ReportWire

Tag: kkafer

  • Opinion: Colorado ballot measures, again, pit Front Range voters against rural Colorado

    Opinion: Colorado ballot measures, again, pit Front Range voters against rural Colorado

    [ad_1]

    Tell me you don’t like rural Coloradans without telling me. That’s what two initiatives will ask the state’s urban-suburban majority to do this November; tell rural folks they’re not welcome in their own state, that their ways are passé, particularly ranching and hunting.

    Initiative 91 would outlaw the hunting of bobcats and mountain lions. The initiative is both unnecessary and a slap in the face to rural populations who live with these predators and take part in their management through hunting. These animals are plentiful and well managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife in partnership with hunters, many of whom hail from the rural Western Slope.

    Contrary to advocates’ assertions, Colorado law already prohibits hunting mountain lions for sport; the meat must be harvested for consumption. Initiative 91 not only rejects science-based wildlife management, it is a deliberate affront to the rural way of life which for many includes hunting and fishing.

    Not surprisingly, Colorado’s most recent experience with ballot box biology hasn’t gone well for rural Coloradans. Veal beat venison in a wolf taste test. Thanks to Proposition 114, wolves were reintroduced to western Colorado in December 2023. Soon after, several of them decided to ditch swift deer for slow livestock. They’ve killed 16 calves, cows, and sheep in Grand County alone.

    Ranchers appealed to the state for relief. CPW is planning to trap the depredating wolves to relocate them. During similar trap and relocation efforts in Montana, mated pairs separated and abandoned their pups. Scientists over at CPW knew the potential consequences of bringing back this apex predator and resisted it until a narrow majority of voters forced their hand. If urban voters had known that the romantic notion of wolf reintroduction meant eviscerated livestock and dead puppies, would they have voted differently?

    Wolves won’t be the only ones going after ranchers’ livelihoods if another initiative passes. Denver voters will be asked in November to shut down the 70-year-old employee-owned Superior Farm slaughterhouse near the National Western Stock Show complex. Not only would the employees lose their jobs, the closure will adversely impact sheep ranchers and the state’s economy.

    According to a study by the Colorado State University Regional Economic Development Institute, the business generates around $861 million in economic activity and supports some 3,000 jobs. The Denver facility carries about a fifth of all U.S. sheep processing capacity. If it is not rebuilt elsewhere in Colorado, Colorado ranchers will have fewer options and could go out of business for want of places to send their livestock.

    According to the study, the loss of U.S. processing capacity will prompt markets to replace domestic supply with imports. Consumers will likely pay more for meat. Also, not every country that raises and slaughters sheep has same humane livestock regulations and standards as the U.S.

    A minority of voters could negatively impact the majority not just in Colorado. The people pushing this initiative represent an even smaller minority. They don’t believe humans should eat meat, according to their website, and this is their way to take a bite out of the age-old practice.

    Most vegetarians and vegans are live and let live but a small percentage would like to foist their lifestyle on the rest of us. It only took 2% of registered voters in Denver to push this ballot question that would single out a business for closure, toss its employees out of work, harm ranchers throughout the state, cost the state millions of dollars in economic activity, force markets to import meat, and reduce choices for those who want locally-sourced products.  It’s hard to imagine a worse idea.

    If urban and suburban voters are tempted to support these no-good, feel-good initiatives, they should first visit their neighbors on either side of the Front Range who will be impacted.  A little empathy for rural Colorado is wanting.

    Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on X: @kristakafer.

    [ad_2]

    Krista Kafer

    Source link

  • Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    Opinion: Sirota’s ranked-choice voting amendment pushed back on monied interests

    [ad_1]

    Thank you, Rep. Emily Sirota for ensuring that Colorado voters and county clerks are not overwhelmed with massive election changes that moneyed interests hope to foist on us through the ballot box this November.

