View Full Version : So who's keeping track of the upcoming election?
It makes me sick that Ritter is winning gun owner's votes with this range deal. I really hope that people see through that transparent little scheme.
In my district it's Perlmutter and O'Donnell for Congress. Is anyone keeping tabs on this? It seems to me that Perlmutter isn't saying anything besides "don't vote for O'Donnell because...." while O'Donnell is out there telling people exactly why they should elect him. The sad thing is that I see Perlmutter signs everywhere. It was refreshing to see a big O'Donnell billboard on I-25, though. This one looks like it'll be pretty close. I'm really pulling for O'Donnell.
pickenup
09-22-2006, 22:31
Ritter is about as anti-gun as you can get.
Look up his history.
There isn't much choice.........again. :evil:
Ritter is about as anti-gun as you can get.
Look up his history.
There isn't much choice.........again. :evil:
That's the way I look at it. We do have a libertarian candidate. I just don't think it would be a good idea to vote for her because it would probably take more votes away from Beauprez than Ritter :evil: . I just wish more candidates would adopt O'Donnell's philosophy. Concetrate more on telling the people what you want to do and what you stand for and spend less time trying to convince the people not to vote for your opponent.
MPfiveengineer
09-22-2006, 22:50
It makes me sick that Ritter is winning gun owner's votes with this range deal. I really hope that people see through that transparent little scheme.
Can you post a link as to what the range deal is?
Found it http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/09/08/9_8_3A_Ritter_and_guns.html
Let me know if you want any more info.
I'm not a fan of either Beuprez or Ritter, but Beuprez is the only choice.
I'd encourage everyone to vote yes on Amendment 38.
Colorado Springs has some interesting choices with District 5 congressional seat and a measure to reduce both our sales and property taxes. I recommend voting for Lamborn, and for the two tax reduction measures.
What's amendment 38? I can say that I'll be voting yes for amendment 44. I don't smoke pot but I think we waste way too much time and too many resources going after the people that do.
Hyunchback
09-24-2006, 15:09
I was at the NRA Mix N' Mingle when O'Donnell addressed the assembled folks. My only regret is that I can't vote for him (stuck in the Sixth district).
O'Donnell is clearly the better candidate on all fronts. Perlmutter isn't fit for dog-catcher.
Beauprez is also the real choice for anyone from the RKBA standpoint for Governor.
http://www.pra2006.com/ has more info on Amendment 38
Great-Kazoo
09-24-2006, 16:54
Bob Schaffer for GOV
screw beauprex and ritter.
the GOP is going to be in the sh%*tter come election day. last time it was choosing pete coors. i have yet to see anyone grab my attention on either side. the local GOP nationwide is doing to bush what the DEM's did with clinton ............................as much distance as possible....................
also has anyone heard a radio or tv spot for a canidate that actually told you what they would do if elected? me neither
after nov 2nd the cost of a used firearm might be slightly higher in colorado
and after nov 2008 the cost of "evil" firearms will surpass the buying frenzy of californians prior to 1/01/2000
UNLESS THE GOP really gets their act together
Bob Schaffer for GOV
screw beauprex and ritter.
the GOP is going to be in the sh%*tter come election day. last time it was choosing pete coors. i have yet to see anyone grab my attention on either side. the local GOP nationwide is doing to bush what the DEM's did with clinton ............................as much distance as possible....................
also has anyone heard a radio or tv spot for a canidate that actually told you what they would do if elected? me neither
after nov 2nd the cost of a used firearm might be slightly higher in colorado
and after nov 2008 the cost of "evil" firearms will surpass the buying frenzy of californians prior to 1/01/2000
UNLESS THE GOP really gets their act together
You're not completely without choices http://www.dawnforgovernor.org/
Hyunchback
09-25-2006, 19:05
I'd love to vote for a Libertarian, if there was a snowball's chance of victory.
Ritter is running too close to Beauprez, though. Beauprez, for any of his faults, is still solidly pro-gun and Ritter is decidedly anti-gun.
Want the Denver AWB extended state wide? Let Ritter get in.
Want more illegal aliens murdering in Colorado? Let Ritter get in.
Voting Libertarian when the pro-gun candidate has a sizeable lead seems harmless. When that lead isn't a lead then not voting for the pro-gun candidate is detrimental to your own freedom.
Yeah I realize that and it's too bad. I think she'll end up taking a lot more votes from Beauprez than she does from Ritter. The libertarian party's time is coming but right now it's just too close to take away from the people that have a shot.
Here's an interview that Dawn did a couple of weeks ago for the Rocky Mountain News. They played it on the radio at first but I missed it. The Rocky Mountain News printed it. After reading this I might have to vote for her out of principle. I like her.
