Colorado Proposition 119, Creation Of Out-Of-School Education Program And Marijuana Sales Tax Increase Initiative (2021)

From Ballotpedia
Colorado Proposition 119
Flag of Colorado.png
Election date
November 2, 2021
Topic
Taxes and Education
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens
2021 measures
November 2
Colorado Amendment 78 Defeated
Colorado Proposition 119 Defeated
Colorado Proposition 120 Defeated
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

Colorado Proposition 119, the Creation of Out-of-School Education Program and Marijuana Sales Tax Increase Initiative, was on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute on November 2, 2021. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported creating the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program (LEAP) and increasing the marijuana retail sales tax by 5 percentage points from 15% to 20% to partially fund the program.

A "no" vote opposed creating the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program and increasing the marijuana retail sales tax by 5 percentage points, thereby leaving in place the existing tax rate of 15%.


Election results[edit]

Colorado Proposition 119

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 701,476 45.75%

Defeated No

831,668 54.25%
Precincts reporting: 100%
Election results are unofficial until certified. These results were last updated on November 15, 2021 at 6:15:54 PM Eastern Time.
Source

Overview[edit]

What out-of-school education program would Proposition 119 have created?[edit]

See also: Measure design and Text measure

Proposition 119 would have created the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program, also known as the LEAP Program. Eligible children would have included children at least five years of age and no older than 17 years who are eligible for admission to Colorado public schools. The program would have provided out-of-school services that would have consisted of but not have been limited to the following:[1]

How would Proposition 119 have changed marijuana taxes?[edit]

The measure would have increased the marijuana retail sales tax incrementally from 15% to 20% to partially fund the program. Beginning January 2022, an additional 3% marijuana retail tax would have been levied for a total of 18%. Beginning January 2023, the additional tax would have increased to 4% for a total of 19%. After January 2024, the additional tax would have increased to 5% for a total tax of 20% on marijuana retail sales. Beginning in January 2022, the state treasurer would have been required to transfer the revenue generated from the additional marijuana tax to the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Fund monthly. If the initiative would have been approved by voters, any revenue the state collected from the increased marijuana sales tax would have been considered a voter-approved revenue change and exempt from the TABOR state spending limit.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 119?[edit]

See also: Support, Opposition, and Campaign finance
How current is this information?

Learning Opportunities for Colorado's Kids led the Yes on Prop 119 campaign. The committee reported $2.58 million in contributions and $2.38 million in expenditures. The top two donors were Gary Community Investment Company, which gave $1.97 million, and Ready Colorado, which gave $625,000.[2]

LEAP 4 Co said, "Despite heroic work by educators and school districts among unprecedented circumstances, many Colorado school children have been falling further behind – particularly students of color, those from low-income families, or those with special needs. This 'opportunity gap' and 'achievement gap' have been a cause of great concern in Colorado for years. COVID has only made the situation worse. Out-of-school learning has shown to be an effective tool for closing the gap, but not everyone can afford it. On the heels of COVID, closing the gap has taken on a special urgency. Now is the time to take the first step, because the future of so many young people is on the line."

Three committees registered to oppose the initiative: No on Prop 119, Coloradans Against School Vouchers, and Cannabis Community for Fairness and Safety. Together, the committees reported raising $17,557 in cash and in-kind contributions. The committees reported $15,629 in cash expenditures.[3]

Taxpayers for Public Education, which donated $7,500 to the campaigns opposing the initiative, said, "Initiative 25 is a public school voucher scheme that would undermine Colorado’s public schools and potentially divert money into private institutions that could discriminate against students based on their religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration status, or heritage."

How did Proposition 119 get on the ballot?[edit]

See also: Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) and Path to the ballot

Measures that can go on the ballot during odd years are limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution). This requirement was added to state statute in 1994.[4]

Proponents submitted 203,335 signatures. On August 25, 2021, the Colorado Secretary of State announced that 145,076 were projected to be valid. To qualify, 124,632 valid signatures were required. The sponsoring committee paid $683,790 to Blitz Canvassing for signature gathering.[5]

Measure design[edit]

Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program (LEAP Program): Purpose and eligibility

The initiative would have created the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program, also known as the LEAP Program. Eligible children would have included children at least five years of age and no older than 17 years who were eligible for admission to Colorado public schools. The program would have provided out-of-school services that would have consisted of but not have been limited to the following:

  • tutoring in core subject areas,
  • instruction in English and foreign languages,
  • career and technical training,
  • emotional and physical therapy,
  • mental health services,
  • special support for students with special needs, and
  • mentoring.

