Skip to main content
  • Joe Biden is one of the nation’s most experienced public servants, having served as a U.S. senator from Delaware for 36 years and the U.S. vice president for eight years. Biden is running on a comprehensive progressive platform.

    Biden has championed individual rights throughout his career — from spearheading the Violence Against Women Act to passing laws that expanded the definition of hate crimes to include those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Biden led the fight to pass the Brady Bill, which established the national firearms background check system, and helped secure a 10-year ban on assault weapons from 1994-2004. As vice president, Biden oversaw the implementation of one of the largest economic recovery plans in American history in 2009, saving the American automobile industry and millions of American jobs in all sectors of the economy. During the Obama/Biden administration, the United States made significant progress toward a clean energy economy and provided health coverage to millions of Americans via the passage of the Affordable Care Act — a law Biden has vowed to expand and improve.

    If elected president, Biden has pledged to work to reverse the damage from the last four years of partisan obstruction and executive branch policies solely benefiting the wealthy and well-connected. Biden supports a $15-per-hour minimum wage and 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers. He also seeks to address the country's racial wealth disparity, equal opportunity, and jobs gaps by empowering small-business creation and expansion in economically disadvantaged areas. On the climate crisis, Biden proposes net-zero CO2 emissions in the U.S. by 2050 and rejoining the Paris climate accords. On the immediate front, Biden has proposed a national crisis response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden’s experience handling the economic recovery with Obama after the Great Recession of 2009 will inform his actions to help individuals, families, small businesses, and local and state governments that are struggling badly as a result of the botched response to the pandemic. Biden will restore the long-standing precedent that public health decisions are best made by public health professionals.

    Biden has pledged to defend abortion rights, expand and protect union membership, bring together an equitable and diverse group of experts to handle the nation’s institutional racism crisis, and restore dignity to the office of president of the United States.

    Biden is the clear presidential choice for progressive voters.

    In this election, he faces Donald Trump — considered by progressives to be the most corrupt, incompetent, anti-progressive president in recent memory and perhaps in American history. Trump’s biggest achievement as president was forcing through a massive tax cut that overwhelmingly favored the wealthiest Americans, making the nation’s historic income-disparity problem even worse. Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords, making the U.S. one of very few countries that are not signatories. Trump’s administration has encouraged repeated unsuccessful attempts by Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which has provided health coverage to millions of Americans, including a federal court challenge in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to dismantle the law. Trump has supported racist immigration practices that contravene international law on the treatment of refugees.

    Trump’s decisions have trickled into even the most mundane things, affecting Americans on a daily basis. Trump scrapped a bill requiring airlines to disclose bag fees, blocked consumers from suing banks, ignored the growing crisis over student loans, lifted bans on transferring military equipment to local law enforcement which has exacerbated police-citizen conflicts, particularly in relation to Black Lives Matter protests, and has set off a trade war with China that has done tremendous economic damage to American agricultural producers and manufacturers.

    Controversies involving Trump’s presidency are too numerous to list here but include lying about mail voting to such a degree that social media platforms have been forced to remove his misinformation, racist, sexist, and defamatory statements against his political opponents, dispatching federal police to attack protesters in unmarked vehicles, installing corrupt and incompetent tools of special interest into every level of government, nominating federal judges and Supreme Court justices who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, banning transgender Americans from military service, helping spread baseless conspiracy theories, defending the actions of overt white supremacists and racist nationalists, downplaying the severity of the coronavirus pandemic to the public despite detailed foreknowledge of the coming disaster, pursuing diplomacy with dictators while scorning traditional American allies, and changing federal guidelines to undermine racial equality. For a more comprehensive list, we encourage you to visit the Wikipedia page for Trump administration controversies.

    Evidence abounds showing that Trump never disassociated himself from his businesses and has used his office for personal enrichment. And let’s not forget he was impeached over revelations he first blocked military aid to Ukraine and then pushed its president to dig up damaging info on his political opponent as a “favor.”

    Trump must not only be defeated, but the margin of victory must be so resounding as to prevent him from calling the results of the election into question as he has already pledged to do.

    Joe Biden is one of the nation’s most experienced public servants, having served as a U.S. senator from Delaware for 36 years and the U.S. vice president for eight years. Biden is running on a comprehensive progressive platform.

    Biden has championed individual rights throughout his career — from spearheading the Violence Against Women Act to passing laws that expanded the definition of hate crimes to include those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Biden led the fight to pass the Brady Bill, which established the national firearms background check system, and helped secure a 10-year ban on assault weapons from 1994-2004. As vice president, Biden oversaw the implementation of one of the largest economic recovery plans in American history in 2009, saving the American automobile industry and millions of American jobs in all sectors of the economy. During the Obama/Biden administration, the United States made significant progress toward a clean energy economy and provided health coverage to millions of Americans via the passage of the Affordable Care Act — a law Biden has vowed to expand and improve.

    Joe Biden is one of the nation’s most experienced public servants, having served as a U.S. senator from Delaware for 36 years and the U.S. vice president for eight years. Biden is running on a comprehensive progressive platform.

    Biden has championed individual rights throughout his career — from spearheading the Violence Against Women Act to passing laws that expanded the definition of hate crimes to include those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Biden led the fight to pass the Brady Bill, which established the national firearms background check system, and helped secure a 10-year ban on assault weapons from 1994-2004. As vice president, Biden oversaw the implementation of one of the largest economic recovery plans in American history in 2009, saving the American automobile industry and millions of American jobs in all sectors of the economy. During the Obama/Biden administration, the United States made significant progress toward a clean energy economy and provided health coverage to millions of Americans via the passage of the Affordable Care Act — a law Biden has vowed to expand and improve.

    If elected president, Biden has pledged to work to reverse the damage from the last four years of partisan obstruction and executive branch policies solely benefiting the wealthy and well-connected. Biden supports a $15-per-hour minimum wage and 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers. He also seeks to address the country's racial wealth disparity, equal opportunity, and jobs gaps by empowering small-business creation and expansion in economically disadvantaged areas. On the climate crisis, Biden proposes net-zero CO2 emissions in the U.S. by 2050 and rejoining the Paris climate accords. On the immediate front, Biden has proposed a national crisis response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden’s experience handling the economic recovery with Obama after the Great Recession of 2009 will inform his actions to help individuals, families, small businesses, and local and state governments that are struggling badly as a result of the botched response to the pandemic. Biden will restore the long-standing precedent that public health decisions are best made by public health professionals.

    Biden has pledged to defend abortion rights, expand and protect union membership, bring together an equitable and diverse group of experts to handle the nation’s institutional racism crisis, and restore dignity to the office of president of the United States.

    Biden is the clear presidential choice for progressive voters.

    In this election, he faces Donald Trump — considered by progressives to be the most corrupt, incompetent, anti-progressive president in recent memory and perhaps in American history. Trump’s biggest achievement as president was forcing through a massive tax cut that overwhelmingly favored the wealthiest Americans, making the nation’s historic income-disparity problem even worse. Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords, making the U.S. one of very few countries that are not signatories. Trump’s administration has encouraged repeated unsuccessful attempts by Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which has provided health coverage to millions of Americans, including a federal court challenge in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to dismantle the law. Trump has supported racist immigration practices that contravene international law on the treatment of refugees.

    Trump’s decisions have trickled into even the most mundane things, affecting Americans on a daily basis. Trump scrapped a bill requiring airlines to disclose bag fees, blocked consumers from suing banks, ignored the growing crisis over student loans, lifted bans on transferring military equipment to local law enforcement which has exacerbated police-citizen conflicts, particularly in relation to Black Lives Matter protests, and has set off a trade war with China that has done tremendous economic damage to American agricultural producers and manufacturers.

    Controversies involving Trump’s presidency are too numerous to list here but include lying about mail voting to such a degree that social media platforms have been forced to remove his misinformation, racist, sexist, and defamatory statements against his political opponents, dispatching federal police to attack protesters in unmarked vehicles, installing corrupt and incompetent tools of special interest into every level of government, nominating federal judges and Supreme Court justices who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, banning transgender Americans from military service, helping spread baseless conspiracy theories, defending the actions of overt white supremacists and racist nationalists, downplaying the severity of the coronavirus pandemic to the public despite detailed foreknowledge of the coming disaster, pursuing diplomacy with dictators while scorning traditional American allies, and changing federal guidelines to undermine racial equality. For a more comprehensive list, we encourage you to visit the Wikipedia page for Trump administration controversies.

    Evidence abounds showing that Trump never disassociated himself from his businesses and has used his office for personal enrichment. And let’s not forget he was impeached over revelations he first blocked military aid to Ukraine and then pushed its president to dig up damaging info on his political opponent as a “favor.”

    Trump must not only be defeated, but the margin of victory must be so resounding as to prevent him from calling the results of the election into question as he has already pledged to do.

    Joe Biden is one of the nation’s most experienced public servants, having served as a U.S. senator from Delaware for 36 years and the U.S. vice president for eight years. Biden is running on a comprehensive progressive platform.

    Biden has championed individual rights throughout his career — from spearheading the Violence Against Women Act to passing laws that expanded the definition of hate crimes to include those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Biden led the fight to pass the Brady Bill, which established the national firearms background check system, and helped secure a 10-year ban on assault weapons from 1994-2004. As vice president, Biden oversaw the implementation of one of the largest economic recovery plans in American history in 2009, saving the American automobile industry and millions of American jobs in all sectors of the economy. During the Obama/Biden administration, the United States made significant progress toward a clean energy economy and provided health coverage to millions of Americans via the passage of the Affordable Care Act — a law Biden has vowed to expand and improve.

  • Former Colorado Gov. and incumbent U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper did not take the usual path into public office. After being laid off from his job as a geologist, he opened a successful brewpub. But as a small-business owner, he became involved in his community, and he ran for office. He served two terms each as mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, using his unique perspective to bring people together to get things done.

    When Hickenlooper was sworn in as governor in 2010, Colorado ranked 40th among the states in job creation. By the time Hickenlooper left office eight years later, Colorado had the #1 economy in the nation. Under Hickenlooper, when he was governor, Colorado’s economy grew without leaving Coloradans behind. Hickenlooper expanded Medicaid to cover an additional 400,000 Coloradans and cut the uninsured rate by nearly two-thirds. He signed three landmark gun safety laws in 2013 that banned high-capacity magazines and required background checks for any firearm transfer. On the environment, Hickenlooper made Colorado the first state to limit methane pollution from oil and gas wells. Working with the General Assembly, Hickenlooper signed legislation to ensure every eligible registered voter in Colorado gets a mail-in ballot, made voter registration more accessible, and pushed for numerous other election reforms that have made Colorado a model for election innovation. He also signed historic legislation granting in-state tuition to DREAMers.

