and Gov. Jared Polis, temporarily changed the state’s TABOR refund mechanism to make it a flat rate instead of tying it to income and giving the biggest refunds to the highest earners. Individual filers got a $750 refund while joint filers received a $1,500 refund.”


“I think the move to a flat system was actually more beneficial to a larger number of people here in the state of Colorado,” Young said.

Additional Reading

About Treasurer Dave Young – CO Department of Treasury

Colorado State Treasurer: Dave Young, Lang Sias – CPR News

Here’s where Colorado treasurer candidates Dave Young and Lang Sias stand on the issues – Colorado Sun

Attorney General – Phil Weiser (Democratic)

I am voting for Phil Weiser. Attorney General Weiser has fought to protect consumer privacy, police reform, and is committed to protecting abortion access and defending gun safety laws. I strongly support his re-election.

Additional Reading

Crime a top issue in the 2022 attorney general’s race – Denver Post

Endorsement: We need Phil Weiser to protect pregnant women and Colorado doctors

ENDORSEMENT: Weiser makes a winning case for his 2nd term; Kellner raises objections for the wrong job – Aurora Sentinel

Colorado’s new Attorney General, Phil Weiser ’94, seeks to innovate – NYU Law

State Board of Education Member — At Large – Kathy Plomer (Democratic)

I am voting for Kathy Plomer. Colorado’s statewide school board is largely responsible for setting education policy, which has recently included some disturbing developments. From Colorado Chalkbeat, “A Republican State Board of Education member who believes socialism poses grave dangers at home and abroad has put his stamp on how Colorado students will learn about the Holocaust.”

From another Colorado Chalkbeat article earlier in the year: “On the State Board of Education, Democrats say they have a track record of positive change and will focus on student needs rather than ideology. Republicans say they’ll center parents’ rights and school choice, focus on core academic skills, and block efforts to promote a more inclusive approach to teaching race, gender, and sexuality.”

Locally, the Boulder Valley School District Board of Education worked closely with advocates from Out Boulder and the Boulder LGBTQ community on a recent resolution codifying their commitment to LGBTQ and BIPOC representation in curriculum: “The BVSD Board of Education reaffirms its commitment to policies that support and represent the diverse people and families in our communities and opposes any action by the Colorado State Board of Education to remove or limit the representation of LGBTQ and BIPOC people from the social studies curriculum and standards.”

State school board is incredibly important for our school curricula and we need more socially liberal representation. Please vote for Kathy Plomer.

Additional Reading

Colorado State Board of Education At-large candidate Q&A – Denver Post

Colorado State Board of Education: Who’s running and why it has two new seats – CPR News

ENDORSEMENT: Voters must pay heed to state school board races sneaking extremism into the classroom — elect McClellan, Plomer – Aurora Sentinel

State Representative – District 10 – Junie Joseph (Democratic)

I am voting for Junie Joseph. I first met Junie Joseph when she moved to town in 2018. I was amazed and impressed when she wanted to run for city council the next year. We had just launched Boulder Progressives and were proud to support her candidacy. On the city council, Joseph has aligned members who are pro-housing and making Boulder welcoming to all people.

I look forward to having Rep Joseph represent the same values in the state legislature.
Full disclosure: I was a member of the HD10 Democratic vacancy committee who participated in the process to select our next state rep.

Additional Reading

Colorado House of Representatives District 10 – Ballotpedia

Colorado State House District 10 candidate Q&A – Denver Post

Junie Joseph For House District 10

Junie Joseph’s 2022 priorities on Boulder City Council – Boulder Beat

[Bill DeOreo] – House District 10 candidate sues Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Office – Daily Camera

Eric Budd: Election: MAGA Republicans attack democracy in Boulder – Daily Camera

State Representative – District 49 – Judy Amabile (Democratic)

I am voting for Judy Amabile. Representative Amabile previously House District 13 before the 2021 redistricting. If you thought there couldn’t be a clearer race than HD 10 Junie vs. Bill, here is an easier one. Rep Amabile has been a fantastic leader in Boulder.

A few of Rep Amabile’s accomplishments and work: strengthening our mental health infrastructure and access to mental health services, new laws to address gun violence, and protecting people who are affected by wildfires, among other accomplishments. I strongly support Judy Amabile to continue representing Boulder in the state legislature.

Additional Reading

Colorado House of Representatives District 49 – Ballotpedia

Judy Amabile For House District 49

Colorado State House District 49 candidate Q&A – Denver Post

Regional Transportation District Director – District O – Lynn Guissinger

I am voting for Lynn Guissinger. Director Guissinger has done a great job representing Boulder in the Regional Transportation District during a really difficult period in the pandemic. Amid service cuts, difficulty hiring drivers, and shifting commute patterns with remote work, RTD is certainly experiencing a lot of change. She has my strong support.

Additional Reading

RTD Board of Directors elections 2022, District O: Lynn Guissinger, Richard O’Keefe – CPR News

RTD Director District O candidate Q&A – Denver Post

County Offices

County Commissioner – District 3 – Ashley Stolzmann (Democratic)

I am voting for Ashley Stolzmann. The current mayor of Louisville Colorado will help bring a progressive voice to the Boulder County Commissioners. I appreciated this interview that Ashley gave during the Democratic Primary in June to Boulder Beat:

“Housing, homelessness, transportation, gun violence prevention — these issues are not city-by-city issues.” The recent gun control push, “working together made it much easier.” Anything housing and human services, “the county has the funding, they have the resources” as the state arm of that locally. “The commissioners could do a better job communicating what we’re doing and what we’re spending money on.”

Additional Reading

Boulder County Commissioner District 3: Ashley Stolzmann

County Clerk and Recorder – Molly Fitzpatrick (Democratic)

I am voting for Molly Fitzpatrick, who is running unopposed.

County Treasurer – Paul Weissmann (Democratic)

I am voting for Paul Weissmann, who is running unopposed.

County Assessor – Cynthia Braddock (Democratic)

I am voting for Cynthia Braddock, who is running unopposed.

County Surveyor – Lee Stadele (Democratic)

I am voting for Lee Stadele, who is running unopposed.

County Coroner – Emma R. Hall (Democratic)

I am voting for Emma R. Hall, who is running unopposed.

Judicial Retention Questions

Here’s a link to the Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluations. Overall I find the process of researching judges frustrating because the available resources lack the needed information to make decisions on retention. Please send me any additional resources or thoughts you have to @ericmbudd on Twitter.

State Ballot Measures

Amendment D (CONSTITUTIONAL) – YES / FOR

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judges of the newly created twenty-third judicial district, and, in connection therewith, directing the governor to designate judges from the eighteenth judicial district to serve the remainder of their terms in the twenty-third judicial district and requiring a judge so designated to establish residency within the twenty-third judicial district?

YES / FOR. Amendment D is a housekeeping measure to allow for the transition of judges from the eighteenth judicial district to the twenty-third judicial district. The measure is not related to redistricting completed in 2021, but rather to a one-time creation of a new district.

Additional Reading

Colorado Amendment D, Designate Judges to Twenty-Third Judicial District Measure (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment D – State of Colorado

Amendment D: Colorado’s governor would be empowered to reassign judges to newly created judicial district – Colorado Sun

Amendment E (CONSTITUTIONAL) – YES / FOR

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the extension of the property tax exemption for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans to the surviving spouse of a United States armed forces service member who died in the line of duty or veteran whose death resulted from a service-related injury or disease?

YES / FOR. Colorado has an existing property tax exemption program implemented by the state legislature and administered by the counties. Per the Boulder County Clerk’s page, “For those who qualify, 50 percent of the first $200,000 in actual value of their primary residence is exempted, for a maximum exemption amount of $100,000 in actual value. The State of Colorado pays the property taxes on the exempted value.”

While the details and amounts of the program are determined by state law and can be altered by the legislature, the determination of who may qualify for such exemptions is in the Colorado constitution, which is why this measure requires a constitutional change. Colorado requires a 55 percent supermajority to approve a constitutional amendment.

While property tax exemptions do have the possibility to create bad incentives, concentrate wealth, and underfund state governments (witness Prop 13 in California), the policy here would serve to protect families whose death was related to service to our country. I think this exemption makes sense and I am voting yes.

Additional Reading

Colorado Amendment E, Homestead Exemption to Surviving Spouses of U.S. Armed Forces Members and Veterans Measure (2022)

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment E – State of Colorado

Amendment E: Extend homestead exemption to Gold Star spouses, explained – CPR News

Amendment E: Colorado’s homestead property tax exemption would be extended to Gold Star spouses – Colorado Sun

Amendment F (CONSTITUTIONAL) – YES / FOR

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing managers and operators to be paid and repealing the required period of a charitable organization’s continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?

YES / FOR. Amendment F is very similar to a measure on Colorado’s 2020 ballot, Amendment C. Here is my take on that measure, which still holds:

The amendment will loosen some regulations on charitable fundraisers. Most of the specific changes would reduce the time requirement from five years to three years, and set up requirements for paid staff. Overall this is a small change at the state level but would have a more significant economic impact for local communities using the updated regulations.

Additional Reading

Colorado Amendment F, Charitable Gaming Measure (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment F – State of Colorado

Amendment F: Should Colorado update a law written in 1958 governing charitable bingo and raffles? – Colorado Sun

Amendment F: Changes to charitable gaming operations, explained – CPR News

Proposition FF (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $100,727,820 ANNUALLY BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES THAT, TO SUPPORT HEALTHY MEALS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS, INCREASES STATE TAXABLE INCOME ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FEDERAL TAXABLE INCOME OF $300,000 OR MORE BY LIMITING ITEMIZED OR STANDARD STATE INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS TO $12,000 FOR SINGLE TAX RETURN FILERS AND $16,000 FOR JOINT TAX RETURN FILERS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING THE HEALTHY SCHOOL MEALS FOR ALL PROGRAM TO PROVIDE FREE SCHOOL MEALS TO STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; PROVIDING GRANTS FOR PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS TO PURCHASE COLORADO GROWN, RAISED, OR PROCESSED PRODUCTS, TO INCREASE WAGES OR PROVIDE STIPENDS FOR EMPLOYEES WHO PREPARE AND SERVE SCHOOL MEALS, AND TO CREATE PARENT AND STUDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE ADVICE TO ENSURE SCHOOL MEALS ARE HEALTHY AND APPEALING TO ALL STUDENTS; AND CREATING A PROGRAM TO ASSIST IN PROMOTING COLORADO FOOD PRODUCTS AND PREPARING SCHOOL MEALS USING BASIC NUTRITIOUS INGREDIENTS WITH MINIMAL RELIANCE ON PROCESSED PRODUCTS?

YES / FOR. Providing healthy school meals by taxing high-income earners is easily the most progressive measure on Colorado’s 2022 ballot. Let’s make this happen!

The Colorado Blue Book has a great illustration on how the program would directly benefit students and families:

Here’s an article from the Boulder Daily Camera in March talking about the importance of free lunch programs:

Boulder Valley Food Services Director Stephen Menyhart called the federal support that allowed all students to eat school lunch for free, no paperwork required, during the pandemic a “great equalizer.”

… he noted the free lunch income requirements don’t take into account local housing costs. To qualify, a family of four can’t make more than $50,000 a year.”

In a place like Boulder, we often have significant divides between wealthier and poorer families amplified by high housing costs. Establishing a universal program would make a big difference.

Here’s an example from the Colorado Blue Book on how the progressive taxation portion of the measure will work:

The Boulder Valley School District Board of Education has endorsed the measure, saying Proposition FF is “an important benefit to Colorado’s families and kids who face food shortages and hunger.” Tell everyone you know to vote Yes.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition FF, Reduce Income Tax Deduction Amounts to Fund School Meals Program Measure (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition FF – State of Colorado

Colorado voters asked to fund school lunches with tax hike on high incomes – Colorado Newsline

Proposition FF: Healthy meals for all public school students, explained – CPR News

Proposition FF: Slashing tax breaks for the wealthy would fund program giving all Colorado public school students free meals – Colorado Sun

Proposition GG (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring that the ballot title and fiscal summary for any ballot initiative that increases or decreases state income tax rates include a table showing the average tax change for tax filers in different income categories?

YES / FOR. Per Ballotpedia for Proposition GG, “This measure would require ballot titles and fiscal impact summaries for initiatives that increase or decrease the individual income tax rate to include a table showing the potential tax changes for those in different income categories under the proposed initiative. Changes would be expressed by a dollar amount and a plus sign (+) if taxes owed would be increased or a negative sign (-) if the taxes owed would be decreased.”

Proposition GG is largely a response to a strategy from conservative / Republican groups to issues like Proposition 121 in 2022 and Proposition 116 in 2020 which systematically ask voters to approve state income tax cuts.

Prop 121 this year reads: “Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%?”

The current ballot structure provides little information about how income taxes would affect the state budget and who would be likely to receive significant cuts in taxes. Prop 116 passed in 2020 with 57.9% voting in favor.

Continued chipping away at the state’s income tax rate, and that the income tax savings will largely go to people with larger incomes, make additional information on the effects of these measures critically important. Please vote Yes.

Additional Reading

Proposition GG: Information on Colorado income tax changes would be more prominently displayed – Colorado Sun

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition GG – State of Colorado

Proposition GG: Giving voters more information about proposed tax changes – CPR News

Proposition 121 (STATUTORY) – NO / AGAINST

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%?

NO / AGAINST. Prop 121 is another continuation of conservative / Republican-aligned groups continuing to chip away at the state income tax, with the savings largely going to wealthier residents.

Per Chase Woodruff in Colorado Newsline on Prop 121: “If the initiative passes, a tax filer who earns $60,000 a year would owe about $63 less in taxes in 2023, according to a state fiscal analysis. Nearly half of the benefits of the rate reduction — an estimated $188 million — would go to Coloradans earning more than $1 million a year, who would see an average tax cut of $6,647.”

Another income tax cut would also directly impact 2022’s Prop 123 which would dedicate a small amount of income tax surplus to fund affordable housing in Colorado.

Here’s a quote from Scott Wasserman in CPR on Prop 121: “When we hit the first recession, we’ll be taking in less money,” said Scott Wasserman, president of the progressive Bell Policy Center, in an earlier interview. “This will impact K-12 education, health and human services, corrections, higher education, public safety, you name it.”

I urge you to vote no.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 121, State Income Tax Rate Reduction Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 121 – State of Colorado

Proposition 121: Coloradans will decide whether to cut the state income tax rate — again – Colorado Sun

Proposition 121: Should Colorado cut its income tax rate again? – Denver Business Journal

Colorado Proposition 121: State Income Tax Rate Reduction Initiative – Daily Camera

Proposition 122 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning legal regulated access to natural medicine for persons 21 years of age or older, and, in connection therewith, defining natural medicine as certain plants or fungi that affect a person’s mental health and are controlled substances under state law; establishing a natural medicine regulated access program for supervised care, and requiring the department of regulatory agencies to implement the program and comprehensively regulate natural medicine to protect public health and safety; creating an advisory board to advise the department as to the implementation of the program; granting a local government limited authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of providing natural medicine services; allowing limited personal possession, use, and uncompensated sharing of natural medicine; providing specified protections under state law, including criminal and civil immunity, for authorized providers and users of natural medicine; and, in limited circumstances, allowing the retroactive removal and reduction of criminal penalties related to the possession, use, and sale of natural medicine?

YES / FOR. I think Proposition 122 will be the most difficult item for me on this year’s ballot. In some ways, a simple decriminalization measure would be easier to support and write about. While I’m personally voting Yes, it’s a fairly soft yes that does leave me with some unanswered questions.

What I think this measure gets right: the aspects of decriminalization and details on what are permissible and impermissible use of the substances in general.

What I’m not sure about with this measure: what are the details of the substances themselves, how they might be used medically, or how they might be made available to the general public. 

From the Colorado Blue Book:

Arguments Against Proposition 122

“There are currently no approved therapies that use psychedelic mushrooms or other plant-based psychedelic substances, and the effects of them can vary widely from person to person, depending on the dose, frequency of use, and type of substance. Breakthrough Therapy designation does not mean that the use of psychedelic mushrooms is safe or recommended.

Further, DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline have not received a similar designation, and, specifically, ibogaine may cause life-threatening heart conditions. Proposing a regulatory framework for the use of these substances suggests that they offer legitimate treatment before they have received federal approval, potentially putting people’s health and public safety at risk.”

Is it possible that the passage of Prop 122 might further research and development of these areas? Perhaps. Is it also possible that we may find limited benefits and some negative externalities of passing Prop 122? Also possible.

In general, I feel that the measure goes in the right direction, but may need additional action from the legislature to tighten up the policy. Here are a few more sources to read that I think may be useful:

Colorado was the first state to legalize cannabis.

A decade after voters made Colorado the first government in the world to regulate, tax and sell cannabis, a look back at how it happened and what’s next.

More from Vicente Sederberg:

Colorado Prop 122: A Transformative Measure Grounded in Equity and Healing

Colorado Prop 122’s Historic Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) Requirements

The Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022: A Measure to Access Psychedelic Medicine in Colorado

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 122, Decriminalization and Regulated Access Program for Certain Psychedelic Plants and Fungi Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 122 – State of Colorado

Native Coalition Against Prop 122

Untangling Viewpoints: Getting to Yes on the Natural Medicine Health Act – chacruna – Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicines

What is Colorado Proposition 122: Legalizing psilocybin and psilocin? – Denver Post

Proposition 123 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning statewide funding for additional affordable housing, and, in connection therewith, dedicating state revenues collected from an existing tax of one-tenth of one percent on federal taxable income of every individual, estate, trust, and corporation, as defined in law, for affordable housing and exempting the dedicated revenues from the constitutional limitation on state fiscal year spending; allocating 60% of the dedicated revenues to affordable housing financing programs that will reduce rents, purchase land for affordable housing development, and build assets for renters; allocating 40% of the dedicated revenues to programs that support affordable home ownership, serve persons experiencing homelessness, and support local planning capacity; requiring local governments that seek additional affordable housing funding to expedite development approvals for affordable housing projects and commit to increasing the number of affordable housing units by 3% annually; and specifying that the dedicated revenues shall not supplant existing appropriations for affordable housing programs?

YES / FOR. “Good luck trying to find an affordable home in Colorado,” the report’s executive summary says, “be it for rent or for sale, they simply do not exist,” as reported on Prop 123 in Colorado Politics. 

Housing costs in Colorado and the Front Range have continued to get more unaffordable nearly every year over the past decade, with very little assistance from the state. Prop 123 would provide a good start on affordable housing funding. We should absolutely pass the measure and continue to find ways to do more. I believe that Colorado’s unaffordability is a serious risk to our economy and way of life.

There are a few caveats however:

  1. Funding will exist if we have a budget surplus, which is not guaranteed. In the case that we do not have a budget surplus, it appears that the state legislature would need to take action to prevent cuts from other parts of the budget.
  2. The funding itself will be for “housing programs administered by the state Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA).” This means that we still rely on local governments to use the money effectively. Many of these local governments, including Boulder, highly restrict what housing can be built, and often have local policies that drastically raise the cost of housing or reduce the amount of total housing that can be built. Prop 123 will increase some incentives to change those policies, but local governments are still a huge barrier to housing affordability. Currently the state has no mechanism to force changes in local policy.

Here is a useful table from the Colorado Blue Book outlining how these funds will be used. Please vote Yes to support Prop 123.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 123, Dedicate State Income Tax Revenue to Fund Housing Projects Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 123 – State of Colorado

Coloradans will vote on whether to increase affordable housing funding this fall. The initiative is ‘urgently needed,’ but its odds are hard to predict – CPR News

State budget writers fear consequences of Colorado voters approving affordable housing ballot measure – Colorado Sun

Editorial: Affordable housing solution must begin somewhere, ‘yes’ on Prop 123 – Daily Camera

Proposition 124 (STATUTORY) – NO / AGAINST

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning increasing the number of retail liquor store licenses in which a person may hold an interest, and, in connection therewith, phasing in the increase by allowing up to 8 licenses by December 31, 2026, up to 13 licenses by December 31, 2031, up to 20 licenses by December 31, 2036, and an unlimited number of licenses on or after January 1, 2037?

NO / AGAINST. Proposition 124 is related to alcohol regulation and is one of three related measures on the November ballot, and is probably the most consequential for the industry. 

The issue of alcohol licensing limitations is not a new one. From Colorado Politics in 2017, on recent the previous year’s action: “The passage of last year’s bill, Senate Bill 197, headed off as many as five proposed ballot measures to allow some combination of beer, wine and liquor sales in grocery and other stores, which the owners of smaller liquor stores worried would have led to the demise of mom-and-pop stores, particularly in rural Colorado.”

The Colorado Blue Book has a helpful graphic comparing current with the Prop 124 proposal:

I think voters need to weigh any potential benefits of passing Prop 124 with the costs. The current law was drafted as a compromise of sorts  — allowing some protection of local and smaller businesses. While the new proposal would eventually remove such limits, and likely drive more intense competition from larger-scale liquor retailers.

I do not find the pro arguments compelling enough. Particularly since promoting competition to drive down the price of alcohol is likely not in the best interest of our communities and health more generally. I am voting no.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 124, Retail Liquor Store Licenses Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 124 – State of Colorado

Proposition 124: Colorado voters will decide whether retail liquor stores should be able to open more locations – Colorado Sun

Why Locally Owned Liquor Stores Are Worried About 3 Upcoming Ballot Measures – 5280 Magazine

Zornio: Split the ticket on alcohol sale and delivery in Propositions 124, 125 and 126 – Colorado Sun

2017 – New Grocery Store Liquor Licensing Laws in Colorado – JBP Legal

2017 – Rival groups of liquor retailers kick up dust in legislative fight over spirit licenses – Colorado Politics

Proposition 125 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the expansion of retail sale of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, establishing a new fermented malt beverage and wine retailer license for off-site consumption to allow grocery stores, convenience stores, and other business establishments licensed to sell fermented malt beverages, such as beer, for off-site consumption to also sell wine; automatically converting such a fermented malt beverage retailer license to the new license; and allowing fermented malt beverage and wine retailer licensees to conduct tastings if approved by the local licensing authority?

YES / FOR. Prop 125 concerns alcohol regulation in Colorado, similarly to Prop 124. Both issues concern the balance of convenience with protection of small business. I made the case against Prop 124 as changing that balance while not providing significant benefit to the consumer. I think Prop 125 makes more sense.

I can’t think of decent reasons not to allow both sales of beer and wine, or regulating tastings at the same location other than to protect existing markets from competition. I don’t think these particular regulations are worth keeping.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 125, Wine Sales in Grocery and Convenience Stores Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 125 – State of Colorado

Proposition 125: Coloradans will decide whether grocery stores should be allowed to sell wine starting next year – Colorado Sun

Proposition 126 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning authorization for the third-party delivery of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, allowing retail establishments licensed to sell alcohol beverages for on-site or off-site consumption to deliver all types of alcohol beverages to a person twenty-one years of age or older through a third-party delivery service that obtains a delivery service permit; prohibiting the delivery of alcohol beverages to a person who is under 21 years of age, is intoxicated, or fails to provide proof of identification; removing the limit on the percentage of gross sales revenues a licensee may receive from alcohol beverage deliveries; and allowing a technology services company, without obtaining a third-party delivery service permit, to provide software or a digital network application that connects consumers and licensed retailers for the delivery of alcohol beverages?

