Timeline details Marijuana votes and regulations (Delta County, Colorado)

2000 Amendment 20: Medical Marijuana

Cannabis / Marijuana Plant.
Image KVNF/2012

            Colorado’s General Assembly referred Amendment 20 to the voters for the November 2000failed in Delta County, with 60.34% of the electorate voting against the referred measure. Orchard City largely followed the county results, with 59.78% voting against the referred measure.
election. While the amendment passed with 53.5% of the vote state-wide, the amendment overwhelmingly

            Amendment 20 is codified in article XVIII, section 14 of the Colorado Constitution and provides legalized limited amounts of medical marijuana for patients and their primary caregivers. An informal rule between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Drug Enforcement Agency limited primary caregivers to five patients.

            Amendment 20 has a provision whereby people who need marijuana for medical purposes may obtain the drug free of charge.

2006 Amendment 44: Recreational Marijuana

            The first attempt to legalise recreation marijuana was brought before the Colorado electorate in November 2006. Amendment 44 failed state-wide with 58.92% voting no. In Delta County, 68.78% voted against legalising marijuana for recreational purposes. In Orchard City, 75.15% of the voters said no to decriminalising marijuana for recreational purposes.

If passed, Amendment 44 would have changed state law to allow people over 21 to possess an ounce or less of marijuana without legal penalty. Colorado at the time had a law which imposed $100 fine for simple possession of an ounce or less.

2009 CO Dept of Public Health & Environment caregiver limit rejected

           

            In July 2009, the Colorado Board of Health, by one vote, rejected the adoption of limiting caregivers to a max of five patients. The failure to adopt this formal rule effectively approved the dispensary model for Colorado.

2009 First Medical Marijuana Dispensary opens in Orchard City

            In July 2009, following the failure of the Health Department to adopt the five patient rule, the Grand Mesa Herbal Dispensary, LLC, becomes the first retail medical marijuana dispensary to open in Orchard City.

            At the time, “the LLC’s registered agent, Jay, told the DCI. ‘I was asked by a local oncologist to start the dispensary,’ When asked about the town’s proposed moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, Jay said, “I’ve lived here (in Orchard City) 17 years, We all know this is a conservative area. I have a license. My plan was to open a location in Telluride. Telluride is an adult town, and I thought they would legalize it (marijuana) there the way Breckenridge did.’”

2009 Ogden Memorandum

            On October 19, 2009, Deputy United States Attorney General, David W. Ogden, issued a memorandum to prosecutors and federal agents saying it was not the policy of the Obama Administration to prosecute medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are in compliance with state law. The effect of the Ogden Memorandum was the “Green Rush” and medical marijuana dispensaries businesses popping up all over Colorado, including Orchard City.

2009 Moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries (Orchard City)

Orchard City adopted its first moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries on November 18, 2009. The moratorium was for 180 days to provide the town the ability to research and discuss the issue.

2010 Ext Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Orchard City)

In May 2010, Ordinance 2010-03 was adopted by Orchard City Trustees which extended the 2009 moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries.

Between the two moratoriums, “Grand Mesa Herbal Dispensary, moved and expanded its operation from a sequestered site on Fruitgrowers road to a highly visible location on Highway 65.  The town's moratorium had not included any prohibition against existing marijuana dispensaries expanding their operations.”

2011 Orchard City bans medical marijuana facilities

On July 1, 2011, Orchard City Trustees formally banned medical marijuana facilities.

2011 Delta (City) Referred Measure A

            In July 2011, the City of Delta held a special election to consider whether an ordinance to prohibit medical marijuana businesses from operating from within the jurisdiction of the city. The referred measure passed with 68% voting for the prohibition of medical marijuana businesses.

           

2012 Amendment 64: Recreational Marijuana

            In 2012 a super majority of Coloradoans, 55%, voted to legalise personal use and regulation of marijuana. The amendment provides for licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores. Local governments have the authority to regulate or prohibit such facilities.

            In Delta County, voters soundly rejected Amendment 64, voting 55.8% against legalisation. Precincts 9 and 10, which are the Town of Orchard City, voted 60% against legalising of cannabis.

2013 Ordinances prohibiting retail pot passed by every municipality in Delta County

            In the summer of 2013, Orchard City trustees approved Ordinance 2013-01, prohibiting retail marijuana, which had been under draft and revision form since November 2012. At the public hearing to consider whether to adopt the ordinance, only one member of the public spoke against prohibiting retail marijuana. The other members of the public were adamantly for prohibiting retail sales within the town limits. The ordinance passed unanimously.

            The ordinance prohibits commercial marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities, and retail marijuana stores. Crawford, Cedaredge, Delta, Hotchkiss and Paonia also adopted similar ordinances during 2013.

            In August 2013, the Hotchkiss Town Council enacted an ordinance which banned commercial marijuana enterprises from entering the town’s jurisdiction. The ordinance also carried a criminal penalty for violating the commercial prohibition of a fine of $999 and not more than one year in the county jail.

            Delta’s City Council, in mid-August 2013, also voted unanimously to “opt-out” of Amendment 64 and prohibit retail sales. Within the City of Delta, 56% of the population voted against the amendment and in 2011, 68% of the population had voted locally to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.

2013 Proposition AA: Taxes on the Sale of Marijuana

            In November 2013, 65.27% of Coloradoans overwhelmingly approved a taxing measure to treat recreational cannabis like any other business. The General Assembly referred proposition implements a 15 percent marijuana excise tax, plus a 10 percent state sales tax.

            The tax was a bit less popular in Delta County than around the state, as 57.42% of the citizens voted in favour of Proposition AA.

