Two new ballot initiatives could change the way Coloradans buy booze and pot, The Denver Post reports. The first is a plan to rearrange many of the regulations limiting how and where full-strength beer, wine and liquor can be sold in Colorado. Initiative 47, backed by the Colorado-based Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation, is far broader than the group’s last statewide attempt in 2006 to legalize the possession of small amounts of pot. That proposal failed by a wide margin, with 58 percent of voters voting in opposition.

Supporters of a proposed ballot measure that could lead to a ban on abortions in Colorado have another chance to collect signatures after the Colorado secretary of state announced some of the signatures supporters had turned were not valid, 9News reports. Volunteers with Personhood Colorado had said they collected nearly 4,000 more signatures than the 76,047 needed by the Feb. 12 deadline.

In other coverage:

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: Under state law, the ballot supporters have 15 days, until March 18, to collect additional signatures to correct the problem.

KDVR: Of the nearly 80,000 signatures submitted, more than 20 percent were ruled not valid after verifying a random sample of signatures selected by computer.

 
Source: KDVR

By Tad Rickman, DENVER DAILY NEWS
On a snowy morning in Denver Sunday, Rep. Mark Ferrandino and Sen. Chris Romer, both Denver Democrats, announced plans to introduce legislation today that would cap payday loan rates at 36 percent APR. If approved by the Legislature, the measure would go to the voters later this year rather than to Gov. Bill Ritter’s desk.
Payday loans are small loans of up to $500 that are secured by the borrower’s personal check. The entire loan plus the fee is due in two weeks, which some borrowers have a hard time paying back.
Ferrandino said in an announcement at the Legislative Services Building Sunday that the average payday loan rate is 318 percent with a maximum allowable rate of 521 percent — which he and Romer said keeps borrowers frozen in debt.
“This is a debt trap that gets people farther and farther into debt,” Ferrandino said.
But opponents of the measure say the bill would put a chill on jobs in Colorado.
“At least 1,600 jobs and millions in tax revenue would virtually disappear if this measure were to pass,” Ron Rockvam, president of the Colorado Financial Service Centers Association (COFISCA), said in a press release.
Opponents of the measure said a cap on payday lending rates in Oregon that took effect in 2007 led to the closing of 75 percent of the payday advance stores in that state within a year — leading to 800 jobs being lost and a boom in the pawn shop business as borrowers sought credit alternatives.
“A bill that wipes out nearly 2,000 payday lending jobs is the last thing our state needs,” A.F. (Tony) Gagliardi, Colorado state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said in a press release. “Our members join with other business groups in opposing this or any other bill that adds to the economic hardship Colorado is facing. It just makes no sense to attack a highly regulated, well-functioning industry that provides credit to hundreds of thousands of consumers.”
Rockvam also said the measure is a back door attempt to ban payday lending in Colorado.
“Proponents of the legislation know full well that interest rate caps are tantamount to a back door ban on the payday advance industry,” he said in the release.
Ferrandino said he does not believe all of the payday lenders would be forced out of business if this bill became law, because many of these lenders have other lines of business, such as check-cashing, money transfers, etc.
“So this is not all their business,” Ferrandino said.
He added that lawmakers need to do what’s best for Colorado.
“When you have more payday loans than McDonald’s and Starbucks combined in Colorado, there is an oversaturation,” Ferrandino said. “And the only reason they have so many is because it’s such a predatory product.”
He said there are 610 payday lenders in Colorado.
To Romer, capping payday lending rates at 36 percent is about fairness.
“We know the difference between a fair deal and a deal that’s sucking the life out of our economy,” Romer said Sunday. “Any student in fifth grade knows the difference between 36 percent interest rate and 300 percent interest rate. Look, any sixth-grader in Colorado can tell you it’s not fair to take the hard-working dollars out of poor families in this state so that people can make exorbitant profits.”
Master mechanic Tobias Serrano said at the Legislative Services Building Sunday that when he fell behind on his gas bill he had to take out a $400 payday loan. He said it took him five months to pay back the loan, and it cost him $720.
“Looking back, I wish I would have known there was other, less-expensive options like small installment loans,” Serrano said. “I am speaking out to let people know that payday loans as they exist now are predatory, and something needs to be done about this issue.”
But if payday loans disappeared, where would people who need small loans turn?
Corrine Fowler of the Colorado Progressive Coalition, which is supporting the bill, said there are a number of banks and credit unions throughout Colorado that offer small loans to consumers.
Romer said opponents of the legislation have the opportunity to sway voters this November if this bill passes.
“Look, all we’re asking for is a fair deal, and this is going to be a robust debate on the November ballot,” Romer said.
The bill will be introduced in the House today and assigned to committee.
Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

In other coverage:

The Denver Post: Payday-loan customers could see drastically lower interest rates if a bill scheduled to hit the Capitol today can overcome barriers that unraveled a similar plan two years ago. The legislation would let Colorado voters decide this year whether to cap at 36 percent annual interest rates, which can now climb higher than 300 percent on the small sums.

