Support investments in our future and reject disingenuous culture war issues (Editorial)

We’re in the home stretch. With just over two weeks until Election Day, Nov. 3, the end of this tumultuous, exhausting season is in sight. Now, though, it is imperative to make sure you’ve done your research and filled out your ballot as an informed, engaged voter.

To help out with that process, we’re going to weigh in with our endorsements for a smattering of the remaining issues: the last state amendment, all of the propositions and our local CoCo tax. As has been the trend this year, there are more nos than yeses, but the yeses are essential to get right to support equity and our transit future.

Agree with us or not, use these endorsements to inform your own opinion.

‘Yes’ on Amendment 87

Amendment 87 is one of the biggest issues on our ballot this year. A “yes” vote would do away with Colorado’s flat 4.4% income tax and establish a graduated income tax.

The new graduated system would see the lowest earners pay 3.7% tax on their income, while the highest, those earning over $1 million per year, would pay 8.4%. While Amendment 87 is expected to raise revenue for the state, it would be a tax cut for the vast majority of Coloradans and businesses. By one estimate, 97% of individuals and 95% of businesses would see a reduction in their state tax bill.

That, of course, means taxes would increase significantly for the wealthiest individuals and the biggest businesses.

Many have argued that this increased burden on those at the top would hamper economic growth and lead to an exodus of millionaires and big business. But one comprehensive study of such mobility by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found the opposite to be true: “State income tax increases on wealthy people have not led to substantial numbers of them to move to lower-tax states.”

In a time of soaring inequality, a graduated income tax — which is used by 26 states, Washington, D.C., and the federal government — is one way to start leveling the playing field.

For Colorado’s lowest earners, a few dollars here or there can be the difference between paying rent and being evicted. For those earning $1 million per year, a tax increase that sees income after state taxes decrease from $956,000 to $916,000 is not going to make a meaningful difference in their ability to thrive.

The one real hangup we have about Amendment 87 is that it earmarks all revenue increases above what the previous tax rate would have generated — estimated to be $2.7 billion — to education, health care and child care funding.

All three of these services are in dire need of robust funding and they are essential to the well-being of our state. But in general, we feel dedicated taxes unnecessarily tie the hands of our legislators to actually legislate on our behalf.

Still, the benefit of Amendment 87 — instilling a measure of equity into our tax code — is worth it.

Vote “yes” on Amendment 87.

‘No’ on Propositions 132 and 133

Both of these measures seek to impose harsher punishments for criminal activity — and both of them would strip nuance from our justice system and senselessly tie the hands of prosecutors and judges.

A “yes” vote on Proposition 132 would establish a higher felony classification and mandatory penalties for the production, sale and possession of fentanyl. Fentanyl is a devastating drug; there is no arguing with that, and we should take its dangers seriously. But imposing harsher penalties on drug offenders is not going to solve issues of addiction. On top of that, in a world of ever-changing synthetic drugs, targeting just fentanyl feels nearly pointless.

A “yes” vote on Proposition 133 supports requiring life in prison without the possibility of parole for individuals convicted of trafficking a minor. Human trafficking is a heinous crime, and the trafficking of minors is even more reprehensible. But mandating a life sentence for those convicted of such a crime would do more harm than good.

Trafficking often carries a very harsh prison sentence already. But more critically, a mandatory life sentence has the potential to harm victims of trafficking who are forced by their traffickers into helping recruit and transport other victims, thus becoming involuntary traffickers themselves.

We are under no illusions about the grotesque nature of this crime. It is the worst of the worst. But removing nuance and discretion from our laws and courtrooms is never the answer.

As we have long noted, increasing incarceration does not make us safer. Increasing prison sentences for crimes that already carry extremely harsh sentences is unlikely to deter anyone. It is always more productive to invest in lifting people out of desperation before criminal activity, rather than using a heavy hand to punish them after the fact.

When it comes to these crimes, let our prosecutors and judges use their discretion for sentencing. And let’s put our resources into drug education, addiction treatment and lifting people out of poverty to help remove them from the scenarios where trafficking occurs.

It is essential that Colorado rejects both of these measures. The scale of harm they can cause is immense.

Vote “No” on Propositions 132 and 133.

‘No’ on Propositions 134 and 135

It feels painfully obvious that both of these issues are extensions of the MAGA movement’s harmful and baseless attacks on transgender individuals. We are disappointed that we even have to discuss such needless targeting of some of the most vulnerable in our communities.

A “yes” vote on Proposition 134 would require student athletes to play on the sports team that aligns with their “biological reproductive system.”

