Sunday, November 05, 2006

The Daedalnexus’ Endorsemenets - 2006

UPDATE:  My wife pointed out that I goofed on the State Treasurer and state Attorney General.  These two sections have been updated.

I know that a good number of readers may have already voted, and if that’s the case, great.  If not, please make sure to vote on Tuesday.  Sure, I care a great deal how you vote, but I truly believe that the most important thing is that you vote, regardless who you vote for.  I think it’s appalling that we’re only expecting about 60% turnout nationally this year, and that’s WAY up from the last mid-term election in 2002.

Now, for those of you outside of Colorado, the rest of this post may just be interesting but without any real bearing to your state’s issues, since I’m going to spend the rest of it on the various statewide ballot initiatives and the elections to the House of Representatives.

So, without further ado, here is the Daedalnexus’ Endorsements.

Amendment 38, Petitions:  NO
Rationale: First, this amendment allows anyone to use a citizen’s initiative to change pretty much everything in ANY government entitity (defined as a “district” in the text of the amendment), including school districts, police departments, fire departments, county hospitals, etc.  Do you really want petitions out there able to vote out of existence your local Police Department, or companies tweaking the zoning to zone the open space behind your house for a strip club?  Extreme cases to be sure, but possible under this amendment.  Second, all enacted initiatives will go into effect 91 days following the election they’re approved in, even if something as wildly complex as statewide government-provided healthcare was involved.  Do you think anyone could reasonably create a government-provided healthcare system for the entire state of Colorado in 91 days?  Me neither.  Third, and I quote, “Signers of petitions later notarized or verified shall be presumed district registered electors making valid entries until disproved in protests by clear and convincing evidence. Technical defects, minor variations, and minor omissions shall be very broadly construed to aid petitions. Listing mailing addresses shown on registration records shall be valid.” What that all means is signatures and mailing addresses are always considered valid unless you can prove without the aid of statistical sampling (from another part of the amendment) that each and every invalid signature/address is truly invalid.  Also, anything that’s wrong with the initiative’s wording should be ignored, essentially giving the initiative writer carte blanche to screw up or to (carefully) lie in order to get petition signers and votes.  Foruth, the courts have 10 days after a complaint is filed to go through each and every individual entry to verify that they’re ALL specifically valid, even if you have to get tens of thousands of signatures, again because statistical methods are specifically banned.  And finally, we live in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, not a direct democracy.  We vote people into office to do this bullshit for us, not so we have to do their job for them.  If we as a state decide to change Colorado to a direct democracy, fine, but until then, this amendment will just make our state legislature even more impotent when we should instead be electing legislators who will actually run our state on our behalf.

Amendment 39, School District Spending Requirements:  (Hell) NO
Rationale: First, allow me to provide you with a list of things that schools need in order to function day-to-day that doesn’t qualify as “classroom expenditures”:  school busses, heating in the winter, air conditioning, janitorial services, and given the recent spate of school shootings, SECURITY.  Second, this opposes our traditional (if possibly extreme) view of “local control” regarding public school districts.  And third, this kind of bullshit doesn’t even belong in the state Constitution – it’s best handled by the legislature, and the only reason it’s even here is because the Colorado state Constitution is insanely easy to amend!  Now, if only someone would give me an amendment to make it harder to amend our Constitution – THAT’s one I’d vote for in a second.

Amendment 40, Term Limits for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges:  NO
Rationale: That’s right, let’s purge any judge from the courts who has over 10 years of experience, and let’s limit judges to never getting more than 12 years of experience.  We already have a system whereby we can vote to not retain any judges we don’t like, so instead of amending the Constitution with this, how about we mandate that everyone be able to look at the court decisions of every judge in the state?  You know, actually educate us on the judges we’re going to vote to retain or not on Tuesday?

Amendment 41, Standards of Conduct in Government: NO
Rationale: Basically, this one just strikes me as excessive.  I realize that we don’t want lobbyists buying our legislators or government employees being yanked around by corporate interests, but a lobbyist couldn’t even buy a government official a cheeseburger for lunch if this sucker passes.  And again, why the hell is this going into our Constitution when it should be a law instead?  Hmmmmmmmm?