    Hickenlooper has vowed to improve and build on the Affordable Care Act and supports a federally administered public health coverage option. Hickenlooper recognizes the existential threat of climate change and favors a bold, science-based approach. He supports commonsense policies on gun violence, including restoring an assault weapons ban. Hickenlooper was the first governor of Colorado to apologize for the Sand Creek Massacre and has committed to listening to the voices of marginalized communities and rooting out systemic racism where it lurks in our society, from police brutality to immigration laws to racial disparities in economic status to access to quality education.

    Hickenlooper is the progressive voter’s best choice for U.S. senator.

    He faces incumbent U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner in this election. While in the Senate, Gardner has been a reliable Republican vote on the overwhelming majority of issues. He has supported Donald Trump’s position on votes 89% of the time, and Politico notes that Gardner is “reliably conservative on most issues.” In 2014, Gardner promised in a campaign ad to speak out when his party is wrong and called on Donald Trump to pull out of the race for president in October of 2016. Since then, however, Gardner has fully embraced Trump and was one of the first senators to endorse Trump’s reelection.

    From his earliest votes in Congress, Gardner has consistently sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He has voted to repeal the ACA and to replace it with a bill that would dramatically decrease health care coverage and increase the cost of coverage. He was quoted at a private luncheon that failing to repeal the ACA would result in fewer donations to Republicans, suggesting he is not motivated by the common good.

    Gardner has rejected most gun safety legislation throughout his career and is a top recipient of donations from the National Rifle Association. He has voted against expanding background checks to include gun show sales, which has been the law in Colorado since just after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. He even voted against banning gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list.

    In a historic change of heart, The Denver Post editorial board declared in 2019 they made a mistake in their 2014 endorsement of Gardner, stating he “has been too busy walking a political tight rope to be a leader.”

    This race also has a Libertarian candidate: Raymon Doane. Doane is a Denver native who currently works for the Colorado Department of Revenue as a property tax specialist and business analyst. He previously ran for the state senate in 2016 as a Republican, and in 2018, he first filed to run for state treasurer and then for Congress against Democrat Diana DeGette as a Libertarian.

    Doane’s few public statements should give voters pause. While the country has been dealing with the coronavirus outbreak, Doane was quoted as saying, “The federal government should not have to intervene on behalf of local municipalities and states that make poor decisions during a pandemic.” He also has said he thinks public health mandates should be more like “suggestions.” Additionally, among the four policy positions Doane takes on his website, one statement endorsing an unregulated Second Amendment stands out: “The government should NEVER have a monopoly on force. The U.S. Senate must … refuse to vote for any legislation which limits an American’s right to self-defense.” These kinds of statements don’t represent Colorado progressives.

    Former Colorado Gov. and incumbent U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper did not take the usual path into public office. After being laid off from his job as a geologist, he opened a successful brewpub. But as a small-business owner, he became involved in his community, and he ran for office. He served two terms each as mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, using his unique perspective to bring people together to get things done.

    When Hickenlooper was sworn in as governor in 2010, Colorado ranked 40th among the states in job creation. By the time Hickenlooper left office eight years later, Colorado had the #1 economy in the nation. Under Hickenlooper, when he was governor, Colorado’s economy grew without leaving Coloradans behind. Hickenlooper expanded Medicaid to cover an additional 400,000 Coloradans and cut the uninsured rate by nearly two-thirds. He signed three landmark gun safety laws in 2013 that banned high-capacity magazines and required background checks for any firearm transfer. On the environment, Hickenlooper made Colorado the first state to limit methane pollution from oil and gas wells. Working with the General Assembly, Hickenlooper signed legislation to ensure every eligible registered voter in Colorado gets a mail-in ballot, made voter registration more accessible, and pushed for numerous other election reforms that have made Colorado a model for election innovation. He also signed historic legislation granting in-state tuition to DREAMers.

    Former Colorado Gov. and incumbent U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper did not take the usual path into public office. After being laid off from his job as a geologist, he opened a successful brewpub. But as a small-business owner, he became involved in his community, and he ran for office. He served two terms each as mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, using his unique perspective to bring people together to get things done.

    When Hickenlooper was sworn in as governor in 2010, Colorado ranked 40th among the states in job creation. By the time Hickenlooper left office eight years later, Colorado had the #1 economy in the nation. Under Hickenlooper, when he was governor, Colorado’s economy grew without leaving Coloradans behind. Hickenlooper expanded Medicaid to cover an additional 400,000 Coloradans and cut the uninsured rate by nearly two-thirds. He signed three landmark gun safety laws in 2013 that banned high-capacity magazines and required background checks for any firearm transfer. On the environment, Hickenlooper made Colorado the first state to limit methane pollution from oil and gas wells. Working with the General Assembly, Hickenlooper signed legislation to ensure every eligible registered voter in Colorado gets a mail-in ballot, made voter registration more accessible, and pushed for numerous other election reforms that have made Colorado a model for election innovation. He also signed historic legislation granting in-state tuition to DREAMers.

    Hickenlooper has vowed to improve and build on the Affordable Care Act and supports a federally administered public health coverage option. Hickenlooper recognizes the existential threat of climate change and favors a bold, science-based approach. He supports commonsense policies on gun violence, including restoring an assault weapons ban. Hickenlooper was the first governor of Colorado to apologize for the Sand Creek Massacre and has committed to listening to the voices of marginalized communities and rooting out systemic racism where it lurks in our society, from police brutality to immigration laws to racial disparities in economic status to access to quality education.

    Hickenlooper is the progressive voter’s best choice for U.S. senator.

    He faces incumbent U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner in this election. While in the Senate, Gardner has been a reliable Republican vote on the overwhelming majority of issues. He has supported Donald Trump’s position on votes 89% of the time, and Politico notes that Gardner is “reliably conservative on most issues.” In 2014, Gardner promised in a campaign ad to speak out when his party is wrong and called on Donald Trump to pull out of the race for president in October of 2016. Since then, however, Gardner has fully embraced Trump and was one of the first senators to endorse Trump’s reelection.

    From his earliest votes in Congress, Gardner has consistently sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He has voted to repeal the ACA and to replace it with a bill that would dramatically decrease health care coverage and increase the cost of coverage. He was quoted at a private luncheon that failing to repeal the ACA would result in fewer donations to Republicans, suggesting he is not motivated by the common good.

    Gardner has rejected most gun safety legislation throughout his career and is a top recipient of donations from the National Rifle Association. He has voted against expanding background checks to include gun show sales, which has been the law in Colorado since just after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. He even voted against banning gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list.

    In a historic change of heart, The Denver Post editorial board declared in 2019 they made a mistake in their 2014 endorsement of Gardner, stating he “has been too busy walking a political tight rope to be a leader.”

    This race also has a Libertarian candidate: Raymon Doane. Doane is a Denver native who currently works for the Colorado Department of Revenue as a property tax specialist and business analyst. He previously ran for the state senate in 2016 as a Republican, and in 2018, he first filed to run for state treasurer and then for Congress against Democrat Diana DeGette as a Libertarian.

    Doane’s few public statements should give voters pause. While the country has been dealing with the coronavirus outbreak, Doane was quoted as saying, “The federal government should not have to intervene on behalf of local municipalities and states that make poor decisions during a pandemic.” He also has said he thinks public health mandates should be more like “suggestions.” Additionally, among the four policy positions Doane takes on his website, one statement endorsing an unregulated Second Amendment stands out: “The government should NEVER have a monopoly on force. The U.S. Senate must … refuse to vote for any legislation which limits an American’s right to self-defense.” These kinds of statements don’t represent Colorado progressives.

    Former Colorado Gov. and incumbent U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper did not take the usual path into public office. After being laid off from his job as a geologist, he opened a successful brewpub. But as a small-business owner, he became involved in his community, and he ran for office. He served two terms each as mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, using his unique perspective to bring people together to get things done.

    When Hickenlooper was sworn in as governor in 2010, Colorado ranked 40th among the states in job creation. By the time Hickenlooper left office eight years later, Colorado had the #1 economy in the nation. Under Hickenlooper, when he was governor, Colorado’s economy grew without leaving Coloradans behind. Hickenlooper expanded Medicaid to cover an additional 400,000 Coloradans and cut the uninsured rate by nearly two-thirds. He signed three landmark gun safety laws in 2013 that banned high-capacity magazines and required background checks for any firearm transfer. On the environment, Hickenlooper made Colorado the first state to limit methane pollution from oil and gas wells. Working with the General Assembly, Hickenlooper signed legislation to ensure every eligible registered voter in Colorado gets a mail-in ballot, made voter registration more accessible, and pushed for numerous other election reforms that have made Colorado a model for election innovation. He also signed historic legislation granting in-state tuition to DREAMers.

  • Ike McCorkle is challenging the Republican incumbent for Colorado’s 4th Congressional District. The single father of three kids believes the people in the district deserve a representative who is dedicated to them, not the elite. In order to get Big Money out of politics, he supports a publicly funded, transparent system of campaign financing and wants to see the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling overturned to limit the influence of special interest groups that are buying much of our governmental leadership.

    McCorkle is also an unabashed environmentalist who intends to fight for a Green New Deal not just to address the existential threat of climate change and rapidly transition energy production but to reinvest in rural America and create thousands of good-paying jobs in his district. Other policies he supports are ones that will expand equity and opportunity for everyone, including Medicare for All, tuition-free public college, reducing college debt by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculators, and a universal basic income system.

    A retired Marine Corps officer and special operator who served for 18 years, six deployments, and four combat tours, McCorkle seeks to bring dignity and integrity to Congress and restore trust and confidence in government. He is a clear progressive choice who, if elected, plans to bring people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs together to build an American society where we lift each other up so that we all benefit together.

    The incumbent he faces is U.S. Sen. Ken Buck, a former prosecutor and district attorney in Weld County who has been in Congress since 2014. His legal career has been marred by numerous ethical scandals, including compromising a case against Republican donors and declining to prosecute a sexual assault, instead blaming the victim. Since he has been in Congress, Buck has toed the party’s extreme right-wing line. He is anti-choice, opposes reasonable gun safety legislation, and has said that being gay is a choice. Buck also voted in favor of the 2017 tax reform bill, which heavily favored the wealthy and corporations while increasing tax burdens on the middle class. With all this in mind, Buck must not remain in office.
     