Regardless of how you feel about transgender athletes’ participation in sports, Prop 134 would create an absolute mess. It would empower coaches and parents to question the gender of players who may look too tall or too strong or are simply too good. And how exactly would these student athletes be required to prove their “biological reproductive system”?

The fact that Colorado has been roped into this culture war issue is deeply disappointing. The best and only answer is to reject Prop 134 loudly and clearly.

A “yes” vote on Prop 135 would prohibit “surgery on a minor for the purpose of altering the minor’s biological sex characteristics.”

This is a solution in search of a problem. The surgeries described in Prop 135’s ballot language are vanishingly rare. And whether or not you agree with such procedures, when it comes to making such a decision, it should rest with a child’s guardians and doctors — not with the whims of the general public.

In this hyper-partisan age, our transgender neighbors have been senselessly vilified and otherised for the political gain of self-promoting partisans who are fighting a losing battle on the issues that matter — affordability, health care, the Iran war — and seeking to make this election about anything or anyone else. It is a harmful, reductive, disgusting ploy.

At the ballot box, reject hate.

Vote “no” on Propositions 134 and 135.

‘No’ on Proposition 136

This is a simple one. If you voted “yes” on Amendment 87, vote “no” on Proposition 136.

A “yes” vote on Prop 136 would lock in Colorado’s 4.4% income tax for individuals and corporations.

As we’ve already discussed, a flat tax is regressive. In this age of income inequality, Colorado needs a graduated tax.

Vote “no” on Proposition 136.

‘No’ on Proposition 137

Proposition 137 is a complicated one. A “yes” vote would allow the state to retain sales tax revenue on sporting goods and equipment to use “to conserve and protect Colorado’s water, land, and forests, (and) prevent wildfires.” (Yes, this is a TABOR issue.)

In theory, what Prop 137 is seeking to do is worthwhile. But it is yet another dedicated tax. And while it doesn’t raise taxes on anyone, it does tie the hands of our legislators.

If we continue dedicating taxes each and every election, we will soon have no general funding revenue remaining and no need for elected representatives. That’s hyperbolic, of course, but it is true that dedicated taxes do prevent our leaders from doing the job we’ve elected them to do: govern on our behalf.

Prop 137 is a worthy issue. But we should find the money elsewhere in our budget.

Vote “no” on Proposition 137.

‘No’ on Proposition NN

This is another because you voted “yes” on this, vote “no” on that issue.

A “yes” vote on Prop NN would increase the TABOR cap to fund education to the tune of $4.6 billion.

So, because we are advocating a “yes” vote on Amendment 87, which would raise $2.7 billion for education (and health care and child care), we urge a “no” on Prop NN.

Prop NN is an admirable, good-faith measure. But in addition to treading the same ground as Amendment 87, it is also quite simply too big of an ask. Increasing the TABOR cap to raise $4.7 billion would likely put an end to TABOR as we know it for the foreseeable future. We’re not necessarily in favor of TABOR, but if we are going to dismantle it, we should at least go about it head-on.

Fully funding education is always a noble goal. Hopefully Amendment 87 will help us achieve it.

Vote “no” on Proposition NN.

‘Yes’ on Ballot Measure 7A

The Front Range Passenger Rail, now known as CoCo, is finally on its way. The train is set to begin service in 2029 whether or not Ballot Measure 7A passes. But a “yes” vote on 7A would create a 0.333% sales tax in the district to raise $295,000,000 for the operation and maintenance of the new rail. (The district includes Boulder, Broomfield, Louisville, Longmont and Loveland, among other cities along the rail.)

For those of us in Boulder County who have been paying the FasTracks tax for more than 20 years, the promise of a train can feel dubious. But this time, it is actually happening — and the district running the show is not, thank goodness, RTD.

The tax that 7A is asking for is minor for most transactions, just 33 cents on every $100 spent. But the money it would raise would help CoCo start strong. Some of the funding would be used to increase service above the guaranteed three round trips per day. Some would go to localities to help them build train stations. And some would simply be used to make sure maintenance costs are looked after and not left to fester (as too many government entities often forget to do).

We understand the hesitation of many who have been bitten before by our hope for a train. But this time it is actually happening, with or without 7A. But voting “yes” on 7A will help ensure that CoCo succeeds.

In our changing world with our changing needs and our changing climate, we need to start investing in a future that is less defined by cars. Single-occupancy vehicles are likely not going anywhere anytime fast — this is America after all. But a reliable train service is a step toward a real alternative. That’s worth our investment.

Vote “yes” on 7A.

— Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email.