Editor’s note: Thank you for reading and contemplating The Gazette editorial board’s election endorsements. These result from board members researching campaign material, news articles, social media, and meeting with select candidates. Voting is a personal decision and we offer these endorsements only as our suggestions. We encourage all voters to use this compilation as part of a process to inform themselves about all of these important decistion. Study the candidates and issues, grab a cup of Joe, and fill out those ballots.

United States Senate

X Cory Gardner (R)

John Hickenlooper (D)

This is the most important choice on the 2020 ballot. Democrats have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to take out Gardner, among the five most productive and bipartisan members of Congress, in hopes of taking majority control of the Senate.

Democrats want to replace Gardner with former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a man who sees the job as a consolation prize after gaining no traction in his presidential primary race. Gardner, among the youngest members of the Senate, has delivered more good legislation for Colorado in the past six years than all nine of the rest of Colorado’s delegation combined.

Ejecting Gardner from the Senate is an act of political suicide, call it state-icide, that could cost Colorado dearly. If voters make that mistake, they may cost Colorado its likely selection to serve as the permanent home of Space Command. It would cost Colorado the largest chunk of what relatively little influence its congressional delegation has in Washington.

Hicknelooper, who last year said “I’m not cut out to be a senator,” would never achieve A-list stature in Washington. Entering the Senate as a freshman in his 70s, he would approach his 80s before seeking a second term.

Colorado has only one marquee politician in Washington, and his name is Cory Gardner — a man who has delivered for Colorado’s public lands, environment, and public health and welfare. Keep Colorado relevant in Washington by re-electing Cory Gardner.

U.S. House District 3

X Loren Boebert (R)

Diane Mitsch Bush (D)

Young Republican candidates with the full package of intelligence, looks, passion, and skills to articulate good principles seldom come along. Voters in Congressional District 3 have the opportunity to elect a mom, business leader and impassioned champion of Colorado and the United States to the House of Representatives.

In the big league of Congress, Boebert could lead a national, youthful, patriotic, pro-capitalist movement to rival the fashionable left-wing narrative that tells young Americans their country is evil.

While left-wing feminist leaders cast women as victims, Boebert looms large as a 100-pound symbol of female empowerment. Women can start with nothing and have big families, provide for them, and defend them.

In a meeting with The Gazette’s editorial board, Boebert exuded an unequivocal devotion to freedom, free markets, compassion for others, and the joy of discovering self-sufficiency.

Boebert’s belief in capitalism, freedom and the old-fashioned American way developed after a childhood of poverty, welfare, and an assortment of government assistance. Boebert moved with her family to Rifle as a teenager. There, she landed a job at McDonald’s and discovered the thrill of money that was earned.

Boebert’s Democratic opponent, Diane Mitsch Bush, represents the antithesis of western, rural Colorado values. A retired sociology professor and far-left Democrat, Mitsch Bush has supported nearly every regulatory attack on oil, gas and coal producers who provide high-wage jobs and tax revenues throughout her district. Organizations hostile to the Second Amendment have endorsed Mitsch Bush in past campaigns.

Mitsch Bush would begin her congressional career one-month shy of turning 71. By no fault of her own, she would approach her 80s before acquiring the committee assignments and level of seniority Colorado needs to improve a relatively weak delegation in Congress.

Entering Congress at age 34, colleagues would view Boebert as a star of the near future to invest in today. She would likely win coveted committee assignments while standing out nationally as an energetic new symbol of what people can do in a country that stands for justice, prosperity, personal empowerment, and freedom for all above all.

Vote for Lauren Boebert and empower the kind of inspiring, high-quality candidate that seldom comes along.

State Senate District 27

X Suzanne Staiert (R)

Chris Kolker (D)

Balance has long served Colorado well. As a swing state, with the government’s various entities controlled by opposing political parties, we built one of the strongest economies in the country. Since 2018, Colorado has had no semblance of balance. Democrats control the Colorado House and Senate and all statewide offices with the exception of one U.S. Senate seat. 

Senate District 27, which encompasses Highlands Ranch and parts of Littleton, will add to the imbalance if Democratic financial adviser Chris Kolker bests Republican Suzanne Staiert, a highly regarded attorney, Littleton public schools mom and former deputy secretary of state under then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams of Colorado Springs. The winner will replace departing Republican Sen. Jack Tate.