Amendment 42, Colorado Minimum Wage:  NO
Rationale: Minimum wage laws are near and dear to my heart, and voting against this one will be painful for me.  But note that I said minimum wage laws, not minimum wage amendments.  This should be a law, not an amendment, and while I realize that this is an amendment because the legislature hasn’t been able to get it by Gov. Owens, that doesn’t make it right.  In addition, the minimum wage is tied to the Consumer Price Index of Colorado, which would set the statewide minimum wage based on the CPI calculated from Denver, Boulder, and Greeley.  Given the high costs of living in Boulder and Denver as compared to the rest of the state, I don’t feel it’s right to drive the costs state-wide by the cost of living in a small area.  There’s got to be a better way to do index for inflation than this.

Amendment 43, Marriage:  NO
Rationale: OK, so we’re going to codify the elimination of potential rights to entire blocks of our citizens in our state’s founding document?  The only thing that’s more profoundly un-American is to do the same with the U.S. Constitution.  And how, exactly, does it hurt my heterosexual marriage with my wife if my gay and lesbian friends are married too?

Amendment 44, Marijuana Posession:  NO
Rationale: Give me a fucking break, people!  I actually support the legalization (and steep taxation) of pot and some other presently illicit drugs – I’m pretty libertarian on this one.  But making it legal using the state constitution?  Yet another amendment that doesn’t belong as an amendment at all.

Referenda E, Property Tax Reduction for Disabled Veterans:  YES
Rationale: First, as you probably expect, I don’t think this belongs in the Constitution.  I see no reason not to do this legislatively (although there’s a chance that the warped language of TABOR would require voter approval) if we want it done.  But on the other hand, someone who is 100% disabled has a rough enough time without taxes too, and since the state will be reimbursing the cities and counties who lose money from this one.  It becomes an issue of fairness and supporting those who can no longer support themselves.  I might prefer an option to extend this to ANYONE who is 100% disabled, but that’s not an option this time around.

Referenda F, Recall Deadlines:  YES
Rationale: This referendum deletes provisions added to the state constitution in 1913 that require all recall elections to take place between 30 and 60 days after the recall petitions are approved, essentially requiring that all challenges be resolved fast enough that ballots can also be printed up in that period.  That strikes me as too fast, especially for a statewide office.  In addition, I don’t believe that firm numbers of this type belong in any constitution, state or federal – constitutions should be documents that define how the government operates in broad terms, and the legislatures get to define the specifics.  This referendum embodies that, so I endorse it.

Referenda G, Obsolete Constitutional Provisions:  YES
Rationale: I’m a firm believer in the idea of “living” constitutions, be they state or federal in nature.  As such, obsolete provisions that are either no longer enforced or that have been superseded by later amendments should be regularly purged.

Referenda H, Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction:  NO
Rationale: I agree that we need to de-incentivize the companies who make a living off employing illegal immigrant labor.  And this may be a reasonable idea, but I’m just not sure it’ll work.  I’m not convinced it’ll do anything to reduce illegal immigration, and that’s why I’m opposing it.

Referenda I, Domestic Partnerships:  YES
Rationale: I want my gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends to be able to actually marry.  Not have a “civil union” or a “domestic partnership,” but actually marry.  So this isn’t ideal for the social libertarian in me.  But it’s a step in the right direction, so I’m going to vote for it.  Oh, and it’s not in the constitution, either!

Referenda J, School District Spending Requirements:  NO
Rationale: Basically, I like the idea of local control over details like how money is spent in school districts.  In addition, I don’t like writing laws that are symbolic – if it’s a law, it must be enforceable and actually mean something.  And this one really doesn’t mean anything, so I don’t believe it should pass.

Referenda K, Immigration Lawsuit Against the Federal Government:  NO
Rationale: This referendum just plain screams “give me a break.” You know, I don’t have a problem with Colorado suing the feds for things (I’m thinking specifically of the great unfunded mandate that is No Child Left Behind), but I’m not convinced that this lawsuit would be worth the millions of dollars it will cost.

