https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1tpuwd_0wEX4FYA00

We have all heard it a dozen times already: This year, like never before, voting is important. It may have become something of a cliche, but it remains the truth. This is especially true at the top of the ticket, but it also is imperative for all of the races and items further down this year’s exceedingly long ballot.

We understand that for those who are undecided or who haven’t had the time to research each and every candidate and issue, election day can be daunting. And this year, the choice between some candidates seems less like a decision between opposing worldviews and more like a decision between opposing realities.

But no matter how daunted we may feel about the complexity of these choices, we cannot have the attitude that our vote does not matter. It is easy to believe that a vote here or there would not have swayed a result, but results are the accumulation of single votes. Every vote, here and there, makes a difference.

With that in mind, here is a recap of the Daily Camera’s endorsements. We did not weigh in on every issue, but hopefully, these following positions help you come to your own decisions and vote for the future you think is best for Boulder, for Colorado and for America.

‘Yes’ on Amendment H

One only has to look to the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize the need for increased oversight of the justices who uphold and apply the law. After a series of contentious rulings and a bevy of scandals, only 16% of Americans have high confidence in the highest court in the land, according to a survey from June. Considering how vital our courts are to the functioning of our government, that is alarming.

A “yes” vote on Amendment H, the Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board Amendment, would create an independent adjudicative board to conduct formal proceedings and hear appeals to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline’s informal sanctions, and it would set standards for the judicial review process.

Vote “yes” on Amendment H to help restore integrity to the judicial branch of our government.

‘Yes’ on Amendment I

Amendment I would remove “the right to bail in cases of first-degree murder when the proof is evident or the presumption is great.”

It is not an easy choice to advocate for removing bail for anyone, but Amendment I is nonetheless worthy of approving. To start, there already exist certain crimes that are not eligible for bond, yet those charged with first-degree murder are. This incongruity is worth fixing. And second, bond in and of itself is inherently classist. Providing wealthy defendants the opportunity to access bail while others must await their trial in jail is absurd.

There are many issues with our bond system that are worth addressing, and this is one of them. Vote “yes” on Amendment I.

‘Yes’ on Amendment J

Amendment J could be viewed as a preemptive ballot measure. Thanks to the 2015 landmark Supreme Court ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriage has been legal in Colorado for nearly a decade. Many, then, will likely be surprised to learn that same-sex marriage is technically constitutionally barred in our state. Obergefell made Colorado’s ban unenforceable, but the language remains nonetheless.

“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state,” Article II, Section 31 reads .

The fact of the matter is, same-sex unions are not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The only thing keeping them legal is the Supreme Court’s ruling, which rests on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment — the very amendment that the court reinterpreted in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade.

If Obergefell were to be overruled, Colorado’s ban could once again become law.

Vote “yes” on Amendment J to relegate our archaic same-sex marriage ban to the history books.

‘Yes’ on Amendment 79

A “yes” vote on the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative ballot measure will do two key things: enshrine abortion access in our state’s constitution and remove an inequitable provision that restricts the use of public funds for abortion — specifically for government employees on public insurance programs.

Our state’s constitution is a living, breathing document. It was, by its very nature, meant to be amended. Meant to grow and progress as our society grew and progressed. America’s founders and Colorado’s first leaders did not profess to know everything. That is the whole point of an amendment . Because we are always growing and learning and adapting.

Our constitution is a reflection of who we are. It is a reflection of our values.

A woman’s right to make health care decisions about her body is fundamental. Let’s add it to our bill of rights in Colorado. Vote “yes” on Amendment 79.

‘No’ on Amendment 80

Colorado already has a right to school choice, but Amendment 80 seeks to put that right into the state constitution.

The primary reason to be dubious of this effort is that it is simply unnecessary. With the right to school choice already established in our state, what is the need to write it into our constitution?

One potential answer is that, for the backers of the measure, Amendment 80 is a stepping stone toward vouchers. That is a path we should avoid at all costs. Our public education system is designed to serve the public; if a family wants to enroll their child in a private or charter school, that is their right — but we should not have to pay for it, they should.

There is no reason to mess with what is already working. Vote “no” on Amendment 80.