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/rockytalklive/archives/2006/09/dawn_winkler_libertarian_candi.html
Hyunchback
09-27-2006, 21:04
If you are a 7th District voter I ask you to go to both Perlmutter's website and then O'Donnell's. Look for what each has to say on terrorism.
O'Donnell is for enforcing border security. What's more is this information he sent out in e-mail.
"Too many politicians hide behind poll-tested sound bites, blind partisan loyalty and devotion to their special interest masters.
Not me. As uncomfortable as it may be at times, as controversial as it may be, I will speak truth to power.
And the truth is, we are fighting a global enemy - Islamic Fascism - that wants to do Americans harm. The truth is, we have men and women in uniform putting their lives on the line and they deserve our unconditional support. The truth is, we have a Commander in Chief deeply committed to protecting America. The truth is, one political party in this country isn't serious about winning in Iraq. And the truth is, we need a new plan in Iraq if we are going to succeed."
I don't know how you feel about calling what we face Islamic Fascism. I'd imagine, though, that you feel that it's a shoe that fits.
Perlmutter isn't going to call a spade a spade.
We don't need any more mealy-mouthed, shades-of-gray politicians. We need someone who is willing to call 'em like he sees 'em.
That makes O'Donnell the choice for the 7th District.
Beauprez-will vote for him because of several of his positions, but wish I had a better option. He has also run a very weak campaign.
O'Connell will get my vote.
Sheriff will be Weaver.
I don't get 38. The endorsements for it are weak. One example they give of the great benefit of petitions is TABOR. You remember, that little piece of law that was nuked by referendum C. I can't believe that big tax increase that fooled a majority didn't show accountability as promised. :roll:
TABOR wasn't nuked, the provision that all tax increases must be voted on by the public still exists. All referendum c did was eliminate the spending limit for 5 years, after that 5 years TABOR is back in full effect.
Asha'man
10-08-2006, 23:22
I agree with Greg, Beauprez's campaign is seriously slacking. I see ads and signs for Ritter all the time, with very little for Beauprez, and on the news tonight the polls (accurate as we all know they are) had Ritter with 50% and Beauprez at only 35%.
O'Donnell sounds like the man. Mink is supposed to be pretty good for Jeffco Sheriff, right?
Voting no on Ref. I (gay-marriage-by-another-name) and yes on Ref. 44 (legalizing marijuana). Not real sure on others yet.
Brian
Great-Kazoo
10-09-2006, 07:18
O'Donnell sounds like the man
perlmutter is a venomous anti-gun politician.
only one media ad has been played and didn't last to long at that .where it portrays perlmutter as one of the leaders of the anti-ccw, waiting period to buy a gun crew. and of course the lure the idiot voters catch phrase
"common sense" gun laws
I've decided that I'm going to go ahead and vote for Dawn Winkler. After the republicans banded together to rush that bill through that lets the president refuse trials to "terrorists" (they never did define what a terrorist is) I've lost a lot of faith in them. The democrats are just as much at fault, though. They let it go through and no one could come up with an intelligent argument when they were hammering out the bill. It's really a shame that Ritter is going to be our next governor. I really really really don't like him. Maybe Dawn will get a big enough chunk of votes that people will start taking the libertarian party seriously, at least in Colorado. We need it to happen badly.
O'Donnell's still got my vote for District 7. The only thing that I see Perlmutter doing is putting signs up in people's yards. It seems like his goal in this election is to piggy back on Ritter's success and try and associate O'Donnell with Bush. I did get a flier in the mail where he was trying to bash O'Donnell for a paper that he wrote 12 years ago. At the time he wanted to do away with social security. He's obviously changed his mind about that since then but Perlmutter is still trying to push the issue. On the front of that flier there was a picture of O'Donnell shaking hands with Bush. Unfortunately since most voters don't bother educating themselves about their candidates it'll still buy Perlmutter some votes :evil: .
I'm definately voting for Mink in Jeffco.
yes on Ref. 44 (legalizing marijuana).
I thought this was just legalization for the possession of marijuana. I think that distribution, etc. is still illegal since it conflicts with Federal laws, but they are legalizing the possession of up to 1oz. for people the age of 21 and older.
Asha'man
10-10-2006, 18:51
Yeah, Federal laws still trump all, but Ref. 44 would set at least the beginnings of a precedent for legalization. I don't even smoke, but I definitely think it should be legal so we can turn law enforcement resources to real crimes.
Brian
Yeah, Federal laws still trump all, but Ref. 44 would set at least the beginnings of a precedent for legalization. I don't even smoke, but I definitely think it should be legal so we can turn law enforcement resources to real crimes.
Brian
That's exactly why I want it to be legal
Hyunchback
10-10-2006, 19:47
Yeah, Federal laws still trump all, but Ref. 44 would set at least the beginnings of a precedent for legalization. I don't even smoke, but I definitely think it should be legal so we can turn law enforcement resources to real crimes.