Services would not have included in-school instruction or programs to make up credits regardless of what time of day the program is taught. Services would have also excluded anything for which school tuition was paid.[6]

Colorado Learning Authority: Governance and responsibilities

The initiative would have created the Colorado Learning Authority, an independent agency within Colorado's Department of Education, to administer the program. The agency would have consisted of a nine-member board of directors appointed by the governor. No more than five members of the board would have been allowed to be from the same political party. The deadline to appoint the first board of directors would have been January 15, 2022. The initiative stated that the governor should appoint directors with experience in start-ups and educational services to the initial board. The initiative would have also required that one director of the initial board be a parent of an eligible child. The term of the initial board would have been three years.[6]

The governor would have been required to appoint the subsequent board members from a list of recommendations by the existing board, who could have accepted public applications for the positions. After January 1, 2025, the initiative would have required the board to have one member from each congressional district and meet the following criteria:

  • four members who are parents or legal guardians of eligible children,
  • two members who represent nonprofit organizations that serve low-income households and communities, and
  • three members who have experience working with eligible children.

The term of subsequent boards would have been three years with members from odd-numbered congressional districts serving an additional two-year term. Members would have been limited to three consecutive terms and would have been able to receive up to $200 per diem for regularly scheduled board meetings.

The initial and subsequent boards would also have included four additional non-voting members appointed by the board chair and executive director of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs. The four members would have needed to be between the ages of 14 and 19 and be enrolled in a tribal school, home school program, online or charter school, or be participants in a high school equivalency program. Non-voting members would have served two-year terms and would have been limited to two consecutive terms. In addition, the initial board of directors would have needed to establish a learning opportunities parent advisory council and a provider advisory council to give input to the board.[6]

The agency would have been responsible for:[6]

  • increasing access to learning opportunities, developing criteria for the distribution of funds to learning opportunities,
  • creating criteria to evaluate potential providers of learning opportunities,
  • creating a process to ensure priority certification of local school districts, boards of cooperative services, and educators as providers for learning opportunities,
  • establishing processes for screening providers to ensure child safety,
  • creating and administering an application process for eligible children,
  • distributing financial aid on behalf of parents to providers, and
  • creating and implementing by January 1, 2024, an evaluation system for the learning opportunities based on quantitative and qualitative factors.

The initiative would have required the agency to prioritize financial aid according to the following order:[6] 1. children from households at or below 100% of the federal poverty level 2. children from households that are greater than 100% but less than 200% of the federal poverty level 3. children from households at or above 200% of the federal poverty level

When possible, the financial aid would have been a multi-year guarantee of at least three years for children from households at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Publicly available financial audits of the agency would have been required annually.[6]

Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Fund: Deposits and distributions

The initiative would have established the Learning and Enrichment and Academic Progress Fund. Under the initiative, no more than 10% of the fund could have been spent on the administration of the program after the end of fiscal year 2025.

The Colorado Learning Authority would have been allowed to seek gifts, grants, donations, loans, and federal assistance. At the end of the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2021-2022, the state treasurer would have been required to transfer the same amount from the general fund that was, as of 2021, transferred to the state public school fund from the sale and lease of sand, gravel, clay, stone, coal, oil, gas, geothermal resources, gold, silver, or other minerals on public school lands. At the end of each fiscal year thereafter, the state treasurer would have been required to transfer from the general fund to the LEAP Fund the amount of money transferred to the state public school fund. The amount would have been exempt from all revenue and spending limitations. The fiscal impact statement prepared by Legislative Council Staff estimated that this amount would have been about $22 million.[6]

Retail marijuana sales tax: Rate increase

The measure would have increased the marijuana retail sales tax incrementally from 15% to 20% to partially fund the program. Beginning January 2022, an additional 3% marijuana retail tax would have been levied for a total of 18%. Beginning January 2023, the additional tax would have increased to 4% for a total of 19%. After January 2024, the additional tax would have increased to 5% for a total tax of 20% on marijuana retail sales.[6]

Beginning in January 2022, the state treasurer would have been required to transfer the revenue generated from the additional marijuana tax to the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Fund monthly.