YES / FOR. Prop 126 is another area of regulation that will affect the sale of alcohol and related businesses. According to the Colorado Blue Book, “alcohol takeout and delivery by bars and restaurants is scheduled to repeal in July 2025.” Prop 126 would continue current policy and remove other related regulations.

Again, we have a question of what is the proper balance of alcohol regulation and protectionism. I’ve personally found alcohol takeout and delivery service to be fairly transformative, where I find the often car-centric tradition of driving to get alcohol to contribute negatively to our communities.

While we might expect some long-term change in the industry after Prop 126 is made permanent, I think this is an area of regulation that needs to change. I’m voting yes.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 126, Alcohol Delivery Service Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 126 – State of Colorado

Proposition 126: Should Colorado restaurants be allowed to sell to-go cocktails forever? – Colorado Sun

County Ballot Measures

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A – YES / FOR

COUNTYWIDE WILDFIRE MITIGATION SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE

SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.10% FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING WILDFIRE MITIGATION EFFORTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: STRATEGIC FOREST AND GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE, PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES, AND FOSTER RESILIENT ECOSYSTEMS; COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PROGRAMS TO HELP RESIDENTS PREPARE FOR WILDFIRES, CREATE DEFENSIBLE SPACE AROUND HOMES, MAKE HOMES MORE FIRE RESISTANT, AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS; FIRE MITIGATION STAFFING; AND OTHER PROJECTS TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THE INCREASING RISK OF CLIMATE-DRIVEN WILDFIRES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-050?

YES / FOR. Wildfire mitigation is becoming increasingly important in Boulder and Colorado as the climate heats up and dries. We can be assured of more catastrophic fires as a result.

That being said, I’m incredibly disappointed with the regressive sales tax that the Boulder County Commissioners have presented for this critical measure. Reading the ballot language, it is apparent that the measure is of huge benefit to home and property owners in Boulder County. Among other things, the measure will “create defensible space around homes, make homes more fire resistant, and provide technical assistance and financial assistance to homeowners.”

It’s clear to me that this measure should have been a property tax, as its primary function is to protect property — a great source of inequality in the Boulder area. The poorest of us should not have to pay an unequal share to protect the private property of our wealthier residents.

Additional Reading

1A: Countywide Wildfire Mitigation Sales and Use Tax and Revenue Change – Boulder Beat

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-050 Wildfire mitigation tax proposal – Boulder County

Opinion: Yes on 1A: Fire risk is increasing — funding and prevention should, too – Boulder Beat

Editorial: Wildfire mitigation among necessary taxes; ‘yes’ on 1A, 1B and 1C – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Claire Levy, Matt Jones and Marta Loachamin: County measures provide wildfire protections, other services – Daily Camera

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B – YES / FOR

EMERGENCY SERVICES SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE

SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL 0.10% COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX, DECLINING TO 0.05% AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2027, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING EMERGENCY SERVICES IN BOULDER COUNTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: CAPITAL, INCLUDING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONAL COSTS OF SEARCH AND RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR THE NEEDS OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN MOUNTAINOUS AND RURAL AREAS; AMBULANCE SERVICES IN AREAS NOT COVERED BY MUNICIPAL OR FIRE DISTRICT AMBULANCE SERVICES; WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING STAFFING; AND TRAIL AND TRAILHEAD SAFETY SERVICES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-052?

YES / FOR. Emergency services are one area of living in the Boulder area where it makes sense to have dedicated funding. Organizations like Rocky Mountain Rescue are great assets to our community — keeping people safe and allowing people to recreate with assurance that help will be there if needed.

Unlike Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A, the Emergency Services tax proposed as a sales tax makes sense. Recreation in Boulder County is not just for people who live here, but people who visit, too.

When I was on the City of Boulder’s Landmarks Board several years ago, we were looking at some data on who visits Chautauqua in Boulder. The study said that roughly a third of people visiting lived in the city, another third in the county, and another third outside of Boulder County. I think a similar ratio may apply to people recreating in Boulder County more generally. A sales tax would help capture revenue from these various demographics.

Additional Reading

1B: Emergency Services Sales and Use Tax and Revenue Change – Boulder Beat

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-052 – Reso 22-052 Emergency Services tax proposal – Boulder County

Opinion: Yes on 1B: Tax will provide critical funding for life-saving services – Boulder Beat

Editorial: Wildfire mitigation among necessary taxes; ‘yes’ on 1A, 1B and 1C – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Claire Levy, Matt Jones and Marta Loachamin: County measures provide wildfire protections, other services – Daily Camera

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1C – YES / FOR

TRANSPORTATION SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION AND REVENUE CHANGE

WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY’S EXISTING 0.10% SALES AND USE TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BE EXTENDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, COMMUTER AND RECREATIONAL BIKE PATHS AND TRAILS, TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT, TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT, AND COMMUNITY MOBILITY PROGRAMS; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-048?

YES / FOR. Boulder County Ballot Issue 1C extends an existing transportation tax in Boulder. While this is also a critical measure, I’m saddened that the Boulder County Commissioners chose the most timid, car-centric option rather than a higher tax that would fund more bike, pedestrian, and transit priorities.

Earlier this summer, Boulder County transportation staff presented the commissioners with various options for funding levels and spending priorities:

I acknowledge that there are a number of taxes on the ballot this year, and passage of an extension to the existing, expiring transportation tax is not guaranteed. But with our county’s significant transportation needs, it feels like our current funding level is simply inadequate for our needs and decarbonization priorities.

The commissioners played it safe, even when the highest taxing option had a polled approval of 58%, even with considerable numbers of people strongly opposed.

Additional Reading

1C: Transportation Sales and Use Tax Extension and Revenue Change – Boulder Beat

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-048 Transportation tax extension proposal – Boulder County

Boulder County Transportation Sales Tax Open House, June 14, 2022 – YouTube, Boulder County

Opinion: Yes on 1C: Boulder County transportation tax is crucial for fighting climate change – Boulder Beat

Editorial: Wildfire mitigation among necessary taxes; ‘yes’ on 1A, 1B and 1C – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Claire Levy, Matt Jones and Marta Loachamin: County measures provide wildfire protections, other services – Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2A / 2B – YES / FOR

CLIMATE TAX (TABOR)

SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $6.5 MILLION (FIRST, FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY AND INCREASING ANNUALLY BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX BY IMPOSING A CLIMATE TAX ON THE DELIVERY OF ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE 8542; AND SHALL THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX SET TO EXPIRE MARCH 31, 2023 AND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2025 BE REPEALED; AND SHALL THE CLIMATE TAX BEGIN JANUARY 1, 2023, AND EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2040; WITH THE REVENUE FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON TO BE USED TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND CLIMATE FOCUSED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND STABILIZE FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES TO MEET THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ITEMS SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES TO REDUCE ENERGY USE; ACCELERATE BUILDING WEATHERIZATION AND ELECTRIFICATION; LOCAL RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION AND STORAGE; MICROGRIDS AND DISTRICT SYSTEMS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE; EQUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN HIGH PERFORMING, HEALTHY BUILDINGS; SERVICES TO SUPPORT ZERO EMISSIONS; MOBILITY OPTIONS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENTLY UNDERSERVED SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY; ZERO-WASTE EFFORTS INCLUDING REUSE, REPAIR AND RECYCLING; NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS, IMPROVE AIR QUALITY AND BUFFER EXTREME HEAT EVENTS; INCENTIVES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE ACTIONS; WILDFIRE RESILIENCE STRATEGIES SUCH AS WILDFIRE HOME RISK ASSESSMENTS, WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION; OUTREACH AND EDUCATION; RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES FOR THE ACCELERATION OF UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY LINES; FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME UTILITY CUSTOMERS; MATCHING FUNDS OR OTHER LEVERAGE TO ACCESS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES AND COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS TO ACCELERATE MEETING THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS?

YES / FOR THE MEASURE. (2A and 2B). The City of Boulder has implemented several dedicated climate taxes over recent decades: the Climate Action Plan Excise Tax and the Utility Occupation Tax. Both taxes are on energy usage, functioning as demand-based carbon taxes. The Climate Action tax was traditionally the city’s fund for climate-related action, yielding about $1.7 million per year. The Utility Occupation Tax was recently repurposed from its original intent — to support the city’s municipal energy project — which officially ended in 2020.

2A will implement the combined taxes and will generate about $6.5 million for local climate-related services, financing, and projects to help meet the city’s climate goals.

The overall structure of the combined taxes will be similar to the previous taxes, with a small increase in the overall rate, and that “the city is restructuring the rates so that businesses pay more and homeowners pay less.”

2B will implement municipal bonds (an additional cost to allow capital projects to start implementing faster).

You can read more from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot issues 2A, 2B: Climate Tax + Bonds

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8542 – CLIMATE TAX (TABOR) – City of Boulder

Opinion: Yes on 2A, 2B: Governments (and Boulder) should take the lead on climate change – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 2A, 2B: Climate tax funds employee paychecks — not carbon reduction – Boulder Beat

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C – YES / FOR

Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created

If the voters approve the initiative to create a library district that is on the ballot of Boulder County at the November 8, 2022 election, shall Sections 65, 102 and 130 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended and Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 be repealed from the Boulder Home Rule Charter and any remaining funds in the Library Fund used all as set forth in Ordinance 8539?

Yes / For the Measure. The City of Boulder currently has a .333 mills property tax that offers a small part of the current funding for our library system, totaling $1.4 million of the total $11.1 million in the 2023 budget. If Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C passes, which will establish a library district for the Boulder area funded by dedicated property taxes, then the current dedicated funding for the library can be repealed, allowing the city to repurpose or refund the tax.

Regardless for your support of creating a library district, ballot question 2C makes sense if 6C passes. What will the city ultimately do with the existing revenues if the measure passes? City council has yet to determine a plan, but you can read some of the ideas proposed from staff in the September 22nd 2022 Boulder City Council meeting.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot Question 2C – Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created

Additional Reading

Boulder Ballot Issue 2C: Repeal Library Commission and tax – Daily Camera

Ordinance 8539 – Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created – City of Boulder

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D – YES / FOR

Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues

Shall Sections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to allow candidates to run for only one office at an election, allow a council member whose term does not end at the election to run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the office of mayor, fill vacancies for the remainder of the vacated term, and change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials as provided in Ordinance 8540?

Yes / For the Measure. Boulder voters passed a measure in 2020 to directly elect our mayor, starting in 2023. The change has a few implications for city council elections as well. I think the changes listed below all make sense and should be passed by voters.

A few details to discuss:

  1. “allow candidates to run for only one office at an election.” The reason for this provision is to reduce complexity and confusion in having a candidate run for both mayor and city council at the same time. Also, given our campaign finance systems and 1-to-1 public matching dollars for campaigns would also get more complicated with a single candidate running for multiple offices.
  2. “allow a council member whose term does not end at the election to run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the office of mayor.” Boulder’s mayor will only have a term of two years. I think that these elections will favor candidates who are well-positioned, and will likely have higher barriers to entry compared to running for city council. Many of the likely candidates for mayor will already have a seat on city council and are already well-positioned. The proposed change would allow candidates to run for mayor, and if the candidate lost the mayor’s election, would retain their seat on city council.
  3. “fill vacancies for the remainder of the vacated term.” Under Boulder’s charter, vacancies on city council can only be filled during an election, and not by a vacancy committee, which is more common for state offices. Boulder’s charter states that during an election, the number of council members elected will need to match the total number of vacancies on the council at the election. For instance, if there are four terms up for election, and ten candidates run for council, then the top four of those candidates will receive a term in office. In the case that an existing council member runs for mayor and wins, that would create an additional vacancy on council (five total), which would be assigned to the candidate with the next-highest vote total.
  4. “change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials.” The swearing-in date of new officials is currently in November. However, in close elections which take longer to count votes and certify, it’s not uncommon for races to be too close to call. Moving the swearing-in date back a few weeks to December would solve this issue.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot Question 2D – Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8540 – Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues – City of Boulder

Opinion: Yes on 2D: Changes allow flexibility, retain essential experience – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 2D: Proposed limits are bad for candidates and voters – Boulder Beat

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2E – YES / FOR

Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years

Shall Sections 5, 14, and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to change the regular municipal election date to even numbered years on the same date as the state general election beginning with the November 2026 election date, and to implement the transition, reduce the term of the council members elected in 2023 and 2025 to three years and increase the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to three years, all as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8546?

Yes / For the Measure. Full disclosure: I’m a co-lead on the People for Voter Turnout campaign to pass Boulder Ballot Question 2E. As a former Boulder City Council candidate in 2017 and organizer on many local campaigns, increasing turnout and representation in our city elections is incredibly important to me.

Boulder’s local elections are currently held in off-years, when many fewer people vote than in even years. We have lots of evidence that off-year elections are not only correlated with low voter turnout, but the main cause of low turnout. From the People for Voter Turnout Research Page:

So what happens when voter turnout is low, and why is it a problem? City councils make lots of important decisions affecting our quality of life, including those around housing, services, and policies for our city. When our elections are not representative in terms of age, race, income, housing status, and other factors, our city leaders do not reflect the breadth of people in our community.

Measure 2E would move Boulder’s local elections to even years when nearly double the people are voting. A number of cities across the United States have moved to on-cycle elections and shown dramatic increases in people participating in their local democracy.

Measure 2E was put on the ballot by Boulder City Council after prioritizing the change in January of 2022. I would love your support in making this change here in Boulder.

But not everyone in Boulder thinks the move would be helpful. I want to highlight some comments from local elected officials who openly dismissed the intelligence of voters in Boulder:

Boulder City Councilman Bob Yates, in his July Newsletter: “Maybe the motive here really is to get more people to vote in city council elections, under the belief that quantity is better than quality. Maybe the proponents sincerely believe that voters who currently opt out of odd-year city council elections will, once presented with a council race in even years, become informed about local issues and make good choices.” 

Boulder County Commissioner Claire Levy, on October 18th: “Most people I talk to can’t distinguish one candidate from another and dislike the rancorous tone of the outside groups that endorse candidates. It is very difficult to truly understand the differences among the candidates without attending debates and talking to them. Students are here temporarily and don’t see themselves as being affected by what city council does.”

I find these arguments truly gross, and dismissive of the diversity of people and needs in our community. More people need a voice in our local government, not fewer.

So are there any real arguments to oppose the move, other than keeping Boulder elections our little secret? I’ll address the best ones.

Will even-year elections drown out local issues and candidates?

No. In fact, they will elevate issues, as the elections will happen when nearly 90% of Boulder is voting. Candidates will need to make an effort to reach out to a broader set of people in the community and engage people with issues. Here’s a quote from my friend Adrian Fine:

“Palo Alto moved to even-year elections in 2012. When I ran for City Council in 2016, there was no question that an even year meant more people were listening and engaging on local issues.”

-Former Mayor of Palo Alto and current Boulder resident

Will school board elections be ‘orphaned’ if we move city elections?

No. I’ll reference the People for Voter Turnout FAQ:

Boulder’s school board elections occur in off-years like our city council elections currently do, causing them to have very low turnout of around 30%. Like cities, school boards need the autonomy to move their elections to even years to boost turnout and representation. We support and are working to change state law to allow for school board elections to be held in even years.

In the meantime, will turnout drop in school board elections if city council elections move to even years? We have lots of evidence that says no:

  1. Only about ⅔’s of people in Boulder who vote in off-years vote in school board elections. These are very consistent voters that vote every year and will continue to vote every year.

Here is some data from the 2021 school board elections in precincts in the City of Boulder to show just how consistent off-year voters are. The table below correlates votes for candidates and undervotes (i.e. vote for none) with voters’ history.

8×8 voters, those who have voted eight times in the past eight elections, are much more likely to vote for school board candidates rather than undervote. On the less-likely voter side, voters who hadn’t voted in an off-year election were much more likely to not vote in school board elections. Even if turnout dropped slightly in future off-years, it will be minor, because the consistent voters have and will continue voting in school board elections.

  1. Superior, Colorado — just outside of Boulder and in Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) — holds its municipal city council elections in even years. In 2021, Superior showed virtually identical turnout in school board elections (31%) compared to Boulder (32%).

Here is more in depth data in a comparison between Boulder and Superior using data from Boulder County Clerk. Superior has even higher voter turnout in even years, a somewhat larger drop in off-years, yet rates of voting in school board elections are roughly the same.

Passing measure 2E will be a great benefit to Boulder and help support school boards to work toward increasing turnout in their elections.

Why is turnout lower in off years? Why aren’t people voting in off-cycle elections?

When I first wanted to understand the reason to move local elections to even years, I found a really incredible book. The book is called “Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups” by Sarah F. Anzia, Associate Professor of Public Policy & Political Science at UC Berkeley.

Dr. Anzia writes, “moving local elections from off-cycle to the same day as presidential elections is three times more effective at increasing turnout than the most effective mode of mobilization—face-to-face canvassing.” As someone who has knocked thousands of doors in local elections over the years, I was really surprised to hear how important on-cycle elections are for turnout.

I’ll reference the People for Voter Turnout FAQ again:

There are lots of reasons as to why voters don’t turn out as much for odd-year elections.

The majority of people typically think of “Election Day” as the first Tuesday in November of even-numbered years. In off-years, when there are no statewide elections, many people don’t even realize an election is occurring. 

Off-years do not have the same level of support or interest from groups and organizations that try to get out the vote, which reduces turnout.

Advocacy groups and organizations do not put in the same level of time, money, or resources into getting out the vote in off-years, which reduces turnout. 

Additionally, off-cycle elections are more likely to reduce turnout for lower-income people and renters, who are more likely to move year to year. While Colorado is an all-mail ballot state, a person that moves in August and does not update their voter registration will not receive their ballot by mail. This adds a significant barrier to voting and that effect is multiplied with the reduced awareness of off-cycle elections.

I believe voting Yes on measure 2E will ensure that more people have a say in our local government and that we elect representatives who will and must govern for the broader community.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: 2E: Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8546 – Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years – City of Boulder

Episode 27 Jill Adler Grano, People for Voter Turnout – Sharing Boulder Podcast

Editorial: Increasing turnout must be our priority, ‘yes’ on 2E – Daily Camera

Opinion: Yes on 2E: To broaden democracy, broaden the vote – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 2E: Keep the focus on local issues – Boulder Beat

Guest opinion: Jill Adler Grano and Matt Benjamin: Robust election turnout is fundamental to democracy – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Brian Keegan: Odd election years are temporal gerrymandering – Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2F – NO / AGAINST

Repeal of Ordinance 8483, Regarding the Annexation of CU South

Should Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?

No / Against the measure. Perhaps the most incredible part of Ballot Question 2F is that Boulder voters had to consider the same issue last year with Question 302, which tried to stop the annexation of CU South. So what has changed in a year? Not much. Will the result be the same? I can’t wait to find out!

I’ll leverage the intro from last year’s guide:

A few things have been true for many years: South Boulder Creek is prone to significant flooding risk in East Boulder, and the University of Colorado owns a parcel in southeast Boulder dubbed “CU South,” bearing a sign that says “To serve the needs of future students.”

Question 302 is about providing critically needed flood protection to 2,300+ Boulder residents and building the housing that CU and our city critically needs. Read “CU South annexation: A primer” from Shay Castle to get the full backstory.

This year we have another great read from Boulder Reporting Lab that I highly encourage to read for fun and intrigue: Decades of ‘what-ifs’: The history of CU South leaves many wondering what could have been.

So where does this leave us as voters evaluating how to vote on the measure?

Voting ‘No / Against’ will mean:

The current annexation plan, including flood mitigation, university housing, some university facilities, and preserving a large portion of the site as open space, will continue as outlined in the annexation agreement. I highly endorse voting no.

Voting ‘Yes / For’ will mean:

The City of Boulder and University of Colorado annexation agreement will be repealed. That means that current plans for the above agreement will stop. At that point, it will be incumbent on the city to renegotiate an agreement with the university.

The risks of a Yes vote are severe. We must accept that it was the City of Boulder that initiated the agreement in order to protect our own residents from dangerous flooding. The university has no obligation to concede to further demands to meet the city’s goal.

While some think that the parcel of land should be purchased and converted entirely to open space, that is not a realistic nor ideal use for much of the land, as witnessed in 1981 when “Boulder’s then open space director, the late Jim Crain, recommended Boulder not buy the Deepe farm to add to the open space accumulating around town,” via the Boulder Reporting Lab article.

The agreement as it stands will benefit both the university and our city. Please vote No to allow no more delay.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: 2F – Repeal of Ordinance 8483, regarding the annexation of CU South

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8534 – Repeal of Ordinance 8483, Regarding the Annexation of CU South – City of Boulder

Ordinance 8483- Annexation of CU South – City of Boulder

CU South Annexation Agreement (2021) – City of Boulder

Elections 2022: Ballot Measure 2F to Repeal Annexation of CU South – KGNU

Editorial: Flood protection must prevail, “no” on question 2F – Daily Camera

Opinion: No on 2F: Boulder needs flood protection, not endless negotiations – Boulder Beat

Opinion: Yes on 2F: Facts, science and a win-win – Boulder Beat

Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Ballot Issue 5A – YES / FOR

SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 DEBT BE INCREASED BY $350 MILLION, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT TO EXCEED $714 MILLION, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN $32 MILLION ANNUALLY, BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ALL FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT’S FACILITIES CRITICAL NEEDS PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND WILL BE MONITORED BY A COMMUNITY BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

– INVESTING IN DISTRICT SCHOOLS, SITES, AND FACILITIES BY REPAIRING, REPLACING, AND/OR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING SYSTEMS AND FINISHES, AND REMOVING ASBESTOS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING URGENT FACILITY DEFICIENCIES, IMPROVING THE LEARNING AND WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF, EXPANDING ADA ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENDING THE SERVICE LIFE OF BUILDINGS, IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND CREATING SAFER LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS;

– ADDRESSING EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION (CTE) BY RENOVATING LEARNING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT INDUSTRY-INSPIRED ENVIRONMENTS, INCLUDING LAB-LIKE CLASSROOMS AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND MODERNIZING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AT THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION CENTER;

– REPLACING THE 70-YEAR-OLD NEW VISTA HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING WHICH HAS REACHED THE END OF ITS SERVICE LIFE, WITH A MODERN, ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING;

– CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS IN ERIE, COLORADO TO ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND RELIEVE OVERCROWDING AT OTHER DISTRICT SCHOOLS;

WITH SUCH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE SOLD, BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM OF NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENT, AND BE ISSUED AT SUCH TIME, AT SUCH PRICE (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH TERMS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS BALLOT ISSUE, AS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY DETERMINE, AND SHALL THE MILL BE IMPOSED IN ANY YEAR AT A MILL LEVY SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT, OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT, PROVIDED THAT ANY REVENUE PRODUCED BY SUCH LEVY SHALL NOT EXCEED $32 MILLION ANNUALLY?

YES / FOR. The Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) is one of the state’s top school districts. From a facilities and enrollment perspective, the district has some particular challenges with the aging of schools in the Boulder portion of the district and the demand for new schools in eastern Boulder County. The proposed 2022 bond tries to address both while also expanding career and technical education offerings.

Here’s an article from 2021 referencing the findings from a BVSD working group:

“The school’s 68-year-old building isn’t designed for high school students, doesn’t have needed flexible education spaces or adequate performance space, and has multiple structural issues, district officials said. Formerly Baseline Middle School, the building was occupied by New Vista in 2004.”