2014 Paonia Ballot Questions 2B and 2C

            In November of 2014, voters in Paonia were asked whether the town should establish and operate a retail marijuana cultivation facility (2B) and whether the town could tax the unprocessed retail marijuana and amend the tax as an increase or decrease, not to exceed a total local tax of 10% (2C).

            In Paonia, 53% of the voters rejected Question 2B and 62% voted for Question 2C. After the vote, many attributed the rejection to a campaign launched by a group of high school and middle school students. The students walked door-to-door campaigning against Question 2B.

2015 Proposition BB: Marijuana TABOR Refund Measure

            Colorado law required the vote because the revenue exceeded the initial estimate. The overall revenue was more than voters approved for a marijuana tax in 2013. TABOR requires a projection to be made in a tax’s first year. The voters, with 69.39% voting in favour, allowed the state keep a surplus in pot tax revenue. The measure allowed Colorado to keep $66 million in surplus revenue. The vast majority of these monies will be used for schools.

            Delta County voted 63% in favour of allowing the state to keep the excess collected.

2016 Hotchkiss Ballot Issue 2A

            In April 2016, Hotchkiss voters considered whether to allow medical marijuana centers, optional cultivation operations, and possible sale of medical marijuana –infused products within the town’s jurisdiction.

            Ballot measure 2A was rejected by the voters, with 54% voting against allowing medical marijuana dispensaries and the optional cultivation operations.

2017 Proposed licencing of commercial cultivation and retail dispensaries

            On February 1, 2017, the Orchard City Trustees held a work session where the topic was means to enhance the town’s revenue stream. The trustees stressed the town was not going broke in the short term, but medium and long term forecasts predicted significant budgetary shortfalls. Trustee Dick Kirkpatrick drafted a report which proposed among other alternatives the recommendation the town licence commercial cultivation operations and retail marijuana dispensaries. 
            Over 100 residences turned up for the work session and nearly two dozen publicly stated their opposition to commercial cultivation and retail marijuana operations. Those who expressed their opposition included the County Sheriff, a former naval officer, former trustees, business leaders, and retirees. Few spoke in favour  of marijuana, they included: marijuana industry representatives from Denver, locals who hoped to make their fortune in the “Green Rush”, and residents who saw revenue from marijuana licencing fees as a means to generate revenue without raising water fees or establishing a sales tax.   

UPDATE:

            The Orchard City Board of Trustees, during their Sept. 13, 2017 regular meeting, voted to rescind the decision to repeal the 2011 and 2013 prohibitions on medical and commercial marijuana businesses within the town limits.

            Also during the Sept. 13th regular meeting, the board voted to referrer three measures to the April 2018 ballot. Each of the three questions will ask voters a yes/no question about preferences for revenue generation. The three questions are: 1) implementing a sales tax in town; 2) implementing a property tax in town; and 3) allowing marijuana business that would produce tax revenue for town government.

---

A version of this research was published in the Delta County Independent on 1 March 2017, Surface Creek Section.

Amendment 71 pinches our ability to govern ourselves

A lot of folks have told me they are voting for Amendment 71 because it will make the state Constitution harder to change. The reality is Amendment 71 will kill the constitutional initiative system in Colorado, as it creates draconian barriers to direct democracy preventing ordinary Coloradoans from exercising an important constitutional right.

Deciding big constitutional ideas by ballot is a Colorado tradition that goes back over a century. Often times Colorado voters are faced with deciding tough issues that legislators cannot or will not address themselves. Such issues have included: term limits, campaign finance, legalization of marijuana, and limitations on state expenditures (TABOR). Coloradoans have also used initiatives to ban the 1976 Winter Olympics, prohibit underground nuclear explosions, and ban state funded abortion, along with making Colorado a right-to-work state in 1958, legalizing the sale of alcohol in 1932, and creating the power to recall politicians.

Out of all these initiatives, very few are actually approved by the voters. see table

The direct initiative process was not part of the original state constitution in 1876, but became law in the early 1900s when a group of voters got frustrated by the state government being overly influenced by big industries, such as railroads and timber.

In 1912, the first year the right was available in Colorado, voters weighted in on 32 initiatives. Commencing with that first election, some pundits have complained about the process being too easy and a tool used by various voter groups. Lobbyists and special interests enjoy a cozy relationship with representative state government and democracy (via constitutional initiatives) challenges their chokehold on government.

A major shift occurred in 1988 when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held, in Meyer v. Grant, that under the political speech doctrine of the 1st Amendment, petition circulators could be paid. Prior to this holding, it was a felony in Colorado to pay signature gatherers. While the rate of initiatives making the ballot has increased, success at the ballot box has decreased since the Meyer decision.

There are two opposing theories of the constitution. One view is that the constitution is an expression of the founders and should rarely, if ever, be touched, leaving tremendous leverage for interpretation by the elected and appointed political actors. The other view treats the constitution as an expression of “We the People” and offers some flexibility and the ability for the people to govern themselves.

Regardless of the underlying theory, the foundational document of government ought to be fairly hard to amend. Is the state worse off because the people have too much power?

Colorado is unique, in that, citizens, through the initiative process may bypass the state legislature and place a statute (called proposition) or state constitution (called amendment) question directly on the ballot. Only 24 states (mostly in the West) allow for the initiative process and of these, only 16 allow citizens to directly amend their constitution.

Amendment 71, ironically, seeks to use the current initiative process to make future initiatives more difficult. The amendment calls for collecting a certain number of signatures from each state senate district (there are 35 in Colorado) just to place future amendments on the ballot. Once on the ballot, the amendment then requires a super majority of 55 percent for the initiative to pass. These restrictions are not in place if an initiative seeks to repeal part of the state constitution.

The complexity of Amendment 71 is a bit tough to swallow. Look at all the trouble a few Republican U.S. Senate candidates had earlier this year attempting to petition onto ballots in seven congressional districts. Imagine spreading that out across 35 senate districts!

