Annual Ballot Measure Guide

We are getting closer and closer to November 2024, which means it’s time for the CGH Annual Ballot Measure Guide! Our mission statement is to help people injured through no fault of their own put their lives back together. We accomplish our mission by treating our clients like family and learning their stories. We fight, in and out of the courtroom, for a safer and more just world. It is with that mission in mind – fighting outside of the courtroom for a more just world – that we produce this ballot measure guide for the State of Colorado and City and County of Denver ballot measures.

Colorado State Ballot Measures

Amendment G – We are neutral. Amendment G would reduce property taxes for some veterans of the U.S. Armed Services with a disability. The Colorado Constitution has a homestead exemption that exempts from taxes 50% of the first $200,000 in home value for certain groups of people including certain types of disabled veterans and the elderly. This Amendment would expand that exemption to include veterans who are too disabled to work full-time jobs but don’t qualify for a 100% disability rating. We support veterans and think that if anyone deserves an exemption, they do. But we have serious concerns with the continued reduction of the property tax base and worry that adding more and more groups to the list of exempted parties will begin to reduce much needed revenue for schools, fire departments, and a slew of other locally funded things. This Amendment is very likely to pass, but for those reasons we cannot give it our full endorsement.

Amendment H – VOTE YES! Amendment H would create an independent adjudicative board made up of citizens, lawyers, and judges to conduct judicial misconduct hearings and impose disciplinary actions. Currently, all judges are regulated by the Colorado Supreme Court who, on its own, can investigate and discipline judges. But what happens when a Colorado Supreme Court Justice needs to be investigated or disciplined? Moreover, there are strong arguments that bias and favoritism play a role when it comes to judges investigating other judges. We think it is long past time to create an independent commission that makes judges answerable to a group made up of regular people, lawyers, and judges. Moreover, we think the counterargument, that judges simply can be removed during their retention elections, is pretty weak. Most voters don’t know the ins and outs of a particular judge’s conduct or behavior on the bench. Almost every judge is retained in almost every election, and those who aren’t usually made political enemies more so than took unethical actions.

Amendment I -VOTE NO! The Colorado Constitution gives a person accused of a crime the right to bail in most situations. One of those exceptions was for crimes where the death penalty may be sought. However, Colorado ended the death penalty a few years ago, meaning that even people charged with first-degree murder have a right to post bail. In reality, nobody is posting bail because judges are setting bail in 1^st degree murder cases at $50 million or other impossibly high numbers. But this amendment would require judges to deny bail in those cases. The fact is that people are innocent until proven guilty, and under the current system, nobody is bailing out on a 1^st degree murder charge anyway. So why take away judges’ discretion? We can imagine a case where the evidence is weak, or charges are politically motivated, where bail might be appropriate. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Amendment J -VOTE YES! This may shock you, but the Colorado Constitution currently defines marriage as between one man and one woman. However, thanks to the Obergfell decision, that language is unconstitutional and not being enforced. But now that we know that the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to get rid of rights previously given to the people, there is a valid concern that the Court could one day end the Federal right to marriage for gay couples. If that occurred, marriage between gay persons would instantly become illegal in Colorado again. It is simply not worth the risk. Vote yes and remove this old, bigoted language from our State constitution!

Amendment K – VOTE YES! Amendment K is an uncontroversial, bipartisan cleanup amendment to our election law surrounding ballot procedures. It would make the deadline for submitting signatures for ballot measures one week earlier in order to give election clerks more time to format, translate, and review ballots for accuracy before they are sent to voters. It would have little-to-no impact on people’s ability to get things on the ballot. This seems like a no brainer to us. Vote yes!

Amendment 79 – VOTE YES! Amendment 79 would create a constitutional right to abortion in Colorado and would remove the current constitutional language that prohibits state and local government funding of abortion. Currently, Colorado has some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the country. But they are only laws, not constitutional provisions, and are subject to change with the political winds. This measure would make sure that abortion is a constitutional right in Colorado, not just a law. But, more importantly, it would remove the constitutional prohibition on government funding of abortion. This would mostly help people on Medicaid but, as a friend pointed out the other day, it also helps state and local government employees who currently cannot use their health insurance to pay for an abortion because they work for the government. Abortion is health care. Insurance should cover health care, even when that insurance comes from the government. Vote yes!