Brian
That's exactly why I want it to be legal
I'd just add that we could use some laws to make legal marijuana the domain of the BATFE and help out their "enforcement" issues by taking away some of their duties. Repeal the GCA of 1968 and the 1935 law. Since the BATFE is part of the Treasury they can go after people who produce and buy marijuana on the tax angle. Turn them into the BATM.
Then they'd be BATMmen! And also take away their right to carry guns, open or concealed. See how they enjoy a BATMman utility belt and no gun for, oh, maybe 70 years?
Think there is a snowball's chance of anyone nibbling on that one?
I haven't seen a single Beauprez yard sign or bumper sticker. He did at least accept an invitation to come to my place of employment to offer his positions and answer questions. Ritter has yet to accept the invite.
I'm not voting for 38. We already have one of the most liberal petition/referendum systems in place, like California. From my reading of the blue book, 38 makes the petition system even more liberal and we'll have every crackpot in the state getting something or another on the ballot after years of gathering enough signatures. The current trend is to turn all government from a representative system into plurality rule and I don't think that's healthy for the Republic.
Just so that you know what to expect on the ballot this year. This is Jeffco's. http://denver.yourhub.com/KENCARYL/Stories/News/Politics/Story~129793.aspx
Jefferson County 2006 election ballot
e-mail to a friend | print this | link to this
NEXT › ‹ PREVIOUS
Jefferson County 2006 election ballot
Contributed by: YourHub.com on 9/26/2006
OFFICIAL 2006 JEFFERSON COUNTY GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 110th UNITED STATES CONGRESS - DISTRICT 1
(Vote for One)
(01)Diana L. DeGette Democratic
(02)Thomas D. Kelly Green
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 110th UNITED STATES CONGRESS - DISTRICT 2
(Vote for One)
(01)Mark Udall Democratic
(02)Rich Mancuso Republican
(03)Norm Olsen Libertarian
(04)J.A. Calhoun Green
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 110th UNITED STATES CONGRESS - DISTRICT 6
(Vote for One)
(01)Bill WinterDemocratic
(02)Tom Tancredo Republican
(03)Jack J. Woehr Libertarian
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 110th UNITED STATES CONGRESS - DISTRICT 7
(Vote for One)
(01) Rick O'DonnelRepublican
(02) Ed PerlmutterDemocratic
(03)Roger McCarvilleAmerican Constitution
(04)Dave ChandlerGreen
GOVERNOR/ LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
(Vote for One Pair)
(01)Bob Beauprez / Janet RowlandRepublican
(02)Bill Ritter Jr. / Barbara O'BrienDemocratic
(03)Clyde J. Harkins / Tracy DavisonAmerican Constitution
(04)Dawn Winkler-Kinateder / Richard RandallLibertarian
(05)Paul Noel Fiorino / Heather Anne McKibbinUnaffiliated
SECRETARY OF STATE
(Vote for One)
(01)Ken Gordon Democratic
(02)Mike CoffmanRepublican
STATE TREASURER
(Vote for One)
(01)Mark HillmanRepublican
(02)Cary KennedyDemocratic
ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Vote for One)
(01)Fern O'BrienDemocratic
(02)John SuthersRepublican
(03)Dwight K. Harding Libertarian
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION - CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 2
(Vote for One)
(01)Evie Hudak Democratic
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION - CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 7
(Vote for One)
(01)Lee Kunz Republican
(02)Karen MiddletonDemocratic
REGENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO - AT LARGE
(Vote for One)
(01)Stephen C. LudwigDemocratic
(02)Brian DavidsonRepublican
(03)Daniel "Jeffersonian" OngLibertarian
(04)Douglas "Dayhorse" CampbellAmerican Constitution
(05)Marcus C. McCarty
Unaffiliated
STATE SENATE - DISTRICT 16
(Vote for One)
(01)Marty Neilson Republican
(02)Joan Fitz-Gerald Democratic
(03)Tim Leonard American Constitution
STATE SENATE - DISTRICT 20
(Vote for One)
(01)Maryanne Moe Keller Democratic
(02)Dick SargentRepublican
STATE SENATE - DISTRICT 21
(Vote for One)
(01)Matt Knoedler Republican
(02)Betty Boyd Democratic
STATE SENATE - DISTRICT 22(Vote for One)
(01)Paula E. NoonanDemocratic
(02)Mike KoppRepublican
STATE SENATE - DISTRICT 32
(Vote for One)
(01)Dave LewisRepublican
(02)Chris RomerDemocratic
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 1
(Vote for One)
(01)Jeanne LabudaDemocratic
(02)Aimee RathburnRepublican
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 22
(Vote for One)
(01)Ken SummersRepublican
(02)Jayson P. HaberkornDemocratic
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 23
(Vote for One)
(01)Gwyn Green
Democratic
(02)Ramey JohnsonRepublican
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 24
(01)Cheri JahnDemocratic
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 25
(Vote for One)
(01)Rob WitwerRepublican
(02)Mike DanielsDemocratic
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 26
(Vote for One)
(01)Glenn RhoadesRepublican
(02)Andy KerrDemocratic
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 27
(Vote for One)
(01)Sara GagliardiDemocratic
(02)Bill CraneRepublican
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 28
(Vote for One)
(01)Thomas DittemoreDemocratic
(02)Jim KerrRepublican
(3)Aaron ChaseLibertarian
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 29
(Vote for One)
(01)Affie EllisRepublican
(02)Debbie J. BenefieldDemocratic
STATE REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT 38
(Vote for One)
(01)Matt DunnRepublican
(02)Joe Rice Democratic
DISTRICT C REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT DIRECTOR
(Vote for One)
(01)Juanita Chacon
DISTRICT J REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT DIRECTOR