    Ike McCorkle

    Ike McCorkle está desafiando al titular republicano por el 4º distrito congresional de Colorado. El padre soltero de tres hijos cree que la gente del distrito se merece un representante que se dedique a ellos, no a la élite. Para sacar a las grandes cantidades de dinero de la política, apoya un sistema transparente y financiado con fondos públicos de financiamiento de campañas y quiere que se anule el fallo de Citizens United de la Corte Suprema para limitar la influencia de grupos de intereses especiales que están comprando gran parte de nuestro liderazgo gubernamental.

    McCorkle también es un ecologista descarado que tiene la intención de luchar por un Green New Deal no solo para abordar la amenaza existencial del cambio climático y hacer una rápida transición de la producción de energía, sino para reinvertir en las zonas rurales de Estados Unidos y crear miles de empleos bien pagados en su distrito. Otras políticas que apoya son las que ampliarán la equidad y las oportunidades para todos, incluido Medicare para Todos, la universidad pública gratuita, la reducción de la deuda universitaria al imponer un impuesto a los especuladores de Wall Street y un sistema de ingresos básicos universales.

    Un oficial retirado de la Infantería de la Marina y operador especial que sirvió durante 18 años, seis despliegues y cuatro giras de combate, McCorkle busca traer dignidad e integridad al Congreso y restaurar la confianza en el gobierno. Es una clara elección progresista que, si es elegido, planea unir a personas con diversos antecedentes y creencias para construir una sociedad estadounidense en la que nos ayudemos unos a otros para que todos nos beneficiemos juntos.

    El titular al que se enfrenta es Ken Buck, un exfiscal y abogado del distrito en el condado de Weld que ha estado en el Congreso desde 2014. Su carrera legal se ha visto empañada por numerosos escándalos éticos, que incluyen comprometer un caso contra donantes republicanos y negarse a procesar una agresión sexual, culpando a la víctima en su lugar. Desde que está en el Congreso, Buck ha seguido la línea de extrema derecha del partido. Está en contra del derecho a elegir, se opone a la legislación razonable de control de armas y ha dicho que ser gay es una elección. Buck también votó a favor del proyecto de ley de reforma fiscal de 2017, que favoreció en gran medida a los ricos y a las corporaciones al tiempo que aumentó la carga fiscal sobre la clase media. Con todo esto en mente, Buck no debe permanecer en el cargo.

    Ike McCorkle is challenging the Republican incumbent for Colorado’s 4th Congressional District. The single father of three kids believes the people in the district deserve a representative who is dedicated to them, not the elite. In order to get Big Money out of politics, he supports a publicly funded, transparent system of campaign financing and wants to see the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling overturned to limit the influence of special interest groups that are buying much of our governmental leadership.

    McCorkle is also an unabashed environmentalist who intends to fight for a Green New Deal not just to address the existential threat of climate change and rapidly transition energy production but to reinvest in rural America and create thousands of good-paying jobs in his district. Other policies he supports are ones that will expand equity and opportunity for everyone, including Medicare for All, tuition-free public college, reducing college debt by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculators, and a universal basic income system.

    A retired Marine Corps officer and special operator who served for 18 years, six deployments, and four combat tours, McCorkle seeks to bring dignity and integrity to Congress and restore trust and confidence in government. He is a clear progressive choice who, if elected, plans to bring people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs together to build an American society where we lift each other up so that we all benefit together.

    The incumbent he faces is U.S. Sen. Ken Buck, a former prosecutor and district attorney in Weld County who has been in Congress since 2014. His legal career has been marred by numerous ethical scandals, including compromising a case against Republican donors and declining to prosecute a sexual assault, instead blaming the victim. Since he has been in Congress, Buck has toed the party’s extreme right-wing line. He is anti-choice, opposes reasonable gun safety legislation, and has said that being gay is a choice. Buck also voted in favor of the 2017 tax reform bill, which heavily favored the wealthy and corporations while increasing tax burdens on the middle class. With all this in mind, Buck must not remain in office.
     

    Ike McCorkle

    Ike McCorkle está desafiando al titular republicano por el 4º distrito congresional de Colorado. El padre soltero de tres hijos cree que la gente del distrito se merece un representante que se dedique a ellos, no a la élite. Para sacar a las grandes cantidades de dinero de la política, apoya un sistema transparente y financiado con fondos públicos de financiamiento de campañas y quiere que se anule el fallo de Citizens United de la Corte Suprema para limitar la influencia de grupos de intereses especiales que están comprando gran parte de nuestro liderazgo gubernamental.

    McCorkle también es un ecologista descarado que tiene la intención de luchar por un Green New Deal no solo para abordar la amenaza existencial del cambio climático y hacer una rápida transición de la producción de energía, sino para reinvertir en las zonas rurales de Estados Unidos y crear miles de empleos bien pagados en su distrito. Otras políticas que apoya son las que ampliarán la equidad y las oportunidades para todos, incluido Medicare para Todos, la universidad pública gratuita, la reducción de la deuda universitaria al imponer un impuesto a los especuladores de Wall Street y un sistema de ingresos básicos universales.

    Un oficial retirado de la Infantería de la Marina y operador especial que sirvió durante 18 años, seis despliegues y cuatro giras de combate, McCorkle busca traer dignidad e integridad al Congreso y restaurar la confianza en el gobierno. Es una clara elección progresista que, si es elegido, planea unir a personas con diversos antecedentes y creencias para construir una sociedad estadounidense en la que nos ayudemos unos a otros para que todos nos beneficiemos juntos.

    El titular al que se enfrenta es Ken Buck, un exfiscal y abogado del distrito en el condado de Weld que ha estado en el Congreso desde 2014. Su carrera legal se ha visto empañada por numerosos escándalos éticos, que incluyen comprometer un caso contra donantes republicanos y negarse a procesar una agresión sexual, culpando a la víctima en su lugar. Desde que está en el Congreso, Buck ha seguido la línea de extrema derecha del partido. Está en contra del derecho a elegir, se opone a la legislación razonable de control de armas y ha dicho que ser gay es una elección. Buck también votó a favor del proyecto de ley de reforma fiscal de 2017, que favoreció en gran medida a los ricos y a las corporaciones al tiempo que aumentó la carga fiscal sobre la clase media. Con todo esto en mente, Buck no debe permanecer en el cargo.

  • Endorsed By: Colorado AFL-CIO
  • Carlos López is someone who knows southern Colorado well. He was born and raised in Trinidad, started his college education at Trinidad State Junior College, and has served Trinidad on its city council. He knows what this community wants and needs. He’s not interested in playing politics as he’s more interested in the specifics about education funding in the state and the decrease in rural education funding. López is here to help out working folks in southern Colorado, and we recommend electing him to the state senate.

    Cleave Simpson is on the Republican side of this race. He’s a rancher and engineer from Alamosa, and his campaign statements cast a wide net of generalities, mostly on agriculture and land management and a call for rural and urban areas to “unite.” But he hasn’t made any other opinions on issues that affect daily life widely known. It’s hard to support a one-note candidate.

    Carlos López

    Carlos López es alguien que conoce bien el sur de Colorado. Nació fue criado en Trinidad, comenzó su educación universitaria en el Trinidad State Junior College y ha servido en el consejo de la ciudad en Trinidad. Sabe lo que esta comunidad quiere y necesita. No está interesado en jugar a ser político, sino en los detalles sobre la financiación de la educación en el estado y la disminución de la financiación de la educación rural. López está aquí para ayudar a las personas trabajadoras del sur de Colorado y recomendamos elegirlo para el Senado Estatal.

    Cleave Simpson está en el lado republicano de esta elección. Es un ranchero e ingeniero de Alamosa y en sus declaraciones de campaña habla de generalidades, sobre todo en la agricultura y la gestión de la tierra y un llamado a las zonas rurales y urbanas a “unirse”. Pero no ha dado a conocer ampliamente ninguna otra opinión sobre temas que afectan a la vida diaria. Es difícil apoyar a un candidato con una sola opinión.

    Carlos López is someone who knows southern Colorado well. He was born and raised in Trinidad, started his college education at Trinidad State Junior College, and has served Trinidad on its city council. He knows what this community wants and needs. He’s not interested in playing politics as he’s more interested in the specifics about education funding in the state and the decrease in rural education funding. López is here to help out working folks in southern Colorado, and we recommend electing him to the state senate.

    Cleave Simpson is on the Republican side of this race. He’s a rancher and engineer from Alamosa, and his campaign statements cast a wide net of generalities, mostly on agriculture and land management and a call for rural and urban areas to “unite.” But he hasn’t made any other opinions on issues that affect daily life widely known. It’s hard to support a one-note candidate.

    Carlos López

    Carlos López es alguien que conoce bien el sur de Colorado. Nació fue criado en Trinidad, comenzó su educación universitaria en el Trinidad State Junior College y ha servido en el consejo de la ciudad en Trinidad. Sabe lo que esta comunidad quiere y necesita. No está interesado en jugar a ser político, sino en los detalles sobre la financiación de la educación en el estado y la disminución de la financiación de la educación rural. López está aquí para ayudar a las personas trabajadoras del sur de Colorado y recomendamos elegirlo para el Senado Estatal.

    Cleave Simpson está en el lado republicano de esta elección. Es un ranchero e ingeniero de Alamosa y en sus declaraciones de campaña habla de generalidades, sobre todo en la agricultura y la gestión de la tierra y un llamado a las zonas rurales y urbanas a “unirse”. Pero no ha dado a conocer ampliamente ninguna otra opinión sobre temas que afectan a la vida diaria. Es difícil apoyar a un candidato con una sola opinión.

State House

Depending on where you live, you may have one of the below State House races on your ballot.

  • Incumbent State Rep. Jeni Arndt has diverse experience as an ESL teacher, middle school principal, and university faculty member. She has served as a representative for District 53 since 2015 and has become a leading voice in education, agriculture, and water rights. She sponsored a bill repealing the death penalty in Colorado that was signed into law earlier this year. Another of her biggest moves was on the National Popular Vote Compact. The bill, which she co-sponsored, would add Colorado to the group of states that want their electoral votes awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. She recently told KUNC that “it’s a way to enfranchise every voter in the United States to have their voice heard.” Arndt has taken on major progressive policy fights and brought them across the finish line.

    Arndt has proven her dedication to progressive values while emphasizing civility in political discourse. She is the best candidate in this race to represent her district and will continue to fight for the priorities of her constituents.

    Also on the ballot is Adam Shuknecht, a member of the Libertarian Party. He has not made any policy stances widely known.

    Jeni Arndt

    La representante estatal titular Jeni Arndt tiene una experiencia diversa como maestra de inglés como segunda lengua, directora de escuela media y miembro de la facultad de la universidad.