The initiative would have resulted in an increase in state revenue by $137.6 million annually once the tax was fully increased to 20%, if the measure had been approved.[6][7]

Text of measure[edit]

Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title for Initiative #25 was as follows:

“ SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $137,600,000 ANNUALLY ON RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLORADO CHILDREN AGED 5 TO 17, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING AN INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES CHOSEN BY PARENTS; FUNDING THE PROGRAM BY INCREASING THE RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES TAX BY 5% BY 2024 AND REALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LANDS INCOME; AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS AND REVENUE FOR PROGRAM FUNDING AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; SPECIFYING THAT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE TUTORING AND EXTRA INSTRUCTION IN SUBJECTS INCLUDING READING, MATH, SCIENCE, WRITING, MUSIC, AND ART, TARGETED SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND LEARNING DISABILITIES, CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRAINING, AND OTHER ACADEMIC OR ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES; AND PRIORITIZING PROGRAM FINANCIAL AID FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS?[8] ”

Fiscal impact statement[edit]

The fiscal impact statement provided in the Colorado Blue Book was follows:[9]

“

On net, Proposition 119 will increase state revenue and spending. It also transfers money between various state funds. These impacts, as well as the estimated impact on taxpayers, are discussed below. The state budget year runs from July 1 through June 30.

State revenue. Proposition 119 will increase state revenue by an estimated $34.8 million in state budget year 2021-22 and by $87.1 million beginning in budget year 2022-23 by increasing the tax on retail marijuana. The amount for state budget year 2021-22 is a half-year impact. This revenue is not subject to state constitutional spending limits. In addition, the measure reduces investment earnings in the Permanent Fund by about $48.2 million over a ten-year period, including $30.7 million in interest earnings that would otherwise be used as funding for the K-12 education system and $17.5 million in forgone capital growth in the balance of the Permanent Fund over ten years.

State spending. Proposition 119 will increase state expenditures from the newly created Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Fund by an estimated $55.8 million in budget year 2021‑22 and $109.1 million in budget year 2022-23 and in future years. The amount for state budget year 2021-22 is a half-year impact. Expenditures will include administration of the Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program and the financial aid award amounts distributed to parents. The change in state spending will equal the change in state revenue and transfers. Transfers of state funds. Proposition 119 will divert $21.0 million in budget year 2021‑22 and $22.0 million beginning in budget year 2022-23 in State Land Trust revenue from the Permanent Fund to the State Public School Fund. The measure then transfers a corresponding amount of revenue each year from the General Fund to the newly created Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Fund. The money transferred is not subject to state constitutional spending limits.

Taxpayer impacts. Proposition 119 will increase the amount of sales taxes paid by Coloradans who purchase marijuana products. State law requires Legislative Council Staff to estimate the potential tax burden on affected taxpayers within specified income categories. However, state law prohibits the collection of personal data on retail marijuana purchasers. Therefore, Legislative Council Staff used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concerning the usage of and spending on tobacco products by income group to produce the estimates in Table 1 below. The table estimates the following information:

  • the estimated number of taxpayers by income category;
  • the total change in tax burden for each income category; and
  • the average change in tax burden for individuals in each income category.[8]
 ”


The full fiscal impact statement with charts and tables provided in the Colorado Blue Book is available here.

Full text[edit]

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[1]

Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2021
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title Board wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 21, and the FRE is 5. The word count for the ballot title is 142, and the estimated reading time is 37 seconds.


Support[edit]

YesonProp119.png

Learning Opportunities for Colorado's Kids (LEAP 4 Co) led the Yes on Prop 119 campaign in support of the initiative.[10] The campaign provided a full list of endorsements, which is available here.

Supporters[edit]

Officials

Former Officials

Organizations

Individuals


Arguments[edit]