(Vote for One)
(01)Bill Christopher
(02)Heather Barry
DISTRICT L REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT DIRECTOR
(Vote for One)
(01)Wally Pulliam
DISTRICT N REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT DIRECTOR
(Vote for One)
(01)Rich Mahan
(02)Bob Hoban
(03)Bruce Daly
(04)Donald Moore
COURT OF APPEALS
(Vote Yes or No)
(01)Shall Judge Russell E. Carparelli of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office?
(02)Shall Judge Janice B. Davidson of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office?
(03)Shall Judge Alan M. Loeb of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office?
(04)Shall Judge Jose D.L. Marquez of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office?
(05)Shall Judge Robert M. Russel of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office?
DISTRICT JUDGE - 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
(Vote Yes or No)
(01)Shall Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the 1st Judicial District be retained in office?
(02)Shall Judge Christopher J. Munch of the 1st Judicial District be retained in office?
(03)Shall Judge Peter A. Weir of the 1st Judicial District be retained in office?
COUNTY JUDGE, JEFFERSON
(Vote Yes or No)
(01)Shall Judge Charles T. Hoppin of the Jefferson County Court be retained in office?
(02)Shall Judge Thomas Vance of the Jefferson County Court be retained in office?
COUNTY COMMISSIONER -DISTRICT 3
(Vote for One)
(01)Dave AuburnRepublican
(02)(02)Kathy HartmanDemocratic
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
(Vote for One)
(01)Pam AndersonRepublican
(02)Linda RockwellDemocratic
COUNTY TREASURER
(Vote for One)
(01)Robert W. MoserDemocratic
(02)Faye GriffinRepublican
COUNTY ASSESSOR
(Vote for One)
(01)Rocky GermanoDemocratic
02Jim EversonRepublican
COUNTY SHERIFF
(Vote for One)
(01)J.B. Robert EspinozaDemocratic
(02)Ted B. MinkRepublican
COUNTY SURVEYOR
(Vote for One)
(01)Diana E. AskewRepublican
COUNTY CORONER
(Vote for One)
(01)Katherine Loughrey-Stemp Democratic
(02)Richard D. Dial Republican
(03)Write-In
"Ballot issues referred by the general assembly or any political subdivision are listed by letter, and ballot issues initiated by the people are listed numerically. A 'yes' vote on any ballot issue is a vote in favor of changing current law or existing circumstances, and a 'no' vote on any ballot issue is a vote against changing current law or existing circumstances."
Amendment 38
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning initiative and referendum petitions, and, in connection therewith, changing petition rights and procedures; allowing petitions to be submitted at all levels of Colorado government; limiting initiative ballot titles to 75 words; changing single?subject requirements and procedures; limiting the annual number of new laws that governments may exclude from possible referendum petitions; establishing standards for review of filed petitions; specifying that petitions may be voted on at any November election; limiting the use of government resources to discuss a petition; requiring voter approval for future petition laws and rules and for changes to certain voter?approved petitions; and authorizing measures to enforce the amendment?Y
ES _____NO _____
Amendment 39
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a requirement that in each state fiscal year a school district spend at least 65% of its operational expenditures on classroom instruction, with limited exceptions?YES _____NO _____
Amendment 40
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning term limits for appellate court judges, and, in connection therewith, reducing the terms of office for justices of the supreme court and judges of the court of appeals to four years, requiring appellate judges serving as of January 1, 2007, to stand for retention at the next general election, if eligible for another term, prohibiting an appellate judge from serving more than three terms, specifying that a provisional term constitutes a full term, and making any appellate judge who has served ten or more years at one court level ineligible for another term at that level?Y
YES _____NO _____
Amendment 41
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning standards of conduct by persons who are professionally involved with governmental activities, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, or government employee from soliciting or accepting certain monetary or in-kind gifts; prohibiting a professional lobbyist from giving anything of value to a public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, government employee, or such person's immediate family member; prohibiting a statewide elected officeholder or member of the general assembly from personally representing another person or entity for compensation before any other such officeholder or member for a period of two years following departure from office; establishing penalties for a breach of public trust or inducement of such a breach; creating a five-member independent ethics commission to hear ethics complaints, to assess penalties, and to issue advisory opinions on ethics issues; and specifying that the measure shall not apply to home rule jurisdictions that have adopted laws concerning matters covered by the measure?YES _____NO _____
Amendment 42
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the state minimum wage, and, in connection therewith, increasing Colorado's minimum wage to $6.85 per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, and providing that no more than $3.02 per hour in tip income may be used to offset the minimum wage of employees who regularly receive tips?
