As I mentioned in my last blog, I am going to cover what is on the rest of the November 5, 2024 ballot in this blog – the Judges and the Ballot Measures. Once again, this is a VERY FULL Ballot so the blog is correspondingly long. I have tried to provide sufficient information, as succinctly as I can, so voters can make informed decisions. I am also providing a recommendation on how to vote on these issues. Of course, you are free to vote how you please. I just ask that you think of the consequences of your vote, before you cast it. There are summary tables for both the Judges and Ballot Initiatives, if you just want to cut to the chase and see what we are recommending.
The Judges (Summary table at the end of this section)
There are eleven judges who are up for a retention vote. There are three Colorado Supreme Court judges, five Court of Appeals judges, two District Court judges and one Delta County Court judge on our General Election ballot. Their terms will expire in January 2025. The judges were appointed by a governor from a list of names compiled by a Nominating Commission. Newly appointed judges must stand for retention to remain on the court during the next general election after they serve at least two years on the bench.
The governor fills court vacancies by appointing Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges, and district court and county court judges.
Since 1966, Colorado has used a merit-based system for selecting and retaining judges. The approach was implemented to address concerns about campaign contributions influencing judicial decisions. Under the previous system, judges campaigned for office just like other politicians — raising money, making promises, and potentially compromising their impartiality in the process. Not anymore.
Here’s how Colorado’s judicial merit system works: When there’s a vacancy on the bench, a nonpartisan judicial nominating commission reviews applications from qualified candidates. For local District and County Court judges, there is a commission in each of the state’s 22 judicial districts. Each commission is composed of seven local attorneys and non-attorneys, such as educators and community leaders.
The majority of commissioners are non-attorneys, and no more than four of the commission members can be from the same political party. There is one commission for the statewide Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, composed of fifteen attorneys and non-attorneys from the eight federal congressional districts. Most of the commissioners are non-attorneys, and no more than eight can be from the same political party.
The applicants do not mention political affiliation and it’s not a consideration at any point in the process. They focus on their legal qualifications, experience, integrity, and public service. An evaluation commission then does a deep dive into the applicants, reaching out to references and contacting others who have worked with or appeared before the applicant in a professional capacity.
Next, they interview the applicants in person, assessing each candidate’s temperament, communication skills, and understanding of the role. After careful deliberation, the commission nominates two or three finalists to the governor, who then conducts their own background check before making the final appointment.
Once appointed, judges serve an initial two-year term. Then, in the next general election, voters decide whether to retain them for a full term. If retained, Supreme Court justices serve 10-year terms, Court of Appeals judges serve 8-year terms, District Court judges serve 6-year terms and County Court judges serve 4-year terms before facing another retention vote.
Every judge is evaluated by the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission using results of surveys of court users, observations of the judges by Commission members, opinion reviews and interviews of the judges and other interested parties. The Commission takes this information and makes a determination on whether the judge being evaluated either “Meets Performance Standards” or “Does Not Meet Performance Standards.” The Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation listed all eleven of the judges that are on the Delta County ballot in 2024 as “Meet Performance Standards.”
The Commissions on Judicial Performance consists of 11 volunteer citizen members: six non-attorneys and five attorneys. Appointments to the Commission are made by the Chief Justice, Governor, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, Senate Minority Leader and House Minority Leader. The State Commission develops the Rules Governing Commissions on Judicial Performance and evaluates the performance of Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges. There are separate commissions for evaluating each of the 22 judicial districts. These commissions evaluate District Court and County Court Judges. I’m not going to list the members of the two different commissions that were involved in evaluating the 11 judges that are on our ballot this year. However, if you are interested they can be viewed on-line at: State Commission of Judicial Performance | Judicial Performance (colorado.gov) for the Supreme and Appellate Court Judges and District Commissioners | Judicial Performance (colorado.gov) for the District Court and County Court Judges. So here are the judges:
Colorado Supreme Court Judges:
Monica M. Márquez - Chief Justice Márquez was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2010 (By Democrat Governor Bill Ritter) and became Chief Justice on July 26, 2024. She received a bachelor's degree from Stanford University in 1991 and earned her law degree from Yale Law School in 1997. Following graduation, Chief Justice Márquez served as a law clerk for two federal judges. She was in private law practice until 2002, and then worked in the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. In that Office she served as Assistant Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General in the Public Officials Unit and Criminal Appellate Section, and as Deputy Attorney General in charge of the State Services Section. Prior to her appointment to the Court, Chief Justice Márquez served on the boards of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, the Colorado LGBT Bar Association, and the Latina Initiative, and chaired the Denver Mayor’s LGBT Commission.