Most of the population growth, and particularly the growth of young families in BVSD is outside of Boulder. The new bond would fund another elementary school in Erie:

“BVSD is experiencing enrollment growth in the northeastern area of the district. Meadowlark School is a PK-8 school that opened in 2017, and is the district’s only school in Erie. The school is already at capacity at the elementary level and is expected to be at 150% of the building’s capacity within 5 years.”

The other bulk of the funding in the bond will be used for programs that better help prepare kids for careers in data science, engineering, and software. “Today the highest sought jobs are in artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, cybersecurity and digital transformation.” BVSD is a leader in Colorado and passing the bond will allow the district to continue its excellence in education.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot Issue 5A: Boulder Valley School District RE-2 bonds

Additional Reading

Boulder Valley School District Issue 5A: Capital improvement bond issue – Daily Camera

BVSD school board hears update on bond issue ballot measure – Daily Camera

Opinion: Yes on 5A: Investing in our schools is investing in our children and our communities – Boulder Beat

Opinion: Unanswered questions surround BVSD’s bond measure – Boulder Beat

Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C – YES / FOR

LIBRARY DISTRICT FORMATION AND MILL LEVY TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE

SHALL THE BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $18,780,000 ANNUALLY FOR COLLECTION BEGINNING IN 2023, AND BY SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 3.5 MILLS TO PROVIDE FACILITIES AND SERVICES WHICH MAY INCLUDE:

– RESTORED AND IMPROVED LITERACY PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOLS TO REACH UNDERSERVED STUDENTS AND STUDENTS WHO FELL BEHIND DURING THE PANDEMIC;

– ADDITIONAL FREE AND SAFE PUBLIC SPACES FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS AND PROGRAMS;

– UPDATED AND IMPROVED COLLECTIONS OF BOOKS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING BILINGUAL MATERIALS AND DOWNLOADING OF E-BOOKS, MOVIES, AND MUSIC;

– EXTENDED HOURS AT ALL EXISTING LIBRARIES AND A NEW BRANCH LIBRARY IN GUNBARREL;

– EXPANDED ACCESS TO STEAM PROGRAMS, MAKERSPACES, AND FREE INTERNET FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND SENIORS;

– IMPROVED MAINTENANCE, CLEANLINESS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY AT ALL LIBRARY FACILITIES;

AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE ENTITLED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND THOSE REVENUES IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER TAXES, FEES OR OTHER REVENUES OF THE DISTRICT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, OR WITHOUT REGARD TO THE 5.5% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE LIMITATION OF SECTION 29-1-301, C.R.S., OR ANY OTHER LAW, AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE FORMED?

YES / FOR. Measure 6C would establish a library district and a permanent, stable funding mechanism for Boulder and the surrounding county. We should vote yes to preserve and expand this important community resource.

I’m encouraged to see broad support for libraries in Boulder from a 2022 poll. This support is in addition to multiple other polls in recent years establishing that voters will support a measure to permanently fund our library system. While some on the city council have questioned whether a library district is the right form of funding and governance, the reality is that library districts are stable and well-used in 57 communities across Colorado and are governed by state law.

I wanted to share a personal story about why Boulder’s libraries are important to me and worth supporting. In 2015 I spent days at Boulder’s Carnegie Library researching the history of Boulder’s discriminatory housing laws. I used my findings extensively for a talk at Ignite Boulder 26, “A solution to occupancy limits in Boulder.”

In 2020 on the Bedrooms Are For People campaign, I again needed to use library services to finally find the origin and full history of these laws. But due to library funding cuts that have not been restored, I could only sign up for a single two-hour session per month. These library services are still not accessible to this day, and I haven’t been able to document the history.

What struck me about the library conversation is simply how long Boulder has let our library system suffer. Joni Teter, a member of the Boulder Library Champions who are working to pass 6C, co-wrote in the Daily Camera: “The best way to support public libraries? Fund them.”

Joni kindly sent me some of her records on Boulder’s history in library funding. In a piece by the late Boulder Library Commissioner Alex Warner, he says: “Once again the Boulder Public Library faces a crisis. Should such an important center for learning be closed two days a week as expected in 1988?”

Boulder’s has chosen to inadequately fund our libraries for decades. On November 4th 1987, a ballot issue that would have provided dedicated money to the library failed by about 10% points.

Again in 2022, we have a small but well-funded opposition to sustainable library funding in Boulder. Their opposition campaign is based on misinformation and a refusal to pay taxes to adequately fund our libraries. If you have more questions about how the district will work, I suggest reading the Frequently Asked Questions from the Boulder Library Champions.

It’s been far too long, Boulder. Vote YES on 6C and let’s fund our libraries.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: 6C: Library district formation and mill levy tax

Additional Reading

Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C: Formation of district with mill levy – Daily Camera

Editorial: Libraries aren’t cheap, but they’re worth every penny, ‘yes’ on 6C – Daily Camera

Opinion: Yes on 6C: A vote for the library district is a vote for improving our community – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 6C: Library District is a tax increase without accountability – Boulder Beat

Thank you

Please share with anyone to whom this guide might be helpful.

A reminder that ballots must be mailed no later than Novembr 1st and ballots may be dropped off by 7pm on Election Day, Tuesday November 8th, 2022.

If you’re not a registered voter or you need to update your registration, you can register online now at Go Vote Colorado! (all you need is an updated Colorado driver’s license). If you register now, you will receive a ballot in the mail. Otherwise, you can register and vote through election day.

Questions, comments, or otherwise can be emailed to me Eric Budd at ericbudd@gmail.com or on Twitter @ericmbudd or on Mastodon at @ericmbudd@toot.bldrweb.org

0

How I’m voting in the 2021 Boulder Colorado elections and Voter Guide

Posted on by ericmbudd

Boulder’s elections in 2021 will be critical for climate action, affordable housing, and social justice. I appreciate you for allowing me to share my research and opinions with you all.

For more than five years, I’ve written a voter guide for every election Boulder. I want to start with a thank you to local journalists Shay Castle (Boulder Beat), Deborah Swearingen and writers at the Boulder Daily Camera, the Boulder Weekly, and Richard Valenty. Without their dedication and terrific reporting, guides like this wouldn’t be possible. I’ve also linked to great reporting from The Denver Post, Colorado Sun, Colorado Newsline and other outlets. Consider subscribing!

You can subscribe to Shay Castle’s Patreon to get weekly local news, or you can subscribe to the Boulder Daily Camera and Boulder Weekly which support a number of local journalists and editorials.

November 2nd, 2021 Coordinated Election in Boulder, Colorado

  1. City of Boulder Council Candidates
  2. Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District B (4 Years)
  3. Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District E (4 Years)
  4. Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District F (4 Years)
  5. Amendment 78 (Constitutional)
  6. Proposition 119 (Statutory)
  7. Proposition 120 (Statutory)
  8. CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2I / 2J
  9. City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K
  10. City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L
  11. City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M
  12. City of Boulder Ballot Question 300
  13. City of Boulder Ballot Question 301
  14. City of Boulder Ballot Question 302

Municipal Offices

City of Boulder Council Candidates

(Vote for no more than Five)

Lauren Folkerts

Matt Benjamin

Nicole Speer

Dan Williams

The City of Boulder has nine people on its city council. Every two years, five of those seats come up for election. In 2021, we have ten candidates running for those five seats. Voters may vote for up to five candidates.

I’m voting for the four candidates who I believe will prioritize and work on Boulder’s biggest challenges. Taking action on climate change, promoting policies that allow for more affordable housing options, and furthering social justice:

Lauren Folkerts
Matt Benjamin
Nicole Speer
Dan Williams

Full disclosure: I’m part of the Boulder Coalition which has endorsed these candidates. Over the past four months, I’ve been able to meet and ask questions of all the candidates running. Lauren, Matt, Nicole, and Dan have consistently shown to be the ones with the deepest community roots, most empathetic to a diversity of views and people in the community, and have put in the work to make Boulder a better place.

Here’s a helpful graphic put together by Kristen Eller showing how candidate group endorsements stack up:

Updated 2021-10-18 with additional updates from Planned Parenthood and Moms Demand Action, 10-24 with Yellow Scene

These candidates have all been endorsed by the Boulder Coalition, as well as the Sierra Club, and the Boulder Weekly. Brendan and Caitlin at the Weekly wrote a few ideas summing up what’s at stake in this election which really resonated with me:

“Look, we appreciate the open space and the Blue Line and the height limit and how radical those ideas were for their time. But today Boulder faces challenges that demand even more revolutionary ideas. Expanding housing density without compromising environmental and lifestyle ideals, embracing and encouraging diversity in the community, providing effective, compassionate services to the less fortunate among us—these are all issues we believe are solvable with fresh ideas and an awareness that change is inescapable.” I think these four candidates exemplify the kind of change that Boulder needs.

People may ask me what I’m doing with my fifth vote. In some elections it makes sense to find other candidates in partial alignment to vote for. But this year I’m not finding a fifth that makes sense, and will choose only to vote for the four I most want to serve the community.

I will also mention that Steve Rosenblum has filed a lawsuit against myself and progressive members of our community (“Boulder City Council candidate files complaint against community members”). I will not be voting for him.

Candidate Profiles and Endorsement Write-ups

Candidate Profiles – Boulder Beat
For Lauren Folkerts, community is the magic ingredient
Boulder City Council: Lauren Folkerts
Boulder City Council: Matt Benjamin is ‘wholly different’ candidate second time around
Matt Benjamin hopes third time’s the charm
Dr. Nicole Speer: Let equity drive Boulder’s decision-making
Boulder City Council: Nicole Speer
Dan Williams wants Boulder’s reality to match its rhetoric
Boulder City Council: Dan Williams

Richard Valenty: Your 2021 Boulder City Council Candidates

School District Offices

Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District B (4 Years)

Nicole Rajpal

I’m voting for Nicole Rajpal. Nicole has direct experience working on school and district accountability, and has been doing the work to try to address inequities between schools in the district. I’ve been able to talk to Nicole about the big issues facing the school district and think she’s the best candidate to take on this role.

Note: Gala Orba has withdrawn from this race but is still on the ballot.

Potential BVSD recall election: “Recall petitions have been submitted to the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder for three of seven BVSD Board of Education directors.” The recall centers over pandemic safety measures including vaccination and mask usage. Please decline to sign any recall petition of school board members.

Candidate Profiles and Endorsement Write-ups

Boulder Valley School Board District B: Nicole Rajpal

William Hamilton For BVSD

Boulder Valley School District – 2021 Elections


Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District E (4 Years)

Beth Niznik

I’m voting for Beth Niznik. She is a teacher, a BVSD parent, and strongly believes in supporting public education. There are three candidates in this race and I think that Beth has gained a lot of support which is important in a race where two more progressive candidates may end up splitting the vote.

Potential BVSD recall election: “Recall petitions have been submitted to the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder for three of seven BVSD Board of Education directors.” The recall centers over pandemic safety measures including vaccination and mask usage. Please decline to sign any recall petition of school board members.


Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District F (4 Years)

Kitty Sargent

I’m voting for Kitty Sargent (unopposed).

Potential BVSD recall election: “Recall petitions have been submitted to the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder for three of seven BVSD Board of Education directors.” The recall centers over pandemic safety measures including vaccination and mask usage. Please decline to sign any recall petition of school board members.

State Ballot Measures

Amendment 78 (Constitutional)

No / Against

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning money that the state receives, and, in connection therewith, requiring all money received by the state, including money provided to the state for a particular purpose, known as custodial money, to be subject to appropriation by the general assembly after a public hearing; repealing the authority to disburse money from the state treasury by any other means; requiring all custodial money to be deposited into the newly created custodial funds transparency fund and the earnings on those deposits to be transferred to the general fund; and allowing the state to retain and spend all custodial money and earnings and revenue on that custodial money as a voter-approved revenue change?

I’m voting No/Against Amendment 78. On the politics of the measure, Amendment 78 was placed onto the ballot by the “conservative organization called Colorado Rising Action” led by Michael Fields, who “previously served as the state director of Americans for Prosperity Colorado… founded by wealthy business magnate brothers David and Charles Koch.” (Amendment 78: Colorado voters will decide if lawmakers should have more oversight of state spending, Colorado Sun) The measure attempts to add friction and politicization of “custodial funds,” examples of which are emergency relief funds, legal settlements, transportation funding, grants, gifts and donations, and other money from the federal government, according to the Colorado Blue Book.

If the measure were to pass, we’d see several negative effects. Emergency type funding would be delayed and require action from the legislature (which is only in session five months of the year). Other forms of funding, which are already dedicated for particular uses, would be subject to additional bureaucracy and process. The state legislature would need additional time and hearings that would likely add little value to the outcome but would prevent our legislature from working on other key priorities.

Explainers and opinion:

2021 election guide: Coloradans to vote on three statewide fiscal measures

Amendment 78 – Colorado Secretary of State

Proposition 119 (Statutory)

No / Against

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $137,600,000 ANNUALLY ON RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLORADO CHILDREN AGED 5 TO 17, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING AN INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES CHOSEN BY PARENTS; FUNDING THE PROGRAM BY INCREASING THE RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES TAX BY 5% BY 2024 AND REALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LANDS INCOME; AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS AND REVENUE FOR PROGRAM FUNDING AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; SPECIFYING THAT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE TUTORING AND EXTRA INSTRUCTION IN SUBJECTS INCLUDING READING, MATH, SCIENCE, WRITING, MUSIC, AND ART, TARGETED SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND LEARNING DISABILITIES, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRAINING, AND OTHER ACADEMIC OR ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES; AND PRIORITIZING PROGRAM FINANCIAL AID FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS?

I’m voting No/Against Proposition 119. The amendment is an attempt to divert funding away from public schools. The primary source of funding is a statewide increase on cannabis taxes and “diverts approximately $20 million annually from the State Land Trust, which helps fund public schools,” according to the Colorado Blue Book. “The Colorado State Land Board owns, stewards, and leases four million acres of trust land in order to earn money for Colorado public schools.”

Aside from the revenue source, the measure is also troubling in how it will prioritize and allocate funds. In their piece in the Daily Camera (Guest Opinion: Rollie and Josie Heath: No on Proposition 119” Boulder Daily Camera), the Heaths state: “Proposition 119 further misleads voters by saying that the revenue raised through this proposition will be used to help low income children improve their academic performance.  Certainly, this is a worthy goal.  In fact, it only needs to do this for the first two years.  After its second year of implementation, all students regardless of their family’s income status, can access these dollars.  It also allows public money to be directed to private out of school advisors, instead of investing it directly into public schools.”

Additionally, the lack of oversight on this program is also concerning. Per the Colorado Blue Book, “The measure establishes a new state agency called the Colorado Learning Authority (authority), which is independent from oversight by the State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education.“ It’s hard to justify a program that purports to support the educational system when it’s outside the authority of existing public education entities.

Explainers and opinion:

2021 election guide: Coloradans to vote on three statewide fiscal measures

Coloradans Will Vote on Taxes and State Funding Oversight

Guest commentary: Proposition 119 will divert money from the schools that need it, create bureaucracy

Proposition 120 (Statutory)

No / Against

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning property tax reductions, and, in connection therewith, reducing property tax revenue by an estimated $1.03 billion in 2023 and by comparable amounts thereafter by reducing the residential property tax assessment rate from 7.15% to 6.5% and reducing the property tax assessment rate for all other property, excluding producing mines and lands or leaseholds producing oil or gas, from 29% to 26.4% and allowing the state to annually retain and spend up to $25 million of excess state revenue, if any, for state fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 as a voter-approved revenue change to offset lost revenue resulting from the property tax rate reductions and to reimburse local governments for revenue lost due to the homestead exemptions for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans?

I’m voting No/Against Proposition 120. As with Amendment 78, Proposition 120 was placed onto the ballot by the conservative organization Colorado Rising Action. The move continues a Republican/conservative strategy of starving our state’s budget, similar to Colorado Proposition 116, Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative” from Ballotpedia. The 2020 measure passed with 58% of the vote, which cut $154 million in funding from the state budget.

The proposed property tax cut in Proposition 120 “reduces property tax revenue to most local governments, compared to what would be collected without the measure, and may impact local services such as education, fire protection, police, transportation, and libraries” according to the Colorado Blue Book.

As noted, cities and counties with a higher mix of “multifamily housing and lodging properties will be more heavily impacted.“

Another important factor: “Mill levies – actual mill levies are determined at the local level. Local governments could choose to ask voters to raise future mill levies. Some local governments already have permission from their voters to adjust the tax rate to make up for reductions in assessment rates, and thus may not experience any revenue impacts.“

Of course there’s another wrinkle in the story. Anticipating this ballot measure, the Colorado legislature passed SB21-293 which undercuts some of the effects of Proposition 120. (Colorado lawmakers launch last-minute effort to drive down property taxes and combat skyrocketing assessments, Colorado Sun) “The measure, Senate Bill 293, would also allow people to put off a portion of their increased residential property tax payments until they sell their property, starting in the 2023 tax year.”

So the legislature has tried to address sharp increases in property taxes and tried to avoid cuts in funding to local governments as a result in a way that is less harmful than Proposition 120.

Explainers and opinion:

ENDORSEMENT: Prop 120 would benefit landlords, not tenants. Vote no.

Local Ballot Measures

CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT ISSUE 2I / 2J

Yes / For

WITHOUT RAISING THE CURRENT TAX RATE, SHALL THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CULTURE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.3 CENTS, SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2021, BE EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 2036, AND BE KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND SAFETY TAX, WITH THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX EXTENSION AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON BE USED TO FUND CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SUCH AS… (truncated)

Ballot Issue 2I

SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $110,000,000 (PRINCIPAL AMOUNT) WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $158,000,000 (SUCH AMOUNT BEING THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THAT COULD BE PAYABLE OVER THE MAXIMUM LIFE OF THE DEBT) TO BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE EXTENSION OF THE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.3 CENTS (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND SAFETY TAX), IF SEPARATELY APPROVED;… (truncated)

Ballot Issue 2J

I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT ISSUE 2I and BALLOT ISSUE 2J. The measure funds critical local infrastructure, parks, fire stations, and to a lesser extent arts and nonprofits in Boulder. The measure is not a tax increase but an extension of an existing .3% sales tax. Issue 2J gives the city authority to release bonds that allow the city to spend the money immediately (and get the benefits sooner), and then repay those bonds with interest.

Most of the debate at city council on the issue centered around how much money to allocate to infrastructure vs what’s going to arts and other community amenities. Unfortunately, arts and the “culture” portion of the tax have been reduced from 20% to 10% in this proposed extension.

Shay Castle / Boulder Beat has a great write-up on the details:

Ballot issues 2I and 2J – Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety tax extension, bond issuance

Explainers and opinion:

Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Issues 2I and 2J: Infrastructure Tax and Bonding

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K

Yes / For

Shall Section 9, “Meetings of Council,” of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No.8478 to (a) remove provisions that expired in December 2017, (b) explicitly allow council to appoint council committees that generally contain no more than two councilmembers and in no event equal or exceed a quorum of council and allow councilmembers not appointed to the committee to attend, but not participate in council committee meeting, and (c) require council to appoint a recruitment committee of no more than two members for each of the three council appointments?

I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 2K. Boulder City Council typically uses subcommittees when taking on big issues (the most recent notable examples being the CU South annexation and Xcel energy settlement and franchise agreement). Fitting with Colorado’s open meeting laws, subcommittees need to provide the same level of transparency given to full city council meetings while allowing the council to make progress outside of regular meetings. Often the council will try to ensure that any subcommittee represents the range of viewpoints on the council

Issue 2K will clarify these rules and ensure that our council is operating in a consistent, transparent way, particularly since subcommittees are often used for bigger and more contentious issues. 

Shay Castle / Boulder Beat has a great write-up on the details:

Ballot Question 2K – Council subcommittees

Explainers and opinion:

Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 2K: Council Committees

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L

Yes / For

Shall Sections 38A, “Signatures required for initiative, referenda and recall petitions,” 44, “Referendum petition,” and 46, “Certificate of petition,” of the Boulder City Charter be amended to clarify that the number of signatures for initiative, referenda and recall petitions are required to be registered electors of the city and that the number of signatures of registered electors on a referendum petition must be at least ten percent of the average number of voters in the previous two municipal candidate elections consistent with other changes approved by the voters in 2018?

I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 2L. Back in 2017, the City of Boulder adopted changes to its election code for direct democracy, determining how many signatures from registered voters were required to get a measure on the ballot. Overall, this change lowered signature thresholds for initiatives (a citizen effort to create or update a law), referendums (an effort to block / put to a vote a recently-passed law) and recalls (an effort to remove a city council member). The intent of the changes was to require “10% of the average number of people who voted in the last two city council candidate elections” per Shay Castle at the Boulder Beat. For 2021, that number was determined to be 3,336 signatures.

However, another section of the code had not been updated to reflect this change, and still referenced a signature threshold based on registered voters. Issue 2L would correct that difference to be based on the metric above, voters in municipal elections.

Boulder needs to correct this contradiction, which is not the only one from the 2017 changes. The city also has contradictory language in its election laws about Charter amendments, which caused myself and co-lead Chelsea Castellano from Bedrooms Are For People to have to sue the City of Boulder in 2020 (“Bedrooms Are For People sues city of Boulder for ballot access” in the Daily Camera).

When the City Council found errors in their election guidelines, they reinterpreted their election laws to double the amount of signatures required and to set a much earlier date for those signatures to be due, keeping Bedrooms Are For People off the 2020 ballot.

It’s really important that our election laws are clear and without contradiction.

Explainers and opinion:

Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 2L: Clarification of Signatures For Petitions

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M

Yes / For

Shall Section 7, “Compensation,” of the Boulder City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 8477 to allow council members serving on January 1, 2022 and thereafter, and the mayor elected in November 2023 and thereafter, to receive compensation for fifty-two meetings each year on the same schedule as other city employees or on a schedule prepared by the city manager?

I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 2M. At a salary of roughly $12k per year, Boulder City Council members are underpaid for what is essentially a part-time job. Issue 2M would not increase council pay, but would improve the frequency and schedule of when council members are paid to account for the timing of council meetings. We should not penalize council people even further for their public service.

Explainers and opinion:

Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 2M: Council Payment Schedule

City of Boulder Ballot Question 300

Yes / For

Shall the City of Boulder expand access to housing by allowing all housing units to be occupied by a number of people equal to the number of legal bedrooms, plus one additional person per home, provided that relevant health and safety codes are met?

I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 300. In full disclosure, I am a co-lead on Measure 300 / the Bedrooms Are For People campaign, which I consider the most important advocacy I’ve done in my life.

In most of Boulder, it is illegal for more than three unrelated people to live together. It’s illegal no matter how big the house, how old the residents are, or even if the owner lives in the home. Housing occupancy limits have been illegal at the federal level to enforce against blood-related families but are still aggressively enforced against people who have no such relation. People in Boulder are regularly evicted or lose their housing over this law.

This law yields many negative results, so let’s name a few:

LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL – We believe that all people should have equal access to housing, regardless of the relationship between the residents 

AFFORDABILITY – Sharing housing is a critical strategy that lower-income families and individuals use to afford housing in Boulder today. 

PROPERTY RIGHTS – The current law restricts people’s freedom to choose who they live with in their own private residence. 