If an issue is disliked in one or two districts, those districts would have an effective veto, thus depriving the people the ability to decide if the idea is germane or not.

Whether you love participating in democracy or not, one thing is for sure, Coloradans have, and should continue to enjoy, the ability of “We the People,” to freely exercise direct lawmaking power on proposals to change the state constitution.

If an initiative is bad, Coloradoans have proven they are more than capable of voting down amendments. In fact, only one out of five passed over the past five years.

Looking at some of the more recent constitutional initiatives, none would have passed with the supermajority (55 percent) vote tally as required by the proposed Amendment 71, except one. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights passed in 1992 with only 53.6 percent, but would have failed under the current proposal. Amendment 23 which mandated more funding for k-12 education passed in 2000 with 52.7 percent. It also would have failed. Ironically, Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana in 2012 with 55.3 percent of the vote, would still have become law.

Amendment 71 opens the door for opponents to nix the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). The supermajority element does not apply if the initiative seeks to repeal a part of the state constitution. Thus, a progressive billionaire could fund a successful repeal with a vote tally of 50 percent plus one.

The ability of the citizens to directly participate in governing is an effective check on the power of the political class. For the average Coloradan, unduly restricting ballot access, as Amendment 71 does, means a critical democratic tool is only accessible to ultra-big-money interests who can afford the higher costs associated with the complicated signature gathering process.

These are the reasons why I am voting no on Amendment 71: Draconian restrictions on direct democracy, hard to meet signature requirements, and a double-standard for repeal vs. new provisions which would prevent ordinary citizens from an important right. For the good of Colorado vote no on Amendment 71.

Matt Soper, a CMU alumnus and Delta County resident, holds law degrees from University of Edinburgh and the University of New Hampshire. 

_________________________________________

M Soper, "Amendment 71 pinches our ability to govern ourselves" The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, Colo.) 16 October 2016 print. B7. online. <http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/amendment-71-pinches-our-ability-to-govern-ourselv>; accessed 16 October 2017 

Mandatory snow-tire legislation needs re-treading

As Coloradoans there is nothing more frustrating than heading over I-70 in the winter and hearing the words “snow storm” and “Interstate closure” in the same sentence.

Colorado has a policy of keeping I-70 open, even during the most treacherous of winter storms. The reason is because of economic injury due to freight delays. According to economic assessment reports from the Department of Transportation and the Motor Carriers Association, disruption of national freight transportation systems stemming from closures of I-70 in Colorado alone is nearly $100 million per year.

I-70 near Loveland Pass / Eisenhower tunnel
Photo credit: thedenverchannel.com 2015

The “chain law” for commercial carriers traversing Colorado is very simple. At all times, from September until May, commercial carriers must carry sufficient snow chains or traction devices or face a $50 penalty.

When the Colorado Department of Transportation declares the chain law in effect, all vehicles with a gross combined weight 26,001 lbs or more are required to have 4 or more drive wheels covered with an appropriate traction device. Vehicles with less than 4 drive wheels must have all drive wheels covered with an appropriate traction device.

The penalty for non-compliance is $500 when the chain law is in effect. If the vehicle causes blockage of a travelable portion of the roadway, then a $1,000 enhanced fine is assessed on the commercial driver.

Colorado’s current non-commercial vehicle snow-tire law is divided into two categories: (1) chains or adequate snow-tires and (2) chains only. The Colorado Department of Transportation has the duty of invoking the “chain law,” which, depending on road conditions, maybe for commercial vehicles only, or all vehicles, including cars, trucks, and SUVs.

Currently, HB-1173, sponsored by Reps. Bob Rankin, R-Carbondale, and Diane Mitsch Bush, D-Steamboat Springs, which passed the Senate Transportation Committee unanimously last week, would require all motor vehicles traveling I-70 from Dotsero to Morrison to have sufficient traction in the form of a four-wheel or all-wheel drive vehicle with regular tires with at least one-eighth of an inch of tread depth, snow-tires with a tread depth of one-eighth of an inch, or carry tire-chains or adequate traction devices.

Drivers found in non-compliance would face a $100 fine. An enhanced penalty of $500 would be added if the non-commercial vehicle causes closure of any portion of the I-70.

The non-commercial version of the commercial “chain law” was designed to mirror the commercial version; however the Rankin-Mitsch Bush version doubles the fee for non-compliance and proceeds to solve no problems.

Under the proposed legislation, the most significant change would be to require non-commercial vehicles to have snow-tires or chains at all times from November 1 to May 15, rather than just when the “chain law” has been declared.

The bill is “nanny government” at its finest and presumes that citizens lack necessary common sense to function in society. Colorado already has a non-commercial snow tire law which is clear and goes into effect when CDOT deems the roads particularly hazardous.

Colo Reps Bob Rankin & Yuelin Willett visit on House floor.

The Rankin-Mitsch Bush bill is a “boy scout” measure of mandating being prepared. While the bill’s authors are at it, they should mandate that Coloradoan’s know how to put on chains, perform CPR, and to always carry a medical kit, blanket, and avalanche shovel just in case accidents happen.

Moving beyond the argument that government is trying to mandate common sense, the Colorado State Patrol would have standing probably cause to search any vehicle for compliance. Fourth Amendment gurus out there should be shivering at the unprecedented power being granted to law enforcement.

It may be easy to determine speeding from a radar gun, but how hard is it to tell if a sedan is carrying chains on a beautiful, sunny, dry road day in January?

Unlike the commercial counterpart or current law concerning non-commercial vehicles, the proposed legislation would allow the state patrol to pick and choose when to enforce the law and on which vehicles. This means even when snow-flakes aren’t flying the state patrol could use this legislation to stop a vehicle in pursuit of other offences or mere revenue generation.