YES _____NO _____
Amendment 43
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution, concerning marriage, and, in connection therewith, specifying that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Colorado?
YES _____NO _____
Amendment 44
Shall there be an amendment to section 18-18-406 (1) of the Colorado revised statutes making legal the possession of one ounce or less of marihuana for any person twenty-one years of age or older?
YES _____NO _____
Referendum E
AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.5 OF ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFYING SENIORS TO ANY UNITED STATES MILITARY VETERAN WHO IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENTLY DISABLED DUE TO A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY.
YES _____NO _____
Referendum F
An amendment to section 2 of article XXI of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning elections to recall state elected officials, and, in connection therewith, providing for the deadlines regarding recall petitions and hearings to be set in statute rather than in the constitution and stating that a recall election shall be held as part of a general election if a general election will be held between fifty and ninety days after the time for filing a protest has passed and all protests have been finally decided.
YES _____NO _____
Referendum G
Amendments to articles XVII, XX, and XXIV of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning the elimination of obsolete provisions of the state constitution.
YES _____NO _____
Referendum H
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES THAT ELIMINATES A STATE INCOME TAX BENEFIT FOR A BUSINESS THAT PAYS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO PERFORM LABOR SERVICES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PROHIBITS CERTAIN WAGES OR REMUNERATION PAID TO AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN FOR LABOR SERVICES FROM BEING CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS EXPENSE FOR STATE INCOME TAX PURPOSES IF, AT THE TIME THE BUSINESS HIRED THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN, THE BUSINESS KNEW OF THE UNAUTHORIZED STATUS OF THE ALIEN UNLESS SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS APPLY AND, TO THE EXTENT SUCH A PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION IN DETERMINING THE BUSINESS' FEDERAL INCOME TAX LIABILITY, REQUIRES AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PROHIBITED DEDUCTION TO BE ADDED TO THE BUSINESS' FEDERAL TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING STATE INCOME TAX LIABILITY?
YES _____NO _____
Referendum I
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes to authorize domestic partnerships, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits And Responsibilities Act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses, providing the conditions under which a license for a domestic partnership may be issued and the criteria under which a domestic partnership may be dissolved, making provisions for implementation of the act, and providing that a domestic partnership is not a marriage, which consists of the union of one man and one woman?
YES _____NO _____
Referendum J
Shall Colorado state law require that in each state fiscal year a school district spend at least sixty-five percent of its operational expenditures on services that directly affect student achievement?
YES _____NO _____
Referendum K
Shall the Colorado state attorney general initiate or join other states in a lawsuit against the United States attorney general to demand the enforcement of all existing federal immigration laws by the federal government?
YES _____NO _____
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
CITY OF LAKEWOOD BALLOT ISSUE 2A: WITHOUT INCREASING ITS CURRENT TAX RATE OR ADDING ANY NEW TAXES, SHALL THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COLORADO BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN, AND SPEND OPEN SPACE REVENUES AND GRANTS FOR STREETS, PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES RECEIVED BY THE CITY DURING THE YEAR 2007 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS THEREAFTER, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REVENUE OR SPENDING LIMITATIONS IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION (TABOR)?
