Still have your ballot? Here’s the case for voting a “no” ticket on every proposition
Still have your ballot? Here’s the case for voting a “no” ticket on every proposition
Vote no on all ballot propositions. These initiatives illustrate the defects of direct democracy.
Loading your audio article
Vote no on all ballot propositions on November 5. These initiatives illustrate the defects of direct democracy; they circumvent representative institutions, deny minority populations fair representation, and enable moneyed interests rather than the people’s representatives to steer the direction of our state.
It isn’t that elected or appointed officials are better than voters at making decisions; it’s that the process of decision making through representative democracy is more deliberative and equitable than through direct democracy. Representatives are required to weigh costs and benefits, receive stakeholder input, hear public comment, and make compromises. During these negotiations, minority populations are not completely subject to the whim of the majority as they are in the initiative process; they have a voice.
Take Proportion 128, for example. Under current law, individuals convicted of violent crimes can apply for parole after they have completed 75% of their sentence and they may further reduce their time with good behavior. The initiative before voters would raise the threshold to 85% for such crimes and eliminate the ability to earn time off. Inmates with multiple convictions would face an even higher threshold.
At first blush the idea has merit; why determine sentences if inmates are not going to serve them to the end? The ability to shorten a long sentence, however, does serve a purpose. Reduced prison time from good behavior incentivizes inmates to rehabilitate and make the most of their time behind bars. Education, work, faith-based, and community programs help inmates who participate invest in their future. The possibility of a reduced sentence is an incentive to make that investment day in and day out.
Secondly, the Colorado State Board of Parole considers behavior and other evidence-based factors before determining whether an inmate is ready to reintegrate into the community. If board members are too lenient, there already is a democratic remedy; hold the governor who nominated them and the senators who confirmed them to account in the next election and change the board’s composition in the next administration.
Finally, there is an issue of cost. Housing inmates longer will cost between $12 and $28 million more a year and this money will have to come from other parts of the state budget. If an inmate is rehabilitated, the money is wasted.
All of these potential costs and benefits should be thoroughly examined. Lawmakers should hear from parole board members, those who work with prisoners and parolees, police officers, victims of crime, communities impacted by crime and by incarceration, and crime prevention experts on the best way to incentivize rehabilitation while deterring recidivist crime. The initiative process does not require these voices be considered or even heard.
And, Proposition 128 isn’t the only initiative to circumvent deliberative and representative processes. Proposition 127 takes wildlife management decisions out of the hands of trained biologists at Colorado Parks and Wildlife and its Commission which, by law, has representation of rural communities most impact by the agency’s decisions.
Colorado Proposition 129, which creates a new veterinary credential, skips legislative processes designed to mediate competing concerns over the cost and availably of services, animal welfare, and public safety. Likewise Proposition 130 skips the legislative budget process to single out law enforcement for favorable funding treatment at the expense of other worthy priorities. Proposition 131 makes wholesale changes to our elections without a single public hearing. No one has to listen to the concerns of election workers or of communities that have had a bad experience with Ranked Choice Voting.
That’s because what gets heard is determined by who has the money. Ads are expensive. Only millionaires like Kent Thiry, backer of 131, and the funders at Advance Colorado, proponents of 128 and 130, have the millions to spend on slick ads. Same goes for the organizations behind 129. If they want change, they should have to phone their elected representatives like the rest of us.
At least, they’re Coloradans. Much of the funding for Amendment 79, which would allow Colorado taxpayer funding for abortion, comes from wealthy out-of-state interests such as George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and other coastal money. That’s true for Proposition 127, as well.
It’s the wrong way to make our state’s laws. Vote no. We can do better.