9News: Voters might be the ones to decide the fate of payday loan stores and how much interest they can charge. Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver) and Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-Denver) will introduce legislation Monday to refer a measure for the November ballot. The referendum will cap interest on payday loans at 36 percent.

Associated Press: State Rep. Mark Ferrandino and Sen. Chris Romer are announcing legislation targeting payday loans.

Three measures on the November ballot have alternately been described as efforts to destroy Colorado or save it from an ever-growing government, The Denver Post reports. Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 were put on the ballot by different individuals, but all three measures have ties to Douglas Bruce, the controversial Colorado Springs Republican who has tried to downplay his role. The trio would slash at least $1 billion annually in state taxes, roll back property taxes statewide and drastically limit government’s ability to construct new buildings.

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
So-called “Christian soldiers” announced Friday that they have handed in the thousands of signatures needed to place the Personhood Colorado amendment on the 2010 ballot.
But proponents of the anti-abortion measure fell well short of the 131,000 signatures submitted for a similar amendment in 2008. This year they will be handing in only 79,817 signatures, just 3,770 more than then 76,047 valid signatures needed for the Secretary of State’s office to certify the initiative for the ballot.
It is possible that enough of the signatures will be invalidated by the Secretary of State, forcing proponents to scramble within a 15-day period to collect the additional valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
A news conference Friday with proponents felt more like a Christian revival meeting than a press conference, complete with cheers for Jesus and the singing of “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” Proponents made no secret of their mission — to ban abortion.
“The point of what we’re trying to do, just for everyone who thinks we’re trying to be sneaky, we’re trying to end abortion,” said Gualberto Garcia Jones, co-sponsor of the ballot initiative.
A similar effort failed in 2008 when it received only 27 percent of the vote. The initiative would give human rights to embryos, effectively banning abortion in the State of Colorado. If passed, the measure would likely be challenged in court because federal law contradicts the intent of the initiative.
Proponents this year have slashed the term “fertilization” from the ballot question, instead using the phrase “biological development.” The amendment would read, “The term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Opponents say they aren’t running scared this year, considering voters so overwhelmingly rejected the question in 2008, and given the struggle volunteers had this year in collecting signatures for the proposal.
“The overwhelming majority of Colorado voters (1.7 million), including voters in every Colorado county, rejected the ‘definition of person’ initiative in 2008,” said Dr. Savita Ginde, medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and a member of the Protect Families Protect Choices coalition. “It was bad medicine then. It is bad medicine now: it could ban all abortions, even those necessary to save the life and health of the woman.”
One of the biggest concerns for opponents is that Personhood measures could turn doctors into criminals by making it illegal to perform in vitro fertilization procedures, prescribing birth control pills, or even conducting emergency procedures on pregnant women, such as if a fertilized egg becomes lodged in a woman’s fallopian tubes.
Opponents also raise fears over the possibility of the ballot initiative essentially banning abortion and paving the way for a challenge of Roe v. Wade, setting a precedent for cases across the country.
Despite its failure in 2008, proponents say they are making progress, with Personhood initiatives taking place in 40 different states.
Keith Mason, director of Personhood USA, based in Arvada, said he believes the “political winds have changed” and voters are thinking differently about conservative issues.
“The Saints won the Super Bowl and now Washington, D.C. is frozen — so hell’s frozen over — the political winds are changing,” said Mason, referring to the recent historic Super Bowl win of the New Orleans Saints and the epic snowfall that has shut Washington down.
“I am confident that we will get a higher percentage of the vote if not pass it this year,” he said.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Colorado voters this year may see another attempt to offer gay couples similar rights afforded to married couples.
Proponents have begun pushing a marriage equality initiative that would give same-sex couples equal legal rights as married couples, including issues concerning property rights, health care decisions and tax benefits, to name a few. The initiative would allow gay couples to form a domestic partnership.
A similar initiative, Referendum I, failed in 2006, with 53 percent of voters rejecting the question. But proponents of this latest push believe the political climate in Colorado has shifted, offering them a better chance at convincing voters that now is the time for marriage equality.
“The LGBT community kind of underestimated the opposition’s political power (in 2006), and I think since then Colorado has become a lot more liberal on gay issues,” Joseph Soto, the initiative’s lead proponent, said of the change in the political climate over the past four years. “We’re one of the few states that has hate crime protections, job place discrimination protection, protection from housing discrimination … so I think that Coloradans will vote to approve marriage equality because in the past four years, I think the Legislature, as well as different organizations, have capitalized on the need for civil rights.”
A second review and comment hearing for the proposed initiative has been set for Jan. 11. Assuming there are no issues, proponents would then be free to submit the proposed initiative to the Secretary of State’s office. They hope to begin collecting signatures in the next few months.
Critics argue that marriage equality initiatives are an attack on the institution of marriage. State Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, lead the fight against Referendum I in 2006 when he was a state representative. He said at the time that marriage equality initiatives undermine the traditional values imposed by a marriage between a man and a woman.
He has told the Denver Daily News on several occasions that such initiatives “radically change the practice of family.”
Lundberg points out that same-sex couples are already given some protections and benefits, including the right to make some medical decisions and to jointly hold and inherit property. He has gone on record saying domestic partnership laws create an ambiguity in defining tradition.
“This is a change in how the government views family and it ultimately changes our culture,” said Lundberg.
For Soto, however, the issue is about civil rights. He said he is motivated by both personal and professional reasons.
“It’s a tenet of civil rights for LGBT people in Colorado,” he said. “So, it’s important because I just feel like Colorado is up to the task of granting civil rights to LGBT Coloradans.”