HOUSING SECURITY – The current occupancy law forces people  to live in vulnerable housing situations, with the risk of eviction being just one phone call away. 

FAIR HOUSING LAWS – The Fair Housing Act recommends allowing two people per bedroom to prevent discrimination 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT – When people live over-occupied they are less likely to engage civically, connect with their elected officials, register to vote, or even talk to their neighbors because they are afraid of getting evicted. The effect is to silence people who are not rich enough or who prefer to live with their “chosen” family 

ENVIRONMENT – Sharing housing uses less energy per person and allows people to live closer to where they work, both of which help to reduce GHG emissions contributing to our climate crisis. 

Measure 300 puts forth a solution that will overturn the discriminatory and restrictive occupancy law that has been in place for a few too many decades. We believe a simple, common-sense change would be to set occupancy limits for unrelated people based on the number of bedrooms in a home.

Bedrooms Are For People released a 12 minute video explaining why Boulder should vote YES on 300 to expand access to housing, covering some of the reasons I’ve mentioned here and other details:

Three of the four members who will be on council through 2023 support our measure as do four council candidates.

These individuals have co-signed this statement “Boulder’s restrictive occupancy limits cause harm to many people in our community. Bedrooms Are For People brings greatly needed change to our city’s housing laws. Since several city councils have chosen not to address the issue, we fully support this measure and will work to ensure that the whole community benefits from its passage.” -Aaron Brockett, Rachel Friend, Matt Benjamin, Nicole Speer, Dan Williams, Lauren Folkerts

Bedrooms Are For People has received endorsements from every area of Boulder – from housing groups to LQBTQ+ advocates, to the Boulder Chamber, to labor unions, to environmental groups.

While I’m not a neutral source on the issue, I want to provide a number of opinions / writing from the community to help inform readers on the issue. Bedrooms Are For People does have an opposition campaign. While I don’t find their critiques to be compelling reasons not to change this discriminatory housing law, I do think they’ve helped us answer a number of questions in our FAQ:

Bedrooms Are For People Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

  • How is a “bedroom” defined?
  • What about safety?
  • Can City Council modify this measure after it is passed?
  • Will this measure change occupancy rules for families?
  • How will this help families?
  • What safeguards are in place to limit change to existing houses?
  • Does expanding access to housing incentivize investors?
  • How does letting unrelated people live together help keep people housed?
  • How many people are going to want to live with three or more unrelated housemates?
  • I’ve seen a few people living in unsafe conditions—how will this help them?
  • I have an empty bedroom. Will I be forced to rent it out after this measure passes?

In 2015, I gave a talk at Ignite Boulder on the problems of occupancy limits and how we could move forward:

Explainers and opinion:

Boulder Beat: Ballot Question 300 – Bedrooms Are For People

League of Women Voters — Measure 300

Daily Camera Editorial: YES on Bedrooms Are For People

Boulder Weekly Voter Guide: YES on Bedrooms Are For People

Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 300: Bedrooms Are For People

City of Boulder Ordinance 8475 Full Text

City of Boulder Ballot Question 301

Yes / For

Shall the City of Boulder prohibit the sale and manufacture for sale of certain fur products?

I’m voting Yes/For BALLOT QUESTION 301. Of all the questions on this year’s ballot, I believe the fur ban may require the most additional research and thought, so I encourage readers to try to educate themselves with the resources I’ve provided here.

Banning the sale and manufacture of fur in the City of Boulder, with exceptions, would make a small impact locally but could signal a larger movement away from animal products and particularly animal cruelty that they can bring.

On the merits and implementation, I recommend reading Shay Castle’s piece in full:

Ballot Question 301 – Humane Clothing Act

I agree that Julie Marshall’s piece in the Daily Camera well-covered many of the pros and cons. Editorial: Fur measure needs fixes

Additionally, I think that reading City of Boulder Ordinance 8480 with the official proposed code is also extremely helpful

The main critiques, as I see them:

  1. The definition of fur is too broad: “any animal skin or part thereof with fur, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state.” From my reading of this language, I do not believe this would ban materials that were sheared or otherwise not attached to the skin
  2. On conflicts with state law, per Daily Camera – “this measure could inadvertently include banning pelts from animals legally trapped in Colorado’s wild places. In other words, there are potential preemptive conflicts with state law.” In the ordinance, section 5-6-17 b(1) states – “This prohibition does not extend to A Fur Product where the activity is expressly authorized by federal or state law.” This may mean that the city could require some staff time to make proposed updates to state law. If the measure passes, the city should proactively address any potential litigation by not enforcing conflicting provisions. The proposal can certainly be tweaked by city council if necessary to come into compliance and would be an amendment that does not “alter or modify the basic intent” as outlined in the City of Boulder Charter section 54. Any clarification to fully comply with state law is the intent of the authors.
  3. The impacts to local businesses are small but not zero. This is more of a question of values than whether the business impacts themselves are significant to Boulder’s economy (which I believe they are not).

Explainers and opinion:

Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 301: Humane Clothing Act

City of Boulder Ballot Question 302

No / Against

Shall the voters of the City of Boulder adopt changes to the City of Boulder, Colorado, Revised Code to require that any agreement with the University of Colorado regarding terms of annexation for the land known as CU South include certain specific details, and that the annexation agreement gain voter approval in an election prior to provision of city utilities and services other than flood control facilities to or on any portion of CU South?

I’m voting No/Against BALLOT QUESTION 302. A few things have been true for many years: South Boulder Creek is prone to significant flooding risk in East Boulder, and the University of Colorado owns a parcel in southeast Boulder dubbed “CU South,” bearing a sign that says “To serve the needs of future students.”

Question 302 is about providing critically needed flood protection to 2,300+ Boulder residents and building the housing that CU and our city critically needs. Read “CU South annexation: A primer” from Shay Castle to get the full backstory.

Boulder City Council approved the CU South annexation into the City of Boulder on September 21st, completing a recent process of several years and more than 25 years of controversy over this parcel of land (“Boulder City Council approves CU South annexation agreement“ in the Boulder Daily Camera)

The agreement will preserve 155 acres of land for open space, flood protection for 2,300+ residents, and five acres dedicated to permanently affordable housing. Additionally the university plans to build 1,100 housing units for its students, faculty, and staff, many of whom have great difficulty to afford to live in Boulder.

Earlier this year, a group called “Save South Boulder” and PLAN Boulder put a measure on the ballot to try to block the annexation. “Citizen’s Conditions for Annexation of CU-South” is now measure 302, and attempts to require the city to put any annexation to a vote of the city before approval. Given that the annexation has already been approved, measure 302 can only serve two purposes: 1. to give residents the opportunity to sue the city over the already-approved annexation, and 2. if for some reason the annexation were to be undone (either via referendum or by terms in the annexation agreement, such as a difficulty in achieving flood control permits).

In addition to this effort, the two groups supporting ballot measure 302 are currently gathering the 3,336 valid signatures they need by October 21th (30 days since passage) to overturn this annexation agreement via a referendum. I strongly recommend declining to sign their petition.

Measure 302 is so flawed in its concept and binding on our elected representatives that even the candidates backed by PLAN Boulder (except Jacques Decalo) are not in favor of this measure.

The health and safety of our community requires us to move forward. Measure 302 will only serve to delay that effort, harming all of us. Please vote no.

Explainers and opinion:

Boulder Beat: Ballot Question 302 – Let the Voters Decide on CU South Annexation

Richard Valenty: City of Boulder Ballot Question 302: Let the Voters Decide on Annexation of CU-South

Thank you

Please share with anyone to whom this guide might be helpful.

A reminder that ballots must be mailed no later than October 25th and ballots may be dropped off by 7pm on Election Day, Tuesday November 2rd, 2021.

If you’re not a registered voter or you need to update your registration, you can register online now at Go Vote Colorado! (all you need is an updated Colorado driver’s license). If you register now, you will receive a ballot in the mail. Otherwise, you can register and vote through election day.

Questions, comments, or otherwise can be emailed to me Eric Budd at ericbudd@gmail.com or on Twitter @ericmbudd

2

How I’m voting in the 2020 Boulder Colorado Elections

Posted on by ericmbudd

I want to start with a thank you to local journalists Shay Castle (Boulder Beat), reporters at the Boulder Daily Camera, and the Boulder Weekly. Without their dedication and terrific reporting, guides like this wouldn’t be possible. I’ve also linked to great reporting from The Denver Post, Colorado Sun, and other outlets. Consider subscribing!

You can subscribe to Shay Castle’s Patreon to get weekly local news, or you can subscribe to the Boulder Daily Camera and Boulder Weekly which support a number of local journalists and editorials.

Federal Offices

Presidential Electors – Joe Biden / Kamala Harris (Democratic)

I am voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
The past four years of leadership in our country have shown the devastating effects of a president and congress who live to serve only a minority of Americans. Whether the issue is racial justice, economic prosperity, natural disasters, or a global pandemic, we need leaders who will take these challenges on and serve our entire country and help those who have the least among us. I believe Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are those people.
While Biden was not my first choice in the primary (or even one of my top choices), what I’ve seen is that he is willing to listen and move on his positions. Having a united Congress with the President will allow the Democratic Party to protect voting rights, expand health care, reduce economic inequality, make real progress on climate change, bring balance to our federal court system and end the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

United States Senator — John Hickenlooper (Democratic)

Colorado deserves a Senator who will represent us. The current occupant of the office has been one of the worst public officials I have witnessed—standing full in line with the current president, completely unwilling to listen to the needs of the people in our state and working with no accountability at all.
Hickenlooper is a more moderate choice than I wanted to see for Colorado. Our state is moving in a progressive direction which I hope will give him some consideration when we push for our country to make the bold change that we need to tackle our most pressing issues.

Representative to the 117th United States Congress – District 2 — Joe Neguse (Democratic)

Joe has been an incredible representative in his first two years in Congress. I proudly supported Joe two years ago and appreciate how he’s fought to speak out on climate change and to hold our president accountable.

State and County Offices

Regent of the University of Colorado –
Congressional District 2 — Callie Rennison (Democratic)
State Senator – District 18 —Steve Fenberg (Democratic)
State Representative – District 10 — Edie Hooton (Democratic)
State Representative – District 13 — Judy Amabile (Democratic)
Boulder County Commissioner – District 1 — Claire Levy (Democratic)
Boulder County Commissioner – District 2 — Marta Loachamin (Democratic)
District Attorney – 20th Judicial District — Michael Dougherty (Democratic)

Full disclosure—I am a registered Democrat and nearly always vote for Democratic candidates. A few notes on my choices below.
Steve Fenberg has made an impact in Colorado in the past four years serving as the Majority Leader. His passion for fighting climate change has been key for the state to enact its groundbreaking new regulations on the oil and gas industry. Edie Hooton is a strong Democrat who serves on the Transportation and Local Government Committee and Energy and Environment Committee. She deserves to be re-elected in Boulder.

Callie Rennison is incredibly bright, personable, and done great work in her time in the University of Colorado system.
Judy Amabile has been a great member of Boulder’s community and I’m proud to support her running for Colorado House. She has a progressive background in the Democratic Party, focusing on mental health and inequality. She also has the experience as a business owner which gives Judy additional perspective on her decisions. She’s run a people-focused campaign and look forward to her representing Boulder and the surrounding five county district.
Michael Dougherty ran for this office two years ago and now seeks a four year term. He has been outspoken about criminal justice reform and often participated in events promoting racial and social justice in our community.

Claire Levy is a former state legislator and previous executive director for Colorado Center on Law and Policy, an organization focused on economic justice in Colorado. Marta Loachamin will be the first Latina elected to serve as county commissioner in Boulder and will be a strong voice for equity in the county.

Judicial Retention Questions

Colorado Supreme Court Justice — Melissa Hart
Colorado Supreme Court Justice — Carlos A. Samour Jr. 

Colorado Court of
Appeals — Ted C. Tow III
Colorado Court of
Appeals — Craig R. Welling 

20th Judicial District — Ingrid Seftar Bakke
20th Judicial District — Patrick D. Butler
20th Judicial District — Judith L. LaBuda
20th Judicial District — Andrew Ross Macdonald
20th Judicial District — Nancy Woodruff Salomone
20th Judicial District — Jonathon P. Martin 

Here’s a link to the Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluations – I’ve linked to each judge’s above. I had originally posted to retain judges largely based on their performance evaluations. However, a number of folks have reached out expressing concerns about various judges, which I will be documenting more thoroughly for each judge.

A few notes on judges above — Patrick Butler was the judge in the CU Boulder rape case who gave a very lenient sentence—”Another Rapist Escapes Prison Time. Here’s Why His Judge Hasn’t Faced a Backlash.”

Judge Andrew McDonald presided over the case where Chelsea Castellano and I sued the City of Boulder on behalf of Bedrooms Are For People. I’ll be adding that story in my next update.

Amendment B

Without increasing property tax rates, to help
preserve funding for local districts that provide fire
protection, police, ambulance, hospital, kindergarten
through twelfth grade education, and other services,
and to avoid automatic mill levy increases, shall
there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution
to repeal the requirement that the general assembly
periodically change the residential assessment rate
in order to maintain the statewide proportion of
residential property as compared to all other taxable
property valued for property tax purposes and
repeal the nonresidential property tax assessment
rate of twenty-nine percent?

I’m voting Yes/For Amendment B. The measure will repeal the Gallagher Amendment which constrains residential vs. business property taxes. Repealing this amendment will allow property taxes to more closely reflect that actual value of properties which will better support our schools and local governments.

In the excellent graph below from the Colorado Blue Book, you can see that the left side chart represents property values while the right side chart is how the current law requires those properties to be taxed. Forcing these tax burdens to be in a 45/55% balance, regardless of the actual value/growth of these properties, is not economically efficient and creates distortions both in the housing and commercial property markets.


The State of Colorado projects that these changes will increase over the coming years:


Property tax is one of the few taxes that constrain the growth of wealth from capital in our society. Helping to make this tax more fair, by passing amendment B, will move our tax system in a more progressive direction.

Explainers and opinion on Amendment B:

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment B
Ballotpedia – Amendment B
What you need to know about TABOR, Gallagher, Amendment 23 and the hidden forces that constrain spending in Colorado (Colorado Sun)
Amendment B explained: What repealing the Gallagher Amendment would mean for Colorado and your property taxes (Colorado Sun)
Unpacking Gallagher: The property tax law up for a vote in Colorado (9 News)

Amendment C

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado
constitution concerning the conduct of charitable
gaming activities, and, in connection therewith,
allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and
operators of games and reducing the required
period of a charitable organization’s continuous
existence before obtaining a charitable gaming
license?

I’m voting Yes/For Amendment C. The amendment will loosen some regulations on charitable fundraisers. Most of the specific changes would reduce the time requirement from five years to three years, and set up requirements for paid staff. Overall this is a small change at the state level but would have a more significant economic impact for local communities using the updated regulations.

Explainers and opinion on Amendment C:

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment C
Ballotpedia – Amendment C
Amendment C could bring some of the biggest changes to Colorado bingo raffles in decades (The Denver Channel)
What’s Colorado Amendment C: Bingo and raffle rules (Daily Camera)

Amendment 76

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado
constitution requiring that to be qualified to vote at
any election an individual must be a United States
citizen?

I’m voting No/Against Amendment 76. Amendment 76 is a Republican attempt at suppressing the votes of young people in Colorado. The measure would not change the requirement that a voter must be a citizen, which already exists. Rather, if passed, 17-year olds would no longer be able to vote in Presidential or state and local primaries if turned 18 by election day.

Explainers and opinion on Amendment 76:
Ballotpedia – Amendment 76

Amendment 77

Amendment 77 (CONSTITUTIONAL)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado
constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised
Statutes concerning voter-approved changes to
limited gaming, and, in connection therewith,
allowing the voters of Central City, Black Hawk, and
Cripple Creek, for their individual cities, to approve
other games in addition to those currently allowed
and increase a maximum single bet to any amount;
and allowing gaming tax revenue to be used for
support services to improve student retention and
credential completion by students enrolled in
community colleges?

I’m voting No/Against Amendment 77. Gambling in Colorado has been legalized and regulated in several cities, essentially creating a monopoly industry in these cities. Amendment 77 aims to increase the financial and economic impacts from betting (and now sports better with the passage of 2019’s Prop DD.

The change would allow communities to remove all limits to betting, as well only giving this right to three specific cities. Colorado does not need further concentration of betting activities, without limits, in these three cities.

Explainers and opinion on Amendment 77:
Ballotpedia – Amendment 77

Proposition EE

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY
$294,000,000 ANNUALLY BY IMPOSING A TAX
ON NICOTINE LIQUIDS USED IN E-CIGARETTES
AND OTHER VAPING PRODUCTS THAT IS
EQUAL TO THE TOTAL STATE TAX ON
TOBACCO PRODUCTS WHEN FULLY PHASED
IN, INCREMENTALLY INCREASING THE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS TAX BY UP TO 22% OF
THE MANUFACTURER’S LIST PRICE,
INCREMENTALLY INCREASING THE
CIGARETTE TAX BY UP TO 9 CENTS PER
CIGARETTE, EXPANDING THE EXISTING
CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAXES TO APPLY
TO SALES TO CONSUMERS FROM OUTSIDE
OF THE STATE, ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM TAX
FOR MOIST SNUFF TOBACCO PRODUCTS,
CREATING AN INVENTORY TAX THAT APPLIES
FOR FUTURE CIGARETTE TAX INCREASES,
AND INITIALLY USING THE TAX REVENUE
PRIMARILY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING TO
HELP OFFSET REVENUE THAT HAS BEEN
LOST AS A RESULT OF THE ECONOMIC
IMPACTS RELATED TO COVID-19 AND THEN
FOR PROGRAMS THAT REDUCE THE USE OF
TOBACCO AND NICOTINE PRODUCTS,
ENHANCE THE VOLUNTARY COLORADO
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM AND MAKE IT WIDELY
AVAILABLE FOR FREE, AND MAINTAIN THE
FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT CURRENTLY
RECEIVE REVENUE FROM TOBACCO TAXES,
WITH THE STATE KEEPING AND SPENDING
ALL OF THE NEW TAX REVENUE AS A
VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?

I’m voting Yes/For Proposition EE. Colorado has tried (and failed) to implement higher cigarette taxes in the past (most recently in 2016). Here’s my write-up from the time (Amendment 72 from 2016).

The 2020 tax increase would also include vaping products.

Explainers and opinion on Proposition EE:
Colorado Blue Book – Proposition EE
Ballotpedia – Proposition EE

Proposition 113

Shall the following Act of the General Assembly be
approved: An Act concerning adoption of an
agreement among the states to elect the President
of the United States by national popular vote, being
Senate Bill No. 19-042?

I’m voting Yes/For Proposition 113.

Senate Bill No. 19-042 states to be an “Interstate agreement to elect president of the United States by national popular vote. The act makes law and enters into with all other states joining therein the agreement among the states to elect the president of the United States by national popular vote (agreement).”

I believe the US Electoral College to be an undemocratic way of voting for the presidency. Moving to a popular vote system would address a number of distortions in our current system:

  1. Smaller states would no longer have outsize power in selecting the President.
  2. More people would be enfranchised by a popular vote system—voters in non-swing states would have more incentive to vote
  3. Our current system does not necessarily preference big states vs. small states in their influence—in fact the current system preferences swing states above all others

The interstate compact is compatible with the US Supreme Court’s decision upholding electors’ duty to vote for the popular vote winner in a state.

Explainers and opinion on Proposition 113:
Ballotpedia – Proposition 113
Krieger: A lonely Colorado conservative makes the case for one person, one vote (Colorado Sun)
Armstrong: NPV an unserious idea, let’s improve the Electoral College (Complete Colorado)

Proposition 114

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised
Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves
through their reintroduction on designated lands in
Colorado located west of the continental divide,
and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado
parks and wildlife commission, after holding
statewide hearings and using scientific data, to
implement a plan to restore and manage gray
wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing
any land, water, or resource use restrictions on
private landowners to further the plan; and requiring
the commission to fairly compensate owners for
losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?

I’m voting Yes/For Proposition 114. The stated reason for gray wolf reintroduction is to help balance the predator/prey ecosystem in Colorado. The total costs of doing so are estimated to be between 300-800k per year during implementation. The costs would largely be from hunting/fishing licenses sold in the state.

Explainers and opinion on Proposition 114:
Ballotpedia – Proposition 114
Proposition 114 explained: What’s at stake with the effort to reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado (Colorado Sun)
Colorado Proposition 114 Endorsement: Yes on gray wolves reintroduction (Denver Post)
Proposition 114 Proponents Howling Over Wolf Killings in Wyoming (Denver Westword)
Working Families Party Gives Colorado’s Proposition 114 on Wolf Reintroduction the Seal of Approval
Vote ‘no’ on Proposition 114, the plan to reintroduce wolves to Colorado (The Fence Post)

Proposition 115

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised
Statutes concerning prohibiting an abortion when
the probable gestational age of the fetus is at least
twenty-two weeks, and, in connection therewith,
making it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to
perform or attempt to perform a prohibited abortion,
except when the abortion is immediately required to
save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is
physically threatened, but not solely by a
psychological or emotional condition; defining terms
related to the measure including “probable
gestational age” and “abortion,” and excepting from
the definition of “abortion” medical procedures
relating to miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy;
specifying that a woman on whom an abortion is
performed may not be charged with a crime in
relation to a prohibited abortion; and requiring the
Colorado medical board to suspend for at least
three years the license of a licensee whom the
board finds performed or attempted to perform a
prohibited abortion?

I’m voting No/Against Proposition 115. Proposition 115 is the latest attempt in Colorado from Republican/conservative groups to criminalize abortion.

My opposition comes from a place that abortion is health care and the right to bare a child is critical for the equality of women in our society.

Each additional attempt at blocking the rights to abortion health care services for women attempt to sound more reasonable. But the reality is that the vast majority of abortions happen before 22 weeks, and procedures that happen about that time or later are already when the health of the mother is at stake.

Explainers and opinion on Proposition 115:
Ballotpedia – Proposition 115
Proposition 115 explained: Colorado’s broad access to abortion would be scaled back under ballot measure (Colorado Sun)
Endorsement: Don’t put the government in OBGYN offices; vote “no” on Prop. 115 (Denver Post)
Should Abortion Be Banned After 22-Weeks? Colorado Voters Will Decide In November (Colorado Public Radio)
Colorado Voters Could Determine Abortion Access Nationwide (Rewire News Group)

Proposition 116

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised
Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from
4.63% to 4.55%?

I’m voting No/Against Proposition 116. Reducing Colorado’s income tax rate is a Republican effort to reduce critical state funding. State and local governments are already struggling with huge cuts and worker furloughs that will be necessary in future years to balance the state budget due to the deep economic recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Depriving the state of needed tax revenue that will be generated by those who haven’t lost their jobs will be critical.

Nationally the economy is seeing a K-shaped recession—as higher income employees are keeping their jobs while lower income employees are more likely to lose them. Colorado’s tax code is not progressive, as the rate stays the same at varying income levels. The way forward here is to reject this income tax decrease and move toward a more progressive tax code to begin to address the crushing inequality that continues to worsen in the United States.