    Sirota’s amendment to Senate Bill 210, an election reform bill, will ensure the rollout of ranked-choice voting, should it pass by voter initiative, will be implemented thoughtfully. The amendment, which passed unanimously, would require a dozen Colorado municipalities of varying sizes and demographics to conduct ranked-choice voting before it goes statewide.

    The phase-in will allow cities to develop best practices before all jurisdictions are required to implement a complicated and wholesale change. Just as mail-in voting was phased in over several years, the Sirota amendment will give clerks time to develop policies, purchase software, train employees, and educate their constituents.

    It also gives voters the opportunity to see how ranked choice voting works and gives them a chance to repeal it after the new car smell fades and they see how confusing and unfair it is. This election, Alaska voters are looking to repeal the ranked-choice voting system they approved just four years ago. They would have saved themselves a lot of money and frustration if the system had been implemented in a dozen jurisdictions instead of going all in from the start.

    A ranked-choice voting system for Colorado is being sought by the wealthy former CEO of DaVita, a Denver-based kidney dialysis provider, Kent Thiry. His proposal, which has been approved for signature collection,  would impose an open primary and ranked-choice general elections on the state.

    Here’s how it would work: Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could run in the primary with the top four contenders advancing to the general election. In the general, voters would be asked to rank candidates in order of preference.

    It’s a confusing system, so I’ll put names to an example. Let’s say that out of a gubernatorial primary former Sen. Cory Gardner, current Sen. Michael Bennet, former Rep. Ken Buck, and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston advance to the general.

    I vote in the general for Bennet, Johnston, Buck, and Gardner in that order. If nobody gets 50% of the statewide vote, the votes are retallied. Let’s say that in the first tally, Bennet gets the least number of votes and is eliminated. Johnston, my second choice will get my vote. If Johnston is eliminated in round two, Buck will get my vote and either he or Gardner will emerge from the final round.

    In some elections, after all the tallying is done the most popular candidate (the one most voters ranked first) will go home empty-handed. In the 2010 Oakland mayoral race, the candidate who received the most votes in round one ultimately lost the election after nine rounds of vote redistribution. How fair is that to candidates or voters?

    If you’re confused, imagine how much effort, time, and money the Secretary of State and county clerks will have to expend to educate voters. It is likely the complexity will persuade some voters to chuck their ballot. Then there will be less voter participation.

    Being confusing isn’t the only problem with ranked-choice voting. Let’s say you picked only Johnston and Bennet and neither of them made it to the third round; your ballot will be considered exhausted and tossed out. Only those who voted for Buck and Gardner in whatever order, will be counted in the final tally.

    This has happened. In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, the candidate who got the most votes ultimately lost to the second-place candidate. The Maine Secretary of State threw out more than 14,000 exhausted ballots from people who did not vote for the top two candidates. Sound fair?

    Proponents of ranked-choice voting think that such a system will reduce the number of extremist candidates and help voters coalesce around a mainstream candidate. This is a solution looking for a problem that isn’t a problem.

    Colorado does not have a problem with extreme candidates or officeholders. I did not vote for either of the state’s U.S. senators, my congressman, my representatives in the Colorado General Assembly, the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state or the treasurer. While they are wrong on most issues, not one of them is extreme. Not one. Fanatics do come along but the current system is self-correcting.

    Extreme Democrats like Reps. Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernández face formidable primary opponents this year and extreme Republicans like Ron Hanks and Dave Williams are unlikely to win in their primaries. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert had to flee her home district because voters yearned for normalcy and were poised to turn her out in the primary or general.

    While we’re popping illusion balloons, the Sirota Amendment was not some sneaky last-minute ploy. County clerks and the Colorado Clerks Association approached Sirota with the concerns they have about implementing the Thiry proposal if it passed and she listened. Matt Crane, executive director clerks association, told me that organization “strongly support[s] the amendment and appreciate[s] Rep. Sirota’s willingness to include it in the bill.”

    [ad_2]

    Krista Kafer

    Source link