This is the homepage of the Republican Party of Adams County, Colorado. Below we’ve listed all the Republicans appearing on ballots in Adams County. To learn more about them and find links to their campaign Websites, please see our Candidates page. We’ve also provided resources to consider when deciding how to vote on ballot measures.
Please refer to this page when filling out your ballot, and turn it in early! We’ll need 100% turnout by Republican voters to keep our principled, hard-working incumbents in off, and to elect our conservative challengers to the offices they are seeking.
Statewide Ballot Measures
The ACRC has not taken an official position on any of the ballot measures to be voted on this year. However, we would like to share the opinions of several conservative-leaning individuals that you can consider as you decide how to vote on these issues.
The personal views of ACRC Chairman Anil Mathai are presented here (again, ACRC has no position for or against any ballot measures as a group; these are Chairman Mathai’s own views):
Amendment A: NO
Purpose: The Colorado Constitution currently says “There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Amendment A would remove everything after the first comma.
Analysis: Slavery is illegal. My thought is that the ultimate goal is to not allow prisoners to perform “free work” but they get paid by the taxpayers for work performed. Pathetic move as they don’t want prisoners to pay society back for their crimes; personal responsibility is rejected.
Amendment V: NO
Purpose: To lower the minimum age to serve in the Colorado state legislature from 25 to 21.
Analysis: Maturity is needed in government. 25-35 is a good minimum. Maybe we work one day at making a maximum age of 75 in government.
Amendment W: YES
Purpose: To allow county clerks to shorten the judicial retention part of ballots by asking the retention question at the top of the list of each court’s judges where judges are facing retention, rather than having to repeat the entire question for each judge. In other words, the state Supreme Court would have the question, followed by the list of judges facing retention, then the state’s district courts would have the question, followed by that court’s list of judges facing retention, etc. This would apply to statewide and local judicial retention questions.
Analysis: Saving paper by putting words in each section not under each person.
Amendment X: YES
Purpose: To remove the definition of “industrial hemp” from the state Constitution so that it will be defined either by federal law or by Colorado statute.
Analysis: This wording doesn’t need to be in a state Constitution. Other areas need to be looked at to reduce the monstrosity known as the “Colorado Constitution”.
Amendment Y: NO
Purpose: To create an independent commission for the purpose of drawing Colorado’s congressional district maps every 10 years, to end the excessive politicization of that process.
Analysis: I hate this con game sponsored by “open primary” con artist Kent Thiry.
Amendment Z: NO
Purpose: To create an independent commission for the purpose of drawing Colorado’s state legislative maps every 10 years, to end the excessive politicization of that process. This is the analog of Amendment Y but for the state legislature rather than the federal Congress.
Analysis: I hate this con game sponsored by “open primary” con artist Kent Thiry.
Amendment 73 (formerly Prop 93): NO
Purpose: To increase income tax rates on Coloradans earning over $150,000 (whether as individuals or married filing jointly) from 4.63% to a maximum rate of 8.25%, ostensibly to support a new “Quality Public Education Fund” and to fund specified minimum expenditures on a per-pupil basis, and for specific programs such as full-day kindergarten, preschool, gifted & talented, and English language proficiency. There would be a very small drop in the residential property tax rate (from 7.2% to 7%), a drop in the commercial property tax rate (from 29% to 24%) and an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 4.63% to 6%. Proponents claim the measure would raise $1.6 billion annually (which, of course, means that’s $1.6 billion less that we keep of our own earnings.)
Analysis: Taxation is theft! Enough of this nonsense!
Amendment 74 (formerly Prop 108): YES
Purpose: To amend the Colorado State Constitution to require the government to compensate landowners (or owners of other property) if the value of the land/property is reduced through the enactment of a state law or regulation.
Analysis: I understand the payment issue but the root issue is the government taking private property in the first place. Rejecting this Amendment should hopefully put pressure back on the original issue of eminent domain, etc. UPDATED 10/8/18 – I’ve now noticed many democrat cities and crony republicans are opposed to this. Why? My antenna goes up. For the short term, I have changed my mind and will vote Yes only for the immediate goal of scaring government to stop spending and stealing private poverty via eminent domain, etc. But overall, we still need to go after the big property theft issue in the first place.
Amendment 75 (formerly Prop 173): NO
Purpose: To amend campaign contribution limits for statewide (non-federal) candidates so that if any candidate donates or loans one million dollars or more to his/her own campaign, then the campaign contribution limits would rise to five times their then-current level.
Analysis: I understand the intention but I vote against it because rich Republicans do the same thing as Polis in other states. Lower limits forces candidates to talk to many people. In other states, candidates only need to reach out to big donors thereby giving the Grassroots no major influence!
Proposition 109 (formerly Initiative 167): YES
Purpose: To require the state government to issue $3.5 billion in bonds “with the proceeds to be spent solely on road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance and repair” on a specified list of projects across the state, and to repay the bonds out of existing state revenue sources, i.e. without raising taxes.
