From the start, political experts said the campaign against Referendums C and D would have the easier march to November. It’s always easier to get people to vote against something than it is to get them to vote for it, they said.
But the experts also agreed that the proponent campaign would kill the opponents when it came to fundraising, leading to another widely held truism – the side with more money usually wins.
Though it was too early to know what had happened to the hot-button fiscal-policy ballot questions Tuesday evening, experts noted that each side had fought hard in the campaign leading up to election day.
And while proponents did raise more money, the opponents exceeded many observers’ expectations. They amassed a war chest of about $2 million – less than the $5.5 million-plus that proponents raised, but enough to be visible across the state.
“Both sides had plenty of money to get their message out,” political consultant Sean Tonner said. “Resource-wise, both sides did a great job.”
Referendum C asked voters to temporarily suspend surplus- tax refunds under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Referendum D asked their permission to borrow money for investment in infrastructure across the state. Supports said the vitality of the state hung in the balance. Opponents said it was a request for undeserved billions from untrustworthy politicians.
Whether the more-complicated message in support of the two-part question would survive its clash with the clear, efficient vote-no argument was still unknown Tuesday evening.
“It’s easier to convey a short and extraordinarily simplistic message than a more complicated one,” Colorado State University political science professor John Straayer said. “TABOR is so god-awful complicated.”
Beth Skinner, Colorado director for the conservative group FreedomWorks, a key partner in the vote-no campaign, spent the afternoon picking up mail-in ballots from people who had been unable to get to a mailbox, she said.
One of three FreedomWorks activists making the rounds Tuesday, Skinner expected to deliver ballots herself for a grand total of three voters, she said.
“We had a couple who had MS – they can’t get the ballot out themselves,” she said. “Some of them are working too late. They need somebody to drop it off for them, because the clerk’s office will close before they can get there.”
The vote-no campaign focused its final effort in the Republican-leaning Denver suburbs and El Paso County, where campaign officials believed more of their voters live.
“We will have strength outside of Denver,” said Independence Institute president Jon Caldara, an opposition leader. “Our strength will be in the counties that surround Denver, in the rural areas. Their only hope is to do a huge get-out-the-vote effort in Denver today.”
Proponents also were active across the state, they said, with particular emphasis in Denver.
“Clearly, Denver’s an important county for us, yes,” proponent campaign spokeswoman Katy Atkinson said. “But we haven’t let go at all of Arapahoe, Jefferson, Larimer and El Paso” counties, she said.
Because the proponents included such top Republicans as Gov. Bill Owens, the yes campaign believed it could do well even in the conservative stronghold of El Paso County – the home of TABOR author Douglas Bruce.
Caldara said he was hoping for high turnout across the state – the greater the number of people who voted, the better the chance of a no vote prevailing, he said.
“If voter turnout is low, they can win” because of the focused vote-yes turnout labor unions and trade associations can deliver, he said.
Though he admitted no is an easier sell than yes, Caldara said opponents were at a disadvantage when it came to walking neighborhoods.
“Those people who either make their money from government or are involved with government have more interest to get out there and get involved in this campaign,” he said. “They have an interest to get organized. We don’t have that type of ability, and we don’t have the foot soldiers.”
Staff writer Jim Hughes can be reached at 303-820-1244 or jhughes@denverpost.com.
