Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Senate hopefuls trip up over raft of ballot issues

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 8, 2008 at 7:44 p.m.
Updated October 9, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Senatorial candidate Mark Udall answers a question as he faces off with Bob Schaffer in a U.S. Senate race debate, sponsored by Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, at the Hyatt Convention Center on Tuesday.

Photo by Darin McGregor © The Rocky

Senatorial candidate Mark Udall answers a question as he faces off with Bob Schaffer in a U.S. Senate race debate, sponsored by Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, at the Hyatt Convention Center on Tuesday.

Related Links

More Elections

More stories »

The plethora of ballot measures this year has even the politicians confused.

In a U.S. Senate debate this week, Democrat Mark Udall said he would vote against a tax to help the developmentally disabled. He actually supports Amendment 51, Udall said during a meeting Wednesday with the Rocky's editorial board.

"It should have been a 'yes,' " Udall said.

Udall's opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer, said during the debate he was opposed to a ballot measure that redirects a portion of energy taxes to transportation.

"Bob should have said he was for it," said his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams.

There are 14 amendments on the November ballot, although the votes for only 10 will be counted because the others were withdrawn. There are also four referred measures, known as referendums, which were put on the ballot by the legislature.

During 9News' Senate debate this week, moderator Adam Schrager asked the candidates to respond "yes" or "no" on whether they supported certain measures.

Here's what they said about the two ballot measures they inadvertently answered wrong:

Schrager: Mr. Schaffer, will you vote for Amendment 51, which seeks to raise the sales tax 2 cents on every $10 spent to benefit Coloradans with developmental disabilities?

Schaffer: I will oppose the tax increase. No.

Udall: No.

Schrager: Mr. Udall, will you vote for Amendment 52, which steers oil and gas taxes toward highways, specifically toward I-70.

Udall: No, but I'll vote for 58. (Amendment 58 is the governor's proposal to eliminate a tax credit for the oil and gas industry.)

Schrager: Mr. Schaffer?

Schaffer: Could you describe it again? I'm not familiar with 52.

Schrager: Amendment 52 steers severance revenues toward highways, specifically I-70.

Schaffer: No.

Neither amendments 51 or 52 have gotten as much coverage as ballot measures dealing with labor and business issues, or Gov. Bill Ritter's proposal for doing away with the oil and gas tax credit.

Comments

  • October 8, 2008

    8:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    windskull writes:

    What I saw disturbing about Amendment 51 is that passage removes low income energy assistance while creating yet another undistinguished account in the general fund this Amendment is fatally flawed at best while it reverse discriminates by singling out ONLY developmentally disabled citizens as eligible for this funding when rural disabled persons in Colorado are made to endure hardships their urban peers do not

  • October 8, 2008

    11:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    YES on Amendment 47 is the right choice. The rest of Colorado should enjoy the same rights our state employees have, the right to join or not join the union without the threat of losing your job.

    Amendment 47 is for real employee free choice vs. Udall's bill that would remove the secret ballot.

  • October 9, 2008

    3:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    AlanAardvark writes:

    Udall favors another tax increase? Wow, what a surprise.

    I can't help but wonder, though, whether his wrong answer on Amendment 51 during the debate was an honest mistake or a deliberate deception. After Schaffer had just said he opposed the tax increase, Udall would have stood out like a sore thumb if he immediately owned up to supporting it. Perhaps Udall figured it would be better politically to deny support for the tax increase in front of the big TV audience, then "correct" himself later when fewer voters would know.

  • October 9, 2008

    7:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DStuart writes:

    We are all struggling to understand what each proposed ballot measure really means in these times of mass media smudging of the facts and truth. I appreciate Congressman's Udall's willingness to publicly share that even folks who do this type of detailed policy work everyday can be confused. I am equally grateful that he corrected himself and shared he supports 51 before folks tackle their ballot. The urban myth that 51 is for a special interest group is bunk. Since when are our sisters, brothers, children and grandchildren a special interest group? Developmental disabilities is a natural part of life. It can and does happen without regard to a party affiliation or affluence. Thank you Congressman Udall for your support.

  • October 9, 2008

    9:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    deb writes:

    Thank you Congressman Udall for supporting those who deserve help because they can't help themselves. These children and adults are *citizens* of Colorado for those in this state who can't understand that. We no longer except that people will live in the dark ages and that with the progress the state has made in deinstitutionalizing people *who do not deserve to be shut away and neglected, not seen or heard from* is a thing of the past. Caring Colorado citizens realize how important it is to take care of those who need it. Families appreciate the support. We are taxpayers and will be paying our part in taxes too. We *have* stepped up to the plate three times over to take care of our children. The support of Congressman Udall is so important to our lives and I can't thank him enough.

  • October 9, 2008

    9:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    robinbolduc writes:

    Thank you Senator Udall for clarifying your support of Amendment 51. Having a child with a developmental disability transcends political parties - it is not a special interest group - it is a group that we can all "join" at any time. Spending two cents to insure that an important group of citizens have access to critical supports is good public policy. Thank you again.

  • October 9, 2008

    10:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    specialneedsmom writes:

    Thank you Congressman Udall for supporting people with developmental disabilities and correcting your mis-statement about Amendment 51. The "no" you originally gave was so shockingly out of character for you and I am so glad it was an error. The way in which you have carried yourself through this heated election process has been remarkable and classy and this is just another example of how we can rely on you.

    I think some other people have really misunderstood 51 and I hope they, too, will go back and re-read it.

  • October 9, 2008

    9:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Udall, Tax Increase? ....

    Nah-Nah-Nah not Tax Increases those are called 'revenue enhancements" by 5-time Congressman Boulder Liberal Mark Udall.