  • State Senator Rhonda Fields (D) and State Representative Colin Larson (R): "Prop 119 gives families the financial resources for their kids to participate in sports, dance lessons, foreign-language tutoring, STEM classes, summer camps, and everything else needed for a well-rounded education. At its core, Prop 119 is a recreational marijuana tax to fund tutoring for Colorado’s K-12 students."
  • Former U.S. Senator Mark Udall (D): "Join me in voting yes on the LEAP initiative this November so that our kids — regardless of where they’re born or family income — have opportunities to succeed on their educational journeys."
  • Wellington Webb, former Mayor of Denver: "Our kids deserve access to after-school tutoring and enrichment activities regardless of their family’s income or where they live. Prop 119 helps level the playing field by providing $1500 for tutoring via a small sales tax increase on recreational marijuana. The pandemic widened achievement gaps that have existed in our schools for decades. Our school kids need help catching up in math, reading, and social studies — I urge you to join me in voting yes on Prop 119 for our kids’ educational success."
  • Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver, the San Luis Valley, La Plata County, Fremont County, Black Canyon Boys & Girls Clubs, the Pikes Peak Region, Weld County, Northwest Colorado, Chaffee County, High Rockies, Larimer County, and Pueblo County: "Boys & Girls Clubs across Colorado ensure that all young people, especially those who need us most, have opportunities to realize their potential as responsible, caring, and productive citizens. We believe that Proposition 119 clearly aligns with our mission and that it is in the best interest of the young people and families we serve. The following Clubs across the state endorse supporting Proposition 119 for Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress."
  • Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D): "The hours our children spend after school are a critical time, and Proposition 119 will allow more kids to benefit from after-school learning activities from tutoring to music and art. I’m voting for Prop 119 this November because all kids, no matter their family’s income, deserve access to these enriching opportunities."
  • Brenda Dickhoner of Ready Colorado: "We’re really excited about LEAP because this program empowers parents to spend dollars how they see fit for their children. Giving parents the ability to choose how to spend their dollars, whether it’s for math, tutoring, or piano lessons, or speech therapy is incredibly important to helping those kids thrive."
  • Tim Taylor, cofounder and president of America Succeeds: "The priority and and our rationale behind this is all about equity. It is leveling the playing field for these kids where we know that the average family spends $5,000 a year on supplemental educational services for their kids, and when that's not available to everybody, this is designed to make sure that more kids do."
  • Monica Colbert Burton of LEAP 4 Co: "The learning loss that we’ve seen during the pandemic is so much higher than we’ve ever seen before particularly for our low-income families and our students that don’t have access to the same resources."
  • Amy Anderson, executive director of ReSchool Colorado: "Those things are very expensive, and so if you don’t have the resources or lack of information about where to find those items, longitudinally you’re at a disadvantage in terms of life outcomes for kids. The initiative as it is written is pretty open to allowing people to pursue what they chose; it’s really driven by need, interest, aspirations of the families and the kids."
  • Former state Senator and president and CEO of Gary Community Investments Mike Johnston (D): "Low-income kids by fifth grade will be up to two to three grade levels behind just because of the lack of exposure they’re getting to after-school programming and summer school programming. We think you can’t really make a long-term commitment to providing an equitable experience without addressing some of those out-of-school experiences."
  • LEAP 4 Co: "Despite heroic work by educators and school districts among unprecedented circumstances, many Colorado school children have been falling further behind – particularly students of color, those from low-income families, or those with special needs. This 'opportunity gap' and 'achievement gap' have been a cause of great concern in Colorado for years. COVID has only made the situation worse. Out-of-school learning has shown to be an effective tool for closing the gap, but not everyone can afford it. On the heels of COVID, closing the gap has taken on a special urgency. Now is the time to take the first step, because the future of so many young people is on the line."


Official arguments[edit]

The official arguments provided in the Colorado Blue Book were as follows:[9]

  • Official Blue Book argument: "1) Proposition 119 increases the sales tax on retail marijuana to fund financial aid for tutoring and other out-of-school learning opportunities for Colorado students. Even before the pandemic, tutoring and out-of-school instructional support were badly needed by the significant number of students who are not proficient in reading, writing, or math. School closures caused by COVID have urgently increased the need for outside instructional support, especially among low-income students who cannot afford the cost of tutoring or enrichment services. 2) Proposition 119 supports the academic and developmental needs of all students, and low-income students will be prioritized for financial aid. The measure empowers an independent, bipartisan board to certify that tutoring and enrichment providers are qualified and accountable. Once financial aid is awarded, families and students will have the choice about which certified tutors or other instructional providers best meet the specific needs of their student."


Opposition[edit]

NoonProp119.png

No on Prop 119 led the campaign against the initiative.[11]

Opponents[edit]

Officials

Former Officials

Political Parties

Unions

Organizations


Arguments[edit]