The Rankin-Mitsch Bush bill undermines due process, as cars are categorically not typically equipped with four-wheel or all-wheel drive; thus, creating a strong presumption that these cars may be in violation of traversing I-70 without chains, or at least one-eighth tread, regardless of the chain law being in effect.

This author conducted a analysis of all reported closures of I-70 from February 20 to March 30, 2015 and found of the six times the interstate was closed due to automobile accidents at least four were as a result of a truck or SUV. A conclusion here is that certain drivers, even with presumed adequate tires, operate their vehicle in such a way that reflects a belief of immunity from the effects of icy roads.

Before the Senate sends this bill to the Governor, perhaps a little more tread could be added to eliminate the high risk of abuse and the discriminatory aspects of this legislation.

________________________________
M Soper, "Mandatory Snowtire legislation needs re-treading"The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, Colo.) 5 April 2015 pg B5 http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/mandatory-snowtire-legislation-needs-retreading# (accessed 5 April 2015)

Tyranny of the majority: Is secession a justified response?

From Colorado counties proposing secession to Crimea voting to break-away from Ukraine; and from Venice adopting unofficial independence status to Scotland wanting to dissolve the 307 year-old marriage with England – Who’d have thought we are living in an age of social contract renewal?

Over the past four months – majorities in 5 out of 11 counties voted to become the 51st US State; an

unbelievable 96% of Crimeans voted to join Russia; 89% of Venetians voted to create independent city-state within Italy; and in September Scottish voters will take to the polls to decide whether to become a free and independent country.

Opponents of these secessionist movements have quickly taken to the bully pulpit to point out the unconstitutionality of these votes. What if it’s illegal to vote for smaller regions, such as a county, to secede from lager entities, such as states or nations? Does a law make separatists feelings “go-away”?

Secessionist ideas do not begin at the ballot box or in a parliamentary chamber. The ideas of dissolving the bands that tie one region to another begin with disaccord and minority dissatisfaction – tyranny of the majority. Where one political party dominates and punishes the opposition or one geo-cultural group forces its views onto another.

Under the US Constitution, no mention is made of an acceptable dissolution of the union. The Civil War and the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. White (1869) arguably established the Constitution ordained a perpetual and indissoluble union.

In 1776, when the founders declared independence from the United Kingdom, that act was in violation of the British Constitution’s supremacy of parliament. If there had been any doubt of Parliament’s authority, The Declaratory Act of 1766, which asserted the right of Parliament to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever," would have settled the question.

To consider our founders revolutionaries seems abhorrent. The situation was an impasse, Parliament told the colonists to ‘go pound sand’ and the colonists responded by crafting a legal justification based on social contract theory, tyranny of the majority, and natural law.

Colorado counties which proposed secession; orange is where measure passed. 

As for the Colorado counties wanting to follow the West Virginia Model, that dream ended when the 69^th Colorado General Assembly adjourned on May 7^th.

Under Article 4 §3 of the US Constitution, no new state can be created from within an existing state without the consent of both the state’s general assembly and Congress.

Without the Colorado legislature taking action, our state will remain intact. Remaining united is not to say the dissatisfaction with the Democrats who control the governor’s office and legislature has gone away.

Similar to Colorado, the Crimea and Venice referendums were a protest to majority tyrannizing the minority. Unlike Colorado, Crimea’s vote was unconstitutional. Venice’s ballot was unofficial.

The Ukrainian Constitution specifically states in Article 73: “Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum.”

Many have argued the Crimea referendum was illegal according to Public International Law.

Firstly, under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), four requires must be satisfied to be considered an independent nation: permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations.

Secondly, a country must be recognised by another country.

Crimea, a peninsula region in the Black Sea. 

The Crimean referendum asked voters whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject or restore the 1992 Crimean Constitution which granted greater authority to the regional parliament. With 83% voter turn-out, 96% voted in-favor of joining Russia. This act was certainly illegal under the Ukrainian Constitution, but as for International law, the jury is still out.

The Venice ballot asked voter whether they wanted to secede from Italy and become and independent city-state. With 65% of the region voting, a whopping 89% or 2.1 million people voted in-favor of breaking away from Rome! The Italian Government had no fear of Venice actually breaking away, as the referendum had been unofficial.

Much like rural Colorado having difficult with Denver listening; Crimea has a Kiev problem; Venice a Rome problem; and Scotland, an English problem.

On September 18^th, Scots will take to the polls to decide their fate. Legally, Scotland has the same problem the American Colonists had with the British Constitution, namely the supremacy of parliament.

The UK Parliament in London has the ability to enact or resend any legislation, including the grant of independence. The Edinburgh Agreement, merely a gentleman’s handshake, is where the UK Parliament has pre-agreed to acquiesce to the outcome of the referendum.

While the votes remain to be cast, one thing is certain, laws banning secession don’t make secessionist ideas go away. Revolution and civil war should be avoided. Elections, whether official or unofficial; lawful or unlawful should be a wake-up call to majority-leaders who are unwilling to respect the ideologies, customs, or traditions of minority constituencies.

Beauprez’s anti-gun past may come to haunt him

When asked about the Second Amendment, Bob Beauprez has a tendency of only talking about Governor John Hickenlooper’s policies.

So what about Bob?

A mere 14 years ago, Beauprez and and former Governor Bill Ritter were on the Amendment 22 band

Bob Beauprez flip-flops on 2nd Amendment.

wagon, which was a state-wide referendum calling for special restrictions for gun shows. These included an instant background check for certain sales that take place at a gun show, even if not required had the same sale occurred not at the gun show.

Amendment 22 passed with 70 percent of the vote.

During the 2006 contest between Beauprez and Ritter; Beauprez claimed Ritter loved gun control, whereas he supported the Second Amendment. This claim was the basis of one of the Both-ways-Bob ads which mocked Beauprez for flip-flopping on the Second Amendment.