    Incumbent State Rep. Jeni Arndt has diverse experience as an ESL teacher, middle school principal, and university faculty member. She has served as a representative for District 53 since 2015 and has become a leading voice in education, agriculture, and water rights. She sponsored a bill repealing the death penalty in Colorado that was signed into law earlier this year. Another of her biggest moves was on the National Popular Vote Compact. The bill, which she co-sponsored, would add Colorado to the group of states that want their electoral votes awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. She recently told KUNC that “it’s a way to enfranchise every voter in the United States to have their voice heard.” Arndt has taken on major progressive policy fights and brought them across the finish line.

    Arndt has proven her dedication to progressive values while emphasizing civility in political discourse. She is the best candidate in this race to represent her district and will continue to fight for the priorities of her constituents.

    Also on the ballot is Adam Shuknecht, a member of the Libertarian Party. He has not made any policy stances widely known.

    Jeni Arndt

    La representante estatal titular Jeni Arndt tiene una experiencia diversa como maestra de inglés como segunda lengua, directora de escuela media y miembro de la facultad de la universidad.

  • Maria-Vittoria “Guigi” Carminati is a fearless advocate for women and marginalized communities, including survivors of police brutality and domestic violence. An activist and civil rights attorney, she has worked for the Texas ACLU and started her own law firm, The Woman Lawyer.

    Carminati is the co-author of several books and articles in space law, is experienced in commercial and civil litigation, and has fought against family separation at the border. On top of that, she has taught at the University of Houston Law Center and helped vulnerable populations seek equity and fair treatment in the face of injustice. These are testaments to her ability to deliver on a progressive vision that prioritizes accessible housing and healthcare, public education, and criminal justice reform.

    Carminati will ignite change in her district and at the Capitol, putting “progress back into progressive policy” if elected. She is the clearly preferred candidate.

    She is running against Republican incumbent State Rep. Rod Bockenfeld, who was elected in 2019. Bockenfeld has a background in banking and finance. His staunch defense of law enforcement earlier this year during a debate on a police accountability bill shows he will not support progressive criminal justice reform in light of recent protests demanding change. Bockenfeld was also the lone vote against banning the so-called “gay and trans panic defense,” a measure with strong bipartisan support that protects LGBTQ folks from violence and hate crimes.

    Kevin Gulbranson is also seeking the District 55 seat. He has served as outreach director of the Libertarian Party of Colorado and Arapahoe County. Gulbranson’s positions on mental health show he prioritizes individual rights and free markets. Policy stances other than those that align with the Libertarian Party are not widely known.

    Guigi Carminati

    Maria-Vittoria “Guigi” Carminati es una intrépida defensora de las mujeres y las comunidades marginadas, incluyendo a las sobrevivientes de la brutalidad policial y la violencia doméstica.

    Maria-Vittoria “Guigi” Carminati is a fearless advocate for women and marginalized communities, including survivors of police brutality and domestic violence. An activist and civil rights attorney, she has worked for the Texas ACLU and started her own law firm, The Woman Lawyer.

    Carminati is the co-author of several books and articles in space law, is experienced in commercial and civil litigation, and has fought against family separation at the border. On top of that, she has taught at the University of Houston Law Center and helped vulnerable populations seek equity and fair treatment in the face of injustice. These are testaments to her ability to deliver on a progressive vision that prioritizes accessible housing and healthcare, public education, and criminal justice reform.

    Carminati will ignite change in her district and at the Capitol, putting “progress back into progressive policy” if elected. She is the clearly preferred candidate.

    She is running against Republican incumbent State Rep. Rod Bockenfeld, who was elected in 2019. Bockenfeld has a background in banking and finance. His staunch defense of law enforcement earlier this year during a debate on a police accountability bill shows he will not support progressive criminal justice reform in light of recent protests demanding change. Bockenfeld was also the lone vote against banning the so-called “gay and trans panic defense,” a measure with strong bipartisan support that protects LGBTQ folks from violence and hate crimes.

    Kevin Gulbranson is also seeking the District 55 seat. He has served as outreach director of the Libertarian Party of Colorado and Arapahoe County. Gulbranson’s positions on mental health show he prioritizes individual rights and free markets. Policy stances other than those that align with the Libertarian Party are not widely known.

    Guigi Carminati

    Maria-Vittoria “Guigi” Carminati es una intrépida defensora de las mujeres y las comunidades marginadas, incluyendo a las sobrevivientes de la brutalidad policial y la violencia doméstica.

  • Endorsed By: AFSCME Council 18, Cobalt

No Good Choices

There is no recommended candidate in this race.

Republican candidate Josh Vogel is the current district attorney for District 15 and is running without opposition. He doesn’t seem to be actively campaigning nor has he posted any kind of public platform. We hope the next election brings a clearly progressive challenger to the table so that voters in these four counties have a choice and so that their district attorney has some accountability.

  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES for Amendment B

  • Amendment B, Repeal Property Tax Assessment Rates

    The Gallagher Amendment Repeal and Property Tax Assessment Rates Measure (Amendment B) would repeal the Gallagher Amendment of 1982, which fixed residential and business property tax rates at 45% residential and 55% business. This measure is intended to relieve downward pressure on local public school funding across the state through the repeal of the current property tax assessment formula. The Gallagher Amendment has skewed the tax assessment of residential property in Colorado, resulting in significant shortfalls for school districts reliant on property tax revenue for their funding. Maintaining the Gallagher Amendment’s ratio of residential to business property tax has forced the state to step in with dwindling general fund revenue, causing budget cuts to critical services and an overall proportional reduction in total education funding over time.

    Full text on the ballot: Without increasing property tax rates, to help preserve funding for local districts that provide fire protection, police, ambulance, hospital, kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and other services, and to avoid automatic mill levy increases, shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution to repeal the requirement that the general assembly periodically change the residential assessment rate in order to maintain the statewide proportion of residential property as compared to all other taxable property valued for property tax purposes and repeal the nonresidential property tax assessment rate of twenty-nine percent?

    Amendment B, Repeal Property Tax Assessment Rates

    The Gallagher Amendment Repeal and Property Tax Assessment Rates Measure (Amendment B) would repeal the Gallagher Amendment of 1982, which fixed residential and business property tax rates at 45% residential and 55% business. This measure is intended to relieve downward pressure on local public school funding across the state through the repeal of the current property tax assessment formula. The Gallagher Amendment has skewed the tax assessment of residential property in Colorado, resulting in significant shortfalls for school districts reliant on property tax revenue for their funding. Maintaining the Gallagher Amendment’s ratio of residential to business property tax has forced the state to step in with dwindling general fund revenue, causing budget cuts to critical services and an overall proportional reduction in total education funding over time.

    Full text on the ballot: Without increasing property tax rates, to help preserve funding for local districts that provide fire protection, police, ambulance, hospital, kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and other services, and to avoid automatic mill levy increases, shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution to repeal the requirement that the general assembly periodically change the residential assessment rate in order to maintain the statewide proportion of residential property as compared to all other taxable property valued for property tax purposes and repeal the nonresidential property tax assessment rate of twenty-nine percent?

    Amendment B, Repeal Property Tax Assessment Rates

    The Gallagher Amendment Repeal and Property Tax Assessment Rates Measure (Amendment B) would repeal the Gallagher Amendment of 1982, which fixed residential and business property tax rates at 45% residential and 55% business. This measure is intended to relieve downward pressure on local public school funding across the state through the repeal of the current property tax assessment formula. The Gallagher Amendment has skewed the tax assessment of residential property in Colorado, resulting in significant shortfalls for school districts reliant on property tax revenue for their funding. Maintaining the Gallagher Amendment’s ratio of residential to business property tax has forced the state to step in with dwindling general fund revenue, causing budget cuts to critical services and an overall proportional reduction in total education funding over time.

    Full text on the ballot: Without increasing property tax rates, to help preserve funding for local districts that provide fire protection, police, ambulance, hospital, kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and other services, and to avoid automatic mill levy increases, shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution to repeal the requirement that the general assembly periodically change the residential assessment rate in order to maintain the statewide proportion of residential property as compared to all other taxable property valued for property tax purposes and repeal the nonresidential property tax assessment rate of twenty-nine percent?

    Amendment B, Repeal Property Tax Assessment Rates

    Enmienda B, Derogar las Tarifas de Evaluación del Impuesto a la Propiedad

    La Medida de Derogación de la Enmienda Gallagher y Tasas de Evaluación de Impuestos a la Propiedad (Enmienda B) derogaría la Enmienda Gallagher de 1982, que actualmente establece una proporción de impuestos a la propiedad en la Constitución de Colorado, 45% de propiedad residencial y 55% de propiedad comercial. La Enmienda B permitiría aumentar los fondos para las escuelas locales al derogar esta fórmula constitucional sobre las evaluaciones de impuestos a la propiedad. La Enmienda Gallagher ha distorsionado la evaluación de impuestos de la propiedad residencial en Colorado, lo que ha resultado en un déficit significativo para los distritos escolares que dependen de los ingresos del impuesto a la propiedad para su financiación. El mantenimiento de la proporción de impuestos a la propiedad residenciales y comerciales de la Enmienda Gallagher ha obligado al estado a intervenir con la disminución de los ingresos de los fondos generales, lo que ha provocado recortes presupuestarios a servicios críticos y una reducción proporcional general en el financiamiento total de la educación a lo largo del tiempo.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber una enmienda a la constitución de Colorado con respecto a la realización de actividades de juegos benéficos y, en relación con ello, permitir que los titulares de licencias de rifas-bingo contraten gerentes y operadores de juegos y reducir el período requerido de existencia continua de una organización benéfica antes de obtener una licencia de juego?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES for Amendment C

  • Amendment C, Bingo Raffles Allow Paid Help and Repeal Five-Year Minimum

    The Charitable Bingo and Raffles Amendment (Amendment C) reduces the time period a charitable organization must exist before receiving a charitable gaming license from five years to three years. It also permits charitable organizations to hire staff to manage gaming activities. Charitable gaming in Colorado includes bingo, lotteries, raffles, and certain other games conducted by charitable organizations for fundraising purposes.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and operators of games and reducing the required period of a charitable organization's continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?

    Amendment C, Bingo Raffles Allow Paid Help and Repeal Five-Year Minimum

    The Charitable Bingo and Raffles Amendment (Amendment C) reduces the time period a charitable organization must exist before receiving a charitable gaming license from five years to three years. It also permits charitable organizations to hire staff to manage gaming activities. Charitable gaming in Colorado includes bingo, lotteries, raffles, and certain other games conducted by charitable organizations for fundraising purposes.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and operators of games and reducing the required period of a charitable organization's continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?

