Handy Little Voting Guide (*Opinion*)

Having become a tradition of sorts, there was an uprising when I did NOT write up a voting opinion piece. I sent it to the requestors, but am also sharing it here. 

One of the hallmarks of freedom in our voting system is ballot secrecy. I don't think under any circumstances you should be required to reveal to anyone what you voted for/against. CHOOSING to share your voting is not for the faint of heart...

Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

-L

Original Email:

You are receiving this email because:

1. You specifically requested receiving my writeup.
2. You have asked about it in the past.
3. I know you well enough to be comfortable foisting my opinion upon you.

IMPORTANT:

This message should not be interpreted in any way as to instruct or intimidate you on how to vote. I am sharing my personal opinion based on my personal experiences and also should not be interpreted as the opinion of the Attorney General’s office just because I work there.

• I’m not writing this to convince you.  I might write a little or a lot about my reasons, and my method of deciding on voting about judges. You may or may not agree with HOW I even reached my conclusions.

• Detailed arguments for/against any measure, and the judges’ reviews, can be found in the “Blue Book”  you probablby received at home, and at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Document_C&childpagename=CGA-LegislativeCouncil%2FDocument_C%2FCLCAddLink&cid=1251656822259&pagename=CLCWrapper

• I’m addressing all of the state-wide issues and sharing on the local races ~I~ voted on. Yours may be different.  

• Your own location county and//or will have additional elections that may include candidates like school board, mayor, clerk,etc)  AND more specific measures (should taxes be raised to pay for ____, etc.)  

You can usually easily find more info on the arguments for and against such measures- search for   

“(your)_____ county clerk and recorder elections”    As for candidates or other local measures, you’ll have to use your own discretion, but usually you can easily find the most significant arguments for/against something by searching “why vote YESfor _____(name of ballot measure) Colorado”, but be sure to follow it up with “why vote NO for _____(name of ballot measure) Colorado”

Here’s the Goods:

_________________________________________

FEDERAL OFFICES

United States Senate

VOTE: Cory Gardner

Udall is a stodgy snake of an old politician who’s been there too long and is more concerned about the game of politics  

District 4- Representative to the 114th U.S. Congress

VOTE:  Jess Loban

I don’t agree with Vic Meyers on the issues, but Ken Buck weirds me out in the way he handles things he announced in March 2013 that he was diagnosed with cancer, and by May he said he was miraculously healed.  God CAN heal people, but the way he was doing things made people really scratch their heads.

Jess Loban is a veteran supportive of our personal and property rights.   He seems to be common-sense and I think he’d do much less playing of the “game” as a congressman in D.C.

_________________________________________

STATE OFFICES

Governor/Lieutenant Governor

VOTE: Bob Beauprez/Jill Repella

Bob Beauprez is a leader, and cares about what’s happening.   Colorado is engaged in a number of “fights” for the rights of the state.  Hickenlooper has not taken a strong position on any of them.  He came into office as a moderate, saying he’d compromise a lot.   Instead of a compromise or standing strong on “meet-in-the-middle”options, he just cowers doesn’t make decisions and delays important issues. Being moderate means standing for things, but giving way in compromise, NOT never standing strong for anything.   When the issue came up what to do about a convicted death row killer, people for sure thought he would “stay” (stop) the execution because of his own personal beliefs, politics, and convictions.  Instead, he issued a wimpy, “I don’t wanna” decision that really did nothing at all except keep that issue out of the governor’s race about a year later (which is now).   

Secretary of State

VOTE: Wayne Williams

Williams is highly qualified for this position and has a firm grasp of the responsibilities required. Certainly he could possibly go further in politics in the future, but in regard to THIS election  I think all the other candidates are focused more on their political careers than the responsibilities of the office.  Joe Neguse is just another lawyer-politician that’s trying to push an agenda.  Wayne Williams seems to agree that there ARE reforms that should be made but advocates making those reforms legally and in a way that protects ALL Americans equally.  

