Opinion: Boulder’s election laws need some serious fixing

This election seemed pretty calm until this last weekend when two postcards showed up from some entities called the “Working Families Power National PAC” and “Colorado Working Families Power.” The larger card, from the National PAC, beat up on Bob Yates, who is running for mayor, and instead advocated the election of Nicole Speer or Aaron Brockett. The other card, from Colorado WFP, advocated for Speer. No doubt most of you have seen the larger card, so I won’t go into its offensive and partisan content. (By the way, WFP National PAC claims to be “progressive,” whatever that now means.)

As of Wednesday morning, only the WFP National PAC had filed the required campaign reports with the City. That the CWFP group appears to have not done this apparently puts them in violation of the City’s election laws. However, from further research, it appears that both are actually the “Working Families Party.” Additionally, the PAC group filed as an “Independent Expenditure Only,” which is apparently only allowed for ballot measure campaigns, and not for council candidate campaigns. They should have filed as an “unofficial candidate committee.”

How did some national group end up sending a postcard to Boulder voters with a partisan attack ad going after a decent person and excellent candidate for mayor in Boulder’s non-partisan election? Ten of us sent an email to Speer and Brockett asking them to disclaim any involvement and repudiate this nasty attempt to influence Boulder’s elections. So far only Brockett has responded; he claimed no knowledge of or involvement with the mailer. Speer has been silent so far. Both were interviewed and filled out a WFP questionnaire, or so I was told by a WFP staff person. 

I sincerely hope the City takes this on seriously, fully investigates how this nastiness was fomented, and imposes the strongest penalties on all those involved so that it never happens again. Additionally, one change that might improve matters would be to shift enforcement to being proactive, rather than relying solely on citizen complaints. More on that later.

Another election issue is around Ballot Measure 302, Safe Zones 4 Kids. A lot of people have reacted negatively, but it appears that most have not read the actual law that this measure would amend. Apparently, they have only read the ballot measure title, which makes it appear that this is imposing a whole new set of constraints on the homeless, which is simply not true. 

In fact, BRC 8-3-21, which 302 amends, already prohibits tents or other temporary structures and propane bottles in parks or other public property. All that 302 does is make these already prohibited items “subject to prioritized removal” near school property, multi-use paths and sidewalks. So, it just adds focus to existing enforcement.

For those concerned that 302 might be too harsh on Boulderites who become homeless, I suggest reviewing the City’s most recent “point in time” survey. Both the surveys of the housed and unhoused homeless seem to say essentially the same thing — that the majority of homeless here are reportedly not from Boulder, and that we could likely provide housing for those who became homeless while living here. So, a topic for future discussion is — how do we deal with and reduce this influx?

The lack of clarity in 302’s title language is not the first time we’ve had problems with ballot titles in recent history. You may remember the language in the CU South referendum, which was so obscure as to, in my view, confuse even informed voters regarding whether to vote “yes” or “no.” And no surprise to me, the current council majority refuses to return the laws on title setting so that they require public input and allow citizens to challenge confusing language.

These issues and many others make it clear that Boulder’s election code needs another serious workover, like what the Elections Working Group did some years ago. But this time, the new EWG needs to not only make policy recommendations but also review the actual structure and language of the Code itself and reorganize it so that it is both readable and understandable. It is frankly ridiculous that the City has to publish a 35-page manual laying out how to parse and use the actual election code, which is of similar length. And every time there is a difference between the Code language and the manual language, confusion and misunderstandings can occur.

As a former mathematician, I know it can be written more clearly and with greater consistency. So how about it, council? When can this get started?

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more