Amendment 80 – VOTE NO! Colorado already allows students to attend any public school they want for free, even if they don’t live in the school district. This includes neighborhood schools, charter schools, and even online schools. This Amendment would create a right to school choice in the constitution, a right for parents to direct their child’s education, and define school choice to include private schools and homeschooling. We support school choice. But that is already the law. We have serious concerns that this amendment is a backdoor way to having the government fund private schools and homeschooling at the expense of public education. As we said for a prior measure, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Vote no!

Amendment JJ –VOTE YES! In 2019, Colorado legalized sports betting and placed a 10% tax on the profit of casinos who allow and administer it. We authorized the State to raise up to $29 million through that tax. However, thanks to more robust gambling than expected, the State is likely to raise closer to $30-32 million. This amendment would allow the government to keep the extra money rather than refunding it to casinos. All the money raised from sports betting goes towards water projects which Colorado desperately needs. Voting yes seems like a no-brainer to us.

Amendment KK – VOTE YES! This is arguably the most controversial of all the constitutional amendments voters will decide this year in Colorado. This amendment would create a new 6.5% excise tax on firearms sellers for all firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition. The money raised would go to crime victim services, veterans’ mental health services, child behavioral health systems, and school security. Regardless of your view on guns, they are popular throughout large sections of Colorado. They aren’t going away any time soon. Moreover, there is often a strong correlation between the prevalence of firearms in a community and bad things like murders, domestic violence, and the like. By taxing firearms at 6.5% and using that money for important services, we help communities. This is going to be a tough battle, but we recommend you vote yes!

Proposition 127 – We are neutral. We are through the constitutional amendments and now onto regular ballot measures. Prop. 127 would prohibit the hunting or killing of bobcats, lynx, and mountain lions. We love animals at CGH and this measure would, at first glance, be something many of us would support. But just like the wolves measure from a few years ago, we think that making science decisions about wildlife via ballot measure is foolhardy and causes unintended consequences. We trust the wildlife experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife to decide how many, if any, of these animals should be killed each year to maintain biodiversity and healthy eco-systems. They simply know more than we do, and they know more than the voters if we are being honest. So, while none of us at CGH will be going out to hunt these animals, we also can’t endorse this measure.

Proposition 128 – VOTE NO. Currently, a person convicted of a violent crime in Colorado must serve 75% of their sentence before they are eligible for parole, minus any good time they have received while in prison. This proposal would change that to 85% and prohibit anyone convicted of a violent crime from earning “good time” in prison to reduce their sentence. If we are being honest with ourselves, this is very likely to pass given the political realities surrounding crime in today’s world. But it’s terrible policy that won’t make us safer and will cost Colorado taxpayers as much as $20 million a year. We should want incarcerated people to earn good time by following the rules in prison and making better choices than those that landed them there is the first place. Moreover, we are under no illusion that making someone serve 10 years instead of 8.5 years is going to magically rehabilitate them or keep our communities safer. We strongly oppose this return to draconian punishments that have failed our state and our nation for coming up on 50+ years. Vote no!

Proposition 129 – We are neutral. Prop. 129 would create a new state-regulated profession of veterinary professional associates which, in many ways, would be like nurse practitioners or physicians’ assistants in the animal medicine space. Instead of needing a doctorate degree, which is required for veterinarians, this would allow people with a master’s degree to perform most medical procedures and surgeries currently performed by vets. On one hand, getting a veterinary degree is incredibly expensive and most don’t make a ton of money so this would be a good change. On the other hand, this measure is incredibly vague, and reasonable people think there would be simply no reason to get a doctorate degree anymore, and we would be letting significantly less trained individuals operate on our pets and animals. A better solution would be to create loan forgiveness programs or scholarships to reduce the student loan debt of people who become vets in our state. But that isn’t an option. Because there are reasonable views on both sides, we are taking no position.