Governor:  Bill Ritter
Rationale: I’m not thrilled with Bill Ritter, partly because I’m pretty firmly pro-choice and Ritter is a little squishy on the issue, but he’s worlds better than Bob Beauprez.  Ritter supported Ref. C and FasTracks, he supports getting parents more involved in their children’s education.  The things that drive me away from Beauprez are his scary running mate (who basically said that allowing homosexuals to marry is like letting people marry goats), his A rating from the NRA (which implies that Beauprez’s TOO gung-ho for gun rights), and the fact that he opposed Ref. C.  Oh, and it’s about damn time we got a Democratic governor to correct some of the abuses of the Owen’s regime.

Secretary of State:  Mike Coffman
Rationale: I have heard very little about these two men, and what I’ve heard indicates that either one of them will do just a fine job running Colorado’s elections as Secretary of State.  Which gets me back to the men themselves.  My support for Mr. Coffman is purely based on the fact that he could have requested a deferral from being called up out of the Marine reserves as the State Treasurer.  He didn’t, and I respect that decision greatly.

State Treasurer:  Cary Kennedy
Rationale: This one was tricky, but it ultimately came down to two things:  Ms. Kennedy wants to open government, and I approve of that, and Mr. Hillman appears to be a tax cutter regardless of whether it makes sense or not, and I don’t approve of that.

State Attorney General:  John Suthers
Rationale: John Suthers, the current AG, has been endorsed by the Colorado Education Association (good) and the NRA (bad).  Fern O’Brien seems qualified and bright, but she’s got very little to run on, and her website is a little short on specifics.  And I’m always a little scared by members of of the Libertarian Party, so I don’t tend to vote for them as second-tier candidates.  Since I know the most about John Suthers, I’m going to endorse him, even though he may not be right up my alley.  For future reference, all candidates - put lots of information on your websites.  Some people like me will use them almost exclusively to decide who to vote for.

House District 2:  Mark Udall
Rationale: Udall has been good for the district, and he’s voted the way I like on most issues (most recently the Military Comissions Act, which should never have been passed).  And that’s good enough for me.

House District 3:  No opinion
Rationale: I just don’t know the candidates well enough to know.  However, John Salazar did vote FOR the Military Commissions Act – you know, the act that allows Bush to declare citizens “enemy combatants” and gives legal cover for torture under the Geneva Conventions and suspends habeas corpus for “enemy combatants.” For that reason alone Rep. Salazar should be voted out of office – except that I have no trust that the Republican candidate wouldn’t have voted for it too.

House District 4:  Angela Paccione
Rationale: There was a debate between Rep Musgrave and Ms. Paccione where they were both asked what the biggest threat to the country was.  Musgrave said “gay marriage.” Ms. Paccione said “terrorism, lack of executive branch oversight by congress, a botched Iraq policy, nukes in N. Korea, etc.” Do we really want someone as out of touch as Marilyn Musgrave to represent even a single Coloradan?  I don’t think so.

House District 5: Jay Fawcett
Rationale: I have to say it, but I have respect for Republican Joel Hefley, outgoing rep for this district.  He’s an (reasonably) ethical politician, and I’ve appreciated that fact since the Ethics Committee under Mr. Hefley’s leadership censored Tom DeLay several times.  And if Hefley says that Republican Doug Lamborn is a unethical sleazeball, that actually carries some weight with me.  I might vote “party line” on this one (if I could, of course) anyway, but having someone I respect refuse to endorse his own party’s candidate says a lot.

House District 6:  Anyone but Tom Tancredo
Rationale: Basically, I’m sick of listening to Tom vomit anti-immigrant, racist, elitist, nativist, isolationist, nationalist bullshit under the guise of patriotism.

House District 7:  Ed Perlmutter
Rationale: Well, this one is my only “party line” vote, and it’s purely based on needing to get something resembling real oversight in the Congress.  To do that, the Democrats need a certain number of new seats in the House, and Ed has a decent chance of being one of those new seats.  And that sounds good to me.

Also, if you don’t have your 2006 Legislative Blue Book that describes all the amendments, referenda, etc, there’s a .pdf version online:  Click here.  In addition, our state has a crappy system for educating the people regarding the judges that we vote to or not to retain.  For more information on judges you’re expected to vote on, click here.  And finally, USElections.com has a great page with links to all the campaign pages for all the candidates where you can educate yourselves about the candidates if you haven’t already.

Please, educate yourselves, and then vote on Tuesday if you haven’t already.