CITY OF LITTLETONCITY OF LITTLETON BALLOT ISSUE 2A: SHALL THE CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO, WITHOUT CREATING ANY NEW TAX OR INCREASING ANY CURRENT TAXES, BE PERMITTED, IN 2006 AND EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR THEREAFTER, TO RETAIN AND SPEND ALL TAXES, GRANTS AND OTHER REVENUES IN EXCESS OF THE SPENDING, REVENUE RAISING, OR OTHER LIMITS IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
CITY OF WESTMINSTER BALLOT ISSUE 2A: OPEN SPACE, PARKS, RECREATION AND TRAILS TAX EXTENSION
SHALL THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER DEBT BE INCREASED $20 MILLION WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $41.9 MILLION (MAXIMUM TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST) WITHOUT ANY NEW TAXES OR TAX RATE INCREASES FOR THE PURPOSE OF:
ACQUIRING, DEVELOPING, ENHANCING, AND MAINTAINING OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND THROUGHOUT THE CITY, DEVELOPING, ENHANCING, MAINTAINING AND EXTENDING TRAILS THROUGHOUT THE CITY,
DEVELOPING, ENHANCING AND MAINTAINING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE CITYTO BE REPAID FROM THE CURRENT 1/4 OF 1 PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX INCLUDING THE EXTENSION TO DECEMBER 31, 2032, AND ANY OTHER AVAILABLE REVENUES; AND SHALL THE CITY CONTINUE TO LEVY UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2032, THE 1/4 OF 1 PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX CURRENTLY PROVIDED FOR BY CITY CODE SECTION 4-2-3 AND USE SUCH REVENUES FOR THE ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT, ENHANCEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, ENHANCEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKS, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND TRAILS; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT, SUCH TAXES, ANY GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE CITY FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS, AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME THEREFROM BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SPENDING AND THE REVENUE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
CITY OF WESTMINSTER BALLOT QUESTION 2B:
SHALL THE WESTMINSTER CITY CHARTER, SECTION 3.18 ENTITLED RECALL, SECTION 8.10 ENTITLED INITIATORY AND REFERENDARY PETITION, SECTION 8.12 ENTITLED SUBMISSION OF INITIATORY AND REFERENDARY ORDINANCES TO ELECTORS AND SECTION 8.13 ENTITLED ORDINANCE SUSPENDED; MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ON INITIATORY AND REFERENDARY PETITIONS, BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY CERTAIN TIME LIMITS, TO CONFORM INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS WITH REQUIREMENTS OF STATE ELECTION LAW, TO RECOGNIZE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED AS PART OF THE CITY CODE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR SIMILAR PROCEDURES FOR INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL PETITIONS?
FOR AND AGAINST
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BALLOT ISSUE 2A: SHALL THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN $54,409 IN REVENUES FROM FISCAL YEAR 2005 WHICH EXCEEDS THE CITY'S APPLICABLE REVENUE BASE FOR THAT YEAR UNDER ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, SUCH REVENUE TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKS AND RECREATION?
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BALLOT ISSUE 2B:
WITHOUT INCREASING OR ADDING ANY NEW TAXES OF ANY KIND AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF: POLICE PROTECTION; STREET CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE; PARKS AND RECREATION, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE; CAPITAL PROJECTS; AND OTHER BASIC MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND WITHOUT WAIVING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS: VOTER APPROVAL OF ALL NEW TAXES AND TAX RATE INCREASES; VOTER APPROVAL FOR NEW OR ADDITIONAL DEBT; NO IMPOSITION OF A NEW REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX; ALL ELECTION REQUIREMENTS REMAIN IN EFFECT; SHALL THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN AND SPEND THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE CITY'S TAXES AND OTHER REVENUE COLLECTED, INCLUDING ALL REVENUE RECEIVED IN 2006 AND EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY REVENUE OR EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS INCLUDING THOSE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
FOOTHILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
FOOTHILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT 5A: SHALL FOOTHILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT [SUBDISTRICT "A" ONLY, WHICH INCLUDES SUBDISTRICT "B"] TAXES BE INCREASED $1.2 MILLION ANNUALLY, COMMENCING IN 2007, OR BY SUCH GREATER OR LESSER ANNUAL AMOUNT AS MAY BE DERIVED FROM AN AD VALOREM MILL LEVY NOT IN EXCESS OF 1.5 MILLS ANNUALLY, THE REVENUES THEREFROM TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYING THE DISTRICT'S OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TRAILS CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS, GENERAL PA RK IMPROVEMENTS, PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENTS, PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM RENOVATIONS, TENNIS COURTS, SWIMMING POOL REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS, PARKING LOTS AND SPECIAL USE FACILITIES; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AND INVESTMENT INCOME THEREON BE COLLECTED AND SPENT BY THE DISTRICT AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE IN 2007 AND IN EACH YEAR THEREAFTER, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY SPENDING, REVENUE RAISING, OR OTHER LIMITATION CONTAINED WITHIN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSITITUTION, OR SECTION 29-1-301, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES?
NORTH JEFFCO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
NORTH JEFFCO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT BALLOT ISSUE 5A MILL LEVY INCREASE:
SHALL NORTH JEFFCO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $1.2 MILLION IN 2007 (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR OF SUCH TAX INCREASE) AND BY SUCH OTHER AMOUNT AS PERMITTED BY ARTICLE X SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION IN EACH YEAR THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL MILL LEVY OF NOT MORE THAN ONE (1) MILL, FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: ONE HALF OF THE REVENUE OF WHICH SHALL BE UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT SOLELY FOR CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO DISTRICT FACILITIES; ONE-HALF OF THE REVENUE OF WHICH SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR OPERATION OF THE DISTRICT AND ROUTINE UPKEEP OF DISTRICT FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUPPORTING SENIOR PROGRAMS, YOUTH PROGRAMS, AND AQUATICS OPERATIONS?