Proposition 130 – VOTE NO! Prop. 130 would direct the State to spend $350 million to help recruit, train, and retain local law enforcement officers and provide additional benefits to families with officers killed in the line of duty. But it would do so without raising taxes, meaning that, by definition, $350 million would be cut from other programs. Moreover, the way the measure is written this would be only for traditional police officers instead of alternatives like mental health professionals, social workers, and homeless liaisons. Finally, there is no evidence to support the idea that giving more money to law enforcement reduces crime or makes us safer. In fact, most studies show that spending money on things like affordable housing, jobs, healthcare, and education have much larger impacts on crime and safety than law enforcement spending. We believe that good training for law enforcement should be a priority and that effective training programs can help make law enforcement departments safer. But there must be a better plan to fund those programs than taking $350 million from others. Vote no on this misguided measure!

Proposition 131 – VOTE YES! This was a tough one for us. Prop. 131 would end our current primary and general election system for all state level races in addition to U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative elections and replace it with a “jungle primary” and ranked choice general election. Under this new system, all candidates would run in one giant primary no longer separated by primary. Voters would vote for 1 person. The top 4 voter winners  would advance to the general election, where voters would rank them 1 through 4. The lowest vote winner would be eliminated, and people who ranked that person 1 would go to their 2^nd choice. This process would repeat until 1 person remains. We generally support ranked choice voting. Our hesitation on this measure is that the current system works well for the Democrats in Colorado who, for the most part, share our values. Moreover, this measure is being funded by billionaires who hope for more “moderate” and business-friendly politicians. But, in the end, play-to-win politics shouldn’t prevent us from supporting good policy. Vote yes!

City and County of Denver Ballot Measures

Ballot Issue 2Q – VOTE YES! Denver Health is in rough shape due to a significant raise in the number of patients it sees every year. This ballot issue would raise the sales tax in the City of Denver by .34% (3.4 cents on a $10 purchase) which would raise about $70 million annually to cover those rising costs. While we have significant concerns about sales taxes generally because they hit the poor and middle class harder than the rich, if this measure fails, Denver Health will have no choice but to roll back hours at its clinics, which would hit the poor and middle class even harder. Denver Health serves the people who cannot afford to go to other hospitals. It is our duty to make sure it can continue to serve those populations. Vote yes!

Ballot Issue 2R – VOTE YES! Ballot Issue 2R would increase the sales tax in Denver by .5% (5 cents on a $10 purchase) to raise $100 million a year for affordable housing. We do have several concerns with this measure, including that it is funded by a sales tax and the fact that the measure is light on details on how the money is actually going to be spent. If this was for any other issue, those reasons would probably encourage us to vote no. But affordable housing is, in our view, perhaps the single most important issue facing Denver residents. And this measure is likely to help. We do hope Mayor Johnston will lay out more details about this plan before the election, though.

Referred Question 2S – VOTE YES! This ballot issue would amend the city charter to elevate the Agency of Human Rights and Community Partnerships to a charter agency and add its executive director to the Mayor’s cabinet. This type of measure is more about governmental structure than policy. We don’t see a downside, and if the Mayor thinks this is a good change, we don’t see any reason to question that. Vote yes!

Referred Question 2T – VOTE YES! This referred ballot question would remove the requirement that City of Denver firefighters and police officers be citizens. There is going to be a LOT of misinformation about this measure out there. No, this would not let undocumented people become firefighters or police officers. But it would let lawful permanent residents who have not yet become citizens serve our city as firefighters and police officers. We do note the irony that many people who support the police funding measure on the state ballot probably oppose this one. To us, if someone wants to serve, they meet all the requirements, and they can help keep our city safe, why would we draw a line between citizen and lawful permanent resident? Vote yes!

Referred Question 2U – VOTE YES! Referred Question 2U would allow almost all city staff to form unions and collectively bargain with the City regarding their wages and benefits. Put simply, we at CGH support unions, both public and private. Unions help workers. Strong workers help the economy, and we all benefit. Currently, only Denver Police, Denver Fire, and Denver Sheriffs can collectively bargain. We see no reason why other city staff shouldn’t be allowed to do the same. Moreover, we think the distinction between public and private unions is overblown. We encourage a yes vote!

