Government is a core pillar of society. When choosing our leaders, there is a lot to unpack, and this column is intended to help readers do just that before election day.
I was appointed the head of “all things money” by my family a quarter century ago and I’ve been reappointed every year since. If I asked any one of them to help me review taxes, insurance options, loan docs, etc., the response would be a resounding, “That’s your job!” But when the issue is particularly important, to me or to them, they usually step up to offer their input.
This approach is like a representative democracy. In government, few people attend elected board meetings, one because they are boring, and two because they rely on elected officials to make good decisions on their behalf. Therefore, the more ballot initiatives on a ballot, the less representative democracy we have. And while it may not be ideal to have many ballot initiatives, as active participants in a democracy, it’s important we voters provide thoughtful guidance when asked.
It’s relatively easy to get a measure on the ballot in Colorado compared to other states. And by easy, I mean all it takes is enough money to pay signature gatherers around the state. In 2024, more than $42 million was spent to support or oppose 14 ballot measures. I’m guessing that back in 1910, when the citizen-driven initiative was voted into law in Colorado, the voters intended them to be the exception, not the rule.
The concept of a citizen-driven initiative makes sense, especially if the legislature isn’t adequately addressing the issues at hand, and especially if it is truly driven by Colorado citizens. In a representative democracy, the public identifies problems, elected representatives prioritize which problems should be addressed, staff and consultants think through the details of a proposed solution and draft policy, the public then offers their comments and concerns, and finally elected representatives either adopt the solution as law, or not. The process generally works because it has multiple checks and balances.
If elected representatives want to, or are required to, they can put a question on the ballot, like the way citizens can. It’s called a referendum (as opposed to an initiative), and the public benefits because referendums are vetted by multiple checks and balances, unlike initiatives which aren’t. Maybe this is why in the last 100 years 60% of referendums have passed, while only 36% of initiatives have passed.
Colorado has become a playground for “citizen”-driven initiatives driven by special interest groups that are intentionally leap-frogging the legislative/representative process and denying adequate transparency. It’s sort of like asking your uncle to take you to the R-rated movie because you know your parents won’t.
So, scrutiny becomes more important, but also more difficult. I like to ask: What problem is this question trying to solve? Why is this question being asked outside of the legislative process with its built-in checks and balances? Is this being enshrined into our state constitution, or will this be a law that the legislature can modify if necessary? Is a “Yes/No” vote the best way to solve this problem? Does the solution protect rights, or take them away?
Thanks to TABOR, we the people have the responsibility of voting on nearly all tax questions, and this ballot will have two. One is the extension of a “mill levy override” (MLO) for the Garfield County Public Library District (GCPLD). It’s a property tax that was passed in 2006 with a “sunset” provision, which means it expires in 2027 unless voters choose to renew it. GCPLD is asking voters for this to become permanent. I asked Abraham Korah, GCPLD’s executive director, why they chose to eliminate the sunset provision and he clarified that the first 20 years of the tax were to support the debt service of new and remodeled facilities, which will be retired in 2027, but from this point forward it would be to fund the perpetual costs of maintenance, repair and operations.
The second question is the Roaring Fork School District (RFSD) asking voters to approve another MLO, this time to “retain and recruit amazing teachers and staff,” as stated on their website. This question speaks to a larger trend of shifting the funding for many things even beyond education from the federal and/or state government to local governments. The concept of greater local control and funding makes a lot of sense, especially if federal taxes are reduced. I asked RFSD’s board president, Jon Delk, what happens if the MLO fails and he stated, “The practical effect of not receiving the additional revenue would be less capacity to improve compensation and support recruitment and retention, potentially increasing employee turnover, difficult-to-fill positions, and pressure on classrooms.” The rationale for the funding is solid, so perhaps its passing will hinge on how voters choose to prioritize tax dollars.
I don’t always like being the “money guy” in the family, but it’s my job. And sometimes, the whole family (aka voters) needs to weigh in on tough decisions. Whether it’s true citizen-driven initiatives, special interest groups packing the ballot or local entities asking for funding, democracy is demanding our attention.