Justice Márquez is one of the four Colorado Supreme Court judges who voted on December 19, 2023 to keep Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in 2024 (The four are Justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez and William W. Hood III.) This decision was over-turned on March 4, 2024 by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 unanimous decision. Márquez is the only one of the four who is up for a retention vote. There are critics that claim politics SHOULD NOT be considered when evaluating judges for retention. However, it seems that politics were involved when Judge Márquez voted to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot. In spite of the State Commission on Judicial Performance finding that Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, I believe it is more than warranted to VOTE NO on Retaining Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez.
Note, the evaluations can be read at 2024 Judicial Performance Evaluations | Judicial Performance (colorado.gov).
Maria E. Berkenkotter - Prior to her appointment to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2021 (By Democrat Governor Jared Polis), Justice Berkenkotter served as a District Court Judge in the Twentieth Judicial District from 2006 to 2013 and served as the Chief Judge of the Twentieth Judicial District from 2013 to 2017. Following her District Court experience, Justice Berkenkotter conducted complex mediations, arbitrations, and judge pro tem appointments while at the Judicial Arbiter Group, Inc. Prior to her judicial experience, she led the Antitrust, Consumer Protection and Tobacco Litigation Units of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office and was in private practice at Holmes & Starr, P.C. in Denver. She also clerked for Justice Howard M. Kirshbaum of the Colorado Supreme Court after graduating from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1987.
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by a vote of 10–0 with one recusal.
Brian D. Boatright - Justice Boatright was sworn in to the Supreme Court of Colorado in November of 2011 (Appointed by Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper). In 2021 he was selected by the members of the supreme court to be the Chief Justice. He served as Chief Justice, from January 2021 through July 2024. He is a Colorado native who graduated from Jefferson High School in 1980 and received his undergraduate degree from Westminster College in Fulton, MO in 1988. Justice Boatright received his law degree from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1988. After work in private practice he joined the First Judicial District, District Attorney’s Office (Jefferson/Gilpin County) from 1990 to 1999. In 1999 he was appointed as District Court Judge where he presided over criminal, civil, domestic, juvenile, probate, and mental health dockets. Justice Boatright’s term of Chief Justice expired in July of 2024. Justice Boatright is active in the community with speaking engagements and attending multiple events during the year that include the Jefferson and Gilpin bar association, Court Appointed Special Advocates, and Leadership Jeffco. He also mentors young lawyers who are interested in becoming judges.
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice Brian D. Boatright MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 8–0 with three recusals.
Colorado Appeals Court Judges:
Gilbert M. Román – Chief Judge Román was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals on August 1, 2005 (By Republican Governor Bill Owens.) He is a 1984 graduate of Colorado State University and received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1987. Prior to his appointment, Chief Judge Román was in private practice focusing on complex civil litigation. He has received a number of awards, including the Richard Marden Davis Award from the Denver Bar Foundation and the Outstanding Lawyer Award from the Hispanic National Bar Association. Chief Judge Román has served as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and as an instructor at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. He formerly served on the Board of Governors for the Colorado Bar Association and as a board member of both the Colorado Hispanic and the Hispanic National Bar Associations. Chief Judge Román is very active in the community, representing the judicial branch in many educational and professional forums.
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Chief Judge Gilbert M. Román MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10-0 with one recusal.
