Colorado is very unique in the sense that it implements some forms of direct democracy. Unlike most states in the United States, citizens of Colorado have the power to directly vote on certain legislation. Without the vote of the citizens, the bill will not become law. Even if both the house and the senate approve of the bill, if the citizens do not agree, the bill will not become law. The main example of this in Colorado is regarding tax increases. In 1992, Colorado passed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. This is also referred to as TABOR. As the name suggests, this law was intended to put some power back into the taxpayers of Colorado. One of the main aspects of this law entailed that a popular vote of the citizens was needed in order to adjust tax rates or tax revenues upward (Straayer). In addition, as I previously alluded to, TABOR also enabled direct democracy in Colorado. According to Staayer in “One Thing After Another: Layers of Policy and Colorado’s Fiscal Train Wreck”, “[w]ith respect to the government’s most central power, the power to lay and collect taxes, TABOR eliminated representative government and replaced it with direct democracy. TABOR is especially still relevant today. Most recently, Governor Polis and his reinsurance program. This is because this program is needing more tax dollars than previously expected. Although the government claims that it won’t affect the TABOR refunds, some people are still skeptical. All of this comes down to the fact that Colorado cannot raise taxes without the permission of the taxpayers themselves.
Another example of Colorado voters implementing their direct democracy was in 1996 when they voted on the Parental Rights Act. This legislation entailed that parents would have the power to “direct and control the upbringing,education, values, and discipline of their children.”(Smith & Herrington, 179) This movement was beginning to gain traction across the United States. According to Smith and Herrington, “Of the People, a conservative, nonprofit organization based in Arlington, Virginia poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Colorado to advance [the Parental Rights Act].” (Smith & Herrington, 179) Thus, with this being said, the Parental Rights Act had a national spotlight on Colorado. Everything in this Bill seemed to lean towards the Bill being passed. According to all the surveys, the Bill had an approval rating of 76%. However, when it came time for the voters of Colorado to make a decision, the Bill did not pass (Smith & Herrington, 180).
Whether Coloradans are voting on tax increases or the rights of parents, the citizens have the final say. This is very unique as most states do not implement direct democracy as much as Colorado. While it is true that not every piece of legislation is passed through a direct democracy, it is still fascinating to observe what legislation gets passed and what legislation dies by the hands of the voters. More importantly, I find it fascinating that these Bills the Colorado citizens are voting on, are passed and sponsored by the people the Colorado citizens voted into office. This to me, raises an interesting question. If the politicians are truly acting in the best interest of the people, then why do the majority of citizens disagree with certain legislation?
Works Cited
Smith, Daniel & Herrington, Robert. (2000). The Process of Direct Democracy: Colorado's 1996 Parental Rights Amendment. The Social Science Journal. 37. 179-194. 10.1016/S0362-3319(00)00054-9.
Straayer, John A., “Just One Thing After Another: Layers of Policy and Colorado’s Fiscal Train Wreck,” Denver, April 2009.
You made some very good points about direct democracy in Colorado. I think it is very interesting the way that TABOR sets up politics for the state. I think it is a very good thing that voters get a say in the bigger issues such as taxes because these laws will directly impact them. Great post.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job of briefly summarizing Colorado's unique TABOR legislation as well as direct democracy altogether throughout Colorado. Direct democracy can be a bit of a shaky situation, which is why our country is set up as more of a republic over a democracy, which I think this was most definitely intentional. What can be difficult with direct democracy is the voter turnout, whether that be how many citizens are showing up or the political affiliation of the majority of those who show up, potentially resulting in inaccurate representation. Though I do not know the in depth data of the Parental Rights Act of 1996, it could be possible that the majority of the population thought that the Act was no doubt going to pass, so they thought there was no reason to show up to vote on it. Meanwhile the opposition could have rallied their numbers and had a massive turnout on voting day. Though this could be completely inaccurate, it is a very possible situation that could have occurred with direct democracy. Don't get me wrong, I think often times direct democracy can be a great thing, but it can often times be hard to rely on the people to show up to actually get accurate representation of the general population's beliefs.
Good job with your blog post. I think you did a good job discussing the voter turn out and how TABOR impacts the state.
ReplyDelete