State Treasurer

VOTE: Walker Stapleton

Walker Stapleton is the incumbent and has done a great job.  He’s been solid and diligent for everything he’s encountered during his term.  Betsy Markey just wants to climb the political ladder and is trying to step on Stapleton’s face to do it.  As a personal anecdote, I’ve had contact with Walker Stapleton and his team, namely Deputy treasurer Brett Johnson.   The U.S. (Federal) credit rating was downgraded in 2011, and Stapleton worked long, hard, and without much thanks to help settle some of the significant impacts that action had at the STATE.  http://www.stapletonforcolorado.com/record.html

Attorney General (State of Colorado)

VOTE: Cynthia Coffman

This has the most impact on me, and is the race about which I have the strongest opinion.  I have worked in Cynthia’s office for nearly two-and-a-half years now.   She has been the “Second” in-command to Attorney General John Suthers, who has served his maximum-allowed term.  Cynthia is reasoned, thoughtful, firm, experienced, and VERY well-respected.  I am quite proud to vote for Cynthia.  One of the things I’ve appreciated about our current AG (and by extension, Cynthia) is that though they may technically be a member of one party, there are NOT politics played in the office.  They’ve represented Colorado on issues they agree with, but also on items that they vehemently disagree with, enforcing both with equal priority and force.

To uphold current CO law is the primary job of the Attorney General, no matter the law.  Frequently, there are bad laws, and many of them are subsequently changed by the legislature, voters, or judge with appropriate authority that may determine a law is unconstitutional.  Don Quick has stated that if he knew something was a bad law, he wouldn’t necessarily take steps to defend the law. That would directly abandon the responsibility of the Attorney General and would basically put the power to decide the laws in the hands of one person.  

Judges (a vote to retain them)

Colorado Supreme Court Justice

Brian D. Boatright- NO

Attorneys voted only 66% to retain; evaluation reflects (FAULTS) “concerns in the areas of writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court’s decision and making reasoned decisions based on the law and facts.”  The commission that reviews judicial performance found that “they [opinions he wrote] often lacked the quality of composition expected of a Supreme Court Justice, and at times did not adequately set forth the analysis supporting them.”  In my own words, he often decides things without understanding the issues, and without explaining why in the final decision.  This is NOT the kind of person we want on our Supreme Court panel.

Colorado Supreme Court Justice

Monica M. Marquez - YES

Politically, I actually disagree with much of what Justice Marquez says.  Though I may even disagree with her leanings on decisions, she is a solid legal thinker and I think that she’s an experienced and thoughtful jurist.

Colorado Court of Appeals Judge

Terry Fox- NO

Those surveyed (consistently) replied that she is “weak in the areas of making reasoned decisions, writing opinions that are clear, writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the decision, and refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided.”  

Basically, she decides things without telling why, and includes in those decisions factors that were not part of what should have been considered.

Colorado Court of Appeals Judge

Alan M. Loeb- YES

He’s been described as “Thoughtful, fair, and well-prepared for oral argument… Thoughtful and writes clear and well-reasoned opinions.”

In considering your local judges, I look in the blue book, which shows the Judicial Commission’s evaluations.  They almost always recommend that judges “Be Retained”, but that’s only because it takes a LOT for them to recommend a judge be removed from the bench.  When I’m reading those reviews, I watch what attorneys have thought about them.  Attorneys are much more objective than the clients they represent, and for the most part will be balanced in a survey- reporting not based on whether things “went their way”, but whether the judge understood the law, the issues, etc.  I also pay extra special attention to what the judge’s stated weaknesses are.  