  • State Senator Chris Kolker (D): 'Proposition 119 misleads the voters by saying that the revenue raised through this proposition will be utilized to help low-income children improve their academic performance. In fact, it only does so for the first year. After year one of its implementation, all students regardless of economic stature can access these dollars. It also allows public money to be directed to private out-of-school service providers (including religious based schools) instead of investing it directly into public schools. If voters want to raise taxes for education, the revenue would be better used to expand the capacity of public schools in every community, keeping the money under local control and allowing them to reinstate programs they have had to cut and to provide additional learning and enrichment opportunities for children."
  • Colorado Leads, an association of marijuana companies: "This initiative imposes a regressive tax on people’s pain, especially veterans, teachers and the elderly who need cannabis for medicine but can’t get a medical card, and while local communities generate this tax, local school boards have no say over the education programs it pays for. If these ballot measures are so beneficial to all Coloradans, why aren’t other industries asked to pay their fair share of these taxes?"
  • Judy Solano (D), retired public elementary school teacher and former Colorado State Representative/Vice Chair of the House Education Committee: "Not one penny of LEAP would benefit our underfunded public schools where these students attend, but instead, would line the pockets of private investors and profiteers. ... LEAP is another pet project of the rich, corporate charlatans with their insatiable hunger to profit from taxpayer dollars. They operate by convincing voters that they are the good guys who have come to the rescue. Don’t be fooled. Send a message this November that public education is not for sale and we will not be deceived. Vote NO on Proposition 119."
  • No on Prop 119: "We cannot allow public education funds to be taken and given to private and out-of-state companies who have no oversight or accountability to Colorado taxpayers. Proposition 119 will hurt our local public school districts. Colorado’s public schools are among the most poorly funded classrooms in the nation. Proposition 119 is a scam that will further reduce our students’ success. Proposition 119 gives money to private education providers with no accountability or oversight. There is no criteria as to what is a legitimate learning program. Our tax dollars could go to anyone or anything claiming to be an educational service. Colorado teachers played an integral role in surviving the pandemic, yet our state ranks 47th in the nation in per pupil funding and we face massive teacher shortages. Proposition 119 is a tax increase on small businesses as we recover from a global pandemic."
  • Marijuana Industry Group: "While the cannabis industry strongly supports additional funding and further earmarking of existing cannabis taxes for education and mental health in Colorado, we feel strongly that our customers are not in support of the proposed tax. If this measure passes, Colorado cannabis shoppers could pay near or even above 30% in taxes — this is not a sustainable rate and is drastically more than customers pay for any other good in the state."
  • Colorado NORML: "Excessive taxes on cannabis products will send patients and consumers back to the black market. Colorado needs to prioritize where the money is spent and if schools require more funding allocate more funds out of the already $2 Billion dollars of cannabis revenue and allocate some of those funds to highway and road construction. We have support for education, mental health, communal support and impact, along with youth drug prevention classes. Colorado need to utilize that $2 Billion in revenue towards lacking funds for education and after school programs. This Ballot Initiative is an unnecessary tax burden. Colorado’s total marijuana sales surpassed $2 Billion in 2020 - State dispensaries brought in $175,145,246 in Nov, a 17% increase from 2019 with the State reaping $32,383,094 in revenue from taxes and fees. When is too high too HIGH!?"
  • Kim Monson: "This raises marijuana taxes so high, that it makes the black market more attractive, thereby inviting even more criminal activity into Colorado and making our communities less safe. [...] We all agree that our children are falling behind in their education. The solution is not LEAP which increases marijuana taxes to create a huge new unelected, unaccountable government bureaucracy. [...] And on the last page (14), last two paragraphs, LEAP de-TABORs (Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights amendment to the Colorado Constitution) future revenue, spending, and appropriations."
  • Cherry Creek public school teacher Kasey Ellis: "Public education is the foundation of our democratic republic. We need to find ways to increase opportunities for all our students. Initiative 25 takes money from our public schools and puts it into the hands of people who can discriminate against our students based on their gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or race."
  • Taxpayers for Public Education: "Colorado Education Association (CEA), the state's largest union of public school educators with over 38,000 K-12 teachers, faculty, and retired educators, withdrew support of Initiative 25 on Sunday evening. Initiative 25 is a public school voucher scheme that would undermine Colorado’s public schools and potentially divert money into private institutions that could discriminate against students based on their religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration status, or heritage."


Official arguments[edit]

The official arguments provided in the Colorado Blue Book were as follows:[9]

  • Official Blue Book argument: 1) Proposition 119 allows public money to be directed to private out-of-school service providers instead of invested directly in public schools. Public dollars set aside for education are needed to support the public education system. If voters want to increase retail marijuana taxes for education, the revenue would be better used to expand the capacity of public schools in every community, keeping the money under local control and allowing school districts to reinstate programs they have had to cut and to provide additional learning and enrichment opportunities for children. 2) Increasing the sales tax on marijuana will further increase the gap in prices between legal marijuana and black-market marijuana, pushing more individuals into the black market and hurting legitimate retail marijuana businesses. Additionally, the retail sales tax on marijuana already places a greater financial burden on low-income individuals; increasing the tax rate will only make this worse.


