Twenty-nine judges on Denver’s ballot. The Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation reviews judges. In the Blue Book, start on page 68 and look at the first sentence for each judge. All 29 this year “MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.” In caps and bold besides. You can’t miss it. Based on that, vote yes to retain them all.
If you want to delve further, look at the paragraph which gives the responses of attorneys who work with the judges: many got 80 – 90% favorable ratings from attorneys. A few had low scores. For example, for the judge on p. 79, 44% of attorneys thought she met performance standards. Attorney evaluations are only one part of the process. This judge is still recommended to be retained. Point being, there’s other info in the Blue Book to inform your vote on the judges if you so choose.
Done with sides 1 & 2 of the Denver ballot! On to side 3:
Proposition FF. Referred. Proposing a change to laws = statutory. Free school meals for children below a certain income have been on the books a long time. During COVID, with federal money, free meals were provided (2020 – 2022) to all students. That funding has ended. For the 2022 -2023 school year, ineligible students will pay to eat again. FF proposes amending state law to continue free meals for all and pay for it by increasing taxes on households with incomes of $300,000 or more, along with additional federal funding. Pros and Cons, pp. 17-18, Blue Book, with a chart on p. 18 showing tax impacts.
Personal peeve: Proposition FF is written in all caps: hard to read and why are they shouting at us? Upper and lower case, please! This complaint applies to the full text of ballot measures in the Blue Book as well.
Proposition GG. Referred and Statutory. Shall we require the ballot title and fiscal summary of any proposal that increases or decreases income tax rates to include a table showing impacts for taxpayers. What? We don’t require that now?
Proposition 121. Statutory. Numbered, so initiated by citizen petition. Should we reduce the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%? Is this a good time to reduce state general fund revenue or not? See your chart of impacts, p. 24 Blue Book, along with Pros and Cons.
Proposition 122. Initiated and statutory. Mushrooms! “Yes” means the state establishes a regulated system of accessing psychedelic mushrooms and decriminalizes possession and use. “No” means they remain illegal under state law. I never did psychedelics back in the day. You’ll have to ask someone else.
Proposition 123. Initiated and statutory. Affordable housing. Should we set aside a portion of state income tax revenue for affordable housing programs? Exempt that money from the state’s revenue limits (TABOR, I presume) and establish eligible uses for this money? Lord knows, we need more affordable housing: is this the way to do it? Pros & Cons, p. 32.
Part 3: Propositions 124 – 126 and Referred Questions 2I – 2L, coming up tomorrow!