    Amendment C, Bingo Raffles Allow Paid Help and Repeal Five-Year Minimum

    The Charitable Bingo and Raffles Amendment (Amendment C) reduces the time period a charitable organization must exist before receiving a charitable gaming license from five years to three years. It also permits charitable organizations to hire staff to manage gaming activities. Charitable gaming in Colorado includes bingo, lotteries, raffles, and certain other games conducted by charitable organizations for fundraising purposes.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing bingo-raffle licensees to hire managers and operators of games and reducing the required period of a charitable organization's continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?

    Amendment C, Bingo Raffles Allow Paid Help and Repeal Five-Year Minimum

    Enmienda C, Las Rifas de Bingo Permiten Ayuda Pagada y Derogan el Mínimo de Cinco Años

    La Enmienda Bingo y Rifas Benéficas (Enmienda C) reduce el período de tiempo durante el cual debe existir una organización benéfica antes de recibir una licencia de juego benéfico de cinco a tres años. También permite que las organizaciones benéficas contraten personal para administrar las actividades de juego. Los juegos benéficos en Colorado incluyen bingo, loterías, rifas y algunos otros juegos realizados por organizaciones benéficas con fines de recaudación de fondos.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber una enmienda a la constitución de Colorado con respecto a la realización de actividades de juegos benéficos y, en relación con ello, permitir que los titulares de licencias de rifas-bingo contraten gerentes y operadores de juegos y reducir el período requerido de existencia continua de una organización benéfica antes de obtener una licencia de juego?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE NO

    Vote NO for Amendment 76

  • Amendment 76, Citizenship Qualification of Electors

    The Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative (Amendment 76) purports to amend Section 1 of Article VII of the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the United States who is 18 years of age or older can vote in federal, state, and local elections in Colorado. Currently, Article VII Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution states that “Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, has resided in this state for such a time as may be prescribed by law, and has been duly registered as a voter if required by law shall be qualified to vote at all elections.” While the sole change made by the Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative is to replace the word “every” with “only a,” it also would upend current law which allows 17-year-olds who would be 18 by the general election to vote in that cycle’s primary. This seemingly simple change, therefore, has the effect of eliminating an otherwise valid group of young voters from the full election process, to say nothing of the fact that it is a clear attempt to confuse voters into believing that current Colorado law permits noncitizens to vote, which it does not.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring that to be qualified to vote at any election an individual must be a United States citizen?

    Amendment 76, Citizenship Qualification of Electors

    The Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative (Amendment 76) purports to amend Section 1 of Article VII of the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the United States who is 18 years of age or older can vote in federal, state, and local elections in Colorado. Currently, Article VII Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution states that “Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, has resided in this state for such a time as may be prescribed by law, and has been duly registered as a voter if required by law shall be qualified to vote at all elections.” While the sole change made by the Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative is to replace the word “every” with “only a,” it also would upend current law which allows 17-year-olds who would be 18 by the general election to vote in that cycle’s primary. This seemingly simple change, therefore, has the effect of eliminating an otherwise valid group of young voters from the full election process, to say nothing of the fact that it is a clear attempt to confuse voters into believing that current Colorado law permits noncitizens to vote, which it does not.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring that to be qualified to vote at any election an individual must be a United States citizen?

    Amendment 76, Citizenship Qualification of Electors

    The Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative (Amendment 76) purports to amend Section 1 of Article VII of the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the United States who is 18 years of age or older can vote in federal, state, and local elections in Colorado. Currently, Article VII Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution states that “Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, has resided in this state for such a time as may be prescribed by law, and has been duly registered as a voter if required by law shall be qualified to vote at all elections.” While the sole change made by the Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative is to replace the word “every” with “only a,” it also would upend current law which allows 17-year-olds who would be 18 by the general election to vote in that cycle’s primary. This seemingly simple change, therefore, has the effect of eliminating an otherwise valid group of young voters from the full election process, to say nothing of the fact that it is a clear attempt to confuse voters into believing that current Colorado law permits noncitizens to vote, which it does not.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring that to be qualified to vote at any election an individual must be a United States citizen?

    Amendment 76, Citizenship Qualification of Electors

    Enmienda 76, Calificación de Ciudadanía de los Electores

    La Iniciativa de Requisito de Ciudadanía para Votar (Enmienda 76) no tiene un impacto inmediato en los requisitos de votación en Colorado relacionados con la residencia o el registro y no cambia la ley electoral actual que excluye a los no ciudadanos de votar. Sin embargo, priva de sus derechos a los votantes menores de 18 años, ya que la ley actual permite que los jóvenes de 17 años que tendrían 18 años en las elecciones generales voten en las elecciones primarias de ese ciclo, y con esto, ya no podrán hacerlo. También está escrita claramente para dar a entender a los votantes que los no ciudadanos actualmente pueden votar, lo cual no es cierto, y fue pagada por una pareja adinerada de Florida que vive en Mar-a-Lago.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber una enmienda a la constitución de Colorado que requiera que para estar calificado para votar en cualquier elección, un individuo debe ser ciudadano de los Estados Unidos?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES for Amendment 77

  • Amendment 77, Local Voter Approval of Gaming Limits in Black Hawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek

    The Allow Voters in Central, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek Cities to Expand Authorized Games and Increase Maximum Bets Initiative (Amendment 77) would allow voters in these three gambling towns to vote to increase the maximum single bet allowed for any game beyond the current statewide limit of $100. Additionally, Amendment 77 would allow voters to approve games other than those currently allowed by Colorado law; currently allowed games in Colorado casinos include blackjack, craps, poker, roulette, and slot machines. The proposed measure would also change the distribution of gaming tax funds for community colleges to prioritize student retention and credit completion.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning voter-approved changes to limited gaming, and, in connection therewith, allowing the voters of Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, for their individual cities, to approve other games in addition to those currently allowed and increase a maximum single bet to any amount; and allowing gaming tax revenue to be used for support services to improve student retention and credential completion by students enrolled in community colleges?

    Amendment 77, Local Voter Approval of Gaming Limits in Black Hawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek

    The Allow Voters in Central, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek Cities to Expand Authorized Games and Increase Maximum Bets Initiative (Amendment 77) would allow voters in these three gambling towns to vote to increase the maximum single bet allowed for any game beyond the current statewide limit of $100. Additionally, Amendment 77 would allow voters to approve games other than those currently allowed by Colorado law; currently allowed games in Colorado casinos include blackjack, craps, poker, roulette, and slot machines. The proposed measure would also change the distribution of gaming tax funds for community colleges to prioritize student retention and credit completion.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning voter-approved changes to limited gaming, and, in connection therewith, allowing the voters of Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, for their individual cities, to approve other games in addition to those currently allowed and increase a maximum single bet to any amount; and allowing gaming tax revenue to be used for support services to improve student retention and credential completion by students enrolled in community colleges?

    Amendment 77, Local Voter Approval of Gaming Limits in Black Hawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek

    The Allow Voters in Central, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek Cities to Expand Authorized Games and Increase Maximum Bets Initiative (Amendment 77) would allow voters in these three gambling towns to vote to increase the maximum single bet allowed for any game beyond the current statewide limit of $100. Additionally, Amendment 77 would allow voters to approve games other than those currently allowed by Colorado law; currently allowed games in Colorado casinos include blackjack, craps, poker, roulette, and slot machines. The proposed measure would also change the distribution of gaming tax funds for community colleges to prioritize student retention and credit completion.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning voter-approved changes to limited gaming, and, in connection therewith, allowing the voters of Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek, for their individual cities, to approve other games in addition to those currently allowed and increase a maximum single bet to any amount; and allowing gaming tax revenue to be used for support services to improve student retention and credential completion by students enrolled in community colleges?

    Amendment 77, Local Voter Approval of Gaming Limits in Black Hawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek

    Enmienda 77, Aprobación por Parte de los Votantes Locales de los Límites de Juego en Black Hawk, Central City y Cripple Creek

    La Iniciativa de Permitir a los Votantes en las Ciudades Central, Black Hawk y Cripple Creek Expandir los Juegos Autorizados y Aumentar las Apuestas Máximas (Enmienda 77) permitiría a los votantes en estas tres ciudades de juego votar para aumentar la apuesta única máxima permitida para cualquier juego más allá del límite actual en todo el estado de $100. Además, la Enmienda 77 también permitiría a los votantes aprobar juegos distintos a los permitidos actualmente por la ley de Colorado; Los juegos actualmente permitidos en los casinos de Colorado incluyen blackjack, dados, póquer, ruleta y máquinas tragamonedas. La medida propuesta también cambiaría la distribución de los fondos del impuesto sobre el juego para que los colegios comunitarios prioricen la retención de estudiantes y la finalización de créditos.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber una enmienda a la constitución de Colorado y un cambio a los Estatutos Revisados de Colorado con respecto a los cambios aprobados por los votantes a los juegos limitados y, en relación con ello, permitir a los votantes de Central City, Black Hawk y Cripple Creek, en sus ciudades individuales, aprobar otros juegos además de los permitidos actualmente y aumentar una apuesta única máxima a cualquier cantidad; y permitir que los ingresos fiscales del juego se utilicen para servicios de apoyo para mejorar la retención de estudiantes y la obtención de créditos por parte de los estudiantes inscritos en colegios comunitarios?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES for Proposition EE

  • Proposition EE, Cigarette, Tobacco and Nicotine Products Tax

    The Colorado Tobacco and E-Cigarette Tax Increase for Health and Education Programs Measure (Proposition EE) would close a tax loophole on vaping products that currently leaves these products untaxed in Colorado, bringing the tax in line with other tobacco products. The measure would also increase cigarette taxes from $0.84 per pack currently to $2.64 per pack by 2027. The revenue from this measure would provide $375 million to public schools over the next three years to offset budget cuts from COVID-19, with $90 million specifically going to rural school districts. The revenue would also provide access to free, universal preschool to all four-year-olds in Colorado. The measure would also provide $110 million in additional money for smoking and vaping education and cessation programs as well as $35 million for affordable housing and eviction programs over the next three years.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall state taxes be increased by $294,000,000 annually by imposing a tax on nicotine liquids used in e-cigarettes and other vaping products that is equal to the total state tax on tobacco products when fully phased in, incrementally increasing the tobacco products tax by up to 22% of the manufacturer's list price, incrementally increasing the cigarette tax by up to 9 cents per cigarette, expanding the existing cigarette and tobacco taxes to apply to sales to consumers from outside of the state, establishing a minimum tax for moist snuff tobacco products, creating an inventory tax that applies for future cigarette tax increases, and initially using the tax revenue primarily for public school funding to help offset revenue that has been lost as a result of the economic impacts related to COVID-19 and then for programs that reduce the use of tobacco and nicotine products, enhance the voluntary Colorado preschool program and make it widely available for free, and maintain the funding for programs that currently receive revenue from tobacco taxes, with the state keeping and spending all of the new tax revenue as a voter-approved revenue change?

