Colorado has a rich heritage of “direct democracy,” resolving major policy questions not in the legislature but at the ballot box. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights itself, adopted in 1992 after a number of failed attempts, is the ultimate testimony to that tradition by vesting major tax and spending decisions in the hands of voters.
So, Colorado voters are well- accustomed to spirited campaigns for and against various ballot measures, from the usual mix of tax questions to such varied issues as bear trapping, pig farming, casino gambling and on and on. Those issue campaigns often attract as much attention, and sometimes more money, than even high-profile candidate races.
But what we are witnessing this fall in the campaigns for and against Referendums C and D is something different in its scope and intensity. It is a battle that has been brewing since TABOR became law 13 years ago and certainly since Colorado’s economic downturn early this decade.
In wrestling terms, this is the “main event.” And both sides have amply proven that they are ready to rumble.
Is some of the rhetoric overheated and overblown? Of course – but this is hardly the first known case of political hyperbole.
These ballot proposals could be approved and yet neither the professed wishes of the proponents nor the desperate fears of the opponents are likely to be realized. Contrary to the proponents’ implicit promise, the state’s list of unmet needs would remain a lengthy one. Within months, there would be fresh talk of a “fiscal crisis” and impassioned calls for new revenue sources. Contrary to the opponents’ claims about the magnitude of the “tax increase,” these are essentially status quo measures that would maintain tax and spending at pre-recession levels.
But right now, we are being treated to a high-decibel political spectacle that confronts each side with some unusual challenges. Let’s take a look inside.
Any “yes” campaign begins with what is inherently an uphill task. Supporters must prove their case while the opposition can simply stir doubt. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative side, and “no” votes are usually far easier to garner.
In this case, the entire “yes” campaign hinges on the premise that the state is in a “fiscal crisis.” Yet all indicators are that any sense of crisis is far from pervasive and that many voters are more focused on their personal budgetary issues than on the state’s fiscal woes.
This is the core of the proponents’ challenge. If there is no perceived crisis, there is little compelling rationale for a solution.
The proponents also must guard against any perception that this is just a government problem and a government solution. Clearly, that is the underlying point of the opposition’s “pigs at the trough” metaphor. With a few notable exceptions (principally a governor with longstanding conservative credentials and a Denver mayor still spinning unprecedented political magic), political types should be kept far in the background. The public faces and voices should be those of business and community leaders.
Atop the list of burdens confronting the “yes” campaign is simply the matter of the daily headlines. Recent months have brought a steady drumbeat of stories of governmental waste and even arrogance. Every such story undermines the case for these propositions. Lakewood City Manager Mike Rock, Northglenn Mayor Kathleen Novak, CU professor/provocateur Ward Churchill, and the PERA Board should all prepare for their close-ups.
On the other side of the coin, those leading the opposition face their own substantial challenges. Whatever the source of their funds, they must have adequate resources for a strong media presence throughout October in the face of the proponents’ bulging war chest and media onslaught. Given that the “yes” forces undoubtedly will have the stronger motivation and superior ground game, the opponents have to maintain some broadcast competitiveness.
They must move to expand their political base. The core of the opposition is comprised of conservative, small-government Republicans. That is a good start – but only a start. If they are to prevail, they must gain political traction and resonance with blue-collar, low-tax Democrats. Finding a few spokespeople of such a profile would be a good first step.
Perhaps most tellingly, the message most likely to sink Referendums C and D is the message that opposition leaders will not allow themselves to touch. Countless ballot issues have been defeated with some variation on the theme of, “it’s the right problem but the wrong solution.” (I should know, having waged many of those campaigns myself.) Such a strategy does not contest the proponents’ underlying purposes or precepts, but simply points out one or more flaws in the fine print.
If that approach to be employed here, the opposition would not challenge the idea of a fiscal problem, even a crisis, but would focus scorn on the magnitude or term or other particulars of the proposed fix. But the ardent ideology of the major opposition players and financial backers make such an approach impossible. They are unable to give any quarter, acknowledge any problem or grant that any additional revenues might be necessary. That rigidity allows them to be too easily pigeon-holed as ideologues, many from out of state, more concerned with national political ramifications than with the practical ramifications for Colorado.
So how does this shake out?
Boding well for the “no” forces is the political truism that most ballot issues, particularly tax questions, must start in the high 50 percent range if not above 60 percent to withstand the inevitable atrophying of support. These two measures have never seen those kinds of numbers. Every poll shows that they started in the 40 percent range and have yet to clear the 50 percent threshold. If they ultimately pass, it will be contrary to many political assumptions and the usual effects of political gravity.
But the “yes” campaign brings two formidable advantages to this equation. The first is Gov. Bill Owens. While in his waning gubernatorial days, his support is paramount, and he could be a potent campaign closer. Many voters of centrist to moderately conservative orientation may give him the benefit of the doubt, intuitively disputing the notion that he somehow became a big-spending liberal overnight.
The second factor is that of the collective weight of the 600-some organizations that are supporting these measures. In this off- year, lower-turnout election, the television airwaves may be less important and the contest may well be won on the ground. If this coalition truly engages and mobilizes, that could spell the final difference.
The closing weeks of the campaign should be interesting indeed. Stay tuned.
Eric Sondermann is an independent political analyst and principal in SE2, a Denver policy communications
firm.
