2018 Denver Voting Guide

Comprehensive Denver Ballot Guide

The endorsements and ballot positions in this guide are in line with the voting guides provided by progressive and environmental organizations. If you do not have a ton of time to do your own research for every single candidate and issue, this guide can help you get started.

If you only have time to make one single mark on your ballot, mark NO on Amendment 74. The amendment was bankrolled by gas and oil companies as an insurance policy against Proposition 112. Unfortunately it will wreak damage in Colorado far beyond gas and oil drilling. See below for more details.

Federal Offices

• U.S. Representative (CD-1): Diana DeGette. Diana has been representing CD-1 since 1997. She played a crucial role in the passage of the Affordable Care Act and has been a leader in the U.S. House on health insurance protocols. She is also a leading voice on environmental issues and works hard to protect Colorado’s public lands and combat global climate change. We need Diana to continue her active role in Congress.

State Offices

• Governor: Jared Polis. Jared is a progressive, who is running on a platform of 100% renewable energy, full-day kindergarten and pre-school, and universal health care. As our current Congressman, he has championed wilderness protection and regulating oil and gas impacts. Plus, he would be the first openly gay male Governor in the country, which is a great message for CO to send on diversity. He’s running against State Treasurer Walker Stapleton, a staunch conservative who was recently endorsed by Trump.

• State Secretary of State: Jena Griswold. An up-and-coming, go-getter lawyer from Louisville who used to work for the Obama administration, Jena is focused on protection of voting rights, campaign finance reform and cyber-security. She’s also the only woman running statewide in CO.  

• State Treasurer: Dave Young. Dave has accumulated great treasurer experience from serving on the Joint Budget Committee during four years as a representative in the state legislature, where he was a reliable progressive vote. He was also a middle school math teacher for many years.

• Attorney General: Phil Weiser. Phil has the legal and management experience needed for AG, having clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, worked for President Obama in the White House and litigated for the Justice Department, before serving as the dean of the CU Law School here in Boulder. His priorities are standing up to the Trump administration on immigrant rights, environmental protection, net neutrality and dark money in elections.

• CU Regent - At Large: Lesley Smith. Lesley was a scientist and educator at CU for 30 years, served for 8 years on Boulder Valley School Board, and (fun fact) was the first woman aquanaut in the underwater Aquarius research facility, where she studied coral reefs. 

State Legislature

Republicans currently hold a one-seat majority in the State Senate. It would be great for the Democrats to win back the State Senate, so that we could pass more progressive legislation at the state level for the environment, women’s rights, education, health care, etc. — so vote Democrat! This was already a no-brainer in the greater Denver area, where we have great Democratic candidates who are worthy of your enthusiastic support: 

• State Senator -- District 16: Tammy Story. This race is key to the Dems taking back the State Senate. A public education advocate who led the successful recall effort against the ultra-conservative Jeffco School Board, Tammy would be a welcome replacement for incumbent Tim Neville, who is known for his extreme stances against abortion, teenage pregnancy prevention and immigrants.   

• State Senator -- District 32: Robert Rodriguez. Robert grew up in a working class family in Denver suburb. He is an advocate for economic justice and a living wage for all. He also advocates for free preschool and kindergarten for every child in Colorado. He supports affordable healthcare, public transit, and environmental protection.

• State Senator -- District 34: Julie Gonzales. Julie is a community organizer who co-founded the Colorado Latino Forum, a statewide grassroots organization dedicated to building the economic, educational, and political power of Latinos across Colorado. In 2013, she was elected to serve as the statewide board chair. She is an outspoken advocate for immigrants' rights. As a state senator, Julie will fight for affordable housing, high-quality education, living wage, clean environment, and universal healthcare.

• State Rep -- District 1: Susan Lontine. Susan has been serving in the state house since 2016. She is an advocate for public education, affordable healthcare, equal rights and living wages. 

• State Rep -- District 2: Alec Garnett (unopposed). 

• State Rep -- District 4: Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez. Serena is a native of North Denver and a youth advocate. She is a proponent of high quality public education for all children. She pledges to champion legislation that combats climate change and protects our public lands, clean water resources, and clean air.

