If you only knew how much your new car was going to cost, but not what kind of car or the quality of the car, would you go ahead and make the purchase? Most people would not consider that kind of transaction.
That’s exactly what supporters of House Bill 1057 are asking. The bill would require a “fiscal note” or the estimated cost of a proposed ballot question to be on circulated petitions. But there would be no mention of the long-term benefits of the proposal.
There is no doubt that the more informed Colorado voters are, the better choices they are able to make. Giving them only part of the picture does not help make informed decisions.
If there is a question on the ballot to fund full-day kindergarten for all Colorado children, there should also be a statement of its long-term benefits to our economy and communities. If we ask voters to approve taxes to pay for wildfire and flood emergencies, then it should explain how that helps businesses, families and our economy.
Traditionally, Colorado voters turn to the Blue Book voter guide for both the pros and cons of issues on the ballot. The proposed legislation would require the estimated fiscal note be prepared in a short time frame before the petitions are circulated. This is a “back-of-the-envelope” approach that would not be as thorough or exact as the Blue Book analysis that is conducted for just the measures that will appear on the ballot.
Over the last election cycle, only one in four ballot proposals actually collected enough signatures to make the ballot. The proposed legislation would require all proposals be given fiscal notes, regardless of whether they make the ballot. That’s just not a good use of our state’s resources.
The bottom line on HB 1057 is that it will not give voters the entire picture. And half the information does not result in better voter decisions.
Steve Fenberg is executive director of New Era Colorado.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