The Independence Institute defended Beauprez’s mistake, by claiming the error was due to poor journalism by the Denver Post.

However, going back a bit further, when Beauprez was Colorado Republican State Chairman, he sent out a letter to GOP legislators calling for the party uniting on new gun control laws in the aftermath of the Columbine Shooting.

At the time, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners responded to the message by saying, “Gun rights supporters are told, in essence, to sit down, shut up, and take their medicine.”

Beauprez constantly called for closing the “loopholes in our gun laws.” The Owens Administration, working with Chairman Beauprez, crafted legislation to reign-in gun shows, proposed mandatory gun locks, and moved to disarm Coloradoans between the ages of 18 and 21.

Even Congressman Tom Tancredo voted for an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazines, along with making a few incriminating statements after the school shooting.  

The strategy, in the wake of Columbine, was to compromise a little on gun control, in order to maintain control of all three branches of state government. The results of the 2000 General Election saw the Republicans lose the State Senate to the Democrats.

The question now turns, has Beauprez become a hard-line Second Amendment kind of guy?

Recently, the question of gun control arose during an Aspen gathering. Aspen is not necessarily the friendliest of towns for gun advocates. Beauprez, playing to the audience said, if elected, and if a (gun control) repeal comes to me, I’d sign it.

Beauprez further stated that people with mental illnesses shouldn’t have easy access to guns.

Sounds a bit like the old Beauprez?

Perhaps compromising on some aspects makes political sense in some areas of strategy, but once you go down the road of giving an inch, before you know it, you’ve given a mile.

To be fair to Beauprez, he has claimed that a propensity to commit crime must be an element of limiting the Constitutional rights of someone who is mentally ill.

If society knew who had a propensity to commit a crime before a crime occurred, then why wouldn’t we create a pre-crimes police force, as illustrated in the film Minority Report to stop all evils before they occur?

Beauprez has also failed to define who would be legally classified as mentally ill? Does one visit to a psychologist mean a citizen could be pre-empted from their Second Amendment rights?

Prior to endorsing Beauprez this week, State Senator Greg Brophy, had declared both Beauprez and Tancredo weak on the Second Amendment. Yet in his endorsement, Brophy steered clear of gun talk, saying Beauprez had the best odds of winning.

Perhaps being soft on the Second Amendment is the key to winning the even-split urban-7th Congressional District twice, but for voters in rural Colorado the difference between the incumbent and Beauprez regarding gun control is a shady haze of grey.

All hope is not lost.

Republicans Mike Kopp and Scott Gessler, both have served America in the Army and both believe the Second Amendment is a right not to be compromised.

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners feels the same way and has given Kopp and Gessler the two-thumbs-up.

Defeating Hickenlooper will be tough, but victory only comes if there is a candidate who can draw distinctions, not blur the differences over key policy issues, such as the Second Amendment. 

___________________

Matthew Soper, Letter to the Editor, Beauprez’s past may come back to haunt him, Delta County Independent, May 21, 2014, at A2.

Matthew Soper, Letter to the Editor, Beauprez evaluated on the Second Amendment, Gunnison Country Times, May 21, 2014, at A14.

Mike Kopp is a perfect fit for Colorado

Mike Kopp, candidate for governor, has my endorsement. Here's why — Kopp specifically came to Delta County to announce his candidacy last October. He'll be back in Delta tomorrow hosting a meet and greet for all who'd like to visit with him. More than just caring about Delta County, Mike Kopp knows rural Colorado.

At a young age, Kopp was a championship bull rider. How many leaders have actually taken a "bull by the horns?" — Kopp has! He grew-up on his family's ranch in South Dakota before joining the U.S. Army. In the military, Kopp once again demonstrated his fearlessness and was selected to be an Army Ranger in the 82nd Airborne Division. Kopp served on the ground in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War and was highly decorated for his gallantry and acts of valor.

Kopp then worked as a "smoke jumper" throughout the American West, fighting a different enemy — wildfires. During the non-fire season, Kopp was a U.S. Border Patrol agent helping to keep illegals out of the U.S.

Colo GOP Governor Candidate Mike Kopp

Through all this "toughness" Mike Kopp has a heart of gold and became an ordained minister. He's worked as a chaplain helping those with mental health concerns and spiritual needs. Kopp ultimately needed his own help when his wife lost her battle with cancer in 2011. He had just been re-elected to the State Senate and named minority leader. Kopp opted to step down from public life to be with his three young children in their time of need.

Kopp is currently part of the management team for Intermountain Rural Electric Association, Colorado's national Republican committeeman and a loving father (who has recently remarried).

From a policy perspective, Kopp is very conservative, having been the original author of the state's opt-out plan regarding the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). Kopp has been endorsed by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owner's Association, and from having been around him, I can tell you, he is the responsible type who takes firearm ownership seriously. Additionally, Kopp was the last legislator who proposed serious tax cuts and reductions in the size of government. Since Kopp left the legislature, spending has continually increased and the number of legislators with ranching, military, or business experience has shrunk to countable on one hand.

Mike Kopp is a perfect fit for Colorado and I am pleased to be supporting his candidacy for governor.

__________________________________
M. Soper, "Candidate Mike Kopp is a perfect fit for Colorado" 26 Feb 2014 Delta County Independent (Delta, Colo) p.2A  http://deltacountyindependent.com/index.php/opinion/soapbox/10352-candidate-mike-kopp-is-a-perfect-fit-for-colorado accessed 18 March 2014

Hickenlooper's new trademark more than just a beer coaster

This past summer, Gov. John Hickenlooper unveiled a new ‘trianglized-licence plate looking’ trademark to market the State of Colorado nationwide and overseas. More recently, State Rep. Bob Rankin (R-Glenwood Springs), introduced legislation to have the people decide whether they want a new logo for Colorado.