• State Rep -- District 5: Alex Valdez. Alex is a successful business owner who would like to create solutions for Colorado using his business skills and experiences. He would like to make solar and wind power more accessible to everyone. He advocates for affordable and accessible clean transportation, common sense gun control, and equal rights for all including women, LGBTQ, and immigrants.

• State Rep -- District 6: Chris Hansen (unopposed). 

• State Rep -- District 7: James Rashad Coleman. James has been serving in the state house since 2016. He is a passionate champion for excellent education and quality options. He is dedicated to empowering families and engaging the community to improve the quality of life for Coloradans.

• State Rep -- District 8: Leslie Herod (unopposed). 

• State Rep -- District 9: Emily Sirota. Emily is a social worker and has served in government for years as a policy aide for a U.S. Senator, a congressman and a governor. She is a champion of campaign finance reform and a supporter of universal healthcare. She is also a supporter of worker's rights, public education, common sense gun control, and environmental protection.

• Regional Transportation District Director District B: Shontel Lewis. Shontel used to be a Transit Equity Specialist with RTD, and now works in civil rights for Denver Public Schools. She is committed to civil rights and will make sure that everyone has access to the public transit.

• Regional Transportation District Director District C: Julia Stewart. Julia is a frequent public transit user and pedestrian. She is very engaged with transportation issues. She understands that public transportation is interdependent on other issues including affordable housing, land use and zoning, and the availability of bike paths and sidewalks. Her extensive experience working as a labor union executive, representative and organizer will be very helpful for the smooth operation of RTD, including hiring and retaining bus drivers. RTD needs engaged advocates like her to move it into the next chapter.

Judicial Retentions

Retain all the judges since they have all met the performance expectations per Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance.

State Measures

• Amendment V – Lowering the age requirement for serving in the state legislature from 25 to 21 years. Vote Yes. A 21-year old is considered an adult under the law, and younger candidates could help attract and engage younger voters, and represent the specific issues that this demographic faces (e.g., student debt, housing and health care costs, etc.). Voters would still ultimately decide whether they think a particular candidate has enough experience and maturity to represent them.

• Amendment W – Changing the ballot format for judge retention votes: Vote Yes. W is a minor cosmetic change that will make the ballot shorter and more concise (and hence cheaper to produce). Under W, rather than repeating the full wording of the retention question for each judge, it would be written once, followed by the list of judges and a yes/no box for each one.

• Amendment X – Changing the definition of industrial hemp: Vote Yes. Growing industrial hemp (a form of cannabis that doesn’t make you high) is legal in the State of CO and defined as having no more than 0.3 THC in it (the stuff that makes you high). Industrial hemp is not yet legal in the eyes of the federal government, although it’s anticipated that legislation to change this will pass soon. Industry hemp will continue to be protected in the CO Constitution. X would simply remove the definition of hemp from the CO Constitution and define it to be the same as in federal or state statute, thereby providing flexibility and retaining competitiveness for CO hemp growers as the national regulatory landscape evolves for hemp. This measure has a wide bipartisan support in the Colorado legislature - 95 of 100 State Legislators support it. It's also endorsed by Colorado Hemp Industries Association.

• Amendment Y – Changing how we redraw congressional districts: Vote Yes. Every 10 years after the census count, the boundaries are redrawn for congressional and state legislative districts to reflect the new population numbers. In many states, this can be a very partisan process, with the political party in power during the census year redrawing the lines to favor keeping their party in power. A bipartisan group of stakeholders decided to try and end this partisan pendulum in CO by coming up with a fair and impartial system to redraw the lines, and convinced the state legislature, by a 2/3 vote, to refer this measure to the voters for their approval. While it might be tempting to rig the system in your party’s favor, it’s more ethical and sustainable to create a level playing field and let the voters fairly elect the lawmakers who will represent them—and in so doing, CO would become a model of democracy for other states. Y establishes an Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission, consisting of an equal number of members of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, to amend and approve congressional district maps drawn by nonpartisan legislative staff.

• Amendment Z -- Changing how we redraw state legislative districts: Vote Yes. This measure does the same thing as Y, only for the state legislature.