Media editorials[edit]

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of and excerpts from editorials supporting or opposing ballot measures from the editorial boards of certain media outlets. In this section, Ballotpedia does not include opinion pieces written by individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on:

  • circulation and readership;
  • emphasis on political coverage within a state; and
  • reputation and length of publication.

To submit a media editorial for inclusion, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support[edit]

  • Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Board: "Prop 119 will help stem a widespread educational gap made much worse by COVID-19, by taking funds from a lucrative marijuana market that experienced its best year on record with $2.2 billion in sales in 2020 (a 25% increase from the previous year) during a pandemic, and with no signs of slowing down. The money is there and will continue to be there, so let’s put it to good use."
  • Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "We think it’s a great idea, but the current lack of details of how the program would be created and implemented left some editorial board members concerned. ... Another concern is that LEAP is billed as using “marijuana money” when existing state funds are also being tapped. But the tax hike on marijuana is clearly providing the lion’s share of funding. We take comfort in the fact that support for LEAP is so widespread."
  • Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "You’d think LEAP’s huge dose of funding to bolster student achievement would make it clear that it’s a net gain, and a big one, for Colorado public education. Yet, the 'no' campaign is attempting to argue that because some of LEAP’s funding will come from state trust lands, the proposal will take money 'away from teacher salaries and classroom supplies.' That’s absurd. State trust lands are managed by the State Land Board to support public education among other state institutions. LEAP is exactly the kind of educational investment that state trust lands are intended to support."
  • Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "Who could object to such a smart solution — and why would Big Marijuana even care? Simply because a portion of the funding for LEAP will come from a modest, 5% sales tax on retail marijuana? LEAP represents an effort to make legalized pot pay for at least some of the damage it does to society, especially to our young, on a daily basis. Using a small amount of marijuana proceeds to fund an effort that actually helps children would be a refreshing turnabout."
  • Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "A modest tax on marijuana sales to fund an effort that actually helps children would be a refreshing change. It also arguably is the least we can do to make legal recreational pot pay for some of its collateral damage to Colorado’s kids, families and communities. ... LEAP promises to be a big stride for Colorado’s kids."


Opposition[edit]

  • Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Taxing pot is not a bad idea — although at some point, we might risk killing the golden goose — but why not put the money straight into schools? Why create another agency? Teachers fear this is a surreptitious move to use public money for private schools, and it may be."
  • Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We believe there’s a need for tutoring and enrichment programs but not independent of existing educational structures."
  • Denver Post Editorial Board: "We fear that unscrupulous online education providers will pounce on this opportunity to obtain public funds to offer extremely little in the way of educational attainment, or even child care for that matter. ... If voters do approve this “sin” tax, we hope that we are proven wrong. There is the possibility that school teachers would step up to provide this tutoring. In fact, at the outset teachers and other school employees are the only authorized individuals able to accept LEAP funds. ... It’s a gamble we encourage voters not to make."
  • Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Passage of this proposition will create an unfair business environment weighted against cannabis entrepreneurs and the cost will likely be passed on to the consumer, which could lead to a resurgence of black market sales. In addition, passage of Prop 119 would create the nine-member, governor-appointed Colorado Learning Authority, an unnecessary bureaucracy tied to our educational system."
  • Sentinel Editorial Board: "Prop 119 creates a shadow state education department, complete with its own competing school board. And there’s little doubt dual departments of education would create yet another place for polarizing politics at a time when those issues are already dragging education into the muck. ... Not only do public schools need greater support, the last thing they need is a competing program that would ultimately draw resources from the schools that really are the answer here. Vote no on Prop 119."
  • Journal Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "We’re concerned about the lack of specifics as to what the “enrichment” opportunities would look like and what exactly qualifies for funding. While a state board would be created to oversee the program (yet another state bureaucracy) it would be outside the purview of the State Board of Education. We’re not at all enthusiastic about the CBOE having no supervisory power over any educational program that would impact the public school system, as this one almost surely would. Besides, any new funds from marijuana sales should go to support the public school system. Then there is the matter of adding more taxes to retail marijuana sales. This is a double-whammy of possibly pushing legal users back to the cheaper black market, harming legal marijuana businesses and posing a risk to those users, and potentially killing the goose that lays the golden egg."


Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures
The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through October 27, 2021. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is December 2, 2021.