    Proposition EE, Cigarette, Tobacco and Nicotine Products Tax

    The Colorado Tobacco and E-Cigarette Tax Increase for Health and Education Programs Measure (Proposition EE) would close a tax loophole on vaping products that currently leaves these products untaxed in Colorado, bringing the tax in line with other tobacco products. The measure would also increase cigarette taxes from $0.84 per pack currently to $2.64 per pack by 2027. The revenue from this measure would provide $375 million to public schools over the next three years to offset budget cuts from COVID-19, with $90 million specifically going to rural school districts. The revenue would also provide access to free, universal preschool to all four-year-olds in Colorado. The measure would also provide $110 million in additional money for smoking and vaping education and cessation programs as well as $35 million for affordable housing and eviction programs over the next three years.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall state taxes be increased by $294,000,000 annually by imposing a tax on nicotine liquids used in e-cigarettes and other vaping products that is equal to the total state tax on tobacco products when fully phased in, incrementally increasing the tobacco products tax by up to 22% of the manufacturer's list price, incrementally increasing the cigarette tax by up to 9 cents per cigarette, expanding the existing cigarette and tobacco taxes to apply to sales to consumers from outside of the state, establishing a minimum tax for moist snuff tobacco products, creating an inventory tax that applies for future cigarette tax increases, and initially using the tax revenue primarily for public school funding to help offset revenue that has been lost as a result of the economic impacts related to COVID-19 and then for programs that reduce the use of tobacco and nicotine products, enhance the voluntary Colorado preschool program and make it widely available for free, and maintain the funding for programs that currently receive revenue from tobacco taxes, with the state keeping and spending all of the new tax revenue as a voter-approved revenue change?

    Proposition EE, Cigarette, Tobacco and Nicotine Products Tax

    The Colorado Tobacco and E-Cigarette Tax Increase for Health and Education Programs Measure (Proposition EE) would close a tax loophole on vaping products that currently leaves these products untaxed in Colorado, bringing the tax in line with other tobacco products. The measure would also increase cigarette taxes from $0.84 per pack currently to $2.64 per pack by 2027. The revenue from this measure would provide $375 million to public schools over the next three years to offset budget cuts from COVID-19, with $90 million specifically going to rural school districts. The revenue would also provide access to free, universal preschool to all four-year-olds in Colorado. The measure would also provide $110 million in additional money for smoking and vaping education and cessation programs as well as $35 million for affordable housing and eviction programs over the next three years.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall state taxes be increased by $294,000,000 annually by imposing a tax on nicotine liquids used in e-cigarettes and other vaping products that is equal to the total state tax on tobacco products when fully phased in, incrementally increasing the tobacco products tax by up to 22% of the manufacturer's list price, incrementally increasing the cigarette tax by up to 9 cents per cigarette, expanding the existing cigarette and tobacco taxes to apply to sales to consumers from outside of the state, establishing a minimum tax for moist snuff tobacco products, creating an inventory tax that applies for future cigarette tax increases, and initially using the tax revenue primarily for public school funding to help offset revenue that has been lost as a result of the economic impacts related to COVID-19 and then for programs that reduce the use of tobacco and nicotine products, enhance the voluntary Colorado preschool program and make it widely available for free, and maintain the funding for programs that currently receive revenue from tobacco taxes, with the state keeping and spending all of the new tax revenue as a voter-approved revenue change?

    Proposition EE, Cigarette, Tobacco and Nicotine Products Tax

    Proposición EE, Impuesto sobre Cigarrillos, Tabaco y Productos de Nicotina

    La Medida de Aumento de Impuestos al Tabaco y Cigarrillos Electrónicos de Colorado para Programas de Salud y Educación (Proposición EE) cerraría una laguna fiscal sobre los productos de vapeo que actualmente deja estos productos sin impuestos en Colorado, alinear el impuesto con otros productos de tabaco. La medida también aumentaría los impuestos sobre los cigarrillos de $0.84 por paquete actualmente a $2.64 por paquete por 2027. Los ingresos de esta medida proporcionarían $375 millones a las escuelas públicas durante los próximos tres años para compensar los recortes presupuestarios de COVID-19, con $90 millones destinados específicamente a los distritos escolares rurales. Los ingresos también proporcionarían acceso a preescolar gratuito y universal a todos los niños de cuatro años en Colorado. La medida también proporcionaría $110 millones en dinero adicional para programas de educación y cesación para fumar y vapear, así como $35 millones para programas de vivienda y desalojo asequibles en los próximos tres años.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Deberían aumentarse los impuestos estatales en $294,000,000 anualmente mediante la imposición de un impuesto sobre los líquidos de nicotina utilizados en los cigarrillos electrónicos y otros productos de vapeo que sea igual al impuesto estatal total sobre los productos de tabaco cuando se implemente por completo, aumentando gradualmente el impuesto a los productos de tabaco en hasta un 22% del precio de lista del fabricante, aumentando gradualmente el impuesto a los cigarrillos en hasta 9 centavos por cigarrillo, ampliando los impuestos existentes a los cigarrillos y al tabaco para que se apliquen a las ventas a consumidores de fuera del estado, estableciendo un impuesto mínimo para los productos de tabaco rapé húmedo, creando un impuesto al inventario que se aplica para futuros aumentos de impuestos a los cigarrillos, y que inicialmente utiliza los ingresos fiscales principalmente para la financiación de escuelas públicas para ayudar a compensar los ingresos que se han perdido como resultado de los impactos económicos relacionados con COVID-19 y luego para programas que reducen el uso de productos de tabaco y nicotina, mejorar el programa de preescolar voluntario de Colorado y hacerlo ampliamente disponible de forma gratuita, y mantener la financiación para programas que actualmente reciben ingresos de los impuestos al tabaco, con el estado conservando y gastando todos los nuevos ingresos fiscales como un cambio de ingresos aprobado por los votantes?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES for Proposition 113

  • Proposition 113, National Popular Vote

    The Colorado National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum (Proposition 113) would affirm the Colorado General Assembly’s passage of Senate Bill 19-042, which entered Colorado into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to ensure Colorado's Electoral College votes are awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. Colorado has been carried by the winner of the nationwide popular vote in every presidential election since 2004, and the compact would end the unequal valuation of American votes in presidential elections. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would not take effect until an Electoral College majority of states joins. As of August 2020, 14 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that would trigger the compact in the event 270 Electoral College votes are achieved.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall the following Act of the General Assembly be approved: An Act concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote, being Senate Bill No. 19-042?

    Proposition 113, National Popular Vote

    The Colorado National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum (Proposition 113) would affirm the Colorado General Assembly’s passage of Senate Bill 19-042, which entered Colorado into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to ensure Colorado's Electoral College votes are awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. Colorado has been carried by the winner of the nationwide popular vote in every presidential election since 2004, and the compact would end the unequal valuation of American votes in presidential elections. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would not take effect until an Electoral College majority of states joins. As of August 2020, 14 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that would trigger the compact in the event 270 Electoral College votes are achieved.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall the following Act of the General Assembly be approved: An Act concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote, being Senate Bill No. 19-042?

    Proposition 113, National Popular Vote

    The Colorado National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum (Proposition 113) would affirm the Colorado General Assembly’s passage of Senate Bill 19-042, which entered Colorado into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to ensure Colorado's Electoral College votes are awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. Colorado has been carried by the winner of the nationwide popular vote in every presidential election since 2004, and the compact would end the unequal valuation of American votes in presidential elections. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would not take effect until an Electoral College majority of states joins. As of August 2020, 14 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that would trigger the compact in the event 270 Electoral College votes are achieved.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall the following Act of the General Assembly be approved: An Act concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote, being Senate Bill No. 19-042?

    Proposition 113, National Popular Vote

    Proposición 113, Voto Popular Nacional

    El Referéndum del Pacto Interestatal del Voto Popular Nacional de Colorado (Proposición 113) afirmaría la aprobación por parte de la Asamblea General de Colorado del Proyecto de Ley del Senado 19-042, que unió a Colorado con el Pacto Interestatal del Voto Popular Nacional para garantizar que los votos del Colegio Electoral de Colorado se otorguen al ganador del voto popular nacional en las elecciones presidenciales. Colorado ha sido ganado por el ganador del voto popular a nivel nacional en todas las elecciones presidenciales desde 2000, y el pacto terminaría con la valoración desigual de los votos estadounidenses en las elecciones presidenciales. El Pacto Nacional Interestatal para el Voto Popular no entraría en vigor hasta que se una la mayoría de los estados del Colegio Electoral. En agosto de 2020, 14 estados y el Distrito de Columbia aprobaron una legislación que activaría el pacto en caso de que se obtengan 270 votos del Colegio Electoral.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería aprobarse la siguiente Ley de la Asamblea General: Una Ley relativa a la adopción de un acuerdo entre los estados para elegir al Presidente de los Estados Unidos por votación popular nacional, siendo el Proyecto de Ley del Senado No. 19-042?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES for Proposition 114

  • Proposition 114, Restoration of Gray Wolves

    The Colorado Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (Proposition 114) directs the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to reintroduce and manage the population of gray wolves in specific areas of the state by the end of 2023. The commission would be required to develop a plan to reintroduce gray wolves to locations west of the Continental Divide that it will determine, manage reintroduced wolf populations, and compensate property owners who may be affected. Reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado would restore an unbroken connection of protected wolf populations from Canada to Mexico.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado parks and wildlife commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?

    Proposition 114, Restoration of Gray Wolves

    The Colorado Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (Proposition 114) directs the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to reintroduce and manage the population of gray wolves in specific areas of the state by the end of 2023. The commission would be required to develop a plan to reintroduce gray wolves to locations west of the Continental Divide that it will determine, manage reintroduced wolf populations, and compensate property owners who may be affected. Reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado would restore an unbroken connection of protected wolf populations from Canada to Mexico.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado parks and wildlife commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?

    Proposition 114, Restoration of Gray Wolves

    The Colorado Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (Proposition 114) directs the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to reintroduce and manage the population of gray wolves in specific areas of the state by the end of 2023. The commission would be required to develop a plan to reintroduce gray wolves to locations west of the Continental Divide that it will determine, manage reintroduced wolf populations, and compensate property owners who may be affected. Reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado would restore an unbroken connection of protected wolf populations from Canada to Mexico.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado parks and wildlife commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?