Colorado's new federally registered trademark

A week ago, H.B. 1017 was killed by the Democrats, on a party line vote, in the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee.

Rep. Rankin fell short of promulgating the negative legal consequences Hickenlooper’s new trademark may have on Colorado businesses. To begin, we need to first understand some basics of American trademark law.

 

A trademark is a word or phrase, logo, or other graphic symbol used by a manufacturer or seller to distinguish its product or products from others in the market place. The main purpose of a trademark is to designate the source of goods or services. Therefore, a trademark is something that only exists with respect to some commercial activity.

Trademarks can take one of three forms: standard character format; stylized/design format; or sound mark. For example, the word: “Coke” is a standard character mark, which means any style or symbol with the word “Coke” is protected under the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946. The Coke bottle-logo is a good example of a stylized/design mark. And yes, the roar of the Harley-Davidson engine is a protected sound mark.

When federally registering marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a class of goods or services must be indicated. Going back to the “Coke” example, the Coca-Cola Company has registered the use of the Coke mark on everything from clothing to toys to food and drink products.

A quick search of the USPTO shows that Hickenlooper’s trademark is registered as a standard character mark, which means that the trademark owner has an obligation to pursue any individual or entity that uses the words: “CO” or “Colorado” on any “Clothing, namely, tee shirts, sweat shirts, polo's, hats, and jackets.”

In layman’s terms, Hickenlooper has successfully stifled private businesses in Colorado who make a living putting the word “Colorado” on a t-shirt and selling it to tourists. In other words, the state is now a direct competitor in the intellectual property arena with Colorado businesses.

In order to avoid open licencing, the State of Colorado will be forced to send hundreds of cease-and-desist-letters to small business across this state who dare infringe upon the state’s intellectual property right.

The second registered class which Hickenlooper is claiming is for “promoting public awareness about Colorado itself, and public services offered through Colorado state government entities, as well as promoting products and services originating from Colorado businesses and organizations.” Here, the state may have a legitimate interest, but the question still remains, why are they claiming a mountain of rights, when they really on need a hill?

The USPTO search also revealed the registered owner is not listed as the State of Colorado, but as Brand Colorado, a division of Colorado Nonprofit Development Center, which is located in Boulder. Shouldn’t the trademark owner be an actual state entity, such as the Colorado Tourism Office?

The Hickenlooper Administration’s effort to replace the Colorado State flag and seal with a trendier brand/trademark circumvents the reason for emblems of state. The current state trademarks – the flag and seal – identify and distinguish the source of state services / goods for the public. Additionally, each agency has its own trademark to indicate to the public the services they offer.

Creating more official trademarks to represent the State of Colorado blurs the distinction of which trademark represents, which is the source of the services. In other words, more marks confuse the public about which one actually represents the State of Colorado.

This past summer I was at the US Open Tennis Championships in New York and saw a man with a ball cap and Colorado flag on it. I asked him if he was from Colorado, as it is always great to see fellow Coloradoans when outside the state. He told me he had just spent a week holidaying in Aspen and thought we had a really cool flag design. Perhaps this New Yorker was not the target of the new trademark marketing campaign.

During my time in Edinburgh, Scotland, it was quite common to see tourists with stylized Colorado gear, mostly an artistic version of the red “C” with fields of blue and white. Of perhaps all the states, Colorado has one of most iconic and memorable flag-trademarks and adding a new mark only serves to block intellectual property fields which should be in the hands of the private sector.

Adding a new trianglized-licence plate looking trademark to the state’s intellectual property portfolio only serves to confuse the general public on which mark actually represents the State of Colorado. Additionally, Hickenlooper’s mark fails the state’s real objective, which is to market the state to tourists, businesses, and investors. 

Hickenlooper signs Syrian-style-gun-control measures

With Governor Hickenlooper's signature to HB 1224 and HB 1229 it looks like indeed the pen is mightier
than the sword/gun. The government now has the carte blanche ability to restrict any firearm which uses a magazine (this is due in part to the hastily drafted language in the bill). This is an assault on all of Colorado, our state and national constitutions, and natural law. Our peaceful protests in halls of power have been ignored. It is time the people stand up to the grievous and al-Assad-like assaults on our liberties!

As in the pre-Arab-Spring-era, the unchecked power of the Syrian Ba’ath Party also stripped their citizens of firearms. Syrian Legislative Decree No. 51 of 23 September 2001 banned private ownership of semi-automatic military looking rifles, revoking rifle permits, and only allowing permits for single shot-pistols and single-shot hunting rifles of low-calibre. Currently the people of Syria are in a bloody civil war in which the government of Bashar al-Assad is trying to quell resistance to the majority elected, single party rule.

In the Democratic controlled legislature, Colorado – like Syria – passed universal background checks, which require background checks of the possessor of a firearm when the owner is away for more than 72 hours. Along with blurring the lines of possession and ownership, the legislature completely ignored the vast majority of Colorado’s sheriffs, including Delta County’s own Fred McKee, who testified in Denver against HB 1229. With the new legislation in Colorado, as in Syria, private sales of firearms will be essentially prohibited.

The Democrats won’t achieve universal registration, universal licencing, and third-party liability this legislative session, but given another future-mass-shooting somewhere in the nation, these Syrian policies can be expected if freedom minded legislators and governors are not elected.