Analysis: The state general fund has the money to pay back these bonds. No taxes are raised.
Proposition 110 (formerly Initiative 153): NO
Purpose: To authorize the Colorado Dept. of Transportation to issue up to $6 billion dollars in bonds to fund “transportation” and fund the repayment of the bonds by raising the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3.52% for 20 years, raising an anticipated $767 million annually from Colorado shoppers.
Analysis: Corrupt Chamber of Commerce, who should be for the free market, want to continue the growing fleecing of taxpayers and hurting middle class families instead of holding government accountable to its current general fund. Tax more – no way!
Proposition 111 (formerly Initiative 126): NO
Purpose: To reduce the maximum allowable interest rate on short-term “payday” loans to 36% per year and bar any other fees or finance charges associated with such loans.
Analysis: Let people be responsible for their own actions. No need for government to protect people for being stupid. Lessons will only be learned when there is a pain point. Hopefully sound economic principles are relayed to society accordingly.
Proposition 112 (formerly Initiative 97): NO
Purpose: To mandate that any new oil and gas development projects, including fracking, other than those on federal lands, be at least 2,500 feet from occupied buildings (homes, schools, hospitals, etc) and any other areas that government defines as “vulnerable” which would include almost every body of water along with parks, playgrounds, open space and an essentially unlimited range of other places.
Analysis: Utter madness to kill the number one industry in Colorado; devastating middle class families! Environmentalists are crazy and don’t care about truly wanting to destroy the state financially!
Finally, for those in the Adams 12 School District, here is an open letter from the sole conservative Board Member of the district regarding the Measure 5C Mill Levy Override:
Does Adams 12 have a Priority Problem or a Funding Problem?
Vote NO on the 5C Mill Levy Override Ballot Question
I serve on the Adams 12 Board of Education. I’m not writing this letter as a board representative but rather as a well-informed community member.
I have one big question for the voters in Adams 12 to consider – Does the school district have a funding problem or a priority problem?
I’ve been involved as a parent leader and as a board member for the last 15 years. During this time one particular budget item has aroused my particular hostility because it helps relatively few and harms our students. This budget item is the Longevity Stipend that we pay out to retirees.
Keeping the Longevity Stipends over mission critical budget items is the reason I voted “NO” as a board member for putting the Adams 12 Mill Levy Override Ballot Question 5C on this year’s ballot.
The Longevity Stipends pay retired staff additional funds above and beyond their state retirement pension from PERA. These stipend payouts max out at over $85,000 per retiree and are exceedingly generous when the revenue is healthy. However it is difficult to justify during budget cuts like those of the last 8 years. At first blush this may sound like an argument for more funding but let’s take a closer look.
When Adams 12 makes budget cuts it is important to see what is cut and what remains. The items that are cut release funding for the budget items that remain. One hopes the remaining budget items are the highest priorities and that budget cuts have the least significant impact on our students and their families.
As I noted above the district chose to keep the Longevity Stipends. Here’s what Adams 12 CUT to keep the Longevity Stipends:
- Campus Security personnel
- Academic Interventionists
- Middle School sports
- Outdoor Education for 6th graders
And Adams 12 increased numerous fees on families
Eliminating the Longevity Stipends would have drastically reduced or eliminated the cuts listed above.
How much does the stipend cost each year? Adams 12 budgets $15 million annually for extra funding to retirees instead of supporting students. It’s also more than half the amount the district is looking to receive from Ballot Measure 5C.
If a wage earner in your household had a large pay cut or a layoff would you reduce your grocery spending to keep HBO? Would you move to less costly housing so that you could keep buying video games? Would you sell your car and take the bus so you could keep going to dinners and movies? Yet that’s essentially what Adams 12 did when they kept the Longevity Stipends and reduced spending on budget items that impact students and families. Now they’re asking voters for more money when they haven’t honored taxpayers with their recent priorities.
I have commented extensively on the Longevity Stipends during board meetings but it has received very little external scrutiny. It is a well-kept secret in nearly all respects and when I explain this issue to neighbors and community members they become understandably upset. I personally feel that the District’s support of Longevity Stipends over student needs is insulting to taxpayers in Adams 12.
I am only 1 vote out of 5 on the board and as such I’m convinced the only way the district will align their budget priorities with those of our community is by being told “no thanks” on this vote. So if you believe like I do that Adams 12 has a priority problem please vote NO on 5C.
It has been my pleasure serving as an advocate for families and taxpayers for the last seven years on the Adams 12 Board of Education.
Again, the Adams County Republican Central Committee does not have an official position regarding any of these measures as an entity. The Text and links provided above are in the interest of giving you more information to decide for yourself how to vote.
Clear the Bench Colorado has proved a useful resource in past elections for providing additional information beyond the Blue Book when deciding which judges to support for retention, and which to oppose. Note, however, that the group’s recommendations for 2018 hadn’t been posted yet as this is written.