District 27 voters ought to choose Staiert, whose sterling reputation in years of public service bears out her campaign slogan, “Practical, not political.” A seasoned and respected public-policy expert, Staiert burnished her reputation helping safeguard the state’s elections during her years at the Secretary of State’s Office. Staiert also has served as a prosecutor for the city of Aurora, where she went after domestic violence cases; as the Littleton city attorney; and as an assistant municipal judge in Centennial. Not only does she know the law, she also knows her district. 

State Senate District 25

X Kevin Priola (R)

Paula Dickerson (D)

This north suburban metro Denver district pits Republican incumbent Sen. Kevin Priola against Democratic challenger Paula Dickerson. Priola has stood out not only as a seasoned and skilled legislator who has served in both chambers but also as a bridge-builder between Republicans and Democrats. He has put that role to use forging sensible policies on bread-and-butter issues that are important to members of both parties as well as to the many unaffiliated voters in his district. Priola also has deep roots in the Senate district. He was born and raised there and has helped run two family-owned small businesses in the area. He is connected to Adams County civic life and knows the terrain well. District 25 voters would do well to reelect Priola.

State Senate District 8

X Bob Rankin (R)

Carl Hanlon (D)

Republican incumbent Sen. Bob Rankin finds himself in a competitive race with Democratic nominee Carl Hanlon. Rankin is a doer and achiever. He’s a ranking member of the Joint Budget Committee. After COVID-19 invaded, Rankin made sure the legislature protected essential and special services while maintaining a balanced budget. He was a key player in the passage of a bipartisan re-insurance bill that saves some families $10,000 a year in health insurance costs. District 8 voters would be wise to reelect Rankin.

State Proposition 113

Yes

X No

A “yes” vote upholds the legislature’s irresponsible decision to give away all nine of Colorado’s Electoral College votes in presidential elections. A “no” vote preserves Colorado’s votes and its autonomy as a state.

The multimillion-dollar “yes” on 113 campaign was financed almost entirely by multimillionaire left-wing activists in California who would like to own Colorado. This may be among the more insane questions to ever hit the ballot. California wants Colorado to willfully surrender the will of its voters to large coastal states with disproportionate influence in the popular vote. Anyone who loves Colorado — whether on the right, left or somewhere in the center — will vote “no” on Prop 113.

State Proposition 114

Yes

X No

Proposition 114 on the fall ballot would require the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife to create a plan to reintroduce and manage gray wolves on designated lands west of the Continental Divide by the end of 2023.

Critics rightly foresee devastation to the state’s elk, moose and deer herds to say nothing of the collateral damage to livestock and the threat to humans.

We have a Division of Parks and Wildlife, staffed with experts whose lifetime work is to study the state’s many species and draw conclusions on matters like reintroduction. Prop. 114 usurps and undermines that process, turning a complex consideration into feel-good politics — with potentially disastrous results. Authoritative critics of 114 include wildlife biologists and the former chief of the state’s Department of Natural Resources.

Just say “no” to ballot-box biology by voting “no” on Prop 114.

State Proposition 115

X Yes

No

There is common ground even on as divisive an issue as abortion. Plenty of medical science supports the case for reasonable limits on abortion — limits that synch with the sensibilities of many voters across the political and religious spectrum. 

Which helps explain why Coloradans with wide-ranging political as well as personal views set aside their differences over abortion a number of years ago to enact a parental-notice law. It only made sense.

Another chance to find common ground on abortion policy appears on this fall’s statewide ballot as Proposition 115. It would end late-terms abortions — pregnancies terminated after 22 weeks — when unborn babies are regarded as substantially formed and biologically viable. The proposal allows an exception if the birth mother’s life is in danger.

Babies can be born and survive after 22 weeks. It’s simple science. Yet, Colorado is one of a handful of states with no cutoff for abortions performed on adult mothers. We urge a “yes” vote on this sensible and needed reform.

State Proposition 116

X Yes

No

The ballot question is simple: “Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%?”

That’s like asking “do we want the sun to rise and the grass to grow?”

Working Coloradans remain mired in the challenges of the COVID-19 economy. To get through it, state, federal and local governments have offered all assortment of assistance. They have issued mandates suspending rents and forbidding evictions. They have eased restrictions on tapping into 401K funds and other investments. The federal government and states have streamlined small-business loans and sent checks to consumers, whether they’ve lost income as a result of COVID-19. Schoolchildren will eat free from October through December and possibly beyond.

There can be no more swift, fair and efficient vehicle than tax relief for economic aid. By reducing income taxes, even by a slight margin, people keep more of what they earn. That, as opposed to sending what they earn to a government that must process the money into packaged aid and send it back as recovery funds.