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Gov. Bill Ritter last week decried a trio of anti-tax initiatives heading for the Colorado ballot next year and challenged his Republican opponents to recognize the threat the initiatives pose to the state and come out strongly against them. “The problem is that voters concerned with federal spending will be looking for a solution to that problem. This is not the solution. It’s a misguided strategy,” Ritter told the Colorado Independent.

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The leader of a local libertarian group is making plans for a 2010 ballot initiative that would exempt Coloradans from a possible federal mandate requiring all citizens to buy insurance or pay a penalty.
Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, is taking aim at health care reform legislation heading through Congress. Both the House and Senate versions — which is headed into difficult negotiations — includes individual mandates for purchasing health care.
Caldara — who attempted a similar initiative in 2008 but failed due to a lack of financial interest — said Coloradans shouldn’t be required to purchase an insurance plan forced on them by lawmakers in Congress.
“We’re setting up a battle between who gets to call the shots when it comes to policy for health care in Colorado — is it Colorado or is it D.C.?” asked Caldara. “I believe that people in Colorado want an opportunity to have the final say of ‘ObamaCare’ here in Colorado.”
Proponents say they want to wait until a final bill makes its way to the President for his signature before they finalize the language of the initiative. But they believe some sort of reform will make its way through Congress, and are therefore acting now.
At the heart of the initiative is to exempt Coloradans from the individual mandate and ensure that they can pay cash for health care expenses. Caldara and his supporters are also examining allowing cross-state purchasing of insurance products as part of the initiative.
Questions, however, have already been raised as to whether the initiative would be only symbolic in nature because federal legislation would supersede a state amendment. Caldara believes the Constitution gives states the right to choose. His opponents disagree.
Dede de Percin, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, said her organization was cautious about supporting the proposal for individual mandates before they decided on backing the provision. But because the proposal is coupled with “strong consumer protections” and regulations on the insurance industry, as well as “robust” subsidies, de Percin said her organization was able to support the proposal.
She does not believe it is healthy to cherry pick specific aspects of the reform effort just to attack it.
“It is certainly bad policy and doesn’t necessarily make a lot of sense to try to peel out one piece of a comprehensive strategy to health care reform that is very much interwoven and interlocked,” said de Percin.
Meanwhile, conservative state lawmakers are also examining what they can do from a legislative end to attack health reform. Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, told the Denver Daily News recently that he believes a federal mandate would violate state rights. He said he would consider a state constitutional amendment that would ban the federal mandate. Rep. Cindy Acree, R-Aurora, has also said she would push for legislation that would take Colorado out of the federal reform component.
But Michael Huttner, executive director of the liberal ProgressNow group, called Caldara and his supporters “pawns” and a “puppets” for suggesting such an initiative.
“Caldara is little more than a pawn of the health insurance industry, and that’s why he’s been part of the whole effort to kill any health care reform,” said Huttner. “He’s a puppet of the health care industry, and it’s unfortunate that he would deprive so many people in Colorado who are uninsured or underinsured.”

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Voters will face a third ballot question in 2010 to reduce the money available to government. Amendment 61 would forbid local and state governments in Colorado from taking out debt in any form, The Durango Herald reports.
On Monday, Democratic and Republican leaders of both of Colorado’s legislative chambers came out in opposition to Amendment 61 and two other ballot initiatives that could curtail state revenue or spending significantly, The Denver Business Journal reported.

Initiative 21

Opponents of two measures that have been approved for the 2010 ballot are looking to see if the people backing them violated signature-gathering requirements. Critics of the two citizens’ initiatives, Proposition 101 and Amendment 60 — one would lower property taxes; the other would roll back vehicle registration fees and income taxes — question whether supporters used paid petition circulators , the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports.