LPCO Recommendations on the 2008 Ballot Initiatives

The Board of Directors of the Libertarian Party of Colorado sets forth the following recommendations on the 18 COLORADO INITIATIVES currently on the ballot for this November, 2008.

TITLE	SUBJECT	SUMMARY DESCRIPTION	LPCO SAYS	EXPLANATION
Referendum L	Candidate age limits	If passed, this would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21.	YES	If you can get the votes, age is irrelevant.
Referendum M	Obsolete constitutional provisions	If passed, this would eliminate obsolete provisions in the state constitution about land value increases.	YES	Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete provisions.
Referendum N	Obsolete constitutional provisions	If passed, this would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor.	YES	Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete provisions.
Referendum O	Initiative process	If passed, this would make it harder for citizens to place constitutional amendments on the ballot for voter approval, but make it easier for citizens to place state statutes on the ballot. It also provides protection against the state legislature from amending statutes passed through the initiative process.	NO	The LPCO fully supports the citizen initiative process. Since this Referendum makes it harder for citizens to place Constitutional Amendments on the ballot we oppose it.

Amendment 46	Affirmative action	If passed, this would prohibit the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.	YES	The government should not give preferential treatment to any group.
Amendment 47	Right to work	If passed, this would prohibit unions and employers from negotiating "union shop" contracts under which employees would be required to pay union membership or "agency" fees as a condition of continued employment.	YES	The LPCO supports the right to work.
Amendment 48	Definition of “person” and abortion	If passed, this would change the definition of 'person' in the Colorado Constitution to include any fertilized egg, embryo or fetus.	NO	While the LPCO takes no official position on abortion, this proposed constitutional amendment would have far reaching implications and unintended consequences throughout the entire state constitution.
Amendment 49	Public payroll deductions	If passed, this would bar automatic dues deductions for private enterprises, including unions, from public employee payrolls.	YES	The government (at taxpayer expense) should not act as collector, bundler and distributor of dues for any private organization.
Amendment 50	Casino gambling	If passed, this would allow the general assembly or voters in the cities that permit limited gaming to extend the hours of limited gaming operations; to add roulette, craps, or both to the allowed games; and to increase the maximum bet up to $100.	YES	The government has no business telling people what they can do with their own money. If people want to gamble, it is not the government’s business.
Amendment 51	Sales tax for the developmentally disabled	If passed, this would increase the sales tax, in July 2009 and again in July 2010, to fund services for the developmentally disabled.	NO	While this is an admirable cause, it is best addressed via private charity and not taxation.
Amendment 52	Severance tax and transportation	If passed, this would create the Colorado Transportation Trust Fund, to be funded by that portion of the severance tax that exceeds the amount deposited to the state severance tax fund in the previous year, adjusted for inflation via the Consumer Price Index	NO POSITION	Since this amendment does not raise taxes, it only changes how existing taxes are spent, the LPCO takes no position.
Amendment 53	Criminal liability for business executives	If passed, this would increase the conduct for which criminal liability attaches for conduct of business executives.	NO	This amendment makes executive conduct that is currently subject to civil liability and makes it criminal. Further, fraud is already illegal.
Amendment 54	Government contracting reform	If passed, this would prohibit those benefitting from no-bid government contracts valued at more than $100,000 a year from contributing to political causes for the duration of the contract plus two years.	NO POSITION	There was disagreement among the BOD concerning the best way to address this issue.
Amendment 55	Employee relations, “employment at will” doctrine	If passed, this would end the “employment at will” doctrine in the state. Employers would have to document “just cause” for firing an employee.	NO	This amendment would unnecessarily open additional litigation avenues, be of limited benefit to employees, and make the cost of doing business unnecessarily expensive in the state.

Amendment 56	Employee relations, health insurance	If passed, this would require employers of more than 20 people to pay for health insurance for their employees and families; also would establish a government program to administer the program.	NO	This amendment would make the cost of doing business in this state prohibitive and drive jobs out of the state.
Amendment 57	Employee relations, workplace conditions	If passed, this would allow employees to sue employers for work injuries outside of the workers’ compensation system.	NO	This amendment would make the cost of doing business in this state prohibitive and drive jobs out of the state.
Amendment 58	Taxes	If passed, this would eliminate a tax credit for property taxes paid for payers of the severance tax, using the revenue primarily to fund college scholarships.	NO	This amendment unnecessarily raises taxes for a cause better suited for private charitable contributions.
Amendment 59	Education funding	If passed, this would create a state education fund savings account within the state education fund, to be funded from 10% of the monies deposited into the state education fund, including revenue that would otherwise be rebated under the TABOR rules, would also require that state educational spending increase by rate of inflation plus 1% through fiscal year 2010-2011; and restricts spending of the state education fund to specific education expenses	NO	This amendment would eviscerate TABOR.