With election season in full swing, last week I tackled one of the biggest issues Colorado voters face: Proposition 131. The takeaway? It’s a tough call, and many readers agreed.
But 131 is hardly the only contentious or complex issue on this year’s ballot. So this week let’s turn our attention to three more big Colorado topics: hunting, guns and schools.
Hunting of Colorado’s big cats
Proposition 127 feels complicated, but it’s not. It simply boils down to whether or not you believe the main reason hunters pay upwards of tens of thousands of dollars to specialized canine outfitters to kill Colorado’s Big Cats is for only the meat.
On a matter of common sense, I find this claim patently absurd. But even if the mountain lion meat is a delicacy, as some anti-127 proponents claim, paying outfitters outlandish fees to obtain such meat as an aside to seeking animal fur is still, by definition, trophy hunting. This is why I support 127 to end trophy hunting of Colorado’s Big Cats.
If you aren’t convinced, it’s worth addressing a few common claims by those against the measure. For starters, they claim hunters regulate lion populations, despite copious evidence Big Cats are self-regulating. They claim “ballot box biology” is unfair, an argument that not only implies voter values don’t matter, but also one that somehow gets lost for many of the very same voters when it comes to a woman’s biology — a contradiction of the highest order.
Then there are claims of economic loss, despite being a drop in the bucket of Colorado’s overall economy. Besides, highlighting how much money Colorado hunting organizations bring in to lure out-of-state hunters to kill Big Cats screams trophy hunting, not “I’m a local here to conserve wildlife.”
Long story short, I support Proposition 127, and I hope you will, too.
Gun taxes
Proposition KK is about taxes, but it’s also about values: Should gun owners be required to contribute in the form of firearm purchase taxes to aid victims of gun violence and improve public safety as related to shootings?
The answer is fundamentally and unequivocally yes. Securing funds for gun victims and safety is one more tool in our toolbox to reduce the impact of gun violence, an issue that is top of mind for many Colorado voters due to ongoing high rates. And who better to help pay a little extra for those public services than those who insist on owning deadly weapons in the first place? I certainly can’t think of anyone. Can you?
School funding
Amendment 80 is devious. At first glance, it sounds like an easy, happy choice for parents. It’s not.
Coloradans are already guaranteed free public education, and Amendment 80 is a sneaky attempt to dupe voters into diverting taxpayer funds away from public schools toward private ones, including religious institutions.
There are already several examples of religious charter schools in the state, as well as schools that refuse to meet basic scientific and education criteria per state guidelines. There are also already legal questions about the initiative, so do voters really think mandating taxpayer dollars for private schools is a good idea? I certainly hope not.
This means that even for those who support school choice, it is imperative to vote no on Amendment 80 to avoid the improper dispensing of public tax dollars. This is especially true for preventing public funds from going toward religious private schools with flimsy oversight.
Trish Zornio is a scientist, lecturer and writer who has worked at some of the nation’s top universities and hospitals. She’s an avid rock climber and was a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado. Trish can be found on Twitter @trish_zornio
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at [email protected].
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.
Link to original article