Explainers and opinion on Proposition 116:
Ballotpedia – Proposition 116
Editorial: Vote ‘no’ on Proposition 116 (Daily Camera)
Prop. 116: Colorado voters will decide whether to lower the state income tax, but it’s complicated (The Denver Channel)
Proposition 116 explained: Colorado must decide whether an income tax cut is worth a hit to state budget (Colorado Sun)
Election 2020: Proposition 116 – Decrease State Income Tax Rate (KGNU Radio)
Colorado Springs Gazette: Vote ‘yes’ on Prop 116 tax relief (Colorado Springs Gazette)
COUNTERPOINT | Prop. 116 adds ‘insult to injury’ (Colorado Politics)

Proposition 117

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised
Statutes requiring statewide voter approval at the
next even-year election of any newly created or
qualified state enterprise that is exempt from the
Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado constitution, if the projected or actual
combined revenue from fees and surcharges of the
enterprise, and all other enterprises created within
the last five years that serve primarily the same
purpose, is greater than $100 million within the first
five fiscal years of the creation or qualification of the
new enterprise?

I’m voting No/Against Proposition 117. Proposition 117 is an extension of the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” TABOR that would require additional approval from voters to create enterprises under TABOR. Per Ballotpedia, some examples of enterprises are “the state lottery, state nursing homes, Colorado Correctional Industries, and College Assist (including the student loan program and College Access Network). Enterprises that gained enterprise status after the passage of TABOR include Colorado Parks and Wildlife (the Division of Wildlife), higher education institutions (universities and colleges), statewide tolling authority, statewide bridge enterprise.”

Enterprises are largely used to establish an organization that works to the public benefit of the state. Proposition 117 was proposed by right-wing groups to prevent the use of that authority.

Explainers and opinion on Proposition 117:
Ballotpedia – Proposition 117
Proposition 117 explained: Colorado voters would have more control over government fees (Colorado Sun)
From the Community Editorial Board: Thoughts on Proposition 117 (Daily Camera)
EDITORIAL: Yes on 117; no to death by a thousand fees (Colorado Spring Gazette)

Proposition 118

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised
Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family
and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in
connection therewith, authorizing paid family and
medical leave for a covered employee who has a
serious health condition, is caring for a new child or
for a family member with a serious health condition,
or has a need for leave related to a family member’s
military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a
maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave,
with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or
childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly
benefit amount; requiring job protection for and
prohibiting retaliation against an employee who
takes paid family and medical leave; allowing a local
government to opt out of the program; permitting
employees of such a local government and
self-employed individuals to participate in the
program; exempting employers who offer an
approved private paid family and medical leave
plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of
0.9% of each employee’s wages, up to a cap,
through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter,
up to 1.2% of each employee’s wages, by the
director of the division of family and medical leave
insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to
50% of the premium amount from an employee’s
wages and requiring the employer to pay the
remainder of the premium, with an exemption for
employers with fewer than 10 employees; creating
the division of family and medical leave insurance
as an enterprise within the department of labor and
employment to administer the program; and
establishing an enforcement and appeals process
for retaliation and denied claims?

I’m voting Yes/For Proposition 118. In normal economic times, starting a family or having a serious health condition puts a huge financial strain on the family, as well as reducing opportunities for career advancement. During the pandemic, we’ve seen an even larger disparity, where many women have left the workforce, particularly those who have families. Passing Proposition 118 would help to reduce these negative economic and quality of life effects.

The funding mechanism is set up similarly to Medicaid/Social Security, where employers and employees equally split the payment responsibility. Funding a program like Paid Family Leave at a state level will guarantee that all employees (with few exceptions) will have the benefit which is like what many well-paying tech companies already provide.

Explainers and opinion on Proposition 118:
Ballotpedia – Proposition 118
Colorado Proposition 118 would create state-run paid family and medical leave (Denver Post)
Proposition 118 explained: Paid-leave measure would give Colorado workers time off but cost big money (Colorado Sun)
Proposition 118 Provides Colorado Voters With Important Choice On Paid Family, Medical Leave In November (CBS 4 Denver)
Should Colorado Offer Paid Family Leave? A State Lawmaker And A Businessman Weigh In (Colorado Public Radio)
Community Editorial Board: Thoughts on Proposition 118 (Daily Camera)
POINT/COUNTERPOINT: Proposition 118: Should Colorado voters approve state-run family and medical leave insurance? (Colorado Spring Gazette)

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2B

NO EVICTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
SHALL THE CITY OF BOULDER’S TAXES BE
INCREASED ANNUALLY BY ONE MILLION, NINE
HUNDRED THOUSAND ($1,900,000.00) (FIRST
FULL FISCAL YEAR INCREASE) COMMENCING
ON JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BY WHATEVER
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE RAISED
ANNUALLY THEREAFTER FROM AN EXCISE
TAX TO BE PAID BY LANDLORDS ON DWELLING
UNITS WITH RENTAL LICENSES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $75 PER YEAR, WITH THE TAX
RATE INCREASING EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER
AT A RATE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE
COLORADO CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ON
EACH RENTAL LICENSE FOR A DWELLING UNIT
THAT IS ISSUED BY THE CITY; AND IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL ALL OF THE
REVENUES COLLECTED BE USED TO FUND:
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF THE TAX, AND
THEREAFTER TO ESTABLISH, RUN AND FULLY
FUND A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LEGAL
REPRESENTATION TO TENANTS WHO FACE
THE LOSS OF HOUSING IN EVICTION AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS; PROVIDE A
TENANT’S LEGAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE
COORDINATOR TO ADMINISTER THE
PROGRAM; CREATE A TENANTS’ COMMITTEE
COMPRISED OF FIVE MEMBERS PAID A $1,000
PER YEAR STIPEND; AND PROVIDE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS THAT ARE
VULNERABLE TO EVICTION; AND SHALL THE
FULL PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AT SUCH
RATES AND ANY EARNINGS THEREON BE
COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT, AS A
VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE
WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION, AND
WITHOUT LIMITING THE COLLECTION,
RETENTION, OR SPENDING OF ANY OTHER
REVENUES OR FUNDS BY THE CITY OF
BOULDER UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF
THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY
OTHER LAW?

I’m voting Yes/For Ballot Issue 2B. I am proud to say that I collected 100-200 signatures for the No Eviction Without Representation ballot measure during the 2020 pandemic. The measure offers critical support to those facing eviction in our city.

Many people wonder: how does legal assistance help people? Meagan Arrango from NEWR told me most succinctly—evictions ruin lives, and to stop or delay evictions allows for other outcomes, forgiveness of debts or extended payment options. A tenant who truly cannot pay rent is unlikely to stop an eviction, but this measure helps balance the huge disparity in power between landlords and tenants. (Full disclosure: I am both a tenant and a landlord in the City of Boulder).

The measure is progressive in a number of ways. The funding mechanism is via a $75 annual fee on all rental licenses, generating a substantial revenue that will help pay to support those who rent in our community that have the least means to protect themselves from an eviction. The fee is on the rental license as opposed to the individual, so a 1-bedroom/single occupant rental will pay relatively more money into the system than a house or multi-occupancy dwelling, further reducing the cost for those living with housemates.

Another key addition to the original ballot measure is the ability to provide rental assistance. Exact details of that program will be determined by the city when implemented, but it would likely operate in conjunction with or similarly to programs provided by the local non-profit EFAA, the Emergency Family Assistance Association, which can provide emergency funding in order to keep people housed.

Explainers and opinion on Ballot Issue 2B:
City of Boulder – Ballot Issue 2B
Boulder ballot issue 2B: No Eviction Without Representation (Boulder Beat)
Boulder City Council, campaign organizers agree to eviction ballot measure changes (Daily Camera)
City of Boulder Measure 2B would provide families with one critical tool to stay housed (Colorado Children’s Campaign)
Eviction In Boulder Colorado: A Critical Imbalance of Power (NEWR)
On Dangerous Ground (Boulder Weekly)
Thousands Of D.C. Renters Are Evicted Every Year. Do They All Know To Show Up To Court? (DCist)

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C

Public Service Company Franchise
Shall the City of Boulder grant a franchise to Public
Service Company of Colorado to furnish, sell, and
distribute gas and electricity to the City and to all
persons, businesses, and industries within the City
and the right to make reasonable use of all streets
and other public places and public easements as
may be necessary as described in Ordinance 8410?

I’m voting Yes/For Ballot Issue 2C. If the ballot measure passes, the City of Boulder would enter an agreement with Xcel Energy in Colorado and (at least temporarily) end its decade-long municipal energy project.

Explaining the history and effects of the city’s local power effort is long and complicated. I won’t duplicate the numerous details here, but will gratuitously link to a number of stories outlining more detail for those interested.

I want to focus on the big picture: Xcel energy has a proposal that may allow the City of Boulder to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030. The difference in Xcel’s energy portfolio now compared to when the city started the local power project is stark. If climate change is one of your top issues with power generation, Xcel has made huge strides to reduce or eliminate the gap between what is believed to be possible by creating our own municipal electric utility.

Of course, Muni proponents have had a variety of other goals—to “decentralize, decarbonize and democratize” our power to provide “more control over its energy supply, investments, and services”, along with synergies to creating a municipal broadband utility. Xcel’s proposal makes some gestures at these efforts, although a system provided by a third party corporation will likely never fully reach these goals.

I will outline a few steps that demonstrate some progress on these other goals of local power. Recently the City of Boulder announced that the municipal broadband effort would be compatible with an agreement with Xcel. Xcel has also proposed to “demonstrate technical viability, customer and business benefits of eliminating or increasing the 120% or Rule limit,” which currently limits the proliferation of rooftop solar in the city. Xcel has also proposed partnerships to enable neighborhood-level microgrids, more local generation, and other innovations to increase renewables beyond the 80% renewable mandate currently set by the State of Colorado by 2030.

The time is right to move forward with an agreement. The pandemic has only heightened the urgency, even as the city has not been able to commit to a date where citizens would decide to vote to create a local utility. That date was previously scheduled for 2020, and now has been pushed to 2022 at the earliest. The city’s strained financial and staff resources make an extended utility project an even lower priority with a clear option to move forward on a franchise presented.

Another large question: why now? What happens if city voters reject the agreement? In 2017, Boulder City Council had another opportunity to put a franchise to voters, but elected not to. Later in that year, I published an op-ed on why I changed my mind against going forward with the municipal electric utility at that time. The trouble with my position then was that we had little leverage to negotiate a better agreement if we voted to discontinue the local power project without passing a franchise agreement.

The difference in 2020 is that Xcel has provided an agreement that is very in line with Boulder’s goals. Turning down the agreement now would forfeit a number of potential benefits to a partnership (including $33 million of deferred money for undergrounding power lines and reliability improvements). As Boulder’s Mayor Sam Weaver said—if we don’t pass a deal this year, we’ll have yet another effort next year to stop the muni project, and again may be left in a worse position.

Weaver has been one of the strongest local utility supporters. Here’s a link to a 15 minute speech he gave on August 20th in support of putting the vote of a franchise to the people.

Explainers and opinion on Ballot Issue 2C:
City of Boulder – Ballot Issue 2C
Boulder Ballot Measures 2C and 2D: Xcel settlement and UOT extension (Boulder Beat)
Opinion: Jan Burton: Let’s vote on landmark settlement with Xcel (Daily Camera)
Sean Maher: Reasons to vote yes on 2C and 2D (Daily Camera)
Editorial: Vote ‘yes’ on 2C, ‘no’ on 2D (Daily Camera)
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C – Public Service Company Franchise/Settlement with Xcel (Boulder Weekly)
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C – Public Service Company Franchise/Settlement with Xcel – (Boulder Weekly Opinion – scroll down)

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D
Repurpose the Utility Occupation Tax
Without raising the tax rate shall the existing utility
occupation tax, which in 2021 and 2022 will be in
the amount of $2,076,181, be extended from a
current expiration date of December 31, 2022 to
December 31, 2025 and be repurposed to pay all
costs associated with the formation of a municipal
electric utility and to be used to fund projects, pilots,
initiatives, and research that support the city’s clean
energy goals in the context of the city’s racial equity
goals and the community’s commitment to the Paris
Climate Agreement, such as: Providing
energy-related assistance to disadvantaged
members of the community, including support for
utility bill payments and access to renewable
energy; Improving system reliability and
modernizing, and supporting clean energy-related
businesses, including, without limitation, new
approaches in electrification of buildings and
transportation, enhancement of resilience;
Implementing a partnership agreement with Public
Service Company of Colorado; and Increasing
access to energy efficiency and renewable energy
solutions; only if a majority of registered electors
approve a franchise agreement with Public Service
Company of Colorado at the November 3, 2020
election, and shall the extended portion of the tax
be subject to the same terms and conditions as the
original tax and all earnings thereon (regardless of
amount) constitute a voter approved revenue
change, and an exception to the revenue and
spending limits of Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution?

I’m voting Yes/For Ballot Issue 2D. As I mentioned with ballot measure 2C, Xcel energy is currently mandated by the State of Colorado to achieve 80% renewable energy by 2030, which is short of Boulder’s goals. Ballot Question 2D is contingent on the passage of Question 2C, and will help the City of Boulder reach its goals of 100% renewable energy by 2030.

The franchise agreement mentions a number of projects we can pursue in partnership with Xcel energy. However, we will need to fund these efforts—Question 2D provides a mechanism to do so.

A couple additional benefits of the proposed tax structure. First, we’re continuing an existing tax and not increasing taxes during a pandemic. Secondly, the tax is a tax on energy usage—essentially functioning as a carbon tax which funds further renewable development.

Boulder can continue to live its values as a leader on climate change by passing Question 2D and continuing to fund solutions to reduce climate change.

Explainers and opinion on Ballot Issue 2D:

City of Boulder – Ballot Issue 2D
Boulder Ballot Measures 2C and 2D: Xcel settlement and UOT extension (Boulder Beat)

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2E

Charter Amendments Related to Direct Election
of the Mayor:
Shall Article II, Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 15 of
the Boulder City Charter be amended to provide for
the direct election of the mayor by ranked choice
(instant runoff) voting?

I’m voting Yes/For Ballot Issue 2E. I am proud to say that I collected hundreds of signatures for the Our Mayor Our Choice ballot measure during the 2020 pandemic. It’s important to note that the measure I collected signatures for was significantly better than the final outcome. Through a process with Boulder City Council, the council removed the option of holding a mayor’s election in even years, which would have increased turnout—suppressing the votes of renters, younger people, and those who often vote in off-year presidential elections.

The city council also reduced the mayor’s term from a proposed four years to maintain the current two-year status quo. That will give the mayor less latitude to make longer-term changes in governance and direction.

The third pillar of the initiative is ranked Choice voting—which is intact—sort of. During negotiations with city council in August, Boulder County Clerk Molly Fitzpatrick sent a letter to the council informing them that the county (which runs local elections) would not commit to implementing instant runoff voting (IRV), which may incur additional costs and complexity for the county clerk. That leads to three possible outcomes:
The county changes course and implements IRV (or there’s an agreement to cover any extra costs)
The city takes over running municipal elections (which would involve uncertain additional costs, but may be $100K+ and is currently unfunded)
The city charter must be amended again by Boulder voters to allow the city to choose not to run an IRV election (which would refer back to our current first-past-the-post at-large system).

Outcomes 2 and 3 are certainly not ideal for the city and must be considered when voting for the measure.

A few notes on some of the possible effects of direct election of mayor. We may get a better signal of a vision for change in Boulder by the mayor we elect (particularly if elected by ranked choice voting). However with a two year term, and an office that pays incredibly poorly (~$10k per year), we may see a reduction in supply of serious candidates for the office. Under previous voting systems, the most qualified and popular city council candidates would receive a four year term, precluding them from running for office again just two years later. Now we’ll likely to see mayors who have already served one or two terms on city council—although that is not much changed from the tenure by current mayors.

We must remember that mayors of Boulder don’t have much power — under our strong council system, mayors have the same voting power as other council members. However they do have more influence to set the agenda and priorities of the council. Direct election of mayor may add additional friction to the current operations of council which would be even more apparent if we moved to a strong mayor system.

The strongest reasons I support the measure are: 1. give a strong signal for the direction of the community in the direct election of mayor 2. implement ranked choice voting in the city so that we can more quickly move to a system of ranked choice voting for all council positions 3. moving away from our current at-large, first-past-the-post system which suppresses minority representation.

Explainers and opinion on Ballot Issue 2E:
City of Boulder – Ballot Issue 2E
Boulder ballot issue 2E: Direct Election of the Mayor (Boulder Beat)
Editorial: Vote ‘yes’ on Ballot Question 2E (Daily Camera)

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2F

Charter Amendment Related to the Boulder Arts
Commission:
Shall new Sections 135 and 136 be added to the
City Charter pursuant to Ordinance 8405 to
increase the size of the Boulder Arts Commission to
seven members, allow for continued service by
existing Arts Commission members, provide for
staggered terms for the new members and for filling
of vacancies?

I’m voting Yes/For Ballot Issue 2F. Several of Boulder’s important boards (including the Planning Board) have seven members compared to the normal five member boards. The Arts Commission is a board with more work than many boards, particularly as they work with grant funding in the community. Expanding the Arts Commission will allow more diversity of people and interests on the board and enable a broader representation of interests in the Arts community in Boulder.

Explainers and opinion on Ballot Issue 2F:
City of Boulder – Ballot Issue 2F
Boulder ballot measure 2F: Arts Commission expansion (Boulder Beat)

Thank you

Please share with anyone to whom this guide might be helpful.

A reminder that ballots must be mailed no later than October 28th (earlier is better this year!, and ballots may be dropped off by 7pm on Election Day, Tuesday November 3rd, 2020.

If you’re not a registered voter or you need to update your registration, you can register online now at Go Vote Colorado! (all you need is an updated Colorado driver’s license). If you register now, you will receive a ballot in the mail. Otherwise, you can register and vote through election day.

Questions, comments, or otherwise can be emailed to me Eric Budd at ericbudd@gmail.com or on Twitter @ericmbudd

18

Democracy Is Always Hard

Posted on by ericmbudd

Boulder City Council,

Having volunteered thousands of hours on Boulder campaigns in the past few years, I realize democracy is always hard. Making change is hard. Organizing is hard.

In a year where a pandemic threatens the health and safety of our community, we’re just asking for you to make democracy safe and possible.

I want to soundly reject the requests from PLAN Boulder County to not hold a public hearing on putting issues on the ballot.

“Please don’t burden us with this unnecessary distraction”—people facing high rents and unstable housing are not a distraction.

“None of these initiatives are dealing with an emergency”— likely evictions and their effects are an emergency.

“Let us postpone them until 2021 when we can have a full public discussion and voting by an informed public”—we’re asking for a public process and a public vote in 2020, when voter turnout will be nearing 90%.

A failure to take action to protect democracy is a failure to govern. We and many in Boulder are asking you to give democracy a chance when it is harder than usual this year.

Eric Budd
Bedrooms Are For People

0

Why I’m supporting Elizabeth Warren for President

Posted on by ericmbudd

We have three imperatives in 2020: to defeat the current president, to win a majority in the Senate, and to elect a leader with a bold vision for the future. I believe Elizabeth Warren stands out from the Democratic field as the best candidate to lead the party forward.

It’s not enough just to beat Donald Trump. We need a president who will take on the incredible challenges of our moment: climate change, inequality, health care, corporate power, and racial injustice. Elizabeth Warren’s drive to win, passion to teach, and smart plans make her the best candidate to unite us in this fight.

Climate change is the greatest issue of our time. We need aggressive action to transform our economy into one that’s sustainable for the planet and successful for our people. Elizabeth’s plans would move America to 100% renewable energy, invest in green jobs, and ensure environmental justice to undo the decades of damage we’ve inflicted on people of color and vulnerable populations.

Inequality is the story of my generation. Millennials and younger Americans face continued wage stagnation, crushing college debt, and fewer opportunities to own homes or start families. The bottom 90% of people’s share of wealth is decreasing while those with the most wealth see their share increasing. Elizabeth’s two cent per dollar tax on assets above $50 million will help reduce inequality while funding priorities to cancel student debt and provide free college to power the economy of the future.

Health care is a human right. For too long our health care system has privileged the healthy and well-off, while failing the sick and those without insurance. The economic costs of America’s system continue to rise while life expectancy has fallen. Elizabeth’s health care plan would transition to a single-payer model to control provider costs and cover all people.

Corporate power has increased for decades relative to workers and the people. Tax loopholes now allow trillion dollar corporations to pay $0 in taxes. Elizabeth’s plans would ensure that corporations pay their fare share, break up big tech monopolies to increase competition and mandate that large corporations work in the interest of all corporate stakeholders in addition to shareholders.

Racial justice must be a foundation of America’s future. The current administration’s racist speech, policies, and actions must end. An America of the future admits our racist past and present while embracing the power of a racially-diverse democracy. Elizabeth’s plans would fight white nationalist violence, end private prisons, value the work of women and entrepreneurs of color.

Voting in the Democratic Primary starts today. For voters in Colorado, ballots will mail out on February 10th ahead of the March 3rd election day. Please support Elizabeth Warren by voting for her in the primary, contributing to the campaign, telling your friends to vote, making calls or knocking doors.

Eric Budd
Boulder, Colorado

Dream big. Fight hard.

 

0

How I’m voting in the 2019 Boulder Colorado Elections

Posted on by ericmbudd

Boulder Voter Guide

I want to start with a thank you to local journalists Shay Castle (Boulder Beat), Richard Valenty, and Sam Lounsberry  (Daily Camera). Without their dedication and terrific reporting, guides like this wouldn’t be possible.

You can contribute to Shay Castle’s fund for her voter guide or  Shay Castle’s Patreon to subscribe to her local news, or you can subscribe to the Boulder Daily Camera which supports number of local journalists and editorials.

City of Boulder Council Candidates

Following are the candidates for city council. You may vote for up to six (6) candidates. If you vote for six (6) or fewer, your votes in this race will be counted. If you vote for more than six (6), your votes in this race will not be counted.

As many of you know, I ran for Boulder City Council in 2017. I and a number of other candidates I had been aligned with were not elected. The result has been a movement away from housing and transportation as primary needs to address in the community, and has supported policies that make Boulder less inclusive and supportive of the change we need. When it comes to taking action on land use to fight climate change, or to move forward on flood protection for people in southeast Boulder, or making sure that the younger generation can both work and live in Boulder, the current city council has failed us drastically.

I’m voting for six candidates who share my goals for a better city:
Rachel Friend
Benita Duran
Junie Joseph
Aaron Brockett
Mark McIntyre
Bob Yates

I’m supporting Rachel Friend because she’s a tireless advocate for protecting people and our community. Rachel’s work on assault weapons ban, flood protection for at-risk Boulder residents, and fighting to help immigrants shows why I want to see her on city council.

I’m supporting Benita Duran because Benita’s work on housing, creating an inclusive community, and supporting so many of Boulder’s non-profits will make her a strong, compassionate voice on city council. As a former assistant city manager, Benita will do great work with city staff and pick up the role quickly.

I’m supporting Junie Joseph because her passion, commitment, and ability to learn quickly have really impressed me. Junie brings a background of as a former UN human rights officer and CU law student who I know will fight for Boulder to help live out its values.

I’m supporting Mark McIntyre because he wants to see Boulder change for the better. Mark realizes that the status quo for our city is not enough, and we need to make real progress on housing, climate change, and safety for people on our streets. I ran with Mark in 2017 and am happy to support him again in 2019.