NORTH JEFFCO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT BALLOT ISSUE 5B
BOND QUESTION: SHALL NORTH JEFFCO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT DEBT BE INCREASED $6.95 MILLION, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $12.9 MILLION, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $646 THOUSAND ANNUALLY, COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2007 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2027, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE FOLLOWING: THE REPLACEMENT OF 48 YEAR OLD FISHER POOL (FORMERLY NORTH JEFFCO POOL); AND SHALL THE MILL LEVY BE INCREASED IN EACH YEAR THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2027 WITHOUT LIMITATION OF RATE OR AMOUNT, TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT (OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT), SUCH DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS BEARING INTEREST AT A MAXIMUM NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE NOT TO EXCEED 6.75%; SUCH BONDS TO BE SOLD IN ONE SERIES OR MORE, FOR A PRICE ABOVE OR BELOW THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SUCH SERIES, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND WITH SUCH MATURITIES AS PERMITTED BY LAW AND AS THE DISTRICT MAY DETERMINE, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS PRIOR TO MATURITY WITH OR WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM OF NOT TO EXCEED THREE PERCENT; AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DEBT TO REFUND THE DEBT AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION, PROVIDED THAT SUCH REFUNDING DEBT, ALONG WITH ANY OTHER DEBT INCURRED BY THE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORIZATION, IS ISSUED ON TERMS WHICH DO NOT EXCEED THE PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND REPAYMENT COSTS AUTHORIZED IN THIS QUESTION; AND SHALL SUCH TAX REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS GENERATED FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH BOND PROCEEDS AND TAX REVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW?
I'm voting for Bill and Opus... and writing in Ted Nugent..
westy1970
10-12-2006, 00:17
I am voting Dawn Winkler and Libertarian as much as possible. 38? Who knows? Gay marriage - not a government issue, if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us married guys let them pay higher taxes too. I will have to read into more of it for sure. Voting for Dem's is a vote against the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. Voting for Rep's is a vote against the 1st, 4th, 6th and 8th amendments. Voting for Beuprez is a vote against education. Voting for Ritter is a vote against guns. Freedom or children? I am voting my conscience and not the lesser of 2 evils.
You need to separate "education" from the idea of throwing money at the problem and boosting the influence of the teacher's union. Public education today is more of a social engineering and liberalism indoctrination project than teaching useful life skills.
You don't need a computer in every classroom to teach a kid how to read. Knowing how to use what is available today is limited by what is coming tomorrow. Teach them how to RTFM, and they can learn pretty much anything.
westy1970
10-15-2006, 08:50
Agreed. However, my brother in law is a teacher (and not a liberal) and knows first hand what Musgrave and Beauprez are going to do to schools. I don't even pretend to have an answer. I just try to keep in mind that Democrats and Republicans are wings of the same bird of prey. They are both out to destroy our way of life and impose their own. "Freedom with their exceptions"
TheSparkens
10-15-2006, 12:14
A vote yes on marijuana would only put a larger amounts of money into the Mexican Mafia pocket how do you think they control are border. The only time I would vote yes on this is if becomes a national vote. Weaver gets my vote for sheriff his people like and trust him. About school money spending, well I have been involved in building schools for years and the districts spend (waste) millions if not billions of dollars every year on art and architecture instead of spending on learning in the class room, we could spend millions less every year if we would build basic looking schools with very little fluff. We just finished a school up north that cost Two Million more because the HOA in the are wanted it to look a certain way.
The1andOnlyKC
10-15-2006, 14:00
TheSparkens brings up a good point. If Marijuana is legalized where will it come from? Not too many marijuana stores, and most of the weed is not home grown.
How much of U.S. money will be going south to a corrupt government, and assisting illegals come accross?
Also how much will be going north to Canada?
Great-Kazoo
10-15-2006, 21:51
A vote yes on marijuana would only put a larger amounts of money into the Mexican Mafia
i doubt that.
your statement is like the commercial where the kid says "i purchased some marijuana, i just helped a terrorist buy an ak-47.".. [roll]
of all the crap out there pot (i hate typing marijuana 2 many letters!)
is the least damaging (depending on your view) of any substance.
the yes vote is to decriminalize posession of 1oz or less on your person (in 1 bag/package etc) not broken up (intent to sell). to some it may be a backdoor attempt to legalize. others its about LE's wasting time like speeding tickets and focus on more serious crimes.
and most of the weed is not home grown.
you need to spend some time in a college town. or ask some of the stoners in your neighborhood.
we raised a kid, and i've worked with some of today's youth.
the shi^&*t you learn is amazing DUDE!!!!!!!!!
the push by those opposed to this. is like the crap put out there by VPC, mayor webb etc when the background check at gunshows was put on the ballot. so much misinformation so little reading of the actual ballot proposal...