Stephanie Dunn – Judge Dunn was appointed as a Judge of the Court of Appeals in June, 2012(By Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper.) She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado in 1990 and earned her law degree from the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law in 1993. Before joining the bench, she was a partner at the law firm of Perkins Coie, LLC where she practiced from 2003-2012. While a partner at Perkins Coie, she was Chair of both the Denver Diversity committee and the Denver Pro Bono committee. Her work at Perkins Coie focused on business litigation and appellate practice in both state and federal courts. In addition to membership in several bar associations, she is a member of the National Association of Women Judges and The Colorado Lawyer’s Committee Hate Crimes Education Task Force. She also is a Fellow of the Colorado Bar Foundation and participates in the Our Courts program.
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Stephanie Dunn MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10–0 with one recusal.
Jerry N. Jones - Judge Jones was appointed to the Court of Appeals on July 5, 2006 (By Republican Governor Bill Owens.) Prior to serving on the Court of Appeals he was a partner at the Denver law firm of Moye White LLP practicing in commercial litigation and appeals. During his time at Moye White he also served as a Special Assistant Attorney General in the State Services Section working on higher education issues, and in the Criminal Section handling appeals on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado. He also served as the Chief of the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for two years. He was a member of the Faculty of Federal Advocates and served as Chair of the Judicial Performance Commission for the Second Judicial District. He is a 1986 graduate of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and served on the Executive Board of the University of Denver Law Review.
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Jerry N. Jones of the Colorado Court of Appeals MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by a vote of 10-0 with one recusal.
W. Eric Kuhn - Judge Kuhn joined the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2021 (Appointed by Democrat Governor Jared Polis.) He earned his undergraduate degree from Colorado College and his law degree from the University of Denver. He started his career in private practice handling probate and estate planning matters. He moved to the Colorado Department of Law where he served as a Senior Assistant Attorney General in the Health Care and Public Officials Units. In those roles, he handled all aspects of advice, litigation, and appeals, focusing on healthcare, public health, and complex constitutional and legal questions faced by elected officials and government agencies. He is an active member of the Minoru Yasui Inn of Court and is a trustee for a national foundation focused on innovations in aging.
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge W. Eric Kuhn MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10–0 with one recusal.
Timothy J. Schutz - Judge Schutz earned his undergraduate degree from Minnesota State University Moorhead and his law degree from the University of North Dakota. He started his career at the law firm of Holland & Hart. Later he practiced at the law firm of Hanes & Schutz in the areas of intellectual property, civil litigation, land use disputes, and the representation of special districts. After two decades in private practice, Judge Schutz was appointed to the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District (El Paso County Colorado) as a trial court judge, and for eleven years he managed active criminal, justice system.
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Timothy J. Schutz MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10-0 with one recusal.
District Court Judges:
Steven Louis Schultz - Judge Schultz presides over criminal, juvenile, probate, domestic relations, and mental health cases in Delta County. Commission members observed Judge Schultz in court, either in person or via electronic means, and interviewed the Chief District Attorney, the Chief Public Defender, and the Chief District Court Judge. The Commission also interviewed Judge Schultz via video conference on April 22, 2024, and reviewed Judge Schultz’s 2021 Interim Judicial Performance Survey, 2024 Judicial Performance Survey, 2024 self-evaluation materials, and three of his written orders.
Judge Schultz received his law degree with honors from Brooklyn Law School in 1994. Judge Schultz was in private practice as a litigation attorney for more than eleven years in New York and ten years in Hotchkiss, Colorado, before being appointed District Court Judge in 2015 (Appointed by Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper.)
The Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial voted 8-0, with one absent and one Commissioner vacancy, that Judge Steven Louis Schultz MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Kerri A. Yoder – Judge Yoder presides over civil, criminal, juvenile, probate and domestic relations cases in San Miguel and Montrose Counties. Judge Yoder was observed by the Commission and others as having a kind, personable and professional manner while presiding over the courtroom. Judge Yoder manages the largest caseload in the Seventh Judicial District efficiently and effectively.
Judge Yoder was appointed in 2016 (By Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper.) Prior to her appointment, Judge Yoder served as an Assistant District Attorney in the District Attorney's Office in the Seventh Judicial District. Judge Yoder earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and her Juris Doctor from CU Boulder.
The Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance voted 8-0, with one absent and one Commissioner vacancy, that Judge Keri A. Yoder MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Delta County Court Judges:
Bo A. Zeerip – Judge Zeerip was appointed in 2020 by Democrat Governor Jared Polis. Prior to his appointment, Judge Zeerip served as a prosecutor for the Mesa County District Attorney’s Office. Judge Zeerip received his undergraduate degree from Central Michigan University and his Juris Doctor from Regent University.
While the Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agreed by a vote 8-0, with one absent and one Commissioner vacancy, that Judge Bo A. Zeerip MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, they identified some concerns. “Judge Zeerip is encouraged to be mindful of, and to remove himself from situations where it may be alleged that ex-parte communications can occur. Further, Commissioners observed several incidents where Judge Zeerip appeared to editorialize or voice his opinion from the bench, more than what was perceived to be necessary. Nevertheless, the consensus from the Commission is that Judge Zeerip is generally fair and impartial, listens to the evidence presented by counsel, and presides efficiently over a demanding docket.”
There have been concerns that Judge Zeerip has been over-lenient in issuing Personal Recognizance (PR) Bonds. Judge Zeerip came to the October 1, 2024 DCRCC meeting to provide some information on how the Delta County District Court operates. There are currently 908 pending court cases in the Delta County Court, half of which have a pending court date. There are 150-200 cases in the Delta County Court per week. Legislation passed in the Colorado Legislature created Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) 16-4-111 -Type of Bond in certain misdemeanor cases. This statute requires judges in Class II misdemeanor cases and below to release an accused person on personal recognizance, unless one or more conditions exist (The accused fails to identify themselves, refuses to sign a PR bond, has failed to appear for trial for a previous offense, etc.) This state statute has caused the Judge to release many accused people in the County on PR bonds. Statistics provided by the Judge show that Felony cases have dropped from 263 in 2000 to 214 in 2023. The Sheriff’s Office also provided some statistics. Since January there have been 961 bookings in the Delta County Jail, with 543 PR bonds issued or 56%. Both Judge Zeerip and Sheriff Taylor say that there are many repeat offenders among these numbers. This situation is causing considerable public concern about the property damage caused by these repeat offenders and for declining public safety. In addition, the Sheriffs Office believes Judge Zeerip has discretion on higher level offenses and he is not using that discretion to require a cash bond, instead of a PR bond. Judge Zeerip was polite, informative and professional when he came to our DCRCC meeting. Because of these somewhat contradictory factors, the DCRCC is not going to make a recommendation on this particular retention vote.
The following table summarizes the Delta County Republican Central Committee’s recommendations on the votes for the eleven judges who are up for a retention vote.
The Ballot Measures
The following table displays the fourteen State-wide ballot measures and the two local ballot measures. The measures are listed in the order they will appear on the ballot. The Type of measure is whether it is a state constitutional amendment, referred by the state legislature or a citizen initiative or a state statute referred by the state legislature or a citizen initiative. The explanations for the type of measure are listed below the table. The Subject is a general name for what the ballot initiative covers. The Description is self-explanatory. The Vote recommendation is the DCRCC recommendation on how to vote on the initiative. Mostly this jibes with the Colorado Republican State Party (COGOP) recommendation. But not always. There is a short summary of each of the ballot measures, provided by the COGOP, below the table and why we are making our recommendation on how to vote on that issue.
The State Legislature sends out a booklet on the Statewide Ballot Measures – often referred to as “The Blue Book.” We should have all received this blue booklet in the mail. But if you did not, it is available online at: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024-blue-book-english-accessible.pdf . The Blue Book provides the full title of the ballot issue, arguments for and against the issue and exactly what a “Yes” or “No” vote means.
*LRCA - Amendment to the State Constitution, referred by the State Legislature.
**LRSS – New State Statute, referred by the State Legislature.
*** CISS - New State Statute, initiated by Citizen Petition.
****CICA – Amendment to the State Constitution, initiated by Citizen Petition.
1) Amendment G – Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with a Disability. COGOP recommends a Yes vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This Legislative referral to amend the Colorado State Constitution expands the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to veterans with individual unemployability status.
A “yes” vote on Amendment G reduces the property taxes paid by some veteran homeowners by expanding the existing homestead exemption to include veterans whose disability is rated as making them unemployable. Veterans have served us, and this reduction is logical.