Democratic Gov. Jared Polis appears to support 116. We asked for a statement of support, and he texted “Sure.” Then: “an income tax cut is broad-based relief and not only helps families get by in a challenging time but also helps our economy grow.”

Exactly right. Prop 116 empowers taxpayers to keep more of what they earn at a time when too many Coloradans struggle just to keep the bills paid, roofs over their heads and food on the table. Help Coloradans through the pandemic by voting “yes” on Prop 116.

State Proposition 117

X Yes

No

State politicians figured out long ago that if you call something a fee instead of a tax, you can end-run Colorado’s constitution — specifically, its voter-enacted provision known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR. The amendment, adopted by the electorate in 1992, requires policymakers to get voter approval before raising taxes. But if a state or local government can claim a program supports itself through fees paid by users, rather than by taxes, the revenue generated by the program won’t count against annual limits imposed on tax revenue by TABOR.

Proposition 117 would rein in this fast-and-loose approach to the public’s purse strings. It would require any new state enterprise that brings in over $100 million in fees during its first five years to go to a vote of the people. The proposal applies only to new state enterprises so that local governments would be unaffected; existing enterprises would be held harmless, too.

Stop taxpayer abuse. Vote “yes” on Prop 117.

State Amendment 76

X Yes

No

Amendment 76 asks a simple question:

“Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring that to be qualified to vote at any election an individual must be a United States citizen?”

If passed, the measure would change a portion of the state constitution that says “Every citizen of the United States” who meets age and state residency requirements gets to vote in Colorado elections. Instead of “Every citizen” the amended passage would limit voting to “Only a citizen…”

It is amazing this question exists. Voting should be a privilege belonging only to those born to this country or naturalized by proving loyalty to the uniting values and principles that make it a nation. Citizenship is membership. Only members, fully vested in the country and beholden to no others, should vote in elections. Vote “yes” on Amendment 76.

State Amendment 77

Yes

X No

Amendment 77 on November’s ballot asks voters to change Colorado statutes and the state Constitution to authorize voters in Cripple Creek, Central City and Black Hawk to raise gaming stakes from their restriction of $100 to “any amount.” If they do so, Colorado’s low-stakes, all-in-good-fun gambling will become the type of industry that can ruin individuals and families in a single night.

Keep Colorado casinos fun and relatively harmless, while preserving what is left of Colorado’s fading reputation as a place of good health and wholesome outdoor recreation. Reject high-stakes gambling by voting “no” on Amendment 77.

State Amendment B

Yes

X No

Amendment B would repeal the Gallagher Amendment in a spirited attempt to shift the residential-business paradigm and ease some of the business community’s property tax pain.

Unfortunately, the well-intended proposal overcorrects. It risks channeling too much of that pain back to homeowners in the long run as it sooner or later will result in higher property tax bills for them. That’s why we have to urge a “no” vote on B — even as we appreciate how the amendment, placed on the ballot by the legislature last spring, addresses a very real and serious problem confronting all Coloradans.

One of those problems arise the revenues at risk to fire districts throughout the state that serve predominantly residential areas that don’t generate an ample supply of revenues from businesses. Though we oppose the sledgehammer of a statewide repeal of Gallagher, we strongly urge voters to approve local ballot requests for exemptions to Gallagher, including multiple fire districts throughout the state.

It’s worth remembering that a greater tax burden on business eventually is passed on to all of us in higher costs and fewer jobs. For decades, Colorado businesses have chafed under Gallagher as homeowners have reveled in it. The measure’s purported intent at the time of its adoption was to keep homeowners from picking up the tab for property tax breaks to various industries.

It wound up going further than that, shifting ever more of the state’s total property tax load onto businesses. That is because Gallagher also stipulated that Colorado residential property could make up no more than 45% of the total statewide property tax base, with nonresident property — notably business and agricultural — accounting for the balance.

There has to be a better way to ease the burden on businesses than to pit them against Colorado’s homeowners statewide.

For starters, why not consider cutting or eliminating Colorado’s business personal property tax? A dozen states don’t assess business personal property at all. Some other states have lower business personal property taxes than does Colorado.

Gallagher presents real problems advocates of Amendment B want to solve. But overturning the amendment goes too far and jeopardizes Colorado’s appeal for low property taxes that help keep people in their homes during troubling times. Consider voting “yes” on local repeals of Gallagher, but vote “no” on Amendment B.

State Proposition EE

X Yes

No

Prop EE asks to increase taxes by $294 million annually “by imposing a tax on nicotine liquids used in e-cigarettes and other vaping products…” The tax, when fully phased in, would be equal the state tax on tobacco products.

