Vote 2002
Questions to amend our lives
Campaign reform, voter registration, bilingual education on ballots
- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Staff (Editorial@boulderweekly.com)

Campaign finance reform
YES NO

Amendment 27 to the Colorado Constitution would lower the caps on individual and corporate campaign contributions to candidate committees, political committees and political parties.

One school of thought holds that political contributions to candidates are an extension of free-speech rights protected by the First Amendment. Opponents of campaign finance reform contend that the proposals are incumbency guarantees which cement the two-party system to the detriment of third party challengers. They say that how much a candidate spends should be limited only by how much he or she can raise.

On the other hand, proponents of campaign-finance reform say politics has been corrupted by donations from corporations, PACs and wealthy individuals. They want to level the playing field by placing equal caps on the fundraising of major party candidates.

Instead, American voters consistently give their votes to the candidate who raises the most funds.

Amendment 27 attempts to get the money out of politics and create a more level playing field for all candidates-and better choice for voters. Vote "Yes" on Amendment 27.

Vote by mail
YES NO

Amendment 28 would require virtually all elections held in Colorado to be conducted using mail ballot procedures.

Proponents of mail balloting claim that the new procedure increases voter turn-out and decreases election-day strain on election judges and county or municipal clerks by lengthening the voting period. In theory, mail balloting will save money by decreasing the need for precinct locations, election judges and voting machines. Abenstee balloting has been done by mail for decades.

Opponents of mail balloting assert that it increases the opportunity for voter fraud and disenfranchises some voters who are registered to vote but haven't voted recently. Too much record keeping would be required to maintain day-to-day updates of every voter's mailing address. Waiting ballots could be stolen by those intent on fraud, and the intended voter's birthday is the only verification code; birthdays can be obtained off of the Internet. Counting of ballots begins before the election is over-if inside information was released to special interest groups by a government employee, the election's results could be altered by large get-out-the-vote campaigns from trailing special interest groups.

Voter turn-out can be increased by means other than mail balloting, and disenfranchisement of voters should never be allowed for reasons of convenience or saving money. For these reasons, and because there's a significant potential for fraud, vote "No" on Amendment 28.

Eliminate caucus
YES NO

Amendment 29 would do away with what some consider to be an antiquated system of selecting candidates for primary elections. In brief, it would abolish the part neighborhood caucuses and assembly meetings play in selecting candidates; obligate major party candidates to acquire a mandatory number of petition signatures; reduce the number of sigs needed to qualify and allow nearly six months to solicit signatures; and provide an option of candidates adding a personal statement.

Supporters, who include former Gov. Dick Lamm, decry the disproportional influence the small numbers of caucus-goers have in determining election outcomes, while advocating greater candidate diversity, and a more modern selection process characteristic of other states. "... Colorado's antiquated and confusing candidate nomination process desperately needs to be modernized," states 29 author and public-interest think tank The Bighorn Center (bighornballot.org). "A 'Yes' vote on 29 will break the grip that a few special interests now hold and give the rest of us more power and control over selecting candidates."

Opponents, who include all four candidates for Governor, defend the "time-honored" face-to-face nature of the caucus system, while lauding an already existing petition option. "If passed," states Save the Caucus, a bi-partisan "No on 29" group (savethecaucus.org), "it will drastically change Colorado's election and candidate selection process by eliminating one of two methods by which candidates can get their name on the primary election ballot."

The caucus process might be "time-honored," but it's also woefully outdated. Vote "Yes" on Amendment 29.

Same-day registration
YES NO

Fast turn-around is often a good thing. Same-day dry cleaning? Terrific. Same-day marriages? Hey, it's your problem. Same-day STD testing? Could be a life-saver. But same-day voter registration is something we'd be wise to avoid. Amendment 30 would allow voters to register the same day an election is held. Proponents says election-day voter registration would increase the number of people heading to the poll. Of the six states that allow election-day voter registration, four have the highest rates of voter turnout in the nation. All but one have higher rates of voter turnout than Colorado. Allowing people to register the day of an election would make it easier for new residents, students, rural voters and people with limited access to transportation to participate in the voting process.

But allowing people to register the same day as an election eliminates a safeguard against multiple votes. And while voters are required to show a photo ID to register under Amendment 30, no photo ID can guarantee residency or even citizenship. Further, election-day registration could be difficult and expensive for local governments to implement due to the additional training and personnel required to staff the precincts. In addition, late registration enables campaigners to run last-minute ads designed to manipulate the public into a voting frenzy without giving voters the time to think or check facts. Besides, voting shouldn't be a spur of the moment decision. If you haven't taken the time to register before the election, how prepared can you be to vote? Vote "No" on Amendment 30.

Bilingual education
YES NO

Amendment 31 would require that all public school students be taught in English and that those who do not speak English be taught English in a separate classroom for one year. All students who do not speak English as their first language would be required to pass a test before being integrated into regular classrooms andwould be tested annually for their English abilities. Parents can seek a waiver under certain circumstances to keep their children out of the segregated classroom; they can also sue school officials to enforce the amendment. Amendment 31 provides detailed penalities for teachers, administrators and school board members who don't abide by its conditions.

Those who favor Amendment 31, introduced to Colorado by California multi-millionaire Ron Unz, say students in bilingual programs aren't learning English fast enough or well enough and that immersion programs and English-only laws are the solution.

Opponents say Amendment 31 eliminates parental choice and local control of education, currently guaranteed by the state Constitution. It further limits the variety of programs a school district can offer. Because Colorado allows parents to enroll students in the school of their choice, parents don't need to send their children to bilingual programs if they don't want to. Also, because the Amendment assumes most students will attain profficiency in one year, it doesn't allow for students' individual needs. The penalties for teachers, administrators and school board members are too drastic and unfair, opponents say, and the annual testing requirements means students lose classroom time each year.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose Amendment 31. Punishment of teachers is one. Segregated classrooms-and racism-is another. The fact that the amendment is being fronted by a wealthy out-of-stater is yet another. But the biggest reason is that parents have the right to retain control over what's taught in their schools. People who don't like bilingual programs can simply go to non-bilingual schools. Simple. Vote a resounding "No" on Amendment 31.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com