2) Amendment H – Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality. COGOP recommends a Yes vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
Creates an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board and create rules for the judicial discipline process.
This Legislative-referral to amend the Colorado State Constitution would create an independent adjudicative board to preside over ethical misconduct hearings involving judges; and allow for increased public access to judicial discipline proceedings and records. This Amendment increases transparency in government.
3) Amendment I – Constitutional Bail Exemption for First Degree Murder. COGOP recommends a Yes vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This Legislative referral to amend the Colorado State Constitution removes the right to bail in cases of first-degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption is great.
A “yes” vote on Amendment I allows judges to deny bail to a person charged with first degree murder when the judge determines that the proof is evident or presumption is great that the person committed the crime. Judges should reserve this right to remove violent offenders from the street pending trial.
4) Amendment J – Repealing the Constitutional Definition of Marriage. COGOP recommends a Yes vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This Legislative referral to amend the Colorado State Constitution removes the provision of the state constitution (Article II, Section 31 - Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.)
In 2006, Colorado voters approved an amendment to Colorado’s constitution stating that only the union of one man or one woman is a valid or recognized marriage in Colorado. Amendment J repeals this language. In a split U.S. Supreme Court decision, in 2015, bans on same-sex marriages were declared unconstitutional (Obergefell v. Hodges, 5-4 decision.) While the traditional definition of marriage is still relevant in Christianity, and all Christians should vote accordingly, the RNC has not taken a stance on marriage in 2024. The state of Colorado’s concern with this matter is moot, as it has been adjudicated via SCOTUS. A limited government stance - what two consenting adults do with their lives is not subject matter for voters or the legislature; liberty is afforded here. Importantly, the focus of any LGBTQ-related efforts should be on the trans agenda and children harmed within this state. Focus in LGBTQ issues by the GOP must turn to children and education.
I initially had mixed feelings on this issue. After doing research and thinking about it, I understand the state party’s position on it. In addition, as Republicans we have been advocating for accepting decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, while the Democrats have been screaming that they are wrong and the Court needs to be changed. We need to be consistent on this. I believe we need to accept the 2015 Supreme Court decision and vote Yes on this issue.
5) Amendment K – Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines. COGOP recommends a No vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This Legislative referral to amend the Colorado State Constitution would change the deadlines for filing initiative and referendum petition signatures and judicial retention notice deadlines to remove one week in order to allow one extra week for the secretary of state to certify ballot order and content and election officials' deadline to transmit ballots. Specifically, the measure moves up the deadline for citizens to submit signatures for initiatives and referendum petitions and for judges to file a declaration of intent to seek another term by one week. The current deadline for submitting citizen petitions is three months (or 12 weeks) before the general election. Reducing the petition time by one week (Or requiring petitions to be submitted 13 weeks before the general election) does not seem particularly onerous. The Election Clerks at the Delta County Courthouse have encouraged a “Yes” vote on this amendment. The DCRCC believes a “Yes” vote is appropriate.
6) Amendment 79, “Right to Abortion.” COGOP recommends a No vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE NO.
This citizen-initiated ballot measure would create a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the right to an abortion in Colorado’s Constitution and repeal the current constitutional provision banning the use of public funds for abortions (Article V, Section 50 passed by Colorado voters in 1984. Article V, Section 50 - Public funding of abortion forbidden. No public funds shall be used by the State of Colorado, its agencies or political subdivisions to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the General Assembly, by specific bill, may authorize and appropriate funds to be used for those medical services necessary to prevent the death of either a pregnant woman or her unborn child under circumstances where every reasonable effort is made to preserve the life of each. )
Colorado Abortion Laws are among the most liberal in the United States. It is one of only eight states (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and New York) and Washington D.C. that have no term limits on abortion. The only restrictions on abortion in Colorado are: 1) Abortion cannot be covered by insurance policies for public employees (Due to the November 6, 1984 Ballot Initiative and Amendment to the Colorado Constitution), 2) The parent of a minor must be notified before an abortion is provided (Due to the 2003 Colorado Parental Notification Act), and 3) Public funding is available for abortions only in the case of life endangerment to the mother, rape or incest (Again due to the November 6, 1984 Ballot Initiative and Amendment to the Colorado Constitution). Of course, there are exceptions to all these restrictions. Current Colorado law (HB22-1279 - Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA), allows a pregnancy to be terminated at any time.