Learning Opportunities for Colorado's Kids registered as an issue committee to support the initiative. The committee reported $2.58 million in contributions and $2.38 million in expenditures. The top two donors were Gary Community Investment Company, which gave $1.97 million, and Ready Colorado, which gave $625,000. The campaign reported spending $1.2 million on signature gathering with Blitz Canvassing.[12]

Three committees registered to oppose the initiative: No on Prop 119, Coloradans Against School Vouchers, and Cannabis Community for Fairness and Safety. Together, the committees reported raising $73,529.87 in contributions. The committees reported $59,843.67 in expenditures.[13]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $2,582,235.00 $5,000.00 $2,587,235.00 $2,382,452.32 $2,387,452.32
Oppose $60,057.00 $20,972.87 $81,029.87 $46,370.80 $67,343.67

Support[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Proposition 119.[14]

Committees in support of Proposition 119
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Yes on Prop 119 (Learning Opportunities for Colorado's Kids) $2,582,235.00 $5,000.00 $2,587,235.00 $2,382,452.32 $2,387,452.32
Total $2,582,235.00 $5,000.00 $2,587,235.00 $2,382,452.32 $2,387,452.32

Donors[edit]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Gary Community Investment Company $1,978,240.00 $0.00 $1,978,240.00
Ready Colorado $625,000.00 $0.00 $625,000.00
Colorado Assication of Realtors Issues Mobilization Committee $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00
David Carlson $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00
James Kelly $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00

Opposition[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Proposition 119.[14]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 119
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Cannabis Community for Fairness and Safety $55,001.00 $821.74 $55,822.74 $41,346.80 $42,168.54
Coloradans Against School Vouchers $5,055.00 $12,651.13 $17,706.13 $5,000.00 $17,651.13
No on Prop 119 $1.00 $7,500.00 $7,501.00 $24.00 $7,524.00
Total $60,057.00 $20,972.87 $81,029.87 $46,370.80 $67,343.67

Donors[edit]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Marijuana Industry Group $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00
The Green Solution $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00
Taxpayers for Public Education $0.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
Colorado AFL-CIO $5,055.00 $0.00 $5,055.00
Organic Alternatives, Inc. $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00

Background[edit]

Marijuana taxes in Colorado[edit]

Colorado legalized marijuana in 2012 through voter approval of citizen initiated measure Amendment 64. The amendment required the state legislature to enact an excise tax on wholesale marijuana sales with the first $40 million in revenue annually to be credited to the Public School Capital Construction Fund.

In 2013, Colorado voters approved Proposition AA, which allowed the state legislature to levy a 15% excise tax on unprocessed retail marijuana and a 15% retail sales tax on marijuana. Revenue from these taxes is not subject to the TABOR limit. Medical marijuana is subject to the state's 2.9% sales tax rate, which is subject to the TABOR limit.[15]

The following table details marijuana tax revenue from fiscal years 2013-14 to 2019-20.


10% of the revenue from the 15% tax on marijuana retail sales is allocated to local governments and distributed according to the percentage of marijuana retail sales within city and county boundaries. The remaining 90% is distributed as follows:[15]

Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR)[edit]

See also: Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR)

Measures that can go on the ballot during odd years are limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution).

The Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires voter approval for all new taxes, tax rate increases, extensions of expiring taxes, mill levy increases, valuation for property assessment increases, or tax policy changes resulting in increased tax revenue. The Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights was passed by voters in 1992 as Initiative 1. The measure was approved by a vote of 53.68% to 46.32%. The measure was sponsored by Colorado activist Douglas Bruce (R).[16][17]

TABOR limits the amount of money the state of Colorado can take in and spend. It limits the annual increase for some state revenue to inflation plus the percentage change in state population. Any money collected above this limit is refunded to taxpayers unless the voters allow the state to spend it.

Referendum C of 2005[edit]

Referendum C, approved by voters in 2005, authorized the state to retain and spend all of the money it collected above the TABOR limit on healthcare, public education, transportation projects, and local fire and police pensions for five years beginning with fiscal year (FY) 2005-06. During these five years, Colorado residents did not receive the refunds they would have otherwise received under TABOR. After the five-year period, referred to as "the timeout period," Referendum C authorized the state to permanently retain and spend revenue up to a cap, referred to as "the Referendum C cap" (equaling FY 2007-08 revenues adjusted by inflation plus population growth), beginning in FY 2010-11.[18][19][20]

When state voters approve a tax increase or other revenue change, the resulting revenues are exempt from the TABOR limit on fiscal year spending. Below is a chart by the Colorado Legislative Council Staff detailing revenue limits under TABOR:[21]

TABOR ballot measures[edit]

Since 1992, when TABOR was adopted, through 2020, Colorado voters have decided on 22 statewide ballot measures that would have increased revenue for the state, which required voter approval under TABOR.