No one party should ever control all three branches of government. Yet when the Democrats rolled into power they began catering to the whims of the masses which has resulted in short-sighted, rights-restricting, and oppressive policies. It is time to petition Governor Hickenlooper for a redress of these grievances and upon denial demonstrate that the people of rural Colorado will openly and respectfully defy these anti-constitutional gun control measures.
_____________________________________________
*M Soper, LTE / OpEd, Mountain Valley News. 27 March 2013  http://www.mountainvalleynews.net/index.php/home/3-opinion/3910-letters-to-the-editor-32713.html accessed 27 March 2013

Matt Soper meets head of US Secret Service

Matt Soper, a resident of Orchard City and former trustee, had the opportunity on Friday, February 15, 2013 to have lunch with US Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan during his visit to the University of New Hampshire’s School of Law. Director Sullivan has announced his intentions to retire, after 30 years with the agency, on February 22, 2013.

The outgoing Secret Service director said he was pleased with the work he had achieved since being appointed to director in 2006.

Mr. Soper said, “I asked Director Sullivan about Colorado Senate Bill 13-013, which is being sponsored by local State Senator Steve King.”

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan (on right) & Matt Soper

Colorado State Senator King’s proposed legislation will give Secret Service agents limited peace officer authority in the State of Colorado. The premise for this bill stems from Colorado’s increased position in presidential politics and gives the Secret Service the ability to detain or arrest suspects, under Colorado law, who threaten individuals whom the Secret Service is charged with protecting.

Problems have arisen where jurisdictional issues have resulted in questions sufficient cause under federal law and possible usurping state authority. One such issue, resolved last summer before the US Supreme Court, concerned a Summit County resident who confronted then-Vice President Dick Cheney about the War in Iraq. The Secret Service felt the suspect’s sudden aggressive movement warrant detaining the individual. The individual sued, claiming his First Amendment right to political speech had been infringe and that the agents did not have authority in Colorado to detain him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Secret Service and the agents, holding that the agents have immunity.

State Senator King hopes to resolve the conflict in jurisdictional issues by granting the Secret Service limited peace officer status while they are within the State of Colorado. Secret Service Director Sullivan indicated he supported measures designed to enhance cooperation.

Mr. Soper and Director Sullivan also talked about how the Secret Service is charged with more than protecting the President and Vice President and their families. Around 1,000 agents are assigned to the presidential detail, but this pales in comparison to the number of agents who are cracking down on counterfeiting and international criminal attempts to disrupt America’s monetary system.

The US Secret Service began in 1865, after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Originally the agency fell under the auspices of the Treasury Department was tasked with protecting the president and stopping counterfeiters. Today the Secret Service is under the Department of Homeland Security and protects high level public official both domestically and abroad. The agency continues to suppress counterfeiting and electronic fraud, and cybercrime affecting the monetary supply. 

The case against local term limits: Trustee Soper's speech to Delta's businessmen

In May of this year, Hugh Sanburg and Chalmer Swain asked the Delta County Commissioners to approve a referendum for the general election ballot removing term limits for the offices of sheriff and coroner. Today, I’m going to make the case against term limits.

The national wave of initiatives limiting state legislative terms swept California, Colorado and Oklahoma in 1990.  Subsequently, 18 other states adopted term limits, but in four - Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming - term limits were thrown out by the state supreme courts, and they have been repealed by the legislatures in Idaho and Utah. That leaves 15 states with term limits for legislators.

In 1990 Colorado voters passed an initiative limiting state legislators to four two-year terms in the House of Representatives and two four-year terms in the Senate. The full effect of term limits was known by 1998. Since that year, researchers have learned a lot about the impact of term limits on Colorado and our legislative process.

Professor John Straayer, a well-known political scientist at Colorado State University, let a National Conference on State Legislatures study examining term limits in Colorado. The study revealed several fascinating impacts of term limits.

·        Averaging the 20 yrs prior to term limits, the mean tenure of a member of the Colorado House of Representatives was 4.5 years. For a member of the Colorado State Senate it was 6 years.

·        Before 1990 and after 1998 the Colorado legislature has had a healthy natural rotation of about 30% of its members.

  

·        After term limits, the percent of incumbents who lost re-election decreased from 7.2% to 1.2%. This means term limits has made the incumbency advantage stronger, as challengers wait until the incumbent is term limited.

·        Prior to term limits a House seat cost $20,000 and after the price has risen to $50,000 – much of this is due to running for an open seat.

·        After term limits, the mean tenure is close to 6.8 years in both the House and Senate, as there is an expectation to serve the entire time until term limited.

Tom Loftus, former speaker of the Wisconsin House of Representatives, commented that term limits are passed because of individualism. Everyone has heard of at least one elected official who has abused the public trust and over stayed their welcome.

Thomas Jefferson’s defined term limits as rotation in office.  He said, ... “by the term rotation in office, then, we mean an obligation on the holder of that office to go out at a certain period”.

The idea of term limits remains popular. Here in Delta County, during the Republican Assembly the question of term limits was raised and it failed on a vote of 161 against and 54 in favour. A few years back, a group calling itself LIMIT (Legislative Initiative Mandating Incumbent Terms) was formed to gain passage of I-553.  This initiative would have limited terms of office for both state and U.S. legislators as well as the governor and the lieutenant governor.

Professionalism – in Colorado 50-70% of term limited elected officials are elected to another office. We saw that 10 years ago right here in Delta County.

Expertise – not that many are qualified to be sheriff or coroner

At the local level more is lost than gained by term limits. I wholly support Delta County repealing term limits for the coroner and sheriff. 

First more pay, now more office space: the excesses of Colorado lawmakers*

This month, Republican and Democratic leaders in the Colorado Legislature introduced House Bill 1348 to authorize a possible move of the Legislature's service staff from the state Capitol to a state office building across Colfax Avenue. The bill also allows the potential remodel the Capitol to give all 35 senators and all 65 representatives their own offices. It passed both houses this week.

Currently legislators share offices, just as they have for decades.

HB 1348 is only part of the story. Earlier this legislative session, lawmakers passed House Bill 1301, which authorized a 22 percent increase in the amount legislators could bill the taxpayers for their expenses.