_______________________________

**Please Read**  AMENDMENTS- General  

The Colorado Constitution is RIDICULOUSLY easy to change.  It’s become a gathering place for all the “misfit toys” to jump in to CO law with a great deal of enforceability, and NO flexibility.  Special Interest politicians use this intentionally (rather than changing the law the way most people do) to make their causes strong.  Think Amendment 64 legalizing pot.  There’s a lot about it being implemented in Colorado that could have been avoided and made more reasonable if it had been a change in LAW (statutes) not put it in the constitution.   BEFORE YOU CONSIDER ANY Amendment, take a moment to ask yourself, “Is this an appropriate change to the Colorado Constitution?”

Make that comparison considering that this is AMENDING the CONSTITUTION- would a similar change in the Constitution of the United States  be ridiculous?   

U.S. Constitution: Amended 33 times (some haven’t remained)

Colorado Constitution: Amended 150 times  (some haven’t remained)

Amendment 67- “Personhood” Amendment

VOTE: NO

This measure is tried almost every election.  My issue is not with the cause- it’s certainly a worthy cause. My issue with this is that it DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CONSTITUTION the way it’s currently written.  Opponents of the measure have made ridiculous claims like, “they’re going to make it a crime to have a miscarriage!”  That IS ridiculous, but it’s not as far off as you’d think.   The current wording could make legal interpretation very ambiguous, which is extra problematic if you enact it as an amendment, rather than change applicable statutes. **  (see above, Amendments- General)

Amendment 68- “Racetracks/Casinos”

VOTE: NO

First, see above** - this is a STUPID thing to write into our state constitution.  

Second, it’s a perfect example of one specific group trying to get something written in to the constitution to make it really hard to change/remove.  They ALWAYS do this by claiming that it’s about schools because the taxes will go to schools.  There’s nothing that would force tax revenue to go to schools the way they claim, so if you’re considering voting for this, pretend for a moment that school funding/education has NO PART in the amendment at all-  except, it’s not really pretending.  They’re just lying to get you to vote “for education”.   

*Note that these next two are propositions (statutory), NOT an amendment (constitutional). Taking these two out of the consideration entirely for a minute- If you want to change laws, this WAY of changing law is one of the fair and intended ways to do it.  

Proposition 104- Open Meetings

VOTE: YES

Open meetings laws require that certain public interest decisions not be made behind completely closed doors.   There are some exceptions to those laws.  The down-and dirty version is that this law makes it so that school boards can’t negotiate with labor unions in closed meetings- it has to be open to the public.  

Proposition 105- Genetically Modified Organisms “GMO Labeling”

VOTE: YES

This requires companies to label foods as GMO or genetically modified.  This measure is not a perfect solution, but I think it’s a great step toward knowing where our food comes from and what’s in it (hint: sometimes it’s scary stuff.)  http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/resources

Well, that’s about all I have, because everything else on your ballot is going to be specific to your county, town, school district, etc.  

Get on out and VOTE!  (That includes dropping your mail ballot off in person, which I think is what most of you will be doing.)

I've Got the POWER! (Channeling the 90s in the Frederick/UP Debate)

Introduction: my conclusion.  
It's a non sequitor, I know.  Many questions were asked at the meeting held 20 October '14, and frankly, there was a lot of dispute over the answers- factual and subjective. As far as I'm concerned, the Board has not done a good job of explaining a beneficial reason for pursuing the buyout of electrical power utility from United Power.  
_______________________

Throughout history, we find a principle repeated in science, math, philosophy, and life in general. Even the U.S. military has made official statements of design philosophy (attributed to the Navy in the early 1960s):  K.I.S.S.-  Keep It Simple, Stupid.   Is it eloquent? No. Effective? Yes. 

A bit more sophisticated, let's follow the concept to William of Ockham.  Our friend Bill was a philosopher and logician in the 14th Century, but one simple theory of his has become almost universally accepted in scientific research, theory, and even engineering. The latin, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", is literally translated “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.”  This is what is referred to as Occam's Razor (yes, it's spelled differently.)  Certainly the semantics could be debatable, but I think a fair interpretation might be: 
Between two options, the one that requires fewer assumptions is always going to be best. 