I’m supporting Aaron Brockett because I’ve always thought of him as the best example of how to be a great council member. Aaron’s continued work to show up for people, really listen, and bring people in are exactly the kind of leadership we need to move forward.

I announced the previous endorsements four weeks ago on Twitter, after organizing and participating in an endorsement process for Boulder Progressives, Better Boulder, and The Coalition. At that time, I did not know to whom I would give my sixth vote. A few reasons I did not support Bob Yates at that time:

  1. I’ve been disappointed with Bob’s actions and alignment on homelessness. (Bob did address the event in his interview with Shay Castle, saying “‘My intentions were good,’…saying it was to connect unhoused residents there with services. ‘How I handled it did not serve that intention.’”)
  2. I wanted to see more engagement and proactive action on racist policing in Boulder
  3. While Bob has voted positively to support cooperative housing and accessory dwelling units, I think we need greater change to solve the challenges Boulder has

A few reasons I’m voting for Bob Yates now:

  1. Bob has been a champion of local businesses and local non-profits (including Community Cycles)
  2. Bob has a strong understanding of the city budget, sales tax, and revenue challenges that continue to worsen for the city. As a recession is likely in the next 12-36 months, I want his perspective on city council during that time
  3. Bob has been outspoken in his concerns about Boulder’s energy utility municipalization. While a majority of city council will likely support the muni effort, Bob’s criticism has been positive and will help the council make better decisions during a critical time when the council and public will decide whether or not we will create a utility in the 2020-2 timeframe.
  4. My last reason is much about Bob’s personality: he’s been committed to openness and transparency through his regular newsletters. During the 2019 election, I’ve seen Bob continue to work hard for The Coalition-endorsed candidates, even though he was not officially endorsed by The Coalition due to Boulder Progressives’ dissent. I appreciate the help and collaboration I’ve seen and hope to continue to see with the next city council.

If you are interested in reading about other candidates in the race, here are a few resources that might be helpful:

Shay Castle’s 2019 Boulder City Council Candidate Profiles (Boulder Beat)

Shay Castle’s one page overview of candidates and their stances (Boulder Beat)
2019 Boulder City Council candidate profiles (Daily Camera)

Boulder Election 2019: Posts and Profiles (Richard Valenty)
Daily Camera Editorial: Boulder City Council candidate endorsements (Daily Camera)

The Boulder Chamber’s Candidate Scorecard (Boulder Chamber)

Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District A (Vote for One)

Jai Rajagopal – Daily Camera Profile
Lisa Sweeney-Miran – Daily Camera Profile

I’m voting for Lisa Sweeney-Miran. Both candidates in the race have progressive values and want to address racial and economic disparities in our school system. Jai brings a background of policy and working on staff, while Lisa brings experience of working as a director of a non-profit serving the homeless. While both would certainly bring a great energy to the board, I’m voting for Lisa Sweeney-Miran to bring her depth of experience and knowledge to the position.

Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District C (Vote for One)

Kathy Gebhardt (unopposed)

Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District D (Vote for One)

Stacey Zis (unopposed)

Connor Bunting is listed on the ballot, however, according to the Boulder County Clerk, the candidate “withdrew their candidacy after certified content was delivered to Boulder County. Votes for this candidate will not be counted.”

Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Director District G (Vote for One)

Richard L. Garcia (unopposed)

Proposition CC

WITHOUT RAISING TAXES AND TO BETTER FUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHER EDUCATION, AND ROADS, BRIDGES, AND TRANSIT, WITHIN A BALANCED BUDGET, MAY THE STATE KEEP AND SPEND ALL THE REVENUE IT ANNUALLY COLLECTS AFTER JUNE 30, 2019, BUT IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO KEEP AND SPEND UNDER COLORADO LAW, WITH AN ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDIT TO SHOW HOW THE RETAINED REVENUES ARE SPENT?

I’m voting Yes/For. For those unfamiliar with Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) law, the state must return any surplus money it was authorized to collect that exceeds the maximum amount defined when the tax law was created. Current policy is both economically inefficient in terms of the cost of refunding taxpayers a small amount of money by check and reducing the amount of money available to fund our key school, higher education, and transportation funding. Here’s an explainer from 2015: How TABOR refunds work.

According to the Colorado Blue Book, if Proposition CC passes, “state law will direct the money to public schools; higher education; and roads, bridges, and transit in the year after it is collected. Each of these programs is expected to receive $103 million in the 2020-21 budget year and $114 million in the 2021-22 budget year.”

Under current law, expected proceeds for the next few years would be:
“If these amounts are refunded to taxpayers, refunds are estimated to be between $26 and $90 per taxpayer per year, depending on the taxpayer’s income, and double these amounts for joint filers.”

Given Colorado’s growing population and significant needs in transportation and education, now is the time for us to pass Prop CC and move our budget forward.

Other reads on Prop CC:

Proposition CC explained: What it means to end the spending caps in TABOR and the money at stake (Colorado Sun) 
State of Colorado Proposition CC: TABOR Refunds, Education and Transportation (Richard Valenty)

KC Becker: Why can’t the state benefit from a booming population and economy? (Boulder Daily Camera)

Proposition DD

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED BY TWENTY-NINE MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY TO FUND STATE WATER PROJECTS AND COMMITMENTS AND TO PAY FOR THE REGULATION OF SPORTS BETTING THROUGH LICENSED CASINOS BY AUTHORIZING A TAX ON SPORTS BETTING OF TEN PERCENT OF NET SPORTS BETTING PROCEEDS, AND TO IMPOSE THE TAX ON PERSONS LICENSED TO CONDUCT SPORTS BETTING OPERATIONS?

I’m voting Yes/For. However, I find Prop DD to be the most difficult item on the 2019 ballot. I think that the Colorado Sun had the most helpful write-up. There are two components of the issue: 1. the strength of the Colorado Water Plan 2. the funding mechanism used to help support the water plan (i.e. a 10% tax on sports gambling).

You can read this 567 page PDF to learn more about the Colorado Water Plan. No, I didn’t read it all right now, but it’s interesting to understand the main components. Much of the plan hopes to address the supply/demand gap for water in Colorado. I was fairly surprised to read that the total plan implementation would cost an estimated $20-40 billion. 

The second component of the measure is regulation/taxation of sports betting, which is expected to raise “between $6 million and $15 million annually in the first three years” via Colorado Sun.

My thought process here is: Colorado seems to have massive unfunded water needs into the future. The money raised by the tax is several orders of magnitude too small to address all of the water plan, but would help. I don’t find sports gambling to be a productive activity to enable, but if we are to do so, taxing that activity seems like a reasonable policy.

I wasn’t able to find any compelling for/against opinions on the matter, but please let me know if you see any.

Other reads on Prop DD:

State of Colorado Proposition DD: Sports Betting and Water Projects (Richard Valenty, second item)
See who’s made the biggest contributions to support Proposition DD to legalize sports betting (Biz Journals)
For now, Blue Book analysis of Prop DD is all wet (Boulder Weekly)

Backers of Proposition DD respond to growing number of critics (The Daily Sentinel)
Outdoors leaders endorse Colorado gambling measure Proposition DD (Colorado Politics)
First Prop DD Ads Focus on Water, but Financed by Gaming Industry (Denver Westword)
Colorado Prop DD: Voter’s guide to sports betting ballot question (Denver Post)

Boulder County Question 1A

(Coroner Term Limit Extension to Five Terms)

Shall the term limits for the office of Coroner of Boulder County, as imposed by state law and in Article XVIII, Section 11, of the Colorado Constitution and later modified by the voters of the County to authorize three consecutive terms, be further modified to permit an elected officeholder in that office to seek and, if elected, serve a maximum of five consecutive terms?

I’m voting Yes/For. The role of a coroner is to determine a cause of death when a person dies without witnesses. The role is rarely political, and most always a professional in the field occupies the position rather than a politician. The question is similar to two years ago, when Boulder County voters were asked to increase term limits for the sheriff, which the county approved. I felt that Dave Krieger at the Daily Camera made a compelling case — Editorial: Extend the sheriff’s term limit. I think that the coroner’s position is even less political and should also be extended.

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2G

TAX ON TOBACCO VAPING PRODUCTS 

SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY BY IMPOSING A SALES AND USE TAX OF UP TO 40 PERCENT OF THE RETAIL SALES PRICE OF ALL ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES, INCLUDING ANY REFILL, CARTRIDGE OR COMPONENT OF SUCH A PRODUCT… (truncated)

I’m voting Yes/For. While vaping of nicotine has somewhat unknown health risks in the long term, the potential harmful effects and addictiveness for young and middle-aged people are worthy of taxation. According to the staff memo released, the tax is estimated to raise $2.5 million per year in the next several years. One other consideration raised by Shay Castle of Boulder Beat: “a risk of the tax pushing vape users to traditional cigarettes, which are more harmful to users’ health. Since council didn’t pursue a local tax on traditional cigarettes at the same time, vaping products will become more expensive than cigarettes.” Overall, I believe we should support public health and pass a tax on vaping products.

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2H

SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION FOR OPEN SPACE AND LONG’S GARDENS

WITHOUT RAISING ADDITIONAL TAXES, SHALL THE EXISTING 0.15 CENT CITY SALES AND USE TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES, APPROVED BY THE VOTERS BY ORDINANCE NO. 7913, BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE CURRENT EXPIRATION DATE OF DECEMBER 31, 2019 UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2039; AND BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2020 UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2039 DESIGNATING THE REVENUES COLLECTED TO FUND THE MAINTENANCE, RESTORATION, ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE LAND INCLUDING THE USE OF FUNDS GENERATED IN THE FIRST YEAR TO PURCHASE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT LONG’S GARDENS LOCATED AT 3240 BROADWAY AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE?

Given my love of photography, I couldn’t help but repost a picture I took while observing the PLAN Boulder lit drop supporting ballot measure 2H

I’m voting Yes/For. But not without serious reservations. I’ll outline my thoughts:

  1. Open space is an important and fundamental part of Boulder that the residents cherish, and so do I.
  2. The tax re-purposes money that was dedicated toward open space and transportation and spends the funds entirely on open space
  3. The tax duration is 20 years, which is a significantly long time over which other priorities for sales tax may arise

Boulder has had an incredibly successful open space program. At this point, Boulder has largely bought the land around the city, without many large or ecologically valuable targets remaining. Instead, much of the money has been planned for maintenance or buying connections between existing land. I believe it’s important to keep funding open space, but the amount of our community resources we put into open space compared to other priorities should be carefully examined.

Renewal of the entire tax for open space takes money away that could have been used for transportation or other needs. An article last year in the Daily Camera reports “Realignments on 30th and Colorado in Boulder could take decades, cost up to $100M”. I’m particularly distressed when transportation is ignored when residents are taking their own action on bike safety—“Plunger ‘protected’ bike lane briefly appears on 30th Street in Boulder.” Or another article this week stating “RTD Proposes ‘Significant’ Cuts To Bus And Train Service Over Driver Shortage.” 

Lastly, funding one of the largest parts of the city budget at this level for 20 years also seems short-sided given our other priorities. I expect that future councils will need to address the imbalance.

The current city council made extremely poor decisions in the use and structure of the tax, even as council members raised concerns about the plan. The city would have an immediately shortfall if the tax did not pass, which is why I support the tax in this form, but hope and expect that future councils will govern much more thoughtfully.

Other reads on Issue 2H:

2019 BALLOT MEASURE: 2H – SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION FOR OPEN SPACE AND LONG’S GARDENS (City of Boulder)
Issue 2H Staff Memo (City of Boulder)
Ballot Issue 2H – Sales and use tax extension for open space and Long’s Gardens (Boulder Beat)
Editorial: Vote yes on Ballot Issue 2H (Daily Camera)
City of Boulder Ballot Issues 2H, 2I, and 2G (Richard Valenty)

 

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2I

IMPOSITION OF A MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING PROGRAM 

SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES, TO PROVIDE FOR A HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL INCLUDE PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND MAKE LOANS TO MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO PURCHASE HOMES SOLD IN BOULDER… (truncated)

I’m voting Yes/For. A few key points that help contextualize the ballot measure:

  1. The ballot measure authorizes debt, but actual implementation will happen through a public process and the council will finalize details
  2. The program is designed for a maximum of 10 loans per year, which is a relatively small impact (think larger than housing cooperatives but smaller than ADUs, and smaller than other changes that could be made to zoning)

I found Shay Castle’s write-up on measure 2I incredibly helpful to think about possible implementation details.

The reality of Boulder’s housing challenges is that even large amounts of subsidy do not make much impact in housing attainability. If the subsidy ends up being about $50,000 which was estimated, that does not make much impact on the affordability of the median detached home price of $1 million in Boulder.

We need to acknowledge that a detached home in Boulder is only for the rich, and won’t be attainable for the middle class with or without a subsidy. In addition to downpayment assistance, Boulder needs to legalize duplexes, triplexes, and other housing options designed to reduce the total cost of home ownership and transportation in order to achieve deeper affordability.

Other reads on Issue 2H:

Ballot issue 2I – Imposition of a middle-income housing program (Boulder Beat)
Issue 2I explained (Boulder Weekly)
Boulder Ballot Issue 2I: Imposition of a middle-income housing program (Daily Camera)

 

Thank you

Please share with anyone to whom this guide might be helpful.

A reminder that ballots must be mailed no later than October 30th, and ballots may be dropped off by 7pm on Election Day, Tuesday November 5th, 2019.

If you’re not a registered voter or you need to update your registration, you can register online now at Go Vote Colorado! (all you need is an updated Colorado driver’s license). If you register now, you will receive a ballot in the mail. Otherwise, you can register and vote through election day.

Questions, comments, or otherwise can be emailed to me Eric Budd at ericbudd@gmail.com or on Twitter @ericmbudd

3

Boulder City Council driven by fear

Posted on by ericmbudd

Op-ed originally printed in the Boulder Daily Camera on 12/16/2018.

Several times in recent months, the Boulder City Council has proposed far-reaching building moratoriums with little evidence of need and with very little public process.

A moratorium on building large homes on residential lots. A moratorium on building new housing in business zones after a rumored redevelopment of the partly-empty Base-Mar Shopping Center. A moratorium on redevelopment of an “opportunity zone” that includes the long-distressed Diagonal Plaza.

Rather than setting a vision for local policy to help Boulder adjust to change and economic conditions, the City Council’s actions show a reactive group that fears a changing city.

After scheduling an emergency vote to limit large houses in Boulder, City Council backed off from its original proposal after significant community pushback. The measure would have disallowed new homes greater than 3,500 square feet, without any plan to address the root problems of large homes or affordable housing shortages in Boulder’s neighborhoods. Rather, our city leaders need to bring proactive ideas to address our problems. For instance, council members Jill Adler Grano and Bob Yates countered with a proposal to require large homes to contribute to Boulder’s affordable housing fund.

The newly-updated accessory dwelling unit ordinance should be used as a tool to create incentives for smaller homes affordable to a wider range of potential owners in our community. We should allow homeowners with larger lots to split the lot and build a smaller, additional home. Council should embrace ideas like duplexes and triplexes, which are not legal in most of Boulder’s residential areas, to serve younger families or older couples wishing to downsize and still afford to live in town. The fear of change in our neighborhoods drives a policy that doesn’t plan for a future of diverse housing needs.

On Tuesday, City Council will consider an updated proposal for changes to business zoning districts that would have banned any use of housing on first-floor properties. As the Camera reported, the proposal was “brought forward by city councilwomen Cindy Carlisle and Mirabai Nagle, who were concerned about the possibility of student housing being built at Base-Mar Shopping Center.” The moratorium was a reaction to make a particular project unviable rather than proactively planning for change that the neighborhood and city might want. We could take the opportunity to create more 15-minute neighborhoods and a better bikeable and walkable community, and establish permanently affordable retail space. Instead, members of City Council moved to preserve still-vacant buildings occupied just 12 months ago by Whole Foods, The Egg & I, Everyone’s Hair, and Beau Jo’s Pizza. While the new proposal has since become less extreme, the council still lacks a vision to move our city forward in a rapidly changing retail environment. The fear of change in neighborhood retail drives a policy that clings onto shopping centers that no longer meet the needs of the community.

City Council will also make policy regulating the opportunity zone, a status meant to encourage investment in lower-income areas. Boulder applied for an opportunity zone that includes Diagonal Plaza, a strip mall in serious disrepair. City Council pushed to halt possible redevelopment. From Councilman Sam Weaver’s council Hotline email, he proposes a development moratorium until “each zone district in the OZ has been reviewed under the current Use Table Review project” and no office space be allowed until “a sub-community plan is in place.” If you have visited Diagonal Plaza recently, you may agree it is an area in great need of redevelopment. The massive, empty parking lot along with a number of vacant businesses could serve as a terrific place for a mix of housing, retail and office space, creating a modern walkable community. The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan took 10 years to complete — how long must our city wait to make progress on desperately needed priorities outlined in the Comprehensive Plan? Instead, council members criticized the city manager for accepting opportunity zone status which would bring federal subsidies into Boulder — a move that is in the best interest of the city. The fear that tax incentives will aid redevelopment drives Council to tighten regulations and resist needed change.

Our city government has enormous control over the way that Boulder will change over the long-term. We need a council that will be looking forward instead of fighting change that is inevitable.

Eric Budd is a former candidate for City Council and former chair of the Boulder Landmarks Board. He is a current member of the Better Boulder Executive Committee. Twitter: @ericmbudd.

0

How I’m voting in the 2018 Colorado Elections

Posted on by ericmbudd

Colorado’s 2018 ballot includes a number of statewide offices and ballot measures that intend to address the state’s population and economic growth, education funding, and the balance of local land/safety with oil and gas interests.

Colorado’s statewide offices are largely controlled by Republicans, which could change significantly with a number of strong Democratic challengers. The state legislature currently is split (rare among the 50 US states) between a slight Democratic majority in the House and a slight Republican majority in the Senate.

While much of the election’s focus has been on national politics, 2018’s results will largely determine Colorado’s direction for the next four to eight years and adds more reason to make ensure you (and your friends!) vote.

Federal Offices

Representative to the 116th United States Congress – District 2  — Joe Neguse – Democratic

I’ve written about Joe Neguse: “Joe is incredibly bright, engaging, and will fight to protect the environment in Colorado. As a son of Eritrean immigrants, I could not be prouder to have Joe represent me at a time when immigrants should be valued, celebrated.” As Joe said at a recent campaign event, “I’m running for congress because that dream—the American dream—is under attack like it has never been in my lifetime.” I completely agree.

While some have attacked Joe as not being progressive enough for various reasons, I’ve seen in Joe’s work and experience that he will work hard to represent progressive values we have in Boulder and Colorado.

State Offices

Governor/Lieutenant Governor — Jared Polis / Dianne Primavera – Democratic
Secretary of State — Jena Griswold – Democratic
State Treasurer — Dave Young – Democratic
Attorney General — Phil Weiser – Democratic
State Board of Education Member – Congressional District 2 — Angelika Schroeder – Democratic
Regent of the University of Colorado – At Large — Lesley Smith – Democratic
State Representative – District 13 — K.C. Becker – Democratic

I’m voting for Democrats all the way down the ballot. I’ll give a few key points about some of the candidates and what’s at stake. I’m voting for Jared Polis for governor because he’s going to push our state in a progressive direction on clean energy and I hope to ensure our state grows in an equitable way with opportunity for all people. I think Jared’s business background is a positive overall, but would like him to have supported more progressive ballot measures this year (prop 73 for increasing education funding and prop 112 for safer setbacks from fracking). It’s clear that progressives in Colorado will need to keep pushing our elected leaders when they take moderate or conservative positions as many have this election cycle.

For other statewide offices, I’m voting Jena Griswold for secretary of state as we need to continue to push to remove barriers to participation for voters in Colorado, including a push for automatic voter registration. I’m supporting Phil Weiser for attorney general as someone who will push back on the overreach from the Trump administration. I’m supporting Lesley Smith for CU Regent because the board’s current conservative majority has been pushing its regressive ideology onto CU system, and as someone who considers Lesley a friend personally, I could not think of a person with better experience and progressive values to bring a thoughtful, practical direction to the university board.

Local Offices

District Attorney – 20th Judicial District — Michael Dougherty – Democratic
Regional Transportation District Director – District O — Lynn Guissinger
County Offices County Commissioner – District 3 — Matt Jones – Democratic
County Clerk and Recorder — Molly Fitzpatrick – Democratic
County Treasurer — Paul Weissmann – Democratic
County Assessor — Cynthia Braddock – Democratic
County Sheriff — Joseph K Pelle – Democratic
County Surveyor — Lee Stadele – Democratic
County Coroner — Emma R. Hall – Democratic

Most Boulder county/local offices for the 2018 election cycle have candidates who are unopposed. Largely the candidates won contested Democratic primaries and have no general election opponents, so I won’t go into depth on those races.

The county commissioner race offers several candidates (and had multiple Democratic candidates in the caucus/convention process, but not one candidate strong enough to force a primary). While I considered Cliff Willmeng, his most relevant experience in is limited to anti-fracking efforts, and I don’t believe he’ll be an effective county commissioner which is not only a political but managerial position.

I will vote for Matt Jones, largely due to his experience in the legislature and management, but I do not believe his platform offers any strong vision or track record to address Boulder County’s real transportation and affordable housing challenges. He offers no plan to reduce the cost of housing or pursue different housing options. Rather than focus on making transportation work for our region, his issues/positions page attacks the scapegoats of regional rail funding and public-private partnerships. My hope is that Matt listens to strategies to allow Boulder County to meet its infrastructure needs by making additional investments in transit and enabling cities to provide housing for our growing economy and population.

Judicial Retention

I’m voting to retain all of the judges on the ballot. Here’s a good tweet thread from Erin Overturf on reading more about judges where she mentions the Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluations web site:

You can read in the Denver Post for more information: How to handle questions about judges on your Colorado ballot

State Ballot Measures

Colorado Amendment W, Judge Retention Ballot Language Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment V, Reduced Age Qualification for General Assembly Members Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment X, Definition of Industrial Hemp Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment A, Removal of Exception to Slavery Prohibition for Criminals Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment 73, Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative — YES
Colorado Amendment 74, Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation Initiative — NO
Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative — NO
Colorado Proposition 109, “Fix Our Damn Roads” Transportation Bond Initiative — NO
Colorado Proposition 110, “Let’s Go Colorado” Transportation Bond and Sales Tax Increase Initiative — YES
Colorado Proposition 111, Limits on Payday Loan Charges Initiative — YES
Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative — YES

Boulder County/City Ballot Measures

County Ballot Issue 1A – (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension) — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C – Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D – Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E – Charter Amendments for Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes — NO
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F – Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G – Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H – Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions — NO
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I – Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations — YES
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G — YES

State Ballot Measures (Analysis)

Colorado Amendment V, Reduced Age Qualification for General Assembly Members Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a reduction in the age qualification for a member of the general assembly from twenty-five years to twenty-one years?

I’m voting yes — the change would put Colorado in line with many other states in reducing the required age to 21 or lower.

Colorado Amendment W, Judge Retention Ballot Language Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change in the format of the election ballot for judicial retention elections?

I’m voting yes — the change would simplify the judges section of the ballot, while still maintaining clarity about which judges are at the state and local levels.

Colorado Amendment X, Definition of Industrial Hemp Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning changing the industrial hemp definition from a constitutional definition to a statutory definition?