    Proposition 114, Restoration of Gray Wolves

    Proposición 114, Restauración de los Lobos Grises

    La Iniciativa de Reintroducción del Lobo Gris de Colorado (Proposición 114), ordena a la Comisión de Parques y Vida Salvaje de Colorado que reintroduzca lobos grises en áreas específicas del estado para fines de 2023. La comisión deberá desarrollar un plan para reintroducir lobos grises en lugares al oeste de la División Continental que determinará, administrará las poblaciones de lobos reintroducidas y compensará a los propietarios que puedan verse afectados. La reintroducción de los lobos grises en Colorado restablecería una conexión ininterrumpida de las poblaciones de lobos protegidas desde Canadá hasta México.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber un cambio en los Estatutos Revisados de Colorado con respecto a la restauración de los lobos grises a través de su reintroducción en tierras designadas en Colorado ubicadas al oeste de la división continental y, en relación con ello, exigir que la comisión de parques y vida salvaje de Colorado, después de celebrar audiencias estatales y utilizando datos científicos, implemente un plan para restaurar y gestionar a los lobos grises; prohibir que la comisión imponga restricciones de uso de la tierra, el agua o los recursos a los propietarios privados para promover el plan; y exigir que la comisión compense justamente a los propietarios por las pérdidas de ganado causadas por los lobos grises?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE NO

    Vote NO for Proposition 115

  • Proposition 115, Prohibition on Abortions Later in Pregnancy

    The Colorado 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative (Proposition 115) would prohibit abortion procedures after 22 weeks of gestational age. Under the rule, an abortion after 22 weeks would only be permitted in an immediate life-threatening emergency with no exceptions for rape, incest, a lethal fetal diagnosis, or the health or medical needs of the patient. Abortion after 22 weeks only accounts for about 1% of total abortion procedures and in many cases is the result of major gestational complications that are found later in pregnancy. Colorado has emerged as a national safe haven for abortion care in these complex circumstances because of gestational bans in other states. Any physician who performs an abortion after 22 weeks would be found in violation of this initiative and face criminal charges and suspension of their medical license by the Colorado Medical Board.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning prohibiting an abortion when the probable gestational age of the fetus is at least twenty-two weeks, and, in connection therewith, making it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to perform or attempt to perform a prohibited abortion, except when the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened, but not solely by a psychological or emotional condition; defining terms related to the measure including “probable gestational age” and “abortion,” and excepting from the definition of “abortion” medical procedures relating to miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy; specifying that a woman on whom an abortion is performed may not be charged with a crime in relation to a prohibited abortion; and requiring the Colorado medical board to suspend for at least three years the license of a licensee whom the board finds performed or attempted to perform a prohibited abortion?

    Proposition 115, Prohibition on Abortions Later in Pregnancy

    The Colorado 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative (Proposition 115) would prohibit abortion procedures after 22 weeks of gestational age. Under the rule, an abortion after 22 weeks would only be permitted in an immediate life-threatening emergency with no exceptions for rape, incest, a lethal fetal diagnosis, or the health or medical needs of the patient. Abortion after 22 weeks only accounts for about 1% of total abortion procedures and in many cases is the result of major gestational complications that are found later in pregnancy. Colorado has emerged as a national safe haven for abortion care in these complex circumstances because of gestational bans in other states. Any physician who performs an abortion after 22 weeks would be found in violation of this initiative and face criminal charges and suspension of their medical license by the Colorado Medical Board.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning prohibiting an abortion when the probable gestational age of the fetus is at least twenty-two weeks, and, in connection therewith, making it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to perform or attempt to perform a prohibited abortion, except when the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened, but not solely by a psychological or emotional condition; defining terms related to the measure including “probable gestational age” and “abortion,” and excepting from the definition of “abortion” medical procedures relating to miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy; specifying that a woman on whom an abortion is performed may not be charged with a crime in relation to a prohibited abortion; and requiring the Colorado medical board to suspend for at least three years the license of a licensee whom the board finds performed or attempted to perform a prohibited abortion?

    Proposition 115, Prohibition on Abortions Later in Pregnancy

    The Colorado 22-Week Abortion Ban Initiative (Proposition 115) would prohibit abortion procedures after 22 weeks of gestational age. Under the rule, an abortion after 22 weeks would only be permitted in an immediate life-threatening emergency with no exceptions for rape, incest, a lethal fetal diagnosis, or the health or medical needs of the patient. Abortion after 22 weeks only accounts for about 1% of total abortion procedures and in many cases is the result of major gestational complications that are found later in pregnancy. Colorado has emerged as a national safe haven for abortion care in these complex circumstances because of gestational bans in other states. Any physician who performs an abortion after 22 weeks would be found in violation of this initiative and face criminal charges and suspension of their medical license by the Colorado Medical Board.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning prohibiting an abortion when the probable gestational age of the fetus is at least twenty-two weeks, and, in connection therewith, making it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to perform or attempt to perform a prohibited abortion, except when the abortion is immediately required to save the life of the pregnant woman when her life is physically threatened, but not solely by a psychological or emotional condition; defining terms related to the measure including “probable gestational age” and “abortion,” and excepting from the definition of “abortion” medical procedures relating to miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy; specifying that a woman on whom an abortion is performed may not be charged with a crime in relation to a prohibited abortion; and requiring the Colorado medical board to suspend for at least three years the license of a licensee whom the board finds performed or attempted to perform a prohibited abortion?

    Proposition 115, Prohibition on Abortions Later in Pregnancy

    Proposición 115, Prohibición de los Abortos en Etapas Posteriores del Embarazo

    La Iniciativa de Prohibición del Aborto de 22 semanas en Colorado (Propuesta 115) prohibiría los procedimientos de aborto después de las 22 semanas de edad gestacional. Bajo esta regla, un aborto después de las 22 semanas sólo se permitiría en una emergencia inmediata que ponga en peligro la vida, sin excepciones por violación, incesto, un diagnóstico fetal letal, o las necesidades médicas o de salud de la paciente. El aborto después de las 22 semanas sólo representa alrededor del 1% del total de los procedimientos de aborto y en muchos casos es el resultado de complicaciones gestacionales importantes que se encuentran más tarde en el embarazo. Colorado ha surgido como un refugio nacional para la atención del aborto en estas complejas circunstancias debido a las prohibiciones gestacionales en otros estados. Cualquier médico que realice un aborto después de 22 semanas estaría violando esta iniciativa y enfrentaría cargos penales y la suspensión de su licencia médica por la Junta Médica de Colorado.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber un cambio en los Estatutos Revisados de Colorado con respecto a la prohibición de un aborto cuando la edad gestacional probable del feto es de al menos veintidós semanas y, en relación con ello, convertirlo en un delito menor punible con una multa por realizar o intentar realizar un aborto prohibido, excepto cuando el aborto se requiera inmediatamente para salvar la vida de la mujer embarazada cuando su vida está amenazada físicamente, pero no únicamente por una condición psicológica o emocional; definiendo términos relacionados con la medida, incluyendo “edad gestacional probable” y “aborto”, y exceptuando de la definición de “aborto” los procedimientos médicos relacionados con un aborto espontáneo o embarazo ectópico; especificando que una mujer a la que se practica un aborto no puede ser acusada de un delito relacionado con un aborto prohibido; y exigiendo que la junta médica de Colorado suspenda durante al menos tres años la licencia de un licenciatario que, según la junta, realizó o intentó realizar un aborto prohibido?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE NO

    Vote NO for Proposition 116

  • Proposition 116, Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative

    The Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative (Proposition 116) would reduce the state income tax rate for individuals and corporations, resulting in state budget cuts of over $150 million per year, forever. Large businesses and people with incomes over half a million dollars per year will receive 70% of the benefit from this tax reduction. Meanwhile, the average Colorado family will get a tax cut of only $37 per year. The state is currently facing billions of dollars in budget shortfalls due to economic contraction from the COVID-19 pandemic, and this tax cut would have to be paid for by cuts to education, public safety, health care, and transportation to the tune of over $200 million in just the first year.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%?

    Proposition 116, Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative

    The Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative (Proposition 116) would reduce the state income tax rate for individuals and corporations, resulting in state budget cuts of over $150 million per year, forever. Large businesses and people with incomes over half a million dollars per year will receive 70% of the benefit from this tax reduction. Meanwhile, the average Colorado family will get a tax cut of only $37 per year. The state is currently facing billions of dollars in budget shortfalls due to economic contraction from the COVID-19 pandemic, and this tax cut would have to be paid for by cuts to education, public safety, health care, and transportation to the tune of over $200 million in just the first year.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%?

    Proposition 116, Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative

    The Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative (Proposition 116) would reduce the state income tax rate for individuals and corporations, resulting in state budget cuts of over $150 million per year, forever. Large businesses and people with incomes over half a million dollars per year will receive 70% of the benefit from this tax reduction. Meanwhile, the average Colorado family will get a tax cut of only $37 per year. The state is currently facing billions of dollars in budget shortfalls due to economic contraction from the COVID-19 pandemic, and this tax cut would have to be paid for by cuts to education, public safety, health care, and transportation to the tune of over $200 million in just the first year.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%?

    Proposition 116, Decrease Income Tax Rate from 4.63% to 4.55% Initiative

    Proposición 116, Iniciativa para Disminuir la Tasa del Impuesto sobre La Renta de 4.63% a 4.55%

    La Iniciativa para Disminuir la Tasa del Impuesto sobre la Renta del 4.63% al 4.55% (Proposición 116) reduciría la tasa del impuesto sobre la renta estatal para individuos y corporaciones, resultando en recortes presupuestarios estatales de $236 millones este año y hasta $2 mil millones en los próximos 10 años. La Proposición 116 beneficia abrumadoramente a los ricos y a las corporaciones mientras se paga con recortes a la educación, la seguridad pública, el cuidado de salud y el transporte.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber un cambio en los Estatutos Revisados de Colorado que reduzcan la tasa del impuesto estatal sobre la renta de 4.63% a 4.55%?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE NO

    Vote NO for Proposition 117

  • Proposition 117, Require Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises Exempt from TABOR Initiative

    The Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises (Proposition 117) would require a statewide vote on new state enterprises generating over $100 million in revenue within the first five years of operation. Enterprises were authorized by the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) as independent entities that administer fee-based programs for specific goods and services such as unemployment insurance, road and bridge construction, cleaning up chemical waste and oil spills, the sale of hunting and fishing licenses by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife, higher education institutions, and the Colorado State Fair. This initiative is entirely funded by out-of-state billionaires and corporations who often pay the fees this measure would limit. Proposition 117 is confusing and poorly written and will lead to years of lawsuits, unintended consequences, and future cuts in education, transportation, and health care.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring statewide voter approval at the next even-year election of any newly created or qualified state enterprise that is exempt from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution, if the projected or actual combined revenue from fees and surcharges of the enterprise, and all other enterprises created within the last five years that serve primarily the same purpose, is greater than $100 million within the first five fiscal years of the creation or qualification of the new enterprise?