Amendment 79 would also assure that state and local public employees and Medicaid recipients are covered for abortion in their health insurance plans. Taxpayers should not have to fund the abortions. Healthcare payors should not be forced to cover abortion and related procedures. Repealing the 1984 constitutional provision would also open the door to allow the state legislature to create additional public funding of abortions. This should be a NO vote for everyone.
7) Amendment 80 “School Choice in K-12 Education.” COGOP made no recommendation. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This citizen-initiated ballot initiative would provide a constitutional right to school choice including neighborhood schools, charter schools, private schools, homeschools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.
This citizen-initiated amendment to the Colorado State Constitution enshrines the right to school choice into the state Constitution; the right for parents to direct the education of their child to enroll them in a public school, charter school, private school; homeschool them; or send them to another district through open enrollment. Given the repeated attacks on charter schools by the legislature and the failed state of public education, parents must continue to have options. Yet, some conservative groups are raising the alarm on the language in the measure which gives “a K-12 child the right to school choice” and that “all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education” which they believe will give the government more control over every choice available and usurp parental authority. The language is short and concise, but readers should vote their conscience, as voters are wary of education bills that lead to bigger government.
8) Proposition JJ – Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue. COGOP recommends a No vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This proposal would allow the state to retain tax revenue collected from the tax on sports betting proceeds, above the $29 million that was originally authorized through Proposition DD in 2019, and spend it on water projects.
The Legislative Referral to change state statutes would allow the state to retain tax revenue collected above $29 million annually from the tax on sports betting proceeds. A no vote requires the state to give back anything above the $29M. Since Proposition DD was passed in 2019 (Which created the sports betting tax), Colorado collected $25.6 million in 2022-23, a projected $29.9 million in 2023-224 and a forecasted $30.2 million in 2024-25. HD58 Representative Marc Catlin (And SD 5 candidate) has recommended we vote yes on this issue. The need for more water storage is huge and the more funds that are made available, the more opportunities there will be to develop those projects. I believe Representative Catlin is right. Note, Colorado uses less of the Colorado River water than it is allocated under the Colorado River Compact. If we don’t use more of our allocation, California and Nevado will push to permanently take that unused allocation. Vote YES on Proposition JJ.
9) Proposition KK – Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax
The Legislative Referral to change state statutes would levy a 6.5% excise tax on firearms and ammunition manufacturing and sales to be imposed on firearms dealers, manufacturers, and ammunition vendors and appropriating the revenue to the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax Cash Fund to be used to fund crime victim services programs, education programs, and mental and behavioral health programs for children and veterans.
This measure is expected to generate up to $39 million in the first full year of its imposition. The programs it is scheduled to help fund currently receive funds from federal and state funds. The primary recipient – crime victim services are primarily funded from fines paid by people convicted of federal crimes. The federal funding for this has declined significantly in recent years. Why is that? Is it because the federal government is not sending the funding to the state? Or is it because federal prosecutions of crimes and the fines these prosecutions generate have declined. It seems like this is an attempt to increase the costs of owning firearms by taxing the ammunition you need to use them, instead of taxing the criminals that are causing the crimes that crime victims need services for. This is a bad ballot measure and should be voted down. COGOP recommends a No vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE NO.
10) Proposition 127 “Prohibit Trophy Hunting.” COGOP recommends a No vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE NO.
This citizen-initiative to amend state statutes creates a ban on recreational trophy hunting and commercial fur trapping in Colorado of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. The definition of prohibiting trophy hunting is "intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing, or entrapping a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx; or discharging or releasing any deadly weapon at a mountain lion, bobcat, or lynx"
According to Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW), hunting is one way in which the big cat population is effectively managed, and the populations at present are ideal. Animal extremists are using ballot box biology to scare voters about hunting and firearms, using misleading terms like “cruel death,” to accomplish other means, mostly anti-gun rhetoric. According to wildlife experts, a mountain lion will eat one deer a week. With more than 4,000 mountain lions in Colorado, and approximately 400,000 deer, the lions are already eating half of the deer population a year. If passed, Prop 127 will insure one thing; there will be fewer deer in Colorado. In addition, there are already numerous Human encounters with mountain lions in Colorado. We need to let CPW decide how to manage wildlife, not the voters who voted to release wolves back into Colorado.