‘Yes’ on Proposition KK

Proposition KK would put a 6.5% excise tax on guns and ammo to provide much-needed funding for a bevy of vital services. If guns are going to wreak so much havoc on our communities, a tax to help remedy those harms is a no-brainer.

The $36 million the tax is estimated to raise annually would go primarily to the Colorado Crime Victim Services Fund — an exceptionally worthy cause — with the remainder going to a mental and behavioral health fund for veterans and children.

Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S. — more than car wrecks and illness — and someone kills themself with a firearm roughly every 20 minutes . We can and must do more to contain the harm guns are doing to our society. An excise tax to help fund services to mitigate the destruction of firearms is a good step. Vote “yes” on Proposition KK.

‘Yes’ on Proposition 127

Hunting is inexorably linked to Colorado. It is a fundamental part of our outdoor culture. And it is something that we should all be able to accept and appreciate. Even those who are against eating meat should be able to acknowledge the virtues of a hunter bagging a deer and harvesting a freezer full of venison for the winter, especially compared to the nightmarish reality of the factory farming industry, where most of us get our meat.

But having a pack of dogs entrap a mountain lion in a tree for a hunter to shoot from close range for no purpose other than bragging rights and a taxidermy trophy is not really hunting. There is no respect for the prey. There is no skill on display. There is only hubris.

Beyond what should be an obvious step toward basic decency and the humane treatment of our fellow animals is a complex and complicated issue. But even taking in all the aspects of what Prop 127 seeks to change, a “yes” vote remains evident.

One piece of collateral damage from this measure, though, is that removing mountain lions from the “game” classification would mean that livestock owners would not be remunerated for losses if one of their animals is killed by a lion. The group behind Prop 127 is working with legislators on a long-term solution to this while seeking funding to provide interim relief to livestock owners.

If Prop 127 passes, which it should, lawmakers should quickly pass a fix to prevent ranchers from facing any undue harm.

Vote “yes” on Proposition 127.

‘No’ on Proposition 128

The Parole Eligibility Initiative, or Prop 128, seeks to increase the amount of time individuals convicted of violent crimes must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

The problem with Prop 128 is that it simply doubles down on the punitive element of our incarceration system. Not only would this measure increase the number of individuals in our prisons, it would cost taxpayers substantially. In due time, Prop 128 could cost us upward of $28 million per year for housing additional inmates.

This money would be better spent on rehabilitation. Instead of seeking to lock up offenders for even longer amounts of time, we should be doubling down on efforts to help those who commit crimes, especially violent ones, become better people who can, when ready, successfully rejoin society.

When it comes to incarceration, America stands in unbecoming company. The U.S. incarcerates 716 people per 100,000 citizens , topping the world rankings. The next closest are Cuba (510), Rwanda (492) and Russia (475). For comparison, England incarcerates just 147 people per 100,000.

We should be seeking to decrease these disheartening figures, not further increasing them by keeping people locked up longer. Vote “no” on Proposition 128.

‘Yes’ on Proposition 130

Prop 130 would require the state to appropriate $350 million to law enforcement training, retention and hiring, and a fund for death benefits for the families of first responders killed in the line of duty.

The fact of the matter is, our law enforcement agencies are understaffed and underfunded. This is detrimental to our communities. The officers who serve us should not be overworked and undertrained — that is a recipe for disaster.

A fund to improve training, hiring and retention is absolutely worthwhile. So too is a fund to help care for the families of fallen first responders. Vote “yes” on Proposition 130.

‘No’ on Proposition 131

Ranked choice voting has been in vogue lately. It has been touted as a way to increase representation and help ensure that “consensus” candidates win more often.

But Proposition 131 is not the ranked-choice voting system that Colorado needs.

In addition to bringing ranked choice voting to general elections, Prop 131 would create open top-four primary elections, meaning that candidates of all parties would run against each other to secure one of four spots on the general election ticket. If you think Colorado politics are dominated by Democrats now, just wait until a top-four primary results in every general election being between three Democrats and a Republican (with third-party candidates probably kicked off the ticket altogether).