Six (27%) of the 22 measures were approved while 16 (73%) were defeated.

The six measures that were approved are as follows:

In addition to the above measures, Referendum C, approved by voters in 2005, authorized the state to retain and spend all of the money it collected above the TABOR limit on healthcare, public education, transportation projects, and local fire and police pensions for five years beginning with fiscal year (FY) 2005-06.

Reports and analyses[edit]

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

The following report was published by the Common Sense Institute of Colorado on October 19, 2021.[22]


The full report can be read here.

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Colorado and Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process[edit]

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. State law provides that petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized. State statutes require a completed signature petition to be filed three months and three weeks before the election at which the measure would appear on the ballot. The Constitution, however, states that the petition must be filed three months before the election at which the measure would appear. The secretary of state generally lists a date that is three months before the election as the filing deadline.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2021 ballot:

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

Details about this initiative[edit]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Blitz Canvassing to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,200,000.00 was spent to collect the 124,632 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $9.63.

How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in Colorado

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Colorado.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "Initiative 25 full text," accessed September 16, 2021
  2. ↑ Colorado TRACER, "LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLORADO’S KIDS," accessed September 8, 2021
  3. ↑ Colorado TRACER, "COLORADANS AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS," accessed September 20, 2021
  4. ↑ Lexis Nexis, "C.R.S. 1-41-102 State ballot issue elections in odd-numbered years," accessed August 16, 2019
  5. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ss
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Colorado Secretary of State, "Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results," accessed February 5, 2021
  7. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Fiscal impact statement," accessed August 9, 2021
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Colorado State Legislature, "2021 State Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book)," accessed September 13, 2021
  10. ↑ Leap4Co, "Home," accessed June 16, 2021
  11. ↑ No on Prop 119, "Home," accessed September 20, 2021
  12. ↑ Colorado TRACER, "LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLORADO’S KIDS," accessed November 1, 2021
  13. ↑ Colorado TRACER, "COLORADANS AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS," accessed November 1, 2021
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named finance
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Colorado State Legislature, "Marijuana Taxes," accessed August 30, 2021
  16. ↑ Colorado Statesman, "Springs Council rethinks TABOR repeal," January 16, 2009
  17. ↑ Colorado State Legislative Council, "Ballot History," accessed February 20, 2014
  18. ↑ Blue Book: "2005 State Ballot Information Booklet," accessed June 21, 2019
  19. ↑ Colorado.gov, "Colorado Legislative Council Staff: July 6, 2009, memorandum concerning TABOR and Referendum C," accessed September 9, 2019
  20. ↑ Colorado.gov, "Colorado Legislative Council Staff: November 29, 2018, memorandum concerning the TABOR revenue limit," accessed September 0, 2019
  21. ↑ Colorado Legislature, "TABOR," accessed August 9, 2018
  22. ↑ Common Sense Institute of Colorado, "Potential Reach of Proposition 119 The Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program (LEAP)," accessed October 21, 2021
  23. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named gj
  24. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "2021-2022 Proposed Initiative #25 “Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program”," accessed August 25, 2021
  25. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Mail-in Ballots FAQs," accessed September 12, 2019
  26. ↑ Colorado Revised Statutes, "1-7-101," accessed October 17, 2019
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "Voter Registration FAQs," accessed October 6, 2019
  28. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Go Vote Colorado," accessed October 6, 2019
  29. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Acceptable Forms of Identification," accessed September 29, 2019
  30. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Identification Requirements|Voter ID Laws," June 5, 2017
  31. ↑ The Washington Post, "Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states," October 27, 2014
v • e
2021 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Colorado • Maine • Washington
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Flag of Colorado
v • e
State of Colorado
Denver (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 12/24/2021 03:03:22 | 1 views
☰ Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_119,_Creation_of_Out-of-School_Education_Program_and_Marijuana_Sales_Tax_Increase_Initiative_(2021) | License: CC BY-SA 3.0

ZWI signed:
  Encycloreader by the Knowledge Standards Foundation (KSF) ✓[what is this?]

ZWI viewer by the EncyclosphereKSF