OT
if controlled substances were decriminalized across the board the feds would have shops set up nationwide before sunrise the day after elections.
I've got to agree with Jim on this one. Those mafia guys and the illegals smuggling the pot over the border are still doing something illegal. If they get caught they'll get in just as much trouble if this passes as they did before. This just lets Joe Schmoe go about his daily life without worrying about getting busted with a little pot in his pocket.
TheSparkens
10-16-2006, 22:10
Gentlemen, I'm not saying I don't agree with the legalization of pot I just think it needs to be at the federal level because as a sworn peace officer you must enforce all laws this law will do nothing but clog the courts with people that were thinking they were getting away with something, a cop will still be able to " bust " you if they wish to. Most officers only mess with this type of stuff to add extra charges to a larger crime. I also agree this is safer than are other favorite drug alcohol. If you don't think this and every other drug is a huge part of are crime problem your kidding yourself.
Gentlemen, I'm not saying I don't agree with the legalization of pot I just think it needs to be at the federal level because as a sworn peace officer you must enforce all laws this law will do nothing but clog the courts with people that were thinking they were getting away with something, a cop will still be able to " bust " you if they wish to. Most officers only mess with this type of stuff to add extra charges to a larger crime. I also agree this is safer than are other favorite drug alcohol. If you don't think this and every other drug is a huge part of are crime problem your kidding yourself.
I agree with this completely but I believe that over the last several years we've been letting the federal government control more and more that should be controlled by the state government.
Mike Rosen says....Yes on Amendment 39: School District Spending Requirements. But just barely, and mostly for symbolic reasons. Its intent is to force local school districts to devote at least 65 percent of their budgets to classroom instruction. It won't hurt, but the problems with public education go much deeper than budgets. If it passes, educrats will likely figure out a way to get around it. See Referendum J below.
Yes on Amendment 40: Term Limits for Judges. I favor an independent judiciary, but not judges who want to be independent of the Constitution. We'll lose some good judges to term limits, but the good they do is exceeded by the harm done by bad judges. We'll still get bad judges, but they'll pass through the system before their arrogance grows with seniority.
No on Amendment 41: Standards of Conduct in Government. This is feel-good moralizing. More bureaucracy, meddling and impractical micromanagement in a futile effort to dictate "ethics."
No on Amendment 42: Colorado Minimum Wage. This is bad law, bad economics and has no business in the state constitution. See my column of Sept. 29.
Yes on Amendment 43: Marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman only. Other gender and mathematical arrangements should be called other things. (See Referendum I below.)
Yes on Amendment 44: Marijuana Possession. It's time to decriminalize petty drug offenses. It's a lost cause anyway. Even Clinton smoked the stuff (and I bet he did inhale).
Yes on Referendum E: Property Tax Deduction for Disabled Vets. Only applies to 100 percent disabled veterans. The revenue loss is negligible. It's an appropriate token of our appreciation.
Yes on Referendum F: Recall Deadlines. No big deal. Provides more flexibility in regulating recall elections of state officials.
Yes) on Referendum G: Obsolete Constitutional Provisions. Just a formality. This is periodic, technical housecleaning of obsolete constitutional language.
Yes on Referendum H: Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction. Raises the after-tax cost to businesses that employ illegal aliens. Won't do much to stop illegal immigration, but it's a marginal discouragement.
Undecided on Referendum I: Domestic Partnerships. I have no objection, in principle, to a domestic partnership statute that grants official recognition to same-sex unions and provides for things like joint property ownership, debt sharing, inheritance, medical stewardship and hospital visitation. Such a bill was offered in the state legislature and was defeated by Democrats. This referendum goes beyond that to impose requirements on employers and health insurers to award benefits to same sex-couples that may not be extended to opposite-sex, unmarried couples. Some companies voluntarily offer such benefits. I'd prefer a revised version of the proposal eliminating these mandates.
No on Referendum J: School District Spending Requirements. This is a transparent ploy by educrats and teachers' unions to distort the definition of what constitutes "classroom instruction" in order to sabotage Amendment 39 above.
No on Referendum K: Immigration Lawsuit Against Federal Government. This would direct the Colorado attorney general to sue the federal government for enforcement of immigration law, a lame gesture by Democrats to sound tough during the recent special legislative session on immigration reform. Such a hopeless lawsuit would be a waste of time and taxpayer money. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y220/Tedwantsthemdead/wallaryAR15Avatar.gif I like his thinking
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.