One problem with practicing punditry is you never know how much attention you should devote to a given topic.
For instance, back in 1992, the Colorado ballot included Amendment 2, a measure that prohibited cities from enacting anti-discrimination laws that applied to homosexuals.
I denounced it in print once the summer before the election. The polls showed it was going to fail by a substantial margin, so I didn’t write any more about it. As the old saying goes, “Why beat a dead horse?”
Alas, it passed in November and Colorado became known as the Hate State. Boycotts threatened our tourist industry. Eventually, it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I would rather it had been repealed by the voters of Colorado, but I felt bad that it had passed, and thought I should have written more against it before the election. Granted, it might have had no effect, but you should do what you can.
Come 2003, there was Referendum A, the proposal to allow the state to borrow up to $2 billion to fund water projects to be named later. It struck me as a world-class boondoggle, and likely a scheme to get the whole state to pay for water developments for the south metro suburbs, which were depleting their groundwater.
So, having learned my lesson in 1992, in 2003, I denounced Referendum A early and often. It was gratifying to see it go down by a 2-1 margin.
Some of its listed supporters — Tom Tancredo, Ken Buck, Tambor Williams and Doug Lamborn — are seeking office this November, and I hope they get their just desserts.
Which brings us to the ballot issues this year, which are making me a big fan of the quaint system of having a republic, where we elect people to make laws after hearings and thoughtful deliberation, rather than all this direct democracy.
We can start with Amendment 62, the “personhood amendment,” which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs. It’s almost identical to Amendment 48, which was soundly defeated two years ago. Apparently the zygote zealots plan to circulate petitions every two years until we get sick of voting it down and they manage to slip it through.
You can have a small, frugal government, or you can have one that monitors every woman of child- bearing age to be sure she’s protecting the legal rights of any fertilized egg she may be carrying. But you can’t have both.
Then, we get to this year’s “Evil Three”: Amendments 60 and 61, along with Proposition 101. They’re assaults on self-government.
For instance, local residents can currently vote to “de-Bruce” their local governments, allowing them to keep tax revenue that would otherwise have to be refunded. It’s hard to see what’s wrong with that — people making decisions about taxes — but Amendment 60 would pretty well put an end to it.
Amendment 61 limits government borrowing. If I’m buying a house, I can decide whether a mortgage of 10, 20 or 30 years would work best. But if I’m a voter, then Amendment 61 says I’m too stupid to make such decisions.
Proposition 101 would roll back auto-license taxes that the legislature increased by calling them “fees” and avoiding a public vote. The honest course would have been to fund highway maintenance by seeking a fuel-tax increase in a referendum. But roads and bridges don’t fix themselves, and the state had to do something.
Fortunately, the polls show all these measures losing — but I have learned that the polls don’t necessarily predict the outcome, and it’s best to speak out, even at the risk of beating a dead horse.
Ed Quillen (ekquillen@gmail.com) of Salida is a regular contributor to The Denver Post.