Additionally, the county clerks who implement our elections have also expressed concerns about the burden that this new system would impose on them; voter education would be difficult; more dark money would likely come flooding into our elections; and attempts to game the system would likely result.

Ranked choice voting might seem like a promising alternative to our traditional election system, but Proposition 131 is not the remedy we need. Vote “no” on Prop 131.

‘Yes’ on Ballot Issue 7A

In the wake of the FasTracks fiasco , Boulder voters have every reason to be skeptical of the Regional Transportation District. But RTD is still a vital component of our public transit network, and the agency needs solid funding if it is going to continue functioning, let alone improve.

Ballot Issue 7A would allow RTD’s TABOR exemption to continue. The measure would not increase taxes but rather allow the agency to keep the money it is already bringing in.

Approving 7A would allow RTD to keep about $50 to $60 million per year in revenue . If it fails, RTD has said it would likely have to cut services. RTD hasn’t lived up to our standards. But punishing the agency by cutting its funding would do more harm to us commuters than to it. Let’s continue pushing RTD to improve — and keep providing the funding to do so. Vote “yes” on Ballot Issue 7A.

‘Yes’ on City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C

Today, members of the Boulder City Council make roughly $12,500 per year. This arrangement was designed around the principle that our elected leaders should not be career politicians. Instead, our legislative body was meant to be filled with citizen-legislators who were, first and foremost, members of our community.

The notion of citizen-legislators is a wholesome and idealistic model of local governance. And to an extent, it does work: Our current Council has several members who work in a variety of industries and retain strong connections to the community.

But all the admirable ambitions in the world can’t make up for the fact that this model keeps the door on elected service firmly shut for those who cannot afford to work for such a low wage.

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C would increase Council pay to an amount based on the area median income. The pay structure would be 40% AMI for councilmembers and 50% for the mayor, or $35,120 for councilmembers and $43,900 for the mayor, based on 2022 numbers.

A small tweak to our Charter and a slight update to our budget could make a huge impact on who represents Boulder. Vote “yes” on city of Boulder Ballot Question 2C.

‘Yes’ on City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D

Question 2D would give the Boulder City Council the ability to convene an executive session to discuss certain confidential topics.

For journalists like us, anything done beyond the public eye raises some skepticism. But the fact of the matter is, some things must be private: discussions about property deals, conferring with an attorney for legal advice, making security arrangements, attending to personnel matters, and a few other specifics, defined by the Colorado Open Meetings Requirements .

As it stands, the Boulder City Council does not have the ability to go into an executive session — and any discussion between more than two councilmembers is forbidden outside of an official meeting. This means that these conversations that are required to be confidential have to happen in a much more haphazard way, in a series of one-on-one conversations.

In addition to creating more transparency, executive sessions will also make the job of our councilmembers more efficient. Vote “yes” on City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D.

‘Yes’ on City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E

Like 2D, Question 2E is an administrative measure that might be hard to understand based solely on the ballot language. But at its most fundamental, it is about streamlining the jobs of our councilmembers. Current rules have created unnecessary hoops that councilmembers have to jump through to place people onto the boards and commissions that help run our city. Question 2E will make it easier to get these bodies up and running to assist the City Council, while also allowing our councilmembers to focus on our city’s governance.

Vote “yes” on Question 2E.

‘Yes’ on St. Vrain Valley School District Ballot Issue 5C

The most important thing to understand about SVVSD’s bond measure — which would allow the school district to raise $739 million for new schools, maintenance, upgrades and security — is that it will not raise taxes.

Supporting investments in education is always necessary. We must make sure SVVSD has the tools to ensure that all students have every opportunity to flourish. New schools, well-maintained classrooms and vital security are things we owe to our students.

An investment in our students is an investment in our future. If you live in SVVSD, vote “yes” on Ballot Issue 5C.

This election cycle — like most of them — has been daunting.

Divisive issues have scratched at social divisions in our community and in our country. Tempers have flared. Lines have been drawn. It is easy to feel, in these heated moments, that we are a society at odds.

But we must remember that this is the fundamental beauty of democracy: We can disagree and clash, then peacefully come together to chart a collective path forward. Nov. 5 is the day that we do that this year. And no matter who or what you support, what’s imperative is that you vote.

— Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board