Referendum C – A Closely Divided Electorate

Voters provided a narrow victory for Referendum C, and handed Referendum D a close defeat.  Published polls indicated Ref. C would have lost in July.  October polls showed the modifications of TABOR spending restrictions ahead by about 3 percentage points, but below 50 percent of the electorate, a sign of a close election.

Ref. C’s narrow passage with 52 percent after a losing start, defied two conventional rules of contested ballot initiatives:  they usually lose support as election day approaches, and final deciders typically vote against change.  But, swing suburban Denver metro counties, Jefferson and Arapