Lawsuit in the future for Referendum C?
Things are getting back to normal here in Denver after Tuesday's election. The people have decided regarding their TABOR refunds and now the losing side is shopping for an activist judge to overturn the decision, according to the Denver Post [November 3, 2005, "Foes of C weigh lawsuit to stop spending"]. Politics in the 21st century. From the article, "They lost the fight over Referendum C, but Colorado's small-government activists may not be out of tricks yet, they said Wednesday. The leaders of the movement are considering their legal options, they said. They could move quickly and seek a court order stopping the legislature from spending any of the $3.7 billion to be generated by the five-year suspension of Taxpayer's Bill of Rights refunds. Or, they could wait until the referendum's statutory fix to TABOR's so-called ratchet effect kicks in, a tweak to the TABOR amendment that critics say will be unconstitutional."
Here's an article about the Pro-Referendum C troops and their star-power from the Rocky Mountain News [November 3, 2005, "Key to C: Big names, bipartisan support"]. From the article, "Two Republicans, two Democrats. The governor (Owens). The walk-on-water mayor of Denver (Hickenlooper). The head of the state's flagship university and political legend in GOP circles (Hank Brown). The boy wonder speaker of the Colorado House (Andrew Romanoff). Opponents of the measure, including Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, on Wednesday credited the influence of the Four Horsemen for passage of the measure, which will let the state override strict spending limits established by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights."
Political junkies will want to tune in to the Colorado Pols weblog today for a Q&A with Lynn Bartels from the Rocky Mountain News. Make sure to click on the link for a preview of today's Q&A. Ms. Bartels has already answered some preliminary questions.
You would think that State Representative Joe Stengel had never been on the losing side of an election before. Here's an article from the Denver Post about his reaction to Tuesday's election [November 3, 2005, "Anti-taxers ring knell for TABOR"]. From the article, "The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights is dead in Colorado, Joe Stengel told more than 40 small-government activists and conservative lawmakers from around the country in a national conference call Wednesday. 'It frankly will eliminate TABOR,' he said about the vote in the conference call organized by Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist in Washington, D.C. 'TABOR's as good as dead.'
Here's the coverage from the Rocky Mountain News [November 3, 2005, "Lawmaker: TABOR is kaput"].
Coloradans told the state it would be OK to keep their TABOR refunds for five years but balked on letting the state go in to debt to spend the dough before it was collected. Here's an article from the Denver Post detailing the effects of the defeat of Referendum D on Tuesday [November 3, 2005, "CDOT must map future without boost of D"]. From the article, "Colorado's roads were the big loser Tuesday as state voters narrowly rejected Referendum D. If approved, the measure would have accelerated construction of 55 of the state's most critical highway projects using $1.2 billion in borrowed money."
The battle over Referendum C lined the pockets of consultants and media outlets according to this article from the Denver Post [November 3, 2005, "C, D battle among the costliest"].
More spending information from the Rocky Mountain News [November 3, 2005, "Rich Dems anted up"].
If you're planning to move to Denver to take advantage of our new laws regarding the use of marijuana you might want to think it through some more, according to the Denver Post [November 3, 2005, "Police likely to ignore pot vote"]. From the article, "As Denver officials react to Tuesday's vote to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, they can look to two West Coast cities where similar initiatives won approval. Voters in Oakland, Calif., and Seattle told police to make possession of small amounts of marijuana the lowest priority, but each city responded differently. In Seattle, the number of people prosecuted for pot possession has plummeted since voters approved an initiative in September 20."
The Denver Post editorial staff weighs in on Intiative 100 [November 3, 2005, "Marijuana vote sends message"]. They write, "Denver's approval of a ballot measure to legalize adult possession of small amounts of marijuana isn't really going to decriminalize the drug in our city, but it sends a simple message to federal and state authorities: it wouldn't be reefer to madness to finally debate and resolve the issue...The Post supports ending the 70-year-old federal ban on marijuana and instead strictly regulating and taxing its sale. We think scarce public resources could be put to better use fighting violent crime or treating substance abuse. But that can't happen unless federal laws are relaxed to allow states to regulate marijuana as they see fit. Seattle, Oakland and a few college towns already have passed laws making marijuana possession the lowest law-enforcement priority. Oakland citizens also voted to require the city to develop a plan to license and tax the sale, use and cultivation of marijuana...The war on drugs has been as dismal a failure as Prohibition, which banned alcohol from 1920 to 1933 but didn't keep Americans from drinking and only increased disrespect for the law. That's not to say we don't have some concerns about the effects of marijuana use. We wouldn't want someone who had just lit up to get behind the wheel of a vehicle any more than somebody who's had too much to drink."
Here's the coverage from the Rocky [November 3, 2005, "I-100 author smokes foes"]. From the article, "It's not even noon and Mason Tvert already has hit seven television and five radio news shows in his post-election victory lap as the architect behind an effort to make Denver the first U.S. city to legalize adult marijuana possession. Tvert has drawn international coverage by turning the tables on the drug war. He calls marijuana the "safer alternative" for society and criticizes the "hypocrisy" of elected officials who condemn pot while condoning alcohol use, despite studies showing that alcohol fuels deadly violence, car wrecks and abuse. He even hounded Denver's super-popular, brewpub-owning mayor, John Hickenlooper, to debate - a challenge the mayor ignored."
Backers of Referendum C credit the efforts of the Denver Chamber of Commerce for giving the yes side a boost in helping to build the bi-partisan coalition that worked on the issue, according to the Denver Post [November 3, 2005, "Chamber muscle, cash gave C a lift"]. From the article, "Emboldened by its victory on the FasTracks transit measure last fall, the chamber moved forward with its goal of fixing the state budget shortfall. But it didn't want to see the spending restrictions in the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights dismantled. Key in the chamber's early efforts was data from pollster David Hill on what voters would accept in a ballot measure. That information, along with numerous meetings, helped forge a bipartisan compromise. The backing of the chamber and other business groups made it easier for Republican Gov. Bill Owens to take the political risk of breaking with more conservative factions in his party to deal with Democratic legislators, Romanoff said."
Here's an article from the Denver Post about ProComp and teacher reaction [November 3, 2005, "DPS teachers optimistic, cautious toward pay plan"]. From the article, "If the Internet is an accurate gauge of Denver teacher interest in a new pay-for-performance plan, so far there is a lot of shopping but not a lot of commitment. A day after Denver voters approved a $25 million annual tax increase to fund ProComp, an innovative compensation plan for teachers that rewards them for how well students perform, school leaders said they had 500 to 600 hits an hour on the pay measure's website. But only 15 teachers called expressing interest in committing."
Political coalitions are a fragile and vulnerable construct. Coyote Gulch however thought the Pro-Referendum C bunch would last more than a few hours after Tuesday's election. He was wrong according to the Denver Post [November 3, 2005, "Referendum recriminations fly"]. From the article, "The war is over. Let the fighting begin. A flurry of political posturing consumed the Colorado Capitol on Wednesday, one day after voters gave the state permission to keep $3.7 billion in taxpayer refunds over the next five years. Republicans attacked fellow Republicans. They also attacked their Democratic opposition in the statehouse. And advocates for public education didn't wait for the final ballot count before they claimed that Referendum D - a bonding measure that would have let the state borrow an additional $2.1 billion - would have passed if more of the money had been set aside for schools and not roads. With so many disputes erupting, there was hardly time for the backers of Referendum C to celebrate their hard-won victory."
The Denver Election Commission is considering moving to voting centers (again), according to the Denver Post [November 3, 2005, "Denver weighing switch to voting centers"]. From the article, "Instead of going to their usual polling places next year, Denver residents may be headed to super voting centers placed in recreation centers and police stations throughout the city. The recommendation from the Denver Election Commission was part of its revised budget, which the City Council's finance committee narrowly moved to a full council vote Monday. Denver would join four other counties in Colorado - Larimer, Weld, Adams and Otero - that use voting centers."
Category: Denver November 2005 Election
4:51:21 AM 
|
|