Referred Question 2V – VOTE YES! As mentioned above, Denver Firefighters already can collectively bargain through their union. But currently, if there are disputes, there is only an advisory fact-finding process to resolve the disputes. As you can imagine, that doesn’t always work. This change would instead send the City and the firefighters to binding arbitration, where a neutral third-party would decide the issue. This question is endorsed by the Denver Firefighters Union and was sent to the ballot by the City Council, showing both sides think this is a smart change. Vote yes!

Referred Question 2W – VOTE YES! Currently, the City of Denver has a formula to raise salaries for elected officials every four years. But current law requires the City Council to vote on actually approving them. This is a conflict of interest where the City Council is voting on raising its own salaries and the salaries of other elected officials. This referred question would instead make those increases automatic but set them at the same schedule as we currently have. The reality is that if we don’t pay our elected officials reasonable wages, then only rich people can serve. When only rich people can serve, we all lose. Reasonable wages attract talented candidates. Vote yes!

Initiated Ordinance 308 – VOTE NO! This measure would prohibit the manufacture and sale of fur products within City limits. We believe this measure is well-intended, and we are big animal fans here. But banning the sale of fur only within city limits would only push sales to the suburbs and do nothing to protect animals. Moreover, it’s a massive slap in the face to one of the City’s most important economic generators, the National Western Stock Show. Finally, while the law does exempt sales for traditional tribal purposes for members of recognized tribes, many Native peoples in 2024 aren’t registered with an official tribe. Overall, this may sound like a good idea morally, but from a policy perspective it will cause substantially more harm than good. We cannot support it and urge a no vote!

Initiated Ordinance 309 – VOTE NO! This measure would ban slaughterhouses in city limits. Currently, there is only one such slaughterhouse in Denver, Superior Farms. Superior Farms supplies 15-20% of all the total lamb processing capacity in the U.S. Like the measure above, this measure is well-intentioned but bad policy. Not only would it cost us a ton of jobs, but the processing plant would just move out of the city or, even worse, out of the state and resume operations. No lambs would be saved, but it would hurt our economy and our workers. If you don’t like slaughterhouses, don’t eat meat. Vote with your wallet. If you want better regulations, push for them on a national level so the playing field is level. Or in states like California that have the economic might to force the rest of the country to change. But passing this law in a mid-sized city like Denver is a massive self-own that will make us feel good but do exactly zero to protect the animals it claims to care about. Vote no!

Ballot Issue 4A – VOTE YES! Ballot Issue 4A is a bond measure that would allow Denver Public Schools to raise $975 million to pay for air conditioning in schools that don’t have it, new construction and upgrades to existing buildings, and critical maintenance needs. Students should be able to go to school at air-conditioned facilities that are well maintained. As a society, we should invest heavily in school and our children, but this isn’t even a groundbreaking investment. This measure just helps students meet basic needs. Vote yes!

Ballot Issue 6A – VOTE YES! Ballot issue 6A would expand the Downtown Denver Development Authority to include the area in and around the City’s Central Business District between Union Station and Broadway. This, in turn, will lead to a $500 million investment in downtown Denver revitalization. We don’t really see a downside to this measure and are big supporters of making downtown better to attract tourism and economic development. Vote yes!

Ballot Issue 7A – We are neutral This measure seeks to “de-Bruce” RTD tax revenue. As you probably know, Colorado’s TABOR amendment requires governmental entities to return money to taxpayers if they collect more than allowed under the law. If they want to keep that money, they must ask the voters to vote on it every time. In the alternative, they can ask voters to “de-Bruce” (named after the guy who came up with TABOR) to let them keep the money going forward without having to vote on it each time. Generally, we support “de-Brucing” pretty much everything. That being said, there are real issues with RTD, and it needs to do a much better job if we are going to turn Denver into a city with a high-functioning public transit system. We are particularly concerned with the recent firing of the RTD Chief of Police who was both overpaid and apparently driving 100 mph+ on a daily basis. So, while we support mass-transit, we aren’t sure we can continue to support RTD with its current leadership. For those reasons, we take no position on this measure.