The plethora of citizen initiatives and legislative referrals is convoluted and confusing

Since moving to Colorado in 2020 after a 40-year career practicing law and a long-standing interest in political systems, I have been attempting to understand the political environment in the Centennial State.

While clearly Colorado has turned from purple to blue and Iowa has turned from purple to red, what strikes me most is not the partisan difference but the structural and organizational differences.

Colorado has a plethora of special districts while Iowa’s special districts are far more limited in scope. The explosion of special districts in Colorado pushes government into silos which results in local governments having to spend an inordinate amount of time attempting—but not always succeeding—to coordinate matters among the various districts.

Two significant differences, however, are the Colorado citizen initiative and the legislative referral processes for submitting matters to a vote of the people. No such process was present in Iowa.

On ballots for this election are 14 statewide initiatives—six legislative referrals and eight citizen initiatives—that voters are being asked to decide.

As a voter, I would argue that it is difficult to gain an understanding of all these proposals in order to make an informed decision.

Additionally, as an elected town trustee, I have tried to understand what so many items for voter really means with respect to Colorado’s political environment.

One explanation is that certain constituencies of voters’ distrust state officials to make decisions on matters of public policy. This explains some of the citizen initiative items, but not all.

For instance, Proposition 127, which would prohibit bobcat, lynx, and mountain lion hunting, is likely a reaction by the wild animal preservation voters about the prospect of more lenient state hunting standards.

Similarly, Proposition 128, which would tighten parole eligibility for persons convicted of crimes of violence, is an appeal to law-and-order voters.

However, many of the legislative referrals to the ballot reflect an unwillingness of the legislature to take action that it could legally take. Rather than to take a stand, legislators punt what they regard as a contentious issue to the voters.

One example is Proposition KK which would enact a firearm and ammunition tax dedicated to fund support services for crime victims and other programs. Effectively this would create a new tax which would affect gun dealers and gun purchasers financially. Passage would fund programs important to certain constituencies without raising taxes on the general population or diverting funds from other state priorities.

If approved by voters, the legislature avoids being held responsible for raising taxes while achieving new funding for desired social objectives without reducing other spending.

While state law requires tax increases to be submitted to voters for approval, the legislature circumvents this by submitting the question to the voters. This is a political win for legislators who can avoid direct responsibility for its enactment. “Don’t blame me. I didn’t raise your taxes.”

Many of the constitutional changes proposed by the legislature are relatively minor ones, such as Amendment G which would modify the property tax exemption for veterans with disabilities, Amendment H which is a compromise agreement between the legislature and the judicial branch modifying attorney disciplinary proceedings, and Amendment K which modifies certain election deadlines in the state constitution.

Most striking, however, are proposals that appear to serve to get partisan constituents to the polls and thereby gain their votes on hot potato partisan issues.

This includes Amendment J which would repeal the definition of marriage in the state’s constitution, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Oberfell decision makes this change unnecessary and redundant.

Proposition 79 would establish a constitutional right to an abortion which is already established by statute in Colorado in the Reproductive Health Equity Act in 2022, although the proposition also repeals the state’s constitutional prohibition on public funding of abortions.

If passed, Proposition 80 would establish a constitutional right to school choice. This would have no immediate impact on state school choice laws but would require state funding of forms of education other than traditional public schools.

And Proposition 130 would provide for a substantial increased funding for law enforcement.

Some of these proposals were submitted by a partisan legislature, such as Amendment J. Others arose from citizen initiatives and interest groups, including Propositions 79, 80 and 130, illustrating that some proposals are motivated to turn out voters. In both cases, there is significant partisan influence beyond just the ballot question.

Most interesting of all is Proposition 131, a citizen initiated statutory proposal supported by Governor Polis but opposed by both major political parties to replace the current partisan primary system with a single nonpartisan primary in federal and most major state office elections.

The proposal would also establish a ranked choice voting system for the general election in which no more than four candidates—the top vote getters in the primary—would appear on the general election ballot. The complexity of this issue is shown by the actual statutory changes which fill 12 single spaced pages of the Blue Book.

Ranked choice voting is used in several states, including Maine for congressional and presidential elections only, in Alaska for both state and federal election, and in Hawaii for special congressional elections.

It is also utilized in a number of municipalities across the nation, most notably Salt Lake City and Seattle. For an excellent summary of ranked choice voting, see Hank Lacey’s Estes Valley Voice article published on September 27, 2024.

Even after studying the Blue Book with law student-like zeal, I do not yet know how I am going to vote on many of the proposals.

However, I am concerned that while a system that produces so many voter proposals may be more democratic—small d—it does appear to be eroding our republican—small r—representative form of government in which we entrust to our leaders the complicated and often contentious issues faced in state government.

The legislative referral process for statutes takes our elected leaders off the hook on important but controversial issues and passes the buck to an electorate that is largely uninformed on the issues.

I could understand the process if it were limited to 3 to 5 total proposals. Fourteen makes intelligent review unmanageable and promotes voter apathy.

In my review of the issues in the Blue Book, I have come to the following conclusions:

• The citizen initiative and legislative referral system in place now should be reformed by providing some method of limiting the number of proposals coming to the voters. Fourteen is just too many for the electorate to absorb.
• The legislative referral system to send statutory issues to the voters should be eliminated. As voters, we should insist that our elected officials be accountable for decisions on important issues. The current system lets them dodge responsibility by not having to decide.
• Many of both the legislative and citizen-initiated proposals appear to be directed to partisan interest groups in order to get their followers to the polls to elect their partisan candidates.

I am still struggling with how to look at Proposition 131. The fact that both major parties oppose it makes me want to support it, but I have no clear picture on how the plan would affect the political process that we all now know so well. I need to do more research to understand potential impacts of the proposal, but election day is now just two weeks away,

Iowa was so much simpler and straightforward. While it may have some advantages, Colorado’s system is convoluted and confusing.