Today’s Herald includes the full language of four statewide ballot measures voters will decide on this fall. Readers can find them on Pages 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A and 9A. They deserve to be read. If enacted, each one will affect the lives and livelihoods of the people of Colorado.
As is true of all Colorado ballot measures, a “yes” vote is to change “current law or existing circumstances,” while a “no” vote is to keep things as they are. Ballot measures that change the state Constitution are called amendments. Those that change the Colorado Revised Statutes are labeled propositions. This year, there are two of each. All are controversial.
Amendment 67 is the so-called personhood amendment. It would amend Colorado’s Constitution “by defining ‘person’ or ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings.”
Proponents say it is intended to extend legal protection to the unborn. They point to the case of Heather Surovik, who was hit by a drunken driver and consequently lost the baby she was carrying. They say that the drunken driver could not be prosecuted for the death because Colorado law does not legally consider the unborn to be human beings.
Opponents say Amendment 67 is an attempt to ban abortion, pure and simple. Its language would criminalize all abortions, no exceptions, while also effectively banning some forms of contraception. They also say legally declaring a fetus to be a person would inject the state in between a woman and her doctor even in situations that have nothing to do with abortion.
Similar measures were rejected by Colorado voters in 2008 and 2010. In 2012, a personhood measure failed to get enough signatures to make the ballot.
Amendment 68 would change Colorado’s Constitution to allow a Rhode Island company to open a casino at a Denver-area race track and to allow the state to collect more than $114 million in revenue from taxing the operation. The money would be dedicated to K-12 education.
There is more to this lengthy measure than that, but the casino is obviously the desired result, and money for schools is the selling point.
Opponents complain that an out-of-state company is behind this and call the wording vague. They also object to the idea that it sidesteps local voters and question whether the money will ever reach a classroom.
Proponents repeat: money for schools.
Proposition 104 would change state law to require that school board meetings at which collective bargaining agreements are discussed or when negotiations are conducted between school boards and unions be public meetings.
Supporters say this will promote openness and let the people of Colorado watch as their money is spent.
Opponents say it will put school districts at a disadvantage in negotiations and cost money. They also say it is unclear and poorly written.
Proposition 105 would require the labeling of genetically modified food or food treated with genetically modified organisms – or GMOs.
Proponents see this as a matter of consumer information and focus on what they say is consumers’ right to know what is in their food.
Opponents – including the Farm Bureau and the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry – point to the added bureaucracy and cost. They say it would hurt farmers and ranchers by adding expenses and record-keeping requirements, including for those who do not use produce GMO crops. They also say its mandates will raise the price of food for all Coloradans.
All four of these measures have the potential to affect each of us, some dramatically. They warrant a hard look.
