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 both drafts it produces for each measure.
Independence Institute’s Fiscal Policy Center previously reviewed the first draft of the Proposition NN Blue Book analysis and submitted comments for review. LCS will review all public comments on the second draft and decide how to incorporate them into the official version for the Blue Book.
Independence Institute submitted the following comments on the second draft to LCS.
Page 1, The Title – The Title for Proposition NN currently reads: Keep and Spend Money for Education and Public Purposes
- I do believe that the new title for Prop NN is improved from the first draft. However, it still neglects to mention that the measure would permanently change the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and base the new revenue and spending limit on an unprecedented formula.
Suggested language: Proposition NN: Keep and Spend Money for Education and Public Purposes Under a New TABOR Formula
Page 1, starting under the What Your Vote Means Section
- I think it is important for voters to understand, whether in the “yes” or “no” sections, that the new TABOR limit would be fundamentally different from the original TABOR and Referendum C limits. Many voters value the traditional TABOR formula of population growth plus inflation, because these factors are outside the direct control of the state government. Because the new limit is directly tied to state action, it is not as simple as a limit increase in the way Ref C was. While the analysis does explain this later on, I believe this is an important section to mention these changes.
Page 1, starting at line 24 – This sentence currently reads: The new limit is based on the amount the state government spends on public education.
- Similar to my previous comment, I think here is a good place to clearly and concisely explain that the new limit is different from the traditional formula.
Suggested language: The new limit is based on the amount the state government spends on public education, which differs from the current formula, which is based on the prior year’s limit and adjusted for population and inflation.
Page 1, starting at line 29 – This sentence currently reads: The measure dedicates K-12 education spending to teacher pay and retention, smaller class sizes, career and technical courses, school services, disability services, and more instruction hours, as described below.
- It must be made clear to voters that the newly retained revenue must be spent on at least one of the listed categories, but is not guaranteed to be spent on all of them and will be spent at the discretion of school districts. Therefore, while many voters may vote for the measure in the hopes that their local teachers get paid more, it is not actually guaranteed by the measure, as their district may instead choose to only spend money to reduce class sizes and improve access to career and technical courses, for example.
Page 2, starting at line 23 – This sentence currently reads: The most the state may keep under Proposition NN is equal to the highest amount the state has spent on K-12 education from certain funding sources in previous years.
- I think this language could be made clearer to voters as the “certain funding sources” feels unnecessarily opaque. I think it could also be more explicit that the retained amount is equal to the highest amount the state has spent in any previous year.
Suggested language: The most the state may keep under Proposition NN is equal to the highest amount the state has spent in any previous year on the state share of school finance and categorical programs from TABOR-subject revenue.
Page 4, starting at line 11 – The sentence currently reads: After ten years, money must be spent on K-12 Education, and the state legislature will determine how to spend any remaining retained money.
- This sentence could be potentially misleading because of how it is structured. It could appear to voters that the state legislature will determine how to spend any remaining retained money so long as it relates to K-12 Education. However, the additional retained revenue is not limited to K-12 Education, as shown in Figure 3.
Suggested language: After ten years, a portion of the retained money must still be spent on K-12 Education according to the calculation in the measure, but the state legislature may spend any remaining retained money for any other purpose.
Page 5, starting at line 10 – This sentence currently reads: Proposition NN raises teacher pay, reduces class sizes, and improves career and technical education in every school district in the state.
- As explained in an earlier comment, this language is misleading to voters. The measure does not actually guarantee that funding will increase for all of these categories, as it is up to the district to decide. This sentence makes it sound like all of these categories are guaranteed to see funding increases in every district, which is not certain.
Page 7, under Children’s Programs – This sentence currently reads: Any retained money remaining after paying the required amounts for property tax reimbursements and K-12 Education must be spent on programs that support children.
- This section does not explain that the children’s programs requirement only lasts for 10 years, after which the remaining retained revenue may be spent at the legislature’s discretion. I know this is explained in the Long-term spending section, but I think it would be helpful to make it clear here as well.