• Amendment A -- Removing language allowing slavery & involuntary servitude to be used as punishment for a crime: Vote Yes. It’s good to get rid of inappropriate and outdated provisions in our state constitution.

• Amendment 73 – School Funding Measure: Lean Yes. This measure would provide much-needed funding for public schools by raising the income tax rate for people who earn over $150,000 to between 5% and 8.25% (from the current flat rate of 4.63%), increasing the corporate income tax rate from 4.63% to 6%, and setting new assessment rates for the property taxes levied by school districts. While CO absolutely needs to increase spending on education (we’re 39th in the nation in per pupil spending), many are concerned that 73 will have unintended consequences and since it’s a constitutional amendment, it will be difficult to amend. In particular, it’s not clear how its changes to property tax assessments for schools will affect revenues for cities, towns and special districts. It also almost doubles the state income rate for those in high income bracket. While there is a good reason to vote for it given the critical need for CO to invest more in education, we understand why some people may balk (read the Denver Post’s editorial for more on this).

• Amendment 74 – Require Compensation: Vote No!!!!. While it might initially sound nice to require government to compensate you for any law or regulation that reduces your property’s market value, this deceptive, dangerous Constitutional measure would trigger a litigation free-for-all, costing billions in taxpayer dollars. The constitution already requires just compensation for “takings” of private property; this measure, bankrolled by the oil & gas industry, would greatly expand this established principle, exposing local governments and the state to costly litigation over almost any land use decision they make -- or don’t make. For example, a city or county couldn’t reject a proposal for a bar, oil & gas well, marijuana shop or adult bookstore next to a school without the risk of having to compensate the property owner. Similarly, a local government couldn’t approve a community center, health clinic or tavern without risk of a lawsuit from aggrieved neighbors. This would have a paralyzing effect on basic decisions local governments routinely make on everything from zoning to public health protections to oil & gas drill permits. A similar but less extreme measure that passed in Oregon resulted in $20 billion worth of claims before voters repealed the measure. That’s why a very broad bipartisan coalition of cities and counties, businesses, environmental groups, labor, teachers, editorial boards and more opposes 74.

• Amendment 75 – Campaign Spending: Vote No. Several Republicans filed this as a way to stop Jared Polis from spending so much of his own money to get elected. While there is some appeal to leveling the playing field so that millionaires can’t outspend poorer opponents, this amendment would lift limits for both candidates, resulting in more money (not less!) being spent on elections and it wouldn’t do anything about the unlimited dark money being spent by outside groups in our major races (regardless of the wealth of the candidate). Further more, this amendment also raises the spending limit when one of the candidates "facilitates or coordinates third party contributions amounting to more than one million dollars". This will open a flood gate for many races including those without multi-millionaires! What we need is a real campaign finance reform to limit campaign spendings, and this amendment will do exactly the opposite.

• Proposition 109 – Transportation Bonding/Fix Our Damn Roads: Vote No. Wouldn’t it be great if you really could get something for nothing? Unfortunately, we can’t, no matter what 109 proponents might say. This measure would authorize $3.5 billion in bonding for highway transportation projects, without identifying revenues to pay them back, which means other programs like education, health care and mental health services, etc. would have to be cut instead. To make it even worse, 109 would provide no monies for transit or local priorities.

• Proposition 110 – Transportation Funding: Vote Yes. In contrast to 109, 110 would generate much-needed funding for transportation, via a sales tax increase of about 6 cents on a $10 purchase. Primary funding for transportation, the gas tax, hasn’t been increased in 27 years, which is why there are so many potholes and traffic jams. 110 funds would be divvied up: 40% to cities and counties for local priorities; 15% for multimodal (i.e., transit, bike and pedestrian) projects; and 45% for state projects, like improvements on I-25 and I-70 that would benefit all of us. Local communities are encouraged to invest in multimodal projects through matching incentives. 110 is supported by a broad coalition of cities, counties, transit advocates, businesses, environmental and labor advocates and more.

• Proposition 111 – Limit Predatory Payday Lending: Vote Yes. This measure would limit interest rates (including fees) on payday loans to 36%; currently, rates can go as high as 214%, which can trap consumers into a cycle of debt.