11) Proposition 128 “Concerning Eligibility for Parole.” COGOP recommends a Yes vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This citizen-initiative to amend state statutes would require offenders convicted of crimes that occur after January 1, 2025 to serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole, versus the current requirement to serve 75% of their terms. Parole eligibility would remain the same for offenders convicted of crimes that occur before Jan. 1, 2025 and for offenders with two or more prior violent crime convictions, who must serve their full sentence before being eligible for parole. This initiative gives victims and the public more transparent expectations about offender sentencing. This straight-forward and common-sense measure deserves our full support. We need to vote YES.
12) Proposition 129 “Establish Qualifications and Registration for Veterinary Professional Associate.” COGOP recommends a Yes vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
This citizen-initiative to amend state statutes creates the profession called veterinary professional associate, which requires a master's degree and registration with the State Board of Veterinary Medicine. These changes are a potential solution to the state's shortage of veterinary care, while also expanding access in rural communities. Several models show that VPAs will decrease the cost of veterinary care. In addition, VPAs could also help fill the need for workers in animal welfare organizations. This seems like a logical YES vote.
13) Proposition 130 “Funding for Law Enforcement.” COGOP recommends a Yes vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE YES.
Allocate state revenue to a new fund, called the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund, for law enforcement recruitment, retention, training, and death benefits.
This citizen-initiative to amend state statutes creates the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund, which would provide $350M funding for law enforcement officer training, retention, and hiring, as well as up to $1M in benefits for spouses and children of officers or first responders killed in the line of duty. The ‘Back the Blue’ initiative ensures that Colorado makes a much-needed investment to fight back against the rising tide of crime and illegal drug trafficking without raising taxes. Since the initiative specifies that money can never come from raising taxes, funds will come from the general budget, taking money away from less valuable Democrat programs. Vote YES on Proposition 130.
14) Proposition 131 Top-Four Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative COGOP recommends a No vote. DCRCC recommends VOTE NO.
This citizen-initiative to amend state statutes would establish top-four ranked-choice voting (RCV) for congressional, gubernatorial, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, University of Colorado Board of Regents, state Board of Education and legislative elections. The system would establish an all-candidate primary, regardless of their political party and it would be used in the general election. This system is complicated. It does not apply to the Presidential race, but it would apply to Congressional (Both House and Senate races) and to state legislative races, but not to county races. It takes 4 pages in the Blue Book to explain it, and it changes parts of 13 pages of state statutes (also shown near the back of the Blue Book). I think anything that complicated should NEVER be passed as a ballot initiative. But here is the basic explanation, from the Blue Book, as I don’t know how to simplify it any more than that.
(The Primary Election) - all candidates who qualify appear on the same primary ballot, regardless of political party affiliation. Unaffiliated candidates collect signatures to qualify for the primary election, rather than the general election. Candidates from political parties still qualify for the primary by collecting signatures or receiving a party nomination.
All voters, regardless of political party affiliation, receive the all-candidate primary ballot and choose a single candidate for each office in the primary election. For each office, the four candidates with the highest number of votes advance to the general election and appear on that ballot in a random order. More than one candidate from the same political party may advance to the general election, and some parties may have no candidates advance. If there are four or fewer candidates for the office, all the candidates advance. Primary elections are conducted at the same time for multiple offices, so voters may receive ballots for the new system alongside ballots for the existing system for offices not covered by the measure.
