Put the NO in November

Presented by Colorado Interfaith Voices for

Justice and Lutheran Advocacy Ministry -

Colorado

Put the NO in November

Contact information:

Brad Wood, LAM-CO, 303-777-6700 bwood@rmselca.org

Liesl Begnaud, CIVJ, 303-350-5064

Presentation Outline

Why is the Church talking about politics?

Presentation on 2010 Ballot Measures

Position of Faith Community on 2010 Ballot Measures

Q & A

Why is the Church talking about Politics? Our Biblical

Tradition is rooted in advocacy and concern for the poor.

Examples: Moses – the first

advocate Micah 6:8 Jesus - widow and

Unjust judge

Why is the Church talking about Politics? The church is

called to be a PUBLIC church – one that comments on and holds government responsible for caring for the poor and vulnerable

Colorado Interfaith Voices for Justice and Lutheran Advocacy Ministry – Colorado takes positions on policy issues (such as ballot measures) NOT on candidates for office.

2010 Ballot Measures

This presentation will focus on:

Proposition 101 Proposition 102 Amendment 60 Amendment 61 Amendment 63

Other Ballot Measures in 2010 Amendment P – moves oversight of

Bingo/Raffle to Department of Revenue. (no position)

Amendment Q – establishes process for moving seat of government in emergency (no position)

Amendment R – exempt possessory interest on government property if revenue less than $6,000 a year (no position)

Other Ballot Measures in 2010

Amendment 62 – “Personhood” Amendment – would set a definition into law of what constitutes a person and give all the rights in law accordingly. (Lutheran Advocacy Ministry – Colorado is opposed, Colorado Interfaith Voices for Justice has no position)

Amendment 63 Ballot Title: Shall there be an amendment to the

Colorado constitution concerning the right of all persons to health care choice, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state independently or at the instance of the United States from adopting or enforcing any statute, regulation, resolution, or policy that requires a person to participate in a public or private health insurance or coverage plan or that denies, restricts, or penalizes the right or ability of a person to make or receive direct payments for lawful health care services; and exempting from the effects of the amendment emergency medical treatment required to be provided by hospitals, health facilities, and health care providers or health benefits provided under workers' compensation or similar insurance?

Amendment 63

Would opt Colorado out of Federal Healthcare Reform.

Would prevent Colorado from ever requiring its citizens to have health insurance.

Amendment 63 Despite the wording, Federal Law

stating that you must have healthcare coverage would take precedence of this State Constitutional Amendment, but may limit your options on the type of healthcare coverage you can receive.

If passed, Colorado will be sued by Federal Government, costing taxpayers money to defend the law which will likely be found unconstitutional.

Amendment 63

CIVJ and LAM-CO have taken a position in opposition to Amendment 63 because exempting Colorado from Federal Healthcare reform would exempt Colorado from good changes to the law, such as guaranteed coverage, and limit Colorado’s ability to provide coverage for the 15% of the state that lacks it.

Amendment 61 Ballot Title: Shall there be an amendment to

the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid?

Amendment 61 The State of Colorado is required to have

a balanced budget already and cannot issue bonds or go into debt.

The state is allowed to issue Revenue Anticipation Bonds – these help with cash flow issues. Biggest example – property taxes are collected twice a year but schools must pay bills all year long. Revenue Anticipation Bonds help with this cash flow issue.

Amendment 61

The state and local governments also borrow money for projects such as building or repairing roads, new schools, museums, etc.

These types of projects would be limited under Amendment 61, many times requiring government to save all the money before building.

Amendment 61

CIVJ and LAM-CO are opposed to Amendment 61 because issuing bonds for general infrastructure helps all citizens and outweighs the small tax savings to the average citizen ($274 according to the Legislative Council for the Colorado General Assembly).

Amendment 60 Ballot Title: Shall there be an amendment to the

Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connection therewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property tax elections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibiting enterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminating property taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws, policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were not approved by voters without certain ballot language?

Amendment 60 Would require local school districts

to cut property tax rates in half by 2020.

Would limit future tax increases approved by voters to 10 years.

Would require enterprises and authorities in Colorado (such as the University of Colorado, Division of Wildlife) to pay property taxes.

Amendment 60

This measure would override many local elections to “de-bruce” and increase tax rates for schools.

The funding decrease to local school districts would be $1.5 Billion dollars. Because State Government must make up for any decrease in local funding.

Amendment 60

CIVJ and LAM-CO are opposed to Amendment 60 because the affects to local governments in limiting how they can raise revenue and because the shifting of more money from state government to fund education jeopardizes funding for other safety net programs.

Proposition 101 Ballot Title: Shall there be an amendment to the

Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases?

Proposition 101 Reduces auto registration fees to $2 for

new vehicles and $1 for used. Prohibits taxes on rental vehicles. Exempts the first $10,000 of a vehicle’s

cost from sales tax. Reduces state income tax rate from

4.63% to 3.5%. Eliminates state and local taxes on

telecommunications services.

Proposition 101

Fully implemented, taxpayers will save an average of $708 a year.

State Government will lose $1.9 Billion in revenue.

Proposition 101

CIVJ and LAM-CO are opposed to proposition 101 because of the impacts the loss of revenue will have to the Colorado State Budget and safety net programs.

Colorado General Fund $7 Billion Dollars

CO General Fund Budget $7 Billion

K-12 Education44%

Health Care18%

Corrections9%

Human Services9%

Higher Education9%

Other11%

Fully Implemented, Colorado General Fund would be $3.6 Billion Dollars

7 Billion less Impacts

Tax Revenue Lost27%

State Money to Local Schools

21%

General Fund52%

What would you cut? K-12 funding – mandated by

Amendment 23 to remain at a certain percentage

Healthcare – Federally mandated Medicare/Medicaid programs

Eliminate Higher Education, Corrections, Human Services?

Other includes Judicial Department, Executive Branch, Department of Public Health and more

Don’t Forget

If Amendment 61 passes, Colorado will also need to SAVE money out of what is left for any new infrastructure projects because it cannot borrow money!

Proposition 102 Ballot Title: Shall there be an

amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring that only defendants arrested for a first offense, non violent misdemeanor may be recommended for release or actually released to a pretrial services program's supervision in lieu of a cash, property, or professional surety bond?

Proposition 102

Does not allow for defendants to be released through pretrial services unless it is a first-time, nonviolent misdemeanor.

Will allow for wealthier clients to be released on bond; poorer clients will sit in jail

Proposition 102 Proposition 102 will increase jail costs

by $2.8 million because poor defendants will have to sit in jail.

The Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (made up of leaders in our public safety system, including sheriffs, police, department of public safety, parole boards) oppose the measure.

Proposition 102

CIVJ and LAM-CO are opposed to proposition 102 because of the effect it will have on the poor by keeping them in jail instead of using pretrial services so they can be in the community and continue to work and care for their families.