Mail-In Ballots

We have an important election coming on Tuesday, 4 November.  I have already received my mail-in ballot and will probably fill it in this afternoon and mail it back on Monday.  This ballot contains thirty-nine (39) items - our US Senator, our US Representative, our Governor, other State officers, County Sheriff, other County officers, retention of seated judges, two state constitutional amendments, two state statutory propositions, two County issues, three City issues, and a local School Board issue.  I already know how I wish to vote on the proposed amendments, issues, and propositions, and who I plan to vote for.
   What has intrigued me is the lack of notice, and/or news coverage, regarding several of the City issues.  Boulder is already in the process of making a hostile take over of the local utility company, so the City can own it's own power plant.  (I voted against that, and I'm still against it.)  The one City item that has had some press is item 2A - raising taxes to pay for a new museum, and up-grading facilities at parks and other city-run areas.  My vote? YES.  Items 2B and 2C are not mentioned anywhere - I had to look them up on the City's website to find the wording last month, before I received my ballot.  Item 2B wants the City to be able to hold Executive Meetings regarding the municipal power plant without witnesses, behind closed doors.  We would just be informed of the decisions made, not allowed to comment on what they're talking and/or voting about.  My vote?  NO.  Item 2C  would allow the City to set up it own telecommunications system - specifically to supply high-speed internet - to anyone within the City limits, business or residential.  There is nothing in the item stating that if it is passed, people living inside the city limits would be permitted a freedom of choice in their internet carrier.  This would/could become another municipal utility, and one might end up having to use the City's telephone, internet, and cable services.  My vote? NO.
  We've been pummeled with advertisements for the Senate race and the Governor's race.  We've also been flooded by ads about Amendments 67 and 68, and Proposition 105.  And the negative ads are just so much drivel... I now turn the volume off when ads come on, and get to listen to kitty purrs instead of nastiness.  But I must admit that John Hickenlooper is staying with his continuing policy of  no negative ads within his campaign.  I like that.
   Amendment 67 is another Personhood law.  That it should be law that any fetus, at any stage of life,  from the instant of conception until birth, is to be considered a person, for purposes of prosecution in any court of law.  Proponents say that this will allow prosecutors to charge someone with a double murder, if a mother and unborn child are killed, for instance, in a hit and run accident.  But Colorado already has a law on the books for the death of an unborn child in such incidences.  To me, this seems like "someone" is trying to get a toe-hold in the law books as a precursor to outlawing abortions.
   Amendment 68 is an interesting one.  There is only one operating horse racetrack in the state of Colorado; it is owned by a company based in Rhode Island.  There are already many casinos operating in Colorado in the towns of Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek.  The Ute Nation also has two open casinos in the state.  This law states that up to three horse racing tracks may expand their operation to include casino-style betting on their premises.  In return for being to to do so, the racetracks will pay twice the percentage that the other casinos pay in taxes to the state - and that all of the gaming taxes from the racetrack(s) would go into a fund for public schools, to be divided equally among all public schools.  The proponents claim that, if the Aurora Racetrack can open their doors to the public offering casino style gambling, there will be at least $134 million each year in the new school fund.  I have problems with this also - money for the schools sounds good, but there is nothing written saying that these monies would be spent on the students in their classrooms.  The racetrack at Aurora is a sleepy-seeming place; one can wager on races around the country there, and there are several weeks of live racing - but it's not a large track with a lot of parking.  If this is approved, who will be paying for the upkeep of more heavily traveled roads in the area?  What will the traffic do to the folks who moved out into that area for the quiet?  Will the opportunity to gamble in Aurora affect the intake of the other casinos?  What will happen if their tax revenue lessens, after Colorado has become dependent upon that for other purposes?  And why is it approved for three racetracks?  Do they really expect other new racetracks to open, knowing that they have to pay 34% of their income to the state?  Who is living in a dream world, here?
   Proposition 105 is also getting a lot of attention - especially in Boulder - it's about labeling Genetically Modified Organisms or food. This proposal says that anything that is a product of genetic modification, or has been treated with a genetically modified preparation, must carry a label stating that the item was "Produced With Genetic Engineering."  This is very different from the rest of the United States' labeling requirements, and goes far beyond the U S Department of Agriculture regulations regarding the labeling of GMOs.  For instance, a lot of local farmers grow a old-fashioned  (or Heritage) type of sugar beet; this plant does extremely well in Colorado.  It is not genetically modified.  However, there is a pesky crop bug that loves sugar beets, and has developed a high tolerance for natural pesticides.  Local farmers spray a genetically modified pesticide that kills these pesky critters and keeps their beet crop safe.  These sugar beet farmers would have to label and sale their sugar beet crops as being "Produced With Genetic Engineering." Currently more than 80% of US crops are treated with genetically modified pesticides of some type - no other states require such labeling...  I think this proposition will harm Colorado farmers on the national and international market levels.

   Whew...  I'm getting down from my preaching stump now...  Thanks for reading this, and for thinking about your vote.   Remember your vote counts!!!