(The General Election) - After the top four candidates advance from the all-candidate primary election, the general election determines the winner. Voters can rank some or all of the candidates for each office in order of preference. The winner is determined by counting the ranked votes using a method called instant runoff voting. If one candidate gets more than half of the first-place votes, they win the election. If no candidate wins more than half of the first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated and an additional round of counting is conducted. Votes for the eliminated candidate are then counted for the next highest ranked candidate on each ballot, if any. This process continues until a candidate has more than half of the active votes, and wins the election. If voters do not rank all the candidates or if they select the same ranking for multiple candidates, their ballots may not factor into the next round of counting. Such ballots are excluded from counting once all of their ranked candidates have been eliminated and it is not possible to redistribute votes to another candidate.
So, what does a general election ballot look like? Here’s what they show in the Blue Book –
I think this simple image shows how complicated the ballots will become. And how much more confusing voting will be.
This blog and the last blog are the two longest blogs I’ve ever written – one over 5,000 words and this one over 6,000. There are 11 candidates in this election. Imagine a total of 44 candidate names on the ballot. I can’t imagine how we could possibly explain all those candidates. So, imagine what the cost of conducting such an election would be. Since part of the intent of this initiative is to de-emphasize the role of the current party system, how will candidates get their message out? Through media advertising. This will only increase the cost of getting elected. What is already a problem – the role of money in our elections, will only get worse. Those with the most money or access to money or who are getting funded by those with money will be the ones getting elected. Denver billionaire Kent Thiry is the primary sponsor of this initiative (Thiry was also the primary sponsor of Proposition 107 and 108, which gave Unaffiliated voters the right to vote in Democrat and Republican primary elections.) He is the primary sponsor of the measure and according to the Rocky Mountain Voice the proponents are spending over $8 million to get this measure passed. We have been encouraged to support this initiative with the argument it gives us a better chance to get Republican candidates elected. However, I cannot see that happening with this system. Alaska adopted RCV in 2020. In the 2022 election for their lone Congressional Representative, there were four candidates – one Democrat, two Republicans and one Libertarian. The Democrat, Mary Peltola, defeated former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. It appears to me that having multiple candidates from the same party, will split the part vote and the other party will win. Republicans seem VERY PRONE to running multiple candidates. I think this has to be a NO VOTE.
These last two initiatives will only appear on either Town of Paonia voter ballots or Crawford Water Conservancy District voter ballots:
15) Town of Paonia Ballot Issue 2A – This issue will extend a $3 per month fee for sidewalk construction and reconstruction paid by Town residents, from 1/1/2025 to 12/31/2035.
The Town has had some success with this effort since the original initiative was passed in 2013. The Town has had some success with replacing some of the damaged sidewalks in Town since the original initiative was passed in 2013. The replacement work has been intermittent as the Town has preferred to let the fund build up before they let a contract out for the work. In addition, many of the replacement areas have been caused by property owners not caring for the sidewalks in the winter (shoveling snow and/or using harsh de-icing chemicals.) After replacement many of these same owners continue with that approach. The Town needs to follow up and require these property owners to properly maintain the sidewalks (as current Town ordinances require.) So, if you believe in helping the Town continue with its program of sidewalk replacement – Vote YES on this issue. If you don’t support the effort Vote NO.
16) Crawford Water Conservancy District B allot Issue 7B
This issue will give the Crawford Water Conservancy District the legal authority to borrow up to $1 million for needed and emergency upgrades and repairs. The need for the ability to borrow funds was made apparent by the landslide on Saddle Mountain that shut-down the Saddle Mountain Ditch. The District was able to make the needed repairs to keep the ditch operational but additional work is going to be necessary and the incident showed the District it needed the ability to borrow funds when similar incidents happen. If you understand the need for the district to have the financial resources to address emergencies and repairs, then vote YES on this issue. If you disagree that the District needs to be able to borrow money, vote NO.
As I have stated before in this and in my previous blog, the November 5, 2024 ballot is very full. As a consequence, my blog explaining all these issues is very long. However, I hope it is helpful in helping you know what to vote for and what to vote against in this election. It is critical that you vote and your vote will only count, if you actually vote. So, take advantage of this wonderful right that we have and help make decisions in how and what our government does. Finally, we will be hosting several “ballot discussion/fill out your ballot” sessions. We’ll be sending out an email announcing the dates, times and locations. If you have any questions, let me know.
David Bradford Chairman, Delta County Republican Central Committee
Comments