New revenues would fund public schools “to help offset revenue that has been lost as a result of the economic impacts related to COVID-19 and then for programs that reduce the use of tobacco and nicotine products, enhance the voluntary Colorado preschool program and make it widely available for free, and maintain the funding for programs that currently receive revenue from tobacco taxes.”

Prop EE would incrementally raise the tax on tobacco products by up to 22% of a manufacturer’s list price. It would hike the cigarette tax by up to 9-cents per cigarette and would establish a minimum tax for snuff products.

Nicotine addiction is a drain on this country and a threat to public health. We want less of nicotine and therefore should tax it like any dangerous product that harms our country and economy. Vote “yes” on Prop EE. Vote yes to make nicotine a cost-prohibitive addiction.

Denver Ballot Measure 2A

Yes

X No

This $36 million-a-year, 0.25% local sales tax hike aspires to shrink Denver’s carbon footprint in hopes of waging war against climate change. For all of the proposal’s lofty language and good intentions about reducing emissions — it stands to have almost no practical impact on Denver’s carbon footprint. Its only discernible impact, in fact, will be on your pocketbook every time you make a purchase.

The proposal — like most tax hikes on this fall’s ballot — couldn’t come at a worse time amid an economy reeling from COVID. And it’s not only the proposal’s bad timing that should trouble taxpayers. 2A’s vague, broad and, at times, incomprehensible wish list for spending the revenue — spreading the proceeds around the sprawling bureaucracy of Denver city government — is both outlandish and galling. Some of the provisions cry out for credulity, lacking any real-world connection to their stated purpose. Bottom line: This wishful approach to reducing the city’s carbon output tries to chart a course toward a cleaner, greener tomorrow — without so much as a roadmap or a compass. Vote no.

Denver Ballot Measure 2B

Yes

X No

This is another 0.25% sales tax hike Denver voters are being asked to fork over — in this case, to fuel the city’s labyrinth-like bureaucracy dedicated to serving the homeless. Arguably, that’s the fundamental and fatal flaw in this proposal: It seeks to serve — read: enable — the city’s never-ending homeless population rather than to help the homeless find a means of permanently getting off the streets and moving on to productive lives.

According to a comprehensive report last year by Denver’s city auditor on City Hall’s wide-ranging homeless services, the city budgeted $37 million toward the effort in 2018 and, last year, expanded the budget for homeless services to more than $51 million. Assorted agencies spend the money on various services, comprising a cottage bureaucracy within the broader bureaucracy at City Hall.

All of it is arguably laudable — if mostly for its good intentions — but largely futile. That’s not to say the situation is hopeless, but it requires fresh thinking and a new approach — not another rudderless infusion of public funding. True compassion for the chronically homeless — many if not most of whom have substance-abuse issues and / or mental health problems — is about helping them move beyond homelessness and not just subsidizing their lifestyle. We recommend voting no.

Denver Ballot Measures 2C, 2D, 2E and 2G

Yes

X No

This passel of proposals would second-guess some of the executive branch’s wide-ranging authority and shift it to the City Council. The measures stand to make an already-tense relationship between council and mayor even more dysfunctional.

The measures in theory advance civic virtues like accountability, checks and balances and so forth — presumably by making the executive branch more answerable to the public via the council. Yet, taken all together, C, D, E and G pose a very different reality: hamstringing the chain of command; miring the council in even lengthier debates and ever-nastier spats with the mayor; derailing mayoral initiatives with overlapping political agendas, and slowing day-to-day business at City Hall to a near standstill. For the good of your local government, vote no.

Denver Public Schools Ballot Measures 4A and 4B

Yes

X No

The proposals — 4A is a new mill levy, and 4B is a bond issue; the net effect is a property tax hike — would fund a wide-ranging list of district priorities. Some of those priorities seem more pressing than others. Yet, there are priorities that are even higher than anything on the district’s wish list.

One is that many sectors of the economy are still stumbling in the aftermath of the COVID shutdown and its ripple effects, and plenty of Denverites still have their backs to the wall. Even if some of the asks on the district’s short list for these ballot proposals might be warranted at some point, now is not the time.

Another, more urgent priority that should trump DPS’ wish list is a fundamental, strategic consideration — the long-overdue need to reassess the overall direction of the district. Since a new majority took control of the DPS board following last November’s election, it has made its displeasure abundantly clear regarding reforms implemented by previous boards. What the new board majority has not made clear is its own plans for replacing those reforms — for propelling our children onward and upward along the education curve. 

We need to know more about where the DPS board wants to take our children before it can charge more bus fare.