I’m voting yes — I think the proposal from Colorado Senator Fenberg is forward-looking, even with some uncertainty due to federal policy. The current hemp definition is very similar to the federal definition, causing no change in the current term.

From Ballotpedia:

The Colorado Constitution defines industrial hemp as “the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis.” Federal law defines industrial hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”[4][5]

However, in June, the US Senate signaled easing in policy regarding marijuana/hemp, “U.S. Senate Votes To Legalize Hemp After Decades-Long Ban Under Marijuana Prohibition.” Given the current political environment and “six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization,” I think the positive-risk of adopting the amendment outweighs any downside risk of a federal tightening on hemp policy.

Additional reading:
Sudden opposition flares toward Amendment X, the hemp measure unanimously approved by the Colorado legislature — Colorado Sun

Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment — YES

Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text (Amendment Y, Amendment Z)
Ballotpedia link (Amendment Y, Amendment Z)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change to the way that congressional districts are drawn, and, in connection therewith, taking the duty to draw congressional districts away from the state legislature and giving it to an independent commission, composed of twelve citizens who possess specified qualifications; prohibiting any one political party’s control of the commission by requiring that one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party, one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state’s largest political party, and one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state’s second largest political party; prohibiting certain persons, including professional lobbyists, federal campaign committee employees, and federal, state, and local elected officials, from serving on the commission; limiting judicial review of a map to a determination by the supreme court of whether the commission or its nonpartisan staff committed an abuse of discretion; requiring the commission to draw districts with a focus on communities of interest and political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, and then to maximize the number of competitive congressional seats to the extent possible; and prohibiting maps from being drawn to dilute the electoral influence of any racial or ethnic group or to protect any incumbent, any political candidate, or any political party?

I’m voting yes — the change should remove partisanship and racial bias from redistricting efforts, which has led to a number of high profile racial and political gerrymandering cases in recent years. You can read a more in-depth piece on the problems with gerrymandering by David Wasserman: The Gerrymandering Project—Hating Gerrymandering Is Easy. Fixing It Is Harder. I think the proposed change should move Colorado forward to a more fair electoral system.

Some critiques worth mentioning: the change would also somewhat “lock in” the current two-party system power structure, which could have negative partisan effects on third parties. Also, while the system would outline a way to make partisan members of the commission balanced, no consideration is given to ensure racial diversity in commission selection.

Additional reading:
Amendments Y and Z aim to take politics out of redistricting: Here’s how they’d work — Colorado Independent
Steve Fenberg and Peggy Leach: Amendments Y, Z put the interests of Colorado, not parties, first — Daily Camera

Colorado Amendment A, Removal of Exception to Slavery Prohibition for Criminals Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime and thereby prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude in all circumstances?

I’m voting yes — for the same reasons I voted for Amendment T in 2016 (which failed narrowly) — ”Colorado needs to go even further to eliminate prison labor entirely.”

Additional reading:
Colorado voters will get a second chance next month to abolish slavery — CNN

Colorado Amendment 73, Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $1,600,000,000 ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING FUNDING RELATING TO PRESCHOOL THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE RATE STATE INCOME TAX FOR REVENUE THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS; INCREASING INCOME TAX RATES INCREMENTALLY FOR INDIVIDUALS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES USING FOUR TAX BRACKETS STARTING AT .37% FOR INCOME ABOVE $150,000 AND INCREASING TO 3.62% FOR INCOME ABOVE $500,000; INCREASING THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE BY 1.37%; FOR PURPOSES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY TAXES, REDUCING THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATE OF 7.2% TO 7.0% AND THE CURRENT NONRESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATE OF 29%TO 24%; REQUIRING THE REVENUE FROM THE INCOME TAX INCREASES TO BE DEPOSITED IN A DEDICATED PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND AND ALLOWING THE REVENUE COLLECTED TO BE RETAINED AND SPENT AS VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES; REQUIRING THE LEGISLATURE TO ANNUALLY APPROPRIATE MONEY FROM THE FUND TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SUPPORT EARLY CHILDHOOD THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS THROUGHOUT THE STATE WITHOUT DECREASING GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS; DIRECTING THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT, REGULARLY REVIEW, AND REVISE WHEN NECESSARY, A NEW PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE LAW THAT MEETS SPECIFIED CRITERIA; UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED A NEW PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE LAW, REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE ANNUALLY APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIFIED EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND PURPOSES; REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE USED TO SUPPORT ONLY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; REQUIRING GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION TO INCREASE BY INFLATION, UP TO 5%, ANNUALLY; AND REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO COMMISSION A STUDY OF THE USE OF THE MONEY IN THE FUND WITHIN FIVE YEARS?

I’m voting yes — Colorado education funding has consistently been near last in the nation, even during a boom time for the state (“Despite a booming economy, Colorado’s school funding lags well below national average”). Previous statewide education funding measures have failed, and with the state’s budget highly constrained by TABOR, directly asking voters for money is largely the only solution.

I support the measure for three reasons: 1. the state’s schools desperately need more funding and to decrease the “More than half of Colorado school districts adopt 4-day weeks to cut costs.” 2. Requiring the state legislature to fund equitable early childhood education 3. Establish a progress, dedicated funding mechanism for these goals to ensure that Colorado’s growth and well-off populations contribute to our education system.

I’m disappointed so many Democratic leaders have not supported the measure as the proposal lives up to democratic values we should uphold in Colorado.

Additional reading:
Amendment 73: Understanding the tax increase for education on your Colorado ballot — Chalkbeat

Colorado Amendment 74, Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation Initiative — NO

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring the government to award just compensation to owners of private property when a government law or regulation reduces the fair market value of the property?

I’m voting no — as should every person in Colorado. The toxic amendment pushed by the oil and gas industry. Not a single newspaper in the state has endorsed the measure, with members of all political parties talking about the problems with the constitutional change. Even the Colorado Spring Gazette’s conservative-leaning editorial board stated: “The Gazette’s editorial board erred on the side of property rights but erred nonetheless with our initial support for Amendment 74. Voters could easily make a similar mistake, so we urge readers to consider the full ramifications of this ballot measure.”

Additional reading:
Editorial: Amendment 74’s potential for damage is enormous
Guest Post: Amendment 74 – A Pandora’s box of property rights
EDITORIAL: We were wrong on Colorado Amendment 74

Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative — NO

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution providing that if any candidate in a primary or general election for state office directs more than one million dollars in support of his or her own election, then every candidate for that office in the same election may accept five times the amount of campaign contributions normally allowed?

I’m voting no — while seeming well-intentioned (which is a stretch considering the secretive funding behind this ballot measure), I believe the measure would lead to aggregate increases in spending on elections. In addition to millionaires, the constitutional amendment also states:

(c) A candidate facilitating or coordinating third party contributions amounting to more than one million dollars to any committee or organization for the purpose of influencing the candidate’s own election

Given various political action committees involved in campaigns that could top $1 million, I’m not convinced that the measure would have the effect of decreasing overall spending, but rather would increase limits of what individuals could spend. Rather than leveling the playing field, the amendment’s design would be a mechanism to funnel further money into politics.

Colorado Proposition 109, “Fix Our Damn Roads” Transportation Bond Initiative — NO

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

SHALL STATE DEBT BE INCREASED $3,500,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $5,200,000,000, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES OR FEES, BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, NOTE PROCEEDS SHALL BE RETAINED AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND USED EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND SPECIFIED ROAD AND BRIDGE EXPANSION, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE?

I’m voting no — not only is proposition 109 poor governance by increasing debt without a funding mechanism, the use of funding would be exclusive to building new roads and highways without any change or flexibility to current policy.

Increasing debt without paying for that debt means that at some later point, revenues must be raised or shifted from the existing budget (already constrained) to pay for these liabilities.

On transportation needs, as Colorado grows to become more urban, we need to fund transportation policy that provides an array of options for not only roads, but transit, biking, walking, with additional focus on city/regional infrastructure. The measure would not change the paradigm of transportation needed, but rather direct funds that don’t address Colorado’s long-term transportation problems.

Colorado Proposition 110, “Let’s Go Colorado” Transportation Bond and Sales Tax Increase Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $766,700,000 ANNUALLY FOR A TWENTY-YEAR PERIOD, AND STATE DEBT SHALL BE INCREASED $6,000,000,000 WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $9,400,000,000, TO PAY FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CHANGING THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO: 1) INCREASE THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX RATE BY 0.62% BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2019; REQUIRING 45% OF THE NEW REVENUE TO FUND STATE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, MAINTENANCE, AND CONGESTION RELATED PROJECTS, 40% TO FUND MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND 15% TO FUND MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, INCLUDING BIKE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE; 2) AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES TO FUND PRIORITY STATE TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, INCLUDING MULTIMODAL CAPITAL PROJECTS; AND 3) PROVIDE THAT ALL REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE TAX RATE INCREASE AND PROCEEDS FROM ISSUANCE OF REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES ARE VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES EXEMPT FROM ANY STATE OR LOCAL REVENUE, SPENDING, OR OTHER LIMITATIONS IN LAW?

I’m voting yes — proposition 110 has both a funding mechanism and an array of transportation uses that provide needed state funding and local government flexibility. The Let’s Go Colorado web site has a helpful list of projects that may be prioritized or funded if prop 110 passes. You can see bus rapid transit and multi-modal/bikeways are options in the Boulder and county area.

My critiques of the measure: the main disappointment I have is the funding mechanism, which is a largely regressive sales tax. I would have preferred a significant component as a user fee (i.e. increasing the gas tax) which would be more equitable and have a lesser impact on working class people. While other states have successfully increased the gas tax, polling in Colorado has dissuaded many from even trying for an increase.

Additional reading:
Editorial: Fix our roads with Proposition 110, not Proposition 109 — Daily Camera
Coloradoan editorial board endorsement: On transportation, yes to 110, not so fast on 109 — Coloradoan
Vote ‘no’ on Prop. 109 and ‘yes’ on Prop. 110 to fund transportation in Colorado — Vail Daily letter
Sue Prant: Proposition 110 will make biking better — Daily Camera
Guest Post: Why Proposition 110 is the only real option for Colorado — Colorado Independent
Proposition 110 Projects Map — CDOT

Colorado Proposition 111, Limits on Payday Loan Charges Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limitations on payday lenders, and, in connection therewith, reducing allowable charges on payday loans to an annual percentage rate of no more than thirty-six percent?

I’m voting yes — payday loans are predatory services extended to people who have few options for a loan. While the measure would still allow high interest loans, prop 111 is a reasonable reduce exploitation of people in need of short-term cash. While some have argued that the law would “crush” payday loan providers, based on other states enacting similar laws still have a significant number of payday lenders operating in their states. The tradeoff is a positive for Colorado and we should gladly take it.

Additional reading:
Proposition 111 in the 2018 Colorado election: What to know about limitations on payday loans — Denverite

Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?

I’m voting yes — prop 112 is perhaps the most controversial measure on the 2018 ballot.  Per the Denver Post:

The initiative aims to increase the required distance of any newly drilled wells from homes, schools and water sources to 2,500 feet. The current setback is 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from densely occupied buildings, like hospitals and schools.

The most pressing questions: 1. Will the setbacks increase safety? 2. Will the change drastically affect the Colorado economy? 3. Who’s supporting the measure and how?

The Denver Post’s article “Proposition 112: Dissecting the science behind the oil and gas setbacks initiative” tries to gather evidence for increased regulation of oil and gas drilling. While larger studies have found limited health impacts, we’ve seen very limited regulation of oil and gas operations’ effects on air quality and groundwater. The initiative would provide a buffer from immediate effects of fracking as well as reducing new operations near homes and businesses more generally.

On the economic impact of prop 112, I want to highlight that the proposal language “applies to oil and gas development permitted on or after the effective date,“ which should temper the dire warnings about the law’s immediate economic impacts. Colorado Public Radio’s story suggests at least 58% of land in Colorado would be unavailable for fracking:

The Colorado School of Mines recently came to a different number taking into account subsurface access. Professor Peter Maniloff found that 58 percent of the subsurface would be inaccessible in Proposition 112 were to pass. His analysis differs from the state because he tried to consider how companies can drill horizontally for over a mile, going underneath homes and schools to access oil and gas.

While I think the oil and gas industry will have reduced revenues going into the future, the economic case alone is not strong enough to vote against the measure, particularly as Colorado needs to redirect and invest in a more clean and sustainable energy supply.

Lastly, prop 112 is a grassroots campaign measure largely driven by a volunteer base. Spending opposition has outspent the ‘yes’ campaign more than 40 to 1, largely from oil and gas interests and with question practices (“Noble Energy Pumps Unregulated Cash Into Fight Against 112”).

From Vox— Big Oil is using brute financial force to kill 2 state sustainability initiatives

Whatever the merits, it has Big Oil completely freaked out. Protect Colorado, the group leading the opposition, has raised $35.6 million so far, overwhelmingly from the oil and gas industry, companies like PDC Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, SRC Energy, and Noble Energy.

Additional reading:
Whose Colorado? Fracking debate pits families against ‘economic engine’ — CS Monitor
What Proposition 112 — the controversial bid to rein in Colorado oil and gas drilling — would mean for schools — Chalkbeat
How would Proposition 112 impact Colorado’s economy? Two sides with two different stories about well setbacks — Denver Post
Proposition 112: Dissecting the science behind the oil and gas setbacks initiative
Colorado Health Department finds little evidence of health harms from living near oil and gas sites
Ask the Indy: Analyzing seven big questions about Colorado’s ballot fight over oil-and-gas setbacks
Editorial: The case for expanded oil and gas setbacks and Proposition 112 — Daily Camera
Will Toor: Why I am voting for Proposition 112 — Daily Camera

County/City Ballot Measures (Analysis)

County Ballot Issue 1A – (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension) — YES

WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY EXTEND AN EXISTING 0.185% SALES AND USE TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2019, FOR FIVE (5) YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2024, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING FACILITY AT THE BOULDER COUNTY JAIL AND PROVIDING EXPANDED ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING AND OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TO KEEP LOW-RISK OFFENDERS OUT OF EXPENSIVE JAIL BEDS AND ENABLE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR THE JAIL POPULATION; MODERNIZATION OF THE CURRENT JAIL BUILDING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, RENOVATIONS AND REPURPOSING TO PROVIDE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO MEET THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH NEEDS OF INMATES; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2018-76?

I’m voting yes — funding an alternative sentencing facility would reduce the currently overburdened jail and provide alternatives for those jailed/detained due to the camping ban or suffering from mental illness.

I have not read much discussion on the ballot measure in general online or in newspapers. My main concern is dedicating a large portion of existing sales tax to this purpose that was previously used for flood recovery.

Additional reading:
Boulder County Ballot issue 1A: Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C – Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $0 IN 2019 AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF AN OIL AND GAS POLLUTION TAX AT THE RATE OF UP TO $6.90 PER BARREL OF OIL AND UP TO $0.88 PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS FOR OIL OR GAS EXTRACTED WITHIN THE BOULDER CITY LIMITS COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2019, AND SHALL REVENUE FROM THE TAX BE USED TO FUND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION IN THE CITY OF BOULDER AND WITH THE REMAINDER USED BY THE GENERAL FUND AND SHALL ALL EARNINGS THEREON (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?

I’m voting yes — however, the law would have little to no effect on drilling in Boulder. Per Shay Castle at the Daily Camera, “the tax — up to $6.90 per barrel of oil 88 cents per thousand cubic feet of natural gas — would be paid by drillers, though none have expressed interest in drilling within city limits. The last well in Boulder was capped in the 1990s.” The measure is largely symbolic.

Additional reading:
Boulder advances oil, gas pollution tax with no public comment, little discussion

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D – Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

WITHOUT RAISING TAXES MAY THE CITY KEEP ALL REVENUES FROM THE 2016 VOTER-APPROVED SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION EXCISE TAX, AND CONTINUE TO COLLECT THE TAX AT THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RATE, AND SPEND ALL REVENUES COLLECTED FOR THE HEALTH EQUITY-RELATED PURPOSES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, WITHOUT REFUNDING TO DISTRIBUTORS THE AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDED THE REVENUE ESTIMATES APPROVED BY VOTERS IN 2016?

I’m voting yes — I have previously supported the sugary drink tax and still do for the reasons I outlined two years ago. Even if you don’t support the tax, voting against the ballot measure would take taxpayer money collected in our city, earmarked for local non-profits supporting our food system, and return it to distributors of sugary drinks as profit — which would be a terrible outcome for our community. I strongly urge a yes vote.

Additional reading:
Editorial: Not a fan of sugary drink tax? Don’t take it out on Issue 2D. — Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E – Charter Amendments for Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes — NO

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Sections 29, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 44, 48, 54, 56, and 177 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8272 to clarify the actions required to be taken if a candidate withdraws from a city council election; establish the number of signatures required for an initiative and referendum to be at least ten percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections so as to return this number closer to the range that was in place prior to changes in federal law and registration procedures; establish the number of signatures required for a recall to be at least twenty percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections; amend the process and establish a fixed schedule for filing, review and consideration of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions so that both petitioners and city staff will have clarity and certainty; set standards for the city clerk’s examination of petitions so that this examination is completed in a timely fashion and that the possibility of fraud is minimized; provide for input from the petition committee to the city council prior to setting the ballot title to help ensure accuracy of the title; and require that an ordinance passed by vote of the people may only be amended by two-thirds of the council members present, and only if the amendments are consistent with the basic intent of the ordinance or are necessary to come into compliance with state or federal law?

I’m voting no — while in general I think the changes are reasonable, the changes to the initiative and referendum process allow a very small percentage of citizens to put a measure on the ballot or to overturn a law passed by city council.

Per Richard Valenty’s write-up on 2E:

If 2E passes, proponents for initiative and referendum measures would need to gather valid signatures from at least 10 percent of an average of total voters during the previous two municipal elections, while the current Charter calls for 10 percent of city registered electors on the day the petition is filed. For example, the 2017 county election report showed 72, 574 active voters in the City of Boulder, so 10% of that would be about 7,257 signatures (current system). City voter turnout was 29,552 in 2015, and 31,765 in 2017, for an average of 30,658, so 10% would be 3,065 signatures (proposed system).

I have two relevant examples here of how the system could be abused: Earlier in 2018, “Funding Our Future abandons plans for Boulder ballot measure to raise taxes on marijuana” in which an organization with no presence in Boulder very quickly gathered signatures to put a measure on the ballot before completely dissolving under more scrutiny.

In 2007, people in central Boulder stopped a housing development by gathering over 9,000 signatures in opposition of a city council approval to allow a housing development at Washington Village on Broadway. If ballot measure 2E passed, a similar opposition could organize by collecting signatures from ~3,000 people, fewer than 3% of city residents.

Enabling small groups of people to control city decisions creates incentives for obstruction and destructive policy. I recommend voting no.

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E: Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process — The Blue Line
Matthew Appelbaum: What to reject on this year’s ballot — Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F – Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Sections 39, 46, and 57 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8273 to require the city clerk, to the extent reasonably possible and so as to ensure authenticity, compare the signatures on a petition to signatures with the election records of the Boulder County Clerk or the Secretary of State?

I’m voting yes — the city would adopt a standard practice used by county and state-level petitions.

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F: Initiative Petition Signature Verification — The Blue Line

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G – Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

I’m voting yes — as the ordinance does not automatically legalize the use of electronic petitions, but does allow the city council to make laws to enable electronic petitions in the future. The city council can (and should) pursue exact implementation details of how the city should enable electronic petitions at a later date.

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G: Electronic and Online Petitions — The Blue Line

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H – Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions — NO

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Section 130 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8271 to: allow council to set the number of any new advisory commission as five or seven when forming the commission; allow council to increase the size of the Housing Advisory Board from five to seven members; change the criteria for what constitutes a majority to accommodate boards of different sizes; and change the reference of “sex” to “gender identity?”

I’m voting no — even though the measure contains some needed changes. I completely support the change from ‘sex’ to ‘gender identity’ — but the language for other changes is needlessly constrictive and undemocratic in how/when board members are selected.

The Housing Advisory Board should be larger and more representative of the population our city, which the ballot language does not address. Per Shay Castle at The Daily Camera:

The initial board had only one renter — Masyn Moyer — and four homeowners, despite the fact that Boulder itself is 52 percent renters. Three of the five members were also associated with slow- or no-growth political groups: May and Adam Swetlik are members of PLAN Boulder County, and Judy Nogg served on the leadership group of Together4Boulder.

I agree completely with former Boulder Mayor Matt Appelbaum:

“Question 2H correctly allows council to create seven-member boards, but contains serious flaws. It reasonably ups the housing board to seven, but absurdly leaves the far more important, and deserving of additional viewpoints, transportation and open space boards at five. As written, 2H apparently requires that the two years in which two of seven board members are replaced will be consecutive, allowing a single council to appoint a majority. Make council try again.”

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H: Advisory Commissions — The Blue Line
New housing board pick checks the boxes for Boulder leaders — Daily Camera
Matthew Appelbaum: What to reject on this year’s ballot — Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I – Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Section 78 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8270 to change the time for the Planning Department to submit its recommendations for public improvements from sixty days to thirty days before the submission of the budget to be consistent with the city’s budgeting process?

I’m voting yes — the measure would allow the planning department to finish its reporting later in the budget cycle, and according the Mayor Zan Jones, would allow “the Planning Board… to review proposed capital improvement projects as part of their budget review process (rather than after the fact), thereby better aligning and improving the City’s overall budget process.”

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I: Planning Department Budget Recommendation — The Blue Line

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G — YES

Ballotpedia link

SHALL URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $14.9 MILLION IN 2019 (RESULTING IN AN ANNUAL TAX INCREASE NOT TO EXCEED $1.97 IN 2019 FOR EACH $100,000 OF ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL VALUATION) AND BY SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER FROM A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED 1.0 MILLS TO PAY FOR DISTRICT WORK IN COORDINATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING:
1. MAINTAINING EARLY FLOOD WARNING GAUGES TO PROVIDE POTENTIAL EVACUATION WARNINGS,
2. PROVIDING TRAILS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO RESIDENTS BY PRESERVING THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN FLOODPLAIN AREAS WHICH PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND
3. REMOVING DEBRIS, GARBAGE AND OBSTRUCTIONS FROM STREAMS, CREEKS AND RIVERS RESULTING IN REDUCED RISK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS, PROTECTING PROPERTY, AND RESTORING NATURAL BEAUTY;
WITH THE DISTRICT’S ENTIRE MILL LEVY RATE SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CAPS AND TO ADJUSTMENT TO OFFSET REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL VALUATION USED TO DETERMINE ASSESSED VALUATION; AND SHALL ALL DISTRICT REVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITS PROVIDED BY LAW?

I’m voting yes — flood control and funding will continue to be important in climate change resiliency. I found the write-up from Mayor Zan Jones convincing on the topic:

The District’s property tax rate hasn’t been raised in 50 years, but the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights (aka TABOR) resulted in the ratcheting-down of the flood-control district’s dedicated property tax rate from $1 per $1,000 of assessed value to 56 cents today. Under 7G, the District is asking for permission to restore its full taxing authority, as many other cities and counties have done. The impact on the average home would be about $13 annually. Each city and county receives back the same amount of funding as they contribute, and benefits from well-designed flood control infrastructure.