    Proposition 117, Require Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises Exempt from TABOR Initiative

    The Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises (Proposition 117) would require a statewide vote on new state enterprises generating over $100 million in revenue within the first five years of operation. Enterprises were authorized by the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) as independent entities that administer fee-based programs for specific goods and services such as unemployment insurance, road and bridge construction, cleaning up chemical waste and oil spills, the sale of hunting and fishing licenses by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife, higher education institutions, and the Colorado State Fair. This initiative is entirely funded by out-of-state billionaires and corporations who often pay the fees this measure would limit. Proposition 117 is confusing and poorly written and will lead to years of lawsuits, unintended consequences, and future cuts in education, transportation, and health care.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring statewide voter approval at the next even-year election of any newly created or qualified state enterprise that is exempt from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution, if the projected or actual combined revenue from fees and surcharges of the enterprise, and all other enterprises created within the last five years that serve primarily the same purpose, is greater than $100 million within the first five fiscal years of the creation or qualification of the new enterprise?

    Proposition 117, Require Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises Exempt from TABOR Initiative

    The Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises (Proposition 117) would require a statewide vote on new state enterprises generating over $100 million in revenue within the first five years of operation. Enterprises were authorized by the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) as independent entities that administer fee-based programs for specific goods and services such as unemployment insurance, road and bridge construction, cleaning up chemical waste and oil spills, the sale of hunting and fishing licenses by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife, higher education institutions, and the Colorado State Fair. This initiative is entirely funded by out-of-state billionaires and corporations who often pay the fees this measure would limit. Proposition 117 is confusing and poorly written and will lead to years of lawsuits, unintended consequences, and future cuts in education, transportation, and health care.

    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring statewide voter approval at the next even-year election of any newly created or qualified state enterprise that is exempt from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution, if the projected or actual combined revenue from fees and surcharges of the enterprise, and all other enterprises created within the last five years that serve primarily the same purpose, is greater than $100 million within the first five fiscal years of the creation or qualification of the new enterprise?

    Proposition 117, Require Voter Approval of Certain New Enterprises Exempt from TABOR Initiative

    Proposición 117, Requerir la Aprobación de los Votantes de Ciertas Empresas Nuevas Exentas de la Iniciativa TABOR

    La Aprobación por Parte de los Votantes de Ciertas Empresas Nuevas (Proposición 117) requeriría una votación en todo el estado sobre nuevas empresas estatales que generen más de $100 millones en ingresos dentro de los primeros cinco años de funcionamiento. La Proposición 117 significa que los contribuyentes tendrán que pagar la factura por infracciones de emisiones, desechos químicos, derrames de petróleo y otras transgresiones en lugar de responsabilizar a las corporaciones e intereses especiales por sus acciones a través de las tarifas que pagan. Pone en peligro programas esenciales como el seguro de desempleo, nuestro departamento de parques y vida salvaje, el programa que salvó a los hospitales rurales; incluso las cuentas de ahorro para la universidad son empresas estatales. Esta iniciativa está financiada en su totalidad por multimillonarios y corporaciones de fuera del estado que a menudo pagan las tarifas que esta medida limitaría. La Proposición 117 es confusa y está mal redactada y dará lugar a años de demandas, consecuencias no deseadas y recortes futuros en educación, transporte y cuidado de salud.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber un cambio a los Estatutos Revisados de Colorado que requieran la aprobación de los votantes en todo el estado en la próxima elección de año par de cualquier empresa estatal recién creada o calificada que esté exenta de la Declaración de Derechos del Contribuyente, Artículo X, Sección 20 de la constitución de Colorado, si los ingresos combinados proyectados o reales de tarifas y recargos de la empresa, y todas las demás empresas creadas en los últimos cinco años que sirven principalmente para el mismo propósito, son mayores de $100 millones dentro de los primeros cinco años fiscales de la creación o calificación de la nueva empresa?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral
  • VOTE YES

    Vote YES for Proposition 118

  • Proposition 118, Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative

    The Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative (Proposition 118) would establish a paid family and medical leave benefit for most Colorado workers. It would provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave, allowing 2.6 million Coloradans to take time to care for themselves, a new child, or a seriously ill family member. Eight states including California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have successfully passed or implemented similar, solvent paid family leave programs. Employees and employers fund the program together, each contributing 0.45% of an employee’s wages to the fund, with the average Colorado worker contributing $3.83 per week. When workers need to take leave, they are paid up to 90% of their salary during that time. Employers may optionally contribute up to 100% of the cost of coverage; businesses with fewer than 10 employees are exempt from paying the premium, but their employees are still covered. Employers that offer paid leave benefits equivalent to the state plan may opt out and keep their plans.


    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member’s military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly benefit amount; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; allowing a local government to opt out of the program; permitting employees of such a local government and self-employed individuals to participate in the program; exempting employers who offer an approved private paid family and medical leave plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 0.9% of each employee’s wages, up to a cap, through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter, up to 1.2% of each employee’s wages, by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 50% of the premium amount from an employee’s wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium, with an exemption for employers with fewer than 10 employees; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims?

    Proposition 118, Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative

    The Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative (Proposition 118) would establish a paid family and medical leave benefit for most Colorado workers. It would provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave, allowing 2.6 million Coloradans to take time to care for themselves, a new child, or a seriously ill family member. Eight states including California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have successfully passed or implemented similar, solvent paid family leave programs. Employees and employers fund the program together, each contributing 0.45% of an employee’s wages to the fund, with the average Colorado worker contributing $3.83 per week. When workers need to take leave, they are paid up to 90% of their salary during that time. Employers may optionally contribute up to 100% of the cost of coverage; businesses with fewer than 10 employees are exempt from paying the premium, but their employees are still covered. Employers that offer paid leave benefits equivalent to the state plan may opt out and keep their plans.


    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member’s military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly benefit amount; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; allowing a local government to opt out of the program; permitting employees of such a local government and self-employed individuals to participate in the program; exempting employers who offer an approved private paid family and medical leave plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 0.9% of each employee’s wages, up to a cap, through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter, up to 1.2% of each employee’s wages, by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 50% of the premium amount from an employee’s wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium, with an exemption for employers with fewer than 10 employees; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims?

    Proposition 118, Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative

    The Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative (Proposition 118) would establish a paid family and medical leave benefit for most Colorado workers. It would provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave, allowing 2.6 million Coloradans to take time to care for themselves, a new child, or a seriously ill family member. Eight states including California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have successfully passed or implemented similar, solvent paid family leave programs. Employees and employers fund the program together, each contributing 0.45% of an employee’s wages to the fund, with the average Colorado worker contributing $3.83 per week. When workers need to take leave, they are paid up to 90% of their salary during that time. Employers may optionally contribute up to 100% of the cost of coverage; businesses with fewer than 10 employees are exempt from paying the premium, but their employees are still covered. Employers that offer paid leave benefits equivalent to the state plan may opt out and keep their plans.


    Full text on the ballot: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member’s military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly benefit amount; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; allowing a local government to opt out of the program; permitting employees of such a local government and self-employed individuals to participate in the program; exempting employers who offer an approved private paid family and medical leave plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 0.9% of each employee’s wages, up to a cap, through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter, up to 1.2% of each employee’s wages, by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 50% of the premium amount from an employee’s wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium, with an exemption for employers with fewer than 10 employees; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims?

    Proposition 118, Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Initiative

    Proposición 118, Iniciativa de Licencia Familiar y Médica Pagada de Colorado

    La Iniciativa de Licencia Familiar y Médica Pagada de Colorado (Proposición 118) establecería un beneficio de licencia familiar y médica pagada para la mayoría de los trabajadores de Colorado. Proporcionaría hasta 12 semanas de licencia pagada, permitiendo que 2.6 millones de habitantes de Colorado se tomen tiempo para cuidarse a sí mismos, a un nuevo hijo o a un familiar gravemente enfermo. Ocho estados, incluidos California, Nueva Jersey y Rhode Island, han aprobado o implementado exitosamente programas similares de licencia familiar pagados y solventes. Los empleados y los empleadores financian el programa juntos, cada uno aportando 0.45% de los salarios de un empleado al fondo, con el trabajador promedio de Colorado aportando $ 3.83 por semana. Cuando los trabajadores necesitan ausentarse del trabajo, se les paga hasta el 90% de su salario durante ese tiempo. Los empleadores pueden contribuir opcionalmente hasta el 100% del costo de la cobertura; las empresas con menos de 10 empleados están exentas de pagar la prima, pero sus empleados todavía están cubiertos. Los empleadores que ofrecen beneficios de licencia pagada equivalentes al plan estatal pueden optar por no participar y mantener sus planes.

    Texto completo en la boleta: ¿Debería haber un cambio a los Estatutos Revisados de Colorado con respecto a la creación de un programa de licencia familiar y médica pagada en Colorado y, en relación con ello, la autorización de licencia familiar y médica pagada para un empleado cubierto que tiene una condición de salud grave, está cuidando a un nuevo hijo o a un miembro de la familia con una condición de salud grave, o necesita una licencia en relación con el despliegue militar de un miembro de la familia o para una licencia segura; estableciendo un máximo de 12 semanas de licencia familiar y médica, con 4 semanas adicionales por complicaciones del embarazo o el parto, con un límite al monto del beneficio semanal; exigiendo protección laboral y prohibiendo las represalias contra un empleado que tome una licencia familiar y médica pagada; permitiendo que un gobierno local opte por no participar en el programa; permitiendo que los empleados de dicho gobierno local y los trabajadores independientes participen en el programa; eximiendo a los empleadores que ofrecen un plan de licencia médica y familiar pagada aprobado; para pagar el programa, requiriendo una prima del 0.9% del salario de cada empleado, hasta un tope, hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2024 y, según se establezca a partir de entonces, hasta el 1.2% del salario de cada empleado, por el director de la división de seguro de licencia familiar y médica; autorizando a un empleador a deducir hasta el 50% del monto de la prima del salario de un empleado y exigiendo que el empleador pague el resto de la prima, con una exención para los empleadores con menos de 10 empleados; creando la división de seguro de licencia familiar y médica como una iniciativa dentro del departamento de trabajo y empleo para administrar el programa; y estableciendo un proceso de aplicación y apelación para represalias y reclamos denegados?

    Support / Oppose / Neutral