The state constitution requires the state to produce a voter information booklet, commonly known as the “Blue Book,” on every legislatively referred and citizen-initiated measure to appear on the statewide election ballot. The booklet, prepared by Legislative Council Staff (LCS), must provide fair and impartial analysis of each measure. LCS solicits public comments on all drafts it produces for each measure.
Independence Institute’s Fiscal Policy Center previously reviewed the first draft and second draft of the Proposition NN Blue Book analysis and submitted comments for both versions. LCS will review all public comments on the third draft and decide how to incorporate them into the official version for the Blue Book.
Independence Institute submitted the following comments on the third draft to LCS.
Title – The title currently reads: Proposition NN: Keep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes
- As I also explained in my comments on the previous drafts of NN, I still believe this title could be improved by mentioning the new way Proposition NN’s spending limit is calculated. Many Coloradans are familiar with spending-limit questions such as Referendum C, but do not realize that NN is quite different from those questions due to the Prop NN formula.
Suggested language: Proposition NN: Keep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes Under a New TABOR Formula
Page 1, under “What Your Vote Means” – This sentence currently reads: A “yes” vote on Proposition NN allows the state to keep some or all of the revenue that otherwise would be refunded to taxpayers under TABOR.
- Even though you go into it in more detail later in the analysis, I still think it is worth mentioning here, early on, that NN’s limit is based on a new TABOR formula.
Suggested language: A “yes” vote on Proposition NN allows the state to keep some or all of the revenue that otherwise would be refunded to taxpayers under TABOR, based on a new formula tied to prior education spending.
Page 1, starting at line 13 – This sentence currently reads: The retained revenue must be spent on K-12 education, programs that support children, and other purposes.
- I believe the version of this sentence from the second draft is better than this version. The sentence could appear to imply that the retained revenue must immediately be spent on other purposes, which is not true until after ten years.
Page 2, starting on line 20 – This sentence currently reads: The maximum amount the state may keep is equal to the current TABOR limit, plus the highest amount the state has spent on K-12 education from certain funding sources in previous years.
- As I mentioned in my second-draft comments, the use of “certain funding sources” appears unnecessarily opaque. I think the phrase could either be removed if you think explaining it would be needlessly complex for voters, or articulate which “certain funding sources” count toward the new limit. As it reads now, it could raise questions for voters that the rest of the analysis does not address.
Page 5, starting on line 5 – This sentence currently reads: Money in the Children’s Account must first be used for increased teacher pay and retention, access to career and technical courses, and smaller class sizes. This money will be distributed to school districts and charter schools that then decide how to spend this money within allowable uses.
- As I mentioned in my previous comments on the second draft, I still think this language implies that the money must be spent on all listed categories, which is not guaranteed. Perhaps using “and/or” would better clarify that the money is not guaranteed to be spent on all the categories in all districts. I appreciate that you addressed this in the “Arguments For” section, but I think it can still be made clearer here.