Additional reading:
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G — Daily Camera

2

Resignation from the Boulder Landmarks Board

Posted on by ericmbudd

Below is my letter from 8/10/2018 announcing my resignation from the Boulder Landmarks Board. Note: My original letter left out city staff person “Holly Opansky” which has been added.

 

City Council and Staff,

I have been honored and privileged to serve on Boulder’s Landmarks Board for the past several years. I am writing to tender my resignation to the board, effective October 4th, 2018, which should allow enough time to select a replacement without affecting the work of the board.

On the board, I’ve been proud of our efforts to improve the demolition process, as well as the hard work of our group to elevate applicants’ projects and develop a mindset that celebrates historic preservation. I’m thankful for the opportunity to have learned from our board as well as the excellent people serving in historic preservation staff—James Hewat, Marcy Cameron, Debra Kalish, and Holly Opansky.

I want to specifically address the reason for my resignation—that the duties and responsibilities of Landmark’s Board members are in conflict with full-time work during the day. The Landmarks Board requires a sub-committee (the Landmarks Design Review Committee) to meet from 8:30AM to 12PM on Wednesday mornings every week. I have accepted a job starting at end of August and will not be able to fulfill this obligation.

The Landmarks Board has systemic barriers for young and working people to serve, as many have resigned in recent years, and should be examined to allow broader participation. I am concerned about Councilwoman Nagle’s comments yesterday that the new appointee to the Housing Advisory Board should have “extensive experience on government boards and/or bodies, knowledge of public policy development and government process.” I firmly believe boards and commissions must represent the diversity of people and backgrounds in the community as a whole, regardless of whether or not a board is newly-formed. Please consider appointing someone to the Landmarks Board who will give balance to the board and represent perspectives in our community that are not already represented.

Eric Budd

0

Boulder Election 2017 Analysis

Posted on by ericmbudd

What happened?

A month and a half has passed since the election. I’m incredibly proud of the campaign we ran, particularly speaking out on the issues of inclusive housing and the city’s inadequate plan to address affordable housing options for middle and working class people. Though our message resonated with a lot of folks in the community, several major dynamics played a large role in the election outcome that brought a loss to one incumbent and several candidates who wanted more progressive positions on housing.

So what mattered most? The largest factor not only in Boulder but in Colorado this fall was to elect candidates who wanted to drastically slow growth of cities: “Election 2017: Voters apply brakes to growth in Denver suburbs.” PLAN Boulder candidates ran on a message aligned with that sentiment, causing other candidates significant disadvantage. “Boulder City Council election delivers new slow-growth majority.”

Another large factor in the front range, women ran exceptionally well — “Lafayette’s City Council: Microcosm of ‘women in politics’ in Trump era.” In the Boulder race—out of 14 candidates, five women ran vs. nine men, producing an outcome where four of five women were elected. I’m happy to see a city council that has a majority of women and our community would be better served by enabling more women to run for office. I hope to help more women run in the future.

The other major factor particular to the Boulder election centered on Ballot Measure 2L which determined whether Boulder would continue to fund the Boulder Electric Utility project. The measure passed 52% to 48%, and all five candidates elected to Boulder City Council were in favor of the measure. The analysis later in the article will tell the story with data, but to summarize—older, “slow growth” candidates benefitted by getting votes from people who opposed Measure 2L, while younger, more “pro growth” candidates who opposed the muni effort saw only a minor benefit from their stance opposing Measure 2L, and suffered losses with younger/newer voters who more largely voted for pro-muni candidates.

Of the three issues listed above, only one was truly in my control—my position on the municipalization project. I wrote a widely-read piece on “Why I’ve changed my mind on municipalization” where I outlined why I would not be supporting Measure 2L. While it’s too early to say whether I was correct or not on the policy of the issue, I can say that I was probably wrong about the politics of it. If climate change is the defining issue of our time, voters asked, were you really doing all you could if you didn’t support the effort? While candidates against the muni could talk about what we’d do instead, we didn’t offer a compelling vision or plan that resonated with younger voters. Even though Alex Burness at the Daily Camera noted that I was the only “City Council candidate who targeted young voters,” my positions didn’t align well enough to win a significant number of those votes.

Given the broad field of candidates, I don’t think a positive stance on municipalization was enough to allow me to win a council seat. At best, I think a positive stance could have grossed me 2,000-3,000 votes, but likely would have cost me 1,000-2,000 votes—I believe a decent number of my votes would have instead gone to candidates Ed Byrne or Matt Benjamin, who opposed Measure 2L.

Boulder will fund the energy utility effort for another three years. I hope the result shows a benefit to the city. If Boulder is to proceed in creating its own utility, voters will have to vote again to authorize funding in two to four years, and future candidates should fully understand the effects of a position for or against that effort. My analysis below should paint a clear picture.

Thanks everyone who supported me and took an interest in the election. Read further if you want a data-driven analysis of what happened!

In-depth Analysis Sections:

 

  • Data Sources – Key sources of data for analysis
  • Who Ran – Names, votes, demographics, positions, endorsements
  • Turnout information – how many people voted in large demographic blocks?
  • Candidate correlations – which candidates were most positively and negatively correlated with other candidates?
  • Endorsing Groups – how closely did candidates/groups correlate with other candidates in groups that endorsed?
  • Voter Age – how did each candidate’s votes correlate with voters of various age groups?
  • Voting history and turnout likeliness – how did each candidates vote compared to the turnout history of voters and likeliness of turnout?
  • Boulder’s Energy Utility – how did a candidate’s position on Boulder’s energy utility affect voter choices?
  • Boulder’s Energy Utility – where did the votes come from in Boulder?
  • Party affiliation – how did a voter’s registration status compare with votes for each candidate?
  • Field plan correlation – how did voter contacts by various methods improve votes for Eric Budd (and various relations) through a strong field campaign?
  • PLAN Boulder performance compared to Engage Boulder – what was the affect of unaligned candidates?
  • How did controversial issues affect voting in nearby precincts? (Hogan-Pancost, CU South, Co-operative housing, Municipal Electric Utility, Twin Lakes)

 

Data Sources – Key sources of data for analysis

  1. 2017 Election Results and Records – Used for basic precinct-level vote counts for candidates and issues.
  2. Colorado voter registration list – Used for age, gender, party, and voting history data.
  3. Data generated on voter contacts through my campaign

Who Ran – Names, votes, demographics, positions, endorsements.

Basic information about the candidates, demographics, and positions. Winners highlighted. Note: I’ve made my best determination on “growth” positions to try to better guide the analysis. Individual candidates may have more nuanced positions than what I’m capturing here.

Screenshot 2017-12-18 21.27.00.png

Various endorsements and groupings. Note: “Unaligned” candidates simply means candidates that were not endorsed by either Engage Boulder or PLAN Boulder.

Screenshot 2017-12-18 21.28.17.png

Turnout information – how many people voted in large demographic blocks?

    1. Total Ballots cast – 31,765 (43% turnout)
      • Ballots returned before election day – 18,109
      • Ballots returned on election day – 13,148
    2. Men / Women breakdown of voters – 48% vs 52%
    3. Votes cast for Men / Women
      • Votes for Men – 71,539 (52%), 7,949 on average
      • Votes for Women – 64,743 (48%), 12,949 on average
    4. Votes cast for various slates:
      • Engage Boulder endorsed candidates – 52,484 (10,497 on average)
      • PLAN-Boulder endorsed candidates – 66,054 (13,210 on average)
      • Independent candidates – 17,744 (4,436 on average)
    5. Votes cast candidates by support for energy utility:
      • Pro energy utility candidates – 82,590 (10,323 on average)
      • Against energy utility candidates – 53,692 (8,948 on average)

Candidate correlations – which candidates were most positively and negatively correlated with other candidates?

I’ll start by looking at which candidates were most positively or negatively correlated with other candidates. Each voter could vote for up to five candidates – voters on average used 4.3 of these 5 votes.

Screenshot 2017-12-14 12.28.15

    • Bill Rigler – Most positively correlated with Jan Burton (second-highest vote-getter on slate, incumbent, on the same Engage Boulder slate). Most negatively correlated with Adam Swetlik. Both are younger white men, although Bill’s votes general came from older, anti-muni voters which was largely the opposite of Adam’s base.
    • Mark McIntyre – Most positively correlated with Jan Burton, for similar reasons to Bill Rigler. Most negatively correlated with Adam Swetlik, probably also for similar reasons.
    • Eric Budd – Most strongly correlated with Bill Rigler (similar positions, demographics, on the same slate). Most negatively correlated with Cindy Carlisle (opposing positions, demographics, base of support)
    • Cindy Carlisle – Most positively correlated with Mary Young (top vote-getter on slate, similar positions and demographics). Most negatively correlated with Eric Budd.
    • Jan Burton – Most positively correlated with Mark McIntyre (similar positions, demographics, on the same slate, and third-highest vote-getter on slate). Most negatively with Mary Young (top vote-getter on opposing slate).
    • Jill Grano – Most positively correlated with Eric Budd (each supported each other). Most negatively correlated with Cindy Carlisle (may indicate vote swapping – same position on municipal energy, but otherwise very different candidates). Helpful to note that Jill had the least strong correlations of any candidate, likely because she was the most widely-endorsed and had a broad base of support.
    • Mirabai Nagle – Most positively correlated with Sam Weaver (same slate, positions). Most negatively strongly correlated with Eric Budd.
    • Matt Benjamin – Most positively correlated with Ed Byrne (both of whom were the two strongest independent candidates). Most negatively correlated with Adam Swetlik (positions, style of campaign, and of support much different)
    • Sam Weaver – Most positively correlated with Mary Young (other incumbent, both first elected in 2013, with same policy positions). Most negatively correlated with Adam Swetlik (interesting because they did some campaign events together, but generally had very different bases of support)
    • Adam Swetlik – Most positively correlated with Camilo Casas (another candidate in the race running a non-traditional campaign). Most negatively correlated with John Gerstle (who ran a traditional campaign, but largely got his votes from older voters while Adam got most of his votes from younger voters)
    • John Gerstle – Most positively correlated with Sam Weaver (second highest vote-getter on PLAN Boulder slate). Most negatively correlated with Adam Swetlik. John was positively correlated with the most number of other candidates (eight).
    • Ed Byrne – Most positively correlated with Jan Burton (positions, demographics, messaging). That likely means that Ed was not pulling many votes from Jan, but very likely pulled votes from others on the Engage Boulder slate. Most negatively correlated with Adam Swetlik (age of voter support being the largest factor).
    • Camilo Casas – Most positively correlated with Adam Swetlik (as younger, outsider candidates). Most negatively correlated with John Gerstle (older, establishment candidate).

Endorsing Groups – how closely did candidates correlate with other candidates in groups that endorsed?

I focus on five major groups—two slates of five candidates, the remaining four candidates, and the two newspaper endorsements.

Screenshot 2017-12-14 12.29.31

  • Engage Boulder

      • Most positively correlated – Bill Rigler
      • Most negatively correlated – Cindy Carlisle. Due to Cindy’s narrow loss in 2015 and serious threat in 2017, it’s likely that Engage Boulder found Cindy Carlisle to be the biggest threat and made significant efforts to try to prevent her from winning.
      • Special notes about Jill Grano and Ed Byrne – Jill had a broad base of support and different from the rest of the Engage Boulder slate because she supported the municipal energy utility, making her votes not as fully correlated with the group. Ed Byrne, while not on the slate, has networks and close ties with the endorsing groups of Engage Boulder, and led him to share votes with others on the slate.

  • PLAN Boulder

      • Most positively correlated – Sam Weaver
      • Most negatively correlated – Eric Budd (as someone who’s perhaps most well-known in political circles and has been routinely involved in issues on the opposite side of PLAN Boulder, this is not very surprising)
      • Notice how PLAN Boulder candidates are all highly correlated to the performance of their slate as a whole, such that no other candidate at all is positively correlated with votes of the PLAN Boulder slate as a whole.

  • Unaligned Candidates

      • Most positively correlated – Matt Benjamin (likely due to the benefit of both newspaper endorsements and edges out Ed Byrne here due to Ed’s ties with the Engage Boulder slate)
      • Most negatively correlated – Mary Young. (as the top vote-getter, Mary also had the strongest connections to the other PLAN Boulder candidates at the expense other relationships)
      • Note that both Adam Swetlik and Camilo Casas did not have a correlation to this group of independent candidates that they belonged.

  • The Daily Camera

      • Most positively correlated – Jan Burton. Endorsed in both 2015 and 2017, the Daily Camera also ran an editorial praising Burton two weeks prior to the endorsement editorial, giving Jan a boost.
      • Most negatively correlated – Adam Swetlik. Adam was not mentioned in the endorsements piece, and also had little presence in the newspaper generally.
      • Notes – Bill Rigler and Eric Budd both correlate higher than Matt Benjamin (who was endorsed), perhaps due to other newspaper aspects (positive mentions even though not receiving endorsement, advertising or letters to the editor)

  • The Boulder Weekly

      • Most positively correlated – Sam Weaver. Potentially due to very pro-muni stance of the paper.
      • Most negatively correlated – Adam Swetlik. Could reflect the demographics of the paper or lack of coverage.
      • Notes – While Matt Benjamin received the paper’s endorsement, it’s hard to see much benefit in the data presented. Since Matt opposed energy municipalization, while the paper was very much in favor, other non-endorsed candidates that favored municipalization like Cindy Carlisle and John Gerstle were more highly correlated.

How closely were groups correlated to each other?

Screenshot 2017-12-14 12.44.36

  • Engage Boulder and PLAN Boulder were not as negatively correlated as one might expect given the fact that these two groups were touted as the “slates” of the election, meaning there was plenty of crossover voting between the two slates.
  • PLAN Boulder and Sierra Club endorsed 4 of 5 of the same candidates and were highly correlated.
  • Ed Byrne and Matt Benjamin were highly correlated with Engage Boulder, meaning that one or both were often pulling votes from 1-2 candidates on the Engage Boulder slate.

Voter Age – how did each candidate’s votes correlate with voters of various age groups?

Voter age seemed to be a significant factor in which candidates voters cast votes for. Note that while younger voters made up 19% of ballots, they made a significantly fewer number of total votes (as each voter could cast up to five votes, but often younger voters cast fewer than five votes).

Screenshot 2017-12-17 23.11.55.png

    • Most positively correlated with older voters – Ed Byrne. Ed’s a long-time resident of Boulder and has an older network. He was also against energy utility municipalization which aligns with older voters.
    • Most negatively correlated with older voters – Adam Swetlik. As the youngest person running, Adam ran a campaign that seemed targeted to a younger demographic.
    • Age 18-32 – a large source of votes for Adam Swetlik and Camilo Casas, both younger candidates with non-traditional campaigns.
    • Age 33-65+ – Similar voting pattern overall. Some trend away from pro-muni and younger candidates with older voters.

Voting history and turnout likeliness – how did each candidates vote compared to the turnout history of voters and likeliness of turnout?

Voter behavior fell roughly into two groups based on voter history – those who did not vote in 2015, and those who were more consistent voters.

Screenshot 2017-12-14 12.47.24

  • Did not vote in 2015 – Adam Swetlik and Camilo Casas, two of the more outsider candidates, were very positively coordinated with this group. Ed Byrne and John Gerstle (who mainly saw their votes come from older voters) were the most negatively correlated.
  • Voted in 2015, 2013, and higher-turnout precincts – similar trends among all of these groups, and similar correlations to voters aged 50 and over.
  • % of Votes Cast – As each voter gets 5 votes, some voters will cast fewer votes, either for lack of knowledge of the candidates or for strategic voting purposes. Bill Rigler, Mark McIntyre, Sam Weaver, John Gerstle all had high correlations – likely due to slate effects (i.e. they received a lot of votes where voters voted for all 5 candidates of a slate). Ed Byrne also highly correlated, likely meaning that Ed was often a 5th vote correlated with the Engage Boulder slate, or otherwise. Older voters tended to use all five votes more often than younger voters on average.

Boulder’s Energy Utility – how did a candidate’s position on Boulder’s energy utility affect voter choices?

Ballot Measure 2L, the Utility Occupation Tax, was the most controversial and divisive issue facing voters in the 2017 election. Candidates’ position on the measure served as a proxy for their support for the Boulder’s municipal electric utility effort, or “muni” for short. Eight candidates supported the measure while six candidates opposed.

Two main parts of the analysis:

  1. How did a particular candidate or group correlate with other pro-muni or anti-muni candidates?
  2. How did a particular candidate or group correlate with votes for the measure or against the measure?

Interestingly, the data from these two questions was quite varied.

Screenshot 2017-12-17 23.18.43.png

  • Engage Boulder’s slate had one candidate for the muni effort and four candidates opposed. Their votes largely correlated in both candidates and issue voting.
  • PLAN Boulder’s slate had five candidates all in favor of the muni effort. However, their votes were slightly negatively correlated with votes against the measure. The most likely reason is that PLAN Boulder seemed to be trusted more on the issues of growth and development – voters mostly did not hold their pro-muni stance against them as they were empowered to vote against the muni ballot measure itself (which ultimately passed).

Screenshot 2017-12-17 23.15.00.png

  • Votes for pro-muni candidates were highly correlated with the PLAN-Boulder slate. Jill Grano, on the Engage Boulder slate, was positively correlated but quite distantly.
  • Votes for anti-muni candidates were very strongly split among seven candidates, leading to a stronger dilution of these votes.
  • Many of Sam Weaver’s supporters voted against the measure, even though he was in favor. Similarly for John Gerstle, who was correlated opposite how one would expect. His status as a well-known person who grew up in Boulder probably made the most difference with many older voters.

Screenshot 2017-12-17 23.32.42.png

  • Voting among pro-muni candidates was slightly correlated with voter age, although voting for anti-muni candidates was highly correlated with voter age.
  • Voting for/against the measure was very highly correlated with age. Most likely reasons: the muni effort is ultimately about fighting climate change, which may raise costs and cause uncertainty, as well as require the city to take over the energy system—all reasons that older or more conservative voters often voted against the measure.

Screenshot 2017-12-17 23.33.37.png

  • Democratic votes were reasonably likely to vote for pro-muni candidates even though they slightly were against the measure.
  • Republican voters both voted against the measure as well as tried to elect candidates who were not in favor of the measure.
  • Unaffiliated voters did not have a strong preference for candidates, but were more likely to support the measure (also aided by these voters trending younger)

Boulder’s Energy Utility – where did the votes come from in Boulder?

Click the image below for an interactive map that will show you how different parts of town voted on Ballot Measure 2L.

Screenshot 2017-12-18 15.02.00.png
Click for the interactive map!

  • Votes in favor of the electric utility largely came from precincts near the university with younger voters who vote at a much lower rate than the typical Boulder resident.
  • Votes against the electric utility were primarily located on the periphery of town, by older voters who often leaned Republican.

Party affiliation – how did a voter’s registration status compare with votes for each candidate?

Although Boulder City Council elections are non-partisan elections, Boulder has significant partisan effects in voting.

Screenshot 2017-12-14 12.56.12

Screenshot 2017-12-14 12.55.16

  • Democrats made up 63% of the voting base this year (even higher than their rate of registration), and were highly correlated with many of the more popular endorsing groups. The Sierra Club brand or slate of candidates performed particularly well with this group.
  • Republican voters were slightly correlated with Engage Boulder, which had four of six candidates against the municipal electric utility, however they were most correlated with Ed Byrne and Matt Benjamin. I think Ed and Matt benefitted from the anti-growth mentality that’s often found with Republicans and older voters, so they preferred these two candidates over the Engage Boulder slate.
  • Unaffiliated voters, largely younger, voted more highly for Adam Swetlik and Camilo Casas, who were two candidates running non-traditional campaigns.

Field plan correlation – how did voter contacts by various methods improve votes for Eric Budd (and various relations) through a strong field campaign?

While I only have data for my own field plan, I can evaluate how effective the individual efforts were based on voter contacts in various precincts.

Screenshot 2017-12-14 12.59.04

  • Field – Walk: Our campaign knocked on about 1,500 doors during two months, and made a significant number of voter contacts. We can see a significant correlation with improved performance in those precincts.
  • Field – Phone: Our campaign made over 10,000 phone calls leading to about 600 voter contacts. We can see a significant impact from these efforts, although not as pronounced as the walk campaign.
  • Field – Text: Our campaign texted about 4,700 voters, of which about 1,600 voted. While we did worse with this population than you might expect, because our voters here trended younger and many younger voters voted for pro-muni candidates, we didn’t perform as well as desired with this group, even though it was significantly better than other anti-muni candidates on the slate.
  • Field – Social: This group focused on direct voter contacts on Twitter and had a significant affect, largely because this is a network of people I already knew. Jill Grano performed even better with this group, largely because we have similar age/networks, and she was a pro-muni candidate in a group of people that trended to be stronger in favor of muni.
  • Field – Total: Adding up all of these efforts, we can see a pronounced effect to increase my votes through a field team. The negative correlations in this column also show that my efforts likely won me votes over those particular candidates who may have occupied a similar demographic voting space.

Screenshot 2017-12-17 23.36.57.png

  • Because a decent number of voters also considered position on the energy utility as part of their vote, the correlation between this position and our field numbers is helpful to understand our relative success in difference areas.

PLAN Boulder performance compared to Engage Boulder – what was the affect of unaligned candidates?

Click the image below for an interactive map that will show you how significantly PLAN Boulder won votes directly compared to Engage Boulder, as well as turnout and vote percentage totals for various precincts.

Screenshot 2017-12-18 15.06.55
Click for the interactive map!

Unaligned candidates received roughly 13.3% of the votes on average in precincts, ranging from a low of 8.9% to a high of 19.8%. While unaligned candidates were most likely correlated with Engage Boulder, they did not play a big factor in swinging the election for any particular slate or candidates.

How did controversial issues affect voting in nearby precincts? (Hogan-Pancost, CU South, Co-operative housing, Municipal Electric Utility, Twin Lakes)

The past twelve months have seen a number of highly controversial issues in Boulder. The map below shows precincts where PLAN Boulder won at least 60% of the vote compared to Engage Boulder. PLAN took advantage of voter concerns to win handily in these areas.

Boulder election map

  1. Hogan-Pancost —  Concerns about the development of this difficult property won about 1,000 votes for PLAN Boulder candidates. “Boulder residents object to Hogan-Pancost plans at Planning Board meeting” (Daily Camera)
  2. CU South — Boulder City Council moved on this issue to try to address immediate flooding danger in Southeast Boulder. However, neighbors have concerns about traffic and future development from an agreement with CU Boulder. Boulder City Council approves new land-use designation for CU South (Daily Camera)
  3. Co-operative housing — While the addition of a cooperative housing ordinance does not explicitly affect Martin Acres, residents there have been concerned that the neighborhood’s affordable nature would bring more housing cooperatives to that part of town. At long last, Boulder approves new co-op housing ordinance (Daily Camera).Potential Boulder co-op’s size concerns Martin Acres neighbors (Daily Camera)
  4. Twin Lakes — Residents opposed a change in land use to build affordable housing, an issue that required approval from both the city and county. Twin Lakes Action Group spin-off Greater Gunbarrel to raise money for Boulder candidates (Daily Camera)
  5. Municipal Electric Utility — Again, while not a location-specific issue, younger voters in these precincts near CU voted both in favor of the electric utility as well as in favor of majority PLAN Boulder candidates. Student vote may have rescued Boulder municipalization — New Era Colorado registered 2,075 people in promoting ballot issue 2L (Daily Camera)
3