• Proposition 112 – Setbacks for Oil & Gas: Vote Yes. This measure would require new oil & gas operations to be at least 2,500 feet from homes, schools, parks and open space, and waterways. Oil & gas development is a dangerous industrial activity that poses significant threats to humans and the environment, from toxic air emissions and spills that contaminate water supplies, to explosions that have killed homeowners and workers. Research has shown that people living closer to oil & gas sites are at higher risk for cancer and other public health concerns. The industry is spending $20 million to convince you otherwise, but the bottom line is that we shouldn’t be fracking in neighborhoods.

Local Measures 

• Referred Measure 2A – Parks Tax: Vote Yes.  There is currently a $28 million annual gap between what the city can do to maintain and improve our parks and what needs to be done. Over time, that gap has created a $128 million total of deferred maintenance. In other counties, there're dedicated sales taxes for park maintenance and improvements. This measure will increase the sales tax by 0.25% to raise the much needed funds to maintain, improve, and expand the park system in Denver. The revenue will also be used to restore and protect waterways, rivers, canals and streams.

• Referred Measure 2B – Initiative Signatures Formula: Vote Yes. Amends the City Charter to change the number of valid signatures required to place an initiative or referendum on the ballot from 5% of votes cast for Mayor in the last election to 2% of active registered voters. The number of votes cast in mayoral elections varies widely, resulting in wide swings in the number of required signatures. Tying the signature requirement to the number of active registered voters will have a stabilizing effect on the signature requirement. In addition, this measure will likely increase the number of signatures required which will still be low compared with the requirements in other cities.

• Referred Measure 2C – Police Department Hires: Vote Yes. With an expanding economy and public demand for officer accountability, Denver Police Department is facing challenges in hiring new police officers. This measure will give the department more flexibility in hiring people. The vetting process remains the same to ensure that only qualified officers for other departments are hired. 

• Referred Measure 2D – Clerk and Recorder Appointees: Vote Yes. This will give the Clerk and Recorder the authority to appoint more people to handle the fluctuating workload of the office. The current Clerk and Recorder is not seeking re-election and will not benefit from this measure.

• Referred Measure 2E – Campaign Finance Public Fund: Vote Yes. This will create a dedicated Fair Elections Fund to match campaign donations up to $50 per donor to candidates who participate in the matching fund program. It will level the playing field in Denver campaigns and return to the bedrock of American value “one person, one vote.”

• Initiated Ordinance 300 – College Affordability: Vote Yes. This ordinance will raise the sales tax by 0.08% to support a Denver College Affordability Fund. The Fund will support qualified Denver students in completing postsecondary education and obtaining certificates or degrees. This ordinance will help remove a daunting financial barrier facing current students, bring more equity, and improve our local workforce.

• Initiated Ordinance 301 – Caring For Denver: Vote Yes. This will increase Denver sales tax rate by 0.25% to provide for additional mental health services and treatment for children and adults. It will help suicide prevention and help address the opioid and substance abuse epidemic. 

• Initiated Ordinance 302 – Healthy Foods For Denver Children: Vote Yes. This ordinance will increase the Denver sales tax rate by 0.08% to ensure that kids, especially those from low income families, will have enough to eat. It will also help support Colorado farms, ranches, and food businesses. We have the moral imperative to ensure that no kids go hungry in Denver. It is endorsed by many food security organizations in Denver including Denver Food Rescue.

• Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G — Flood Control and Warning Systems Revenue Stabilization. Vote Yes. The UDFC District partners with metro area cities and counties to design and build flood control projects, early warning systems, open space and trails, and conduct debris removal. The District’s property tax rate hasn’t been raised in 50 years, but the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights (aka TABOR) resulted in the ratcheting-down of the flood-control district’s dedicated property tax rate from $1 per $1,000 of assessed value to 56 cents today. Under 7G, the District is asking for permission to restore its full taxing authority, as many other cities and counties have done. The impact on the average home would be about $13 annually. Each city and county receives back the same amount of funding as they contribute, and benefits from well-designed flood control infrastructure.