Skip to main content

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents

One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support.[1]

The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below.
[2]

The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market.[3]

‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for campaigning, issuing a number of commercials to gain support from the public. Proponents were concerned about the wording of the proposal on the ballot. The Proposition DD ballot question read: 

"Shall state taxes be increased by twenty-nine million dollars annually to fund state water projects and commitments and to pay for the regulation of sports betting through licensed casinos by authorizing a tax on sports betting of ten percent of net sports betting proceeds, and to impose the tax on persons licensed to conduct sports betting?".[4]

Some have argued that this wording may have been the reason the vote was so close. However, many opposed the proposition on moral grounds, namely concerns for Coloradoans economic welfare. 

From first glance the supporters of the measure seem an unlikely coalition. Groups involved in the ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ lobbying effort included casinos, agricultural groups, conservative groups and conservationists. This strange coalition was due to the measure’s inclusion of a ten percent tax on casinos net proceeds, the majority of which would be streamed into the Colorado Water Plan. The money would be used to aid the effort to eliminate the 560,000-acre foot gap between supply and demand for water projected for 2050.[5] The state expects to collect up to $29 million from this new tax on sports betting.

The funding for water infrastructure drew the support of a variety of groups, including the Colorado Association of Wheat Growers, Colorado Dairy Farmers, and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. Chad Vorthmann, the Executive Vice President for the Colorado Farm Bureau, clearly explained the agricultural communities support of the Proposition when he stated: “most farmers and ranchers could care less about sport betting. But this is a smart way to pay for the critical water infrastructure that Colorado’s future needs”.[6]

Much of the advertising campaigns focused on the benefits the extra funding would give. Prop DD proponents took a cue from Great Outdoors Colorado, the 1992 ballot initiative that redirected lottery revenue collected by the state toward Colorado’s park and open space.[7] However, most of the commercials were funded by the gaming industry. In fact, 97.5% of the money donated in the first eleven days of September were from the gaming industry, despite the almost exclusive focus on the effects on water for the state.[8] For example, FanDuel, a sports betting app contributed $250,000. In contrast, only $10,000 came from water industry stakeholders, including the Environmental Defence Fund’s advocacy arm. 

Conservative groups, such as the CCA, supported the proposition on the grounds that the taxation of gambling was preferable to an increase of the taxation of citizens. In addition, the proposition allowed for the regulation of an already existent but ‘underground’ market within the state.[9] Both Democrats and Republican representatives hailed the legalisation of sports betting as a common-sense approach.


[1] Joey Bunch, ‘Agriculture groups endorse Colorado ballot measure on sports betting’, Colorado Politics, (Oct 2019), online at: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/agriculture-groups-endorse-colorado-ballot-measure-on-sports-betting/article_9e877fdc-e458-11e9-ad7e-f7873247746a.html
[2] Robert Tann, ‘2019 City of Boulder live election results’, CU Independent, Online at: https://cuindependent.com/2019/11/05/2019-city-of-boulder-live-election-results/, (Nov 2019)
[3] Saja Hindi, ‘Colorado Prop DD, the Sports Betting Measure Narrowly Passes’, Denver Post, (Nov 2019), online at: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/06/colorado-proposition-dd-results-sports-betting/
[4] Conor McCormick-Cavanagh, ‘First Prop DD Ads Focus on Water, but financed by gaming industry’, WestWorld, (Sept 2019), online at: https://www.westword.com/news/denver-streets-and-snow-removal-remain-a-hot-topic-11558622

[5] Jacy Marmaduke, ‘Proposition DD: legalised sports betting in Colorado passes with 1.4% margin’, Fort Collins Coloradoan, (Nov 2019), online at: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2019/11/05/colorado-election-results-2019-proposition-dd/4166709002/
[6] J. Bunch, ‘Agriculture groups endorse Colorado ballot measure on sports betting’, Colorado Politics, (Oct 2019), online at: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/agriculture-groups-endorse-colorado-ballot-measure-on-sports-betting/article_9e877fdc-e458-11e9-ad7e-f7873247746a.html
[7] C. McCormick-Cavanagh, ‘First Prop DD Ads Focus on Water, but financed by gaming industry’, WestWorld, (Sept 2019), online at: https://www.westword.com/news/denver-streets-and-snow-removal-remain-a-hot-topic-11558622
[8] Ibid.
[9] S. Hindi, ‘Colorado Prop DD, the Sports Betting Measure Narrowly Passes’, Denver Post, (Nov 2019), online at: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/06/colorado-proposition-dd-results-sports-betting/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more