We heard more than once in the meeting last night that, "analytics are not available..."; (from engineers) "once we have more data points we'll have a better idea"; and "we [anecdotally] think we can provide better and faster customer service."  I don't demean the efforts of these professionals, but these statements don't encourage confidence in the claims presented. 

I believe that with current information, Occam's Razor leads us firmly to another principle that-- thus far-- I've not heard an answer to within the current debate:
"If it's not broke[n], DON'T FIX IT." 
_______________________

All of the above being said, this is not by any means a settled issue, in theory or in practice. Among other important considerations is that the Town is currently researching this option. Though I think there was a lot lost in translation (and the rumblings of aptly concerned citizens), the critical fact is that nothing has been decided yet.  

The Board provided a basic timeline of what would come next, and committed to keeping the community apprised.  (See the 2nd-to-last paragraph here.)  As to what's next, they were very clear:

•  Inventory- Where we are now
• Appraisal- 3rd party appraiser [by both FP&L and UP independently]
• Negotiations- An agreed upon purchase price will be shared with the public
•  Purchase- No other city services would be affected, we can't shift money from one service to fund another and we can't use this money to improve other services [or infrastructure]

[Additions in brackets mine.]

This plan of action is clear, if not detailed.  If we're fair, we'll admit that if the board DID have every single detail ironed out, we would be in a far worse position of being in the final stages of implementation.   That said, I personally requested additional documentation from the City, and am happy to share the results here.  Lest you think something like that would get their hackles up, I'll note specifically that the staff was courteous, competent, timely, and pleasant to work with throughout- including my own revision of my original request.  Frankly, they gave me even more than they were required to legally by the strict reading of my request.  The result was beyond a good-faith response.   

As concerned citizens, we must remain the impetus for informed (let's not forget diplomatic) interaction.  Community meetings should not be adversarial proceedings.  

Read, write, and speak: I encourage you to STAY INVOLVED; sign up for meeting alerts, read what's available, and stay vocal.   

• Contact the board.  Attend meetings.  Bring all your neighbors. 
• Contact United Power by way of our very own "Frederite" Brian McCormick, who is Vice President of the Board of Directors.

_______________________

Though I've heard quite contrasting opinions on the matter, I've no lack of respect for those elected and appointed individuals that WE as citizens have entrusted with these important duties.  Without diminishing any past frustrations, do we  REALLY believe that these folks intend to work against citizens and against the greater good of the community? 

Though admittedly an eternal optimist, I am NOT naive in political proceedings.  Pardon the electrical pun, but I also urge you to examine your own thoughts that we're currently within a highly charged and polarized (ha!) political climate immediately prior to a national election. 

If we can't set aside our differences within a small community where everyone actually cares, I'm sorry-- we are screwed when it comes to stepping up the proverbial ladder to higher governmental issues.  

We have abundant opportunities HERE to have our voices heard (not the least of which is opinion pieces like the present), and if we don't like the results, we'll have the opportunity to vote 'em off the island (of Trustees, that is.) 

It appears to be pretty widely agreed that municipal utilities, especially those that generate their own power (Frederick will NOT) can provide a great deal of benefit in URBAN areas.  We're not urban, and many of us don't want to be.

Size of the entity is a consideration as well.  Stick around here long enough and you'll probably get the chance to find that I'm a fairly devoted capitalist.  My personal theory holds that self-interest leads to pursuit of profit, and that a properly free market will regulate itself with the best possible result for interested parties. Now seems like a perfect opportunity to point out that a city is not an entity that is an interested party from within.  Let me clarify: I'm convinced that those we have charged (read: ELECTED) with making decisions on our behalf  will make what they believe to be the best decisions. However, these parties end up being the appendages of an entity, not an actually interested party who stands to directly benefit (or lose) from the decisions they make.  
   
I digress.  

By Saveonenergy.com (emphases mine):

What is a cooperative?
A cooperative is a nonprofit electric utility that is owned and operated by the same consumers it serves. It ensures that residents receive power for the lowest price possible by purchasing power wholesale from a generation facility. Co-op rates are set just high enough to put profits back into the cooperative to fund expenses. If the co-op ever has excess margins, it returns the money to its members through patronage or capital credits.

Though each member has equal ownership of the utility, policies for a co-op are determined by a consumer-elected board, typically consisting of seven people. Any member of the cooperative's service area has the opportunity to run for the board. Elections are held on an annual basis and all members are invited to participate in the meeting and vote in the election.

Co-ops are mainly located in rural areas of the United States. They were formed in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal to help distribute power to residents in remote locations. Investor-owned utilities refused to deliver power to these areas because they could not turn a profit by providing electricity to areas with only a few customers per mile of power lines.

When electricity markets deregulated, legislators recognized the democratic system that a co-op operates in. That's why co-ops generally weren't required to open up to retail competition. However, co-op members can collectively decide and vote to enter into the competitive energy market.

What is a municipal utility?
Similar to an electric co-op, city-owned utilities in general weren't subject to deregulation laws. Municipal utilities are mainly located in urban areas and are owned and operated by the cities they serve. Residents of a municipality don't have a direct ownership in the city-owned utility, but they can vote for city council members that will either operate the utility or appoint a board to do so. The board decides on where to buy energy, though some municipal utilities may also be able to generate their own power.  It's also responsible for deciding what rate to charge consumers, with minimal regulations from the state public utility commission.


Under deregulation laws, municipal utilities usually have the choice to participate in the competitive energy market or not. It's up to the board of directors to determine whether or not a municipality should participate in the competitive market. However, residents have the opportunity to voice their options through public forums, such as city council meetings.


According to a public policy study conducted by Adrian T. Moore, Director of Economic Studies and Deputy Director at Reason Public Policy Institute:

"Municipalization is an antiquated policy tool devised as a substitute for competition. In today’s increasingly competitive electricity market, there is no justification for municipalizing more electric utilities. Municipal governments should no longer be allowed to get into the commercial and competitive business of providing electricity. Taxpayers should not allow their city governments to municipalize electric utilities; nor should federal tax policy encourage it."

and

"As with municipalization, there is no compelling public interest that justifies government-owned utilities embarking upon commercial ventures such as appliance repair and cable TV service. Already, we see two inimical results of utilities’ commercial ventures:  

ƒ - Taxpayers and electricity customers are footing the bill for losses in utilities’ commercial ventures, which are inherently risky; and 

ƒ - Government enterprises inherently distort competition. They are often exempt from regulations that constrain private firms; they have access to taxpayer funds in ways private firms do not; and they are 
often politicized in their management. Consequently, they never really compete on a level playing field with private firms. The solution to this set of circumstances is to require government utilities to stick to their core mission—providing electricity. A lead might come from the Texas legislature and Georgia regulators, who have not allowed munis to get into commercial telecommunications businesses."
_______________________

From United Power: 
BE INVOLVED: 
Ask the Board of Trustees: 

What is the anticipated cost of acquiring the system?

As a member of United Power, I am already invested into the system serving my home. Why would I want to pay for this infrastructure again?

Will the Town be able to provide all the services that United Power does? Like rebates, integration of new energy sources, and advanced technology solutions for enhanced services.

How will the cost of this purchase be handled by the Town and what will the impact be on the rates we pay for electricity?

Has the Town prepared a business case analysis regarding the proposed purchase? What are the costs and benefits of the proposed acquisition?

Where will the money come from to finance this purchase?

What services, facilities and community enhancements will we have to forego in order to finance this purchase? Could the financing that may be required for this acquisition be used instead to improve our recreational facilities, to repair and maintain roads and bridges, or to enhance public safety?

From where I sit having just moved to town Built on What Matters, I think we ARE on to something.

L. Weimer