A state senator and state representative earns $30,000 for the 120-day legislative session (January to May) and are allowed to claim up to $18,000 in expenses, known as per diem. Reimbursement for mileage is billed separately.

After HB 1301 takes effect, lawmakers will be able to claim almost $22,000 to offset living expenses associated with the job. A rural legislator could receive $52,000 for 120 days worth of work. Not bad for a part-time job.

U.S. senators and representatives earn $174,000 per year, but their legislative jobs are considered full-time.

Using their legislative authority, it looks like the Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature have agreed to tap the public purse for their own financial gain.

During this country's Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin suggested public service should be voluntary and that only travel and living expenses should be paid, so that a legislator would be in no worse position financially due to public service. Instead, both members of Congress and state lawmakers draw salaries.

As the Colorado and national economies have suffered through this recession and the official unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, many families have been struggling to keep up with their mortgages and deal with increases in the cost of living and gas prices. Despite the problems faced by their constituents in these tough times, however, Colorado's legislators gave lawmakers who live outside the Denver area a 22 percent increase in expenses.

The audacity of this bipartisan spending spree continues. HB 1348 allows a legislative committee to consider the remodel of the Capitol to give every House and Senate member his or her own, private office.

For the majority of Colorado's history, the only working space a legislator had was his or her desk on either the House or Senate floor. At one time, the entire Colorado state bureaucracy was housed in the Capitol building.

As the bureaucracy has grown, most state agencies have left the Capitol, to occupy  elegant, white marble buildings or lease space in other buildings that are located all around Denver.

At the beginning of this legislative session, the Republicans doubled the amount a legislative aide is paid (Democrats raised their staff's salary two years ago).

Can Colorado afford such reckless spending in a time of such economic uncertainty?

In 2005, when I was an aide at the Capitol, the pay was low, legislators shared offices, food was provided by the lobbyists and the total state budget was $12 billion.

Seven years later, the pay has doubled for staff, legislators voted themselves a per-diem raise, remodelling  to create private offices is being considered by both parties, and Amendment 41 nixed the coffee and bagels from lobbyists.

Oh, and the state budget has grown to nearly $20 billion.
__________________________________________
*M Soper, First more pay, now more office space, the excesses of Colorado lawmakers, OpEd, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel 29 April 2012: 7B <http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/first-more-pay-now-more-office-space-the-excesses> accessed 29 April 2012

Legislative immunity & ethics committees: Colorado Constitution needs moderizing

I have been stunned at the bizarre turn-of-events surrounding the Denver Police’s traffic stop of Rep Laura Bradford. Not only did the police lie about the use of legislative immunity, then Speaker Frank McNulty decided to proceed with an ethics committee. Since when did an “ethics committee” replace courts of law? The question for the body is did Bradford invoke the clause, the police say no. Therefore the question is moot. It is also time to question the reason for an ethics committee in the first place? So far the committee has only been used for politically motivated “public hangings”. What happened to the presumption of innocence or the right of an appeal? The committee’s power usurps these rights.

Even if the committee decides it was unwise for the Denver Police to have granted special treatment, it becomes a moot point, as the clause is written into the Colorado Constitution. It isn’t unethical to assert legal rights, even if those rights themselves are at the center of the public debate. A reasonable person would normally be ecstatic with police granting a warning, a legislator, as a person, would follow suit. Bradford actually went beyond the standard of normalcy by asking police to give her no special treatment and to consider her a regular person.

McNulty should have waited and gathered facts to see if there was a cause for action. The Denver Police should have upheld the letter law, pursued a charge of driving under the influence, if they believed they had a case against Bradford. If the police had arrested Bradford, then the worst case scenario would have been a judge chiding the police for violating the constitution.

It is time to review of the Constitutional clause of legislator immunity and the legality of the House Ethics Committee. It is abhorrent that state legislators are granted special licence plates for their motor vehicles – something which encourages police to grant immunity carte blanche. The “internal ethics court” promotes abuse of power by House leadership. If legislators are to be treated as regular citizens, then they should be subject to the same laws and courts as everyone else!

Vote No on Prop 103: Bad for business, won't improve education

Proposition 103 seeks to amend the Colorado Revised Statues by increasing individual and business income tax by nearly 8% (from 4.63% to 5.00%) and the sales and use tax rate will be increased by over 3% (from 2.93% to 3.00%) for five years. The proposition would require additional tax revenue to be spent on public education. The fiscal note indicates revenue of nearly $3 billion.

The proposition is bad because it fails to direct the legislature on what aspect of “public education” the revenue is to be allocated. Public education is broadly defined to include everything from pre-schools to colleges and universities, along with libraries and museums, not to mention community education. In addition to the definition difficulties and the lack of direction as to allocation of resources, the proposition also fails to offer a plan as to how an increase in revenue will improve education.

Raising taxes on the middle class during tough economic times is not the answer to our state’s and our nation’s lag educationally speaking behind the rest of the world, most notably the EU nations, Japan and South Korea. Students should learn to spend more time in the libraries reading and teachers should be empowered to actually teach. Parents are the third party in the ‘educational contract’ and need to encourage their children and explore the world of knowledge in literature, science, the arts, history, geography, civics et cetera.

Unemployment in Colorado is officially hovering just under 10%, the local unemployment rate is slightly lower. However, a study by the Economics International Corporation suggests consumer spending and business investments will decrease as a direct result of the proposition 103 tax hike, leading to circa 30,500 jobs being eliminated by fiscal year 2017. Such incriminating evidence is allegedly why Governor John Hickenlooper is unwilling to publicly support the proposition.

Election Day is Tuesday, 1 November 2011. Ballots must be received in the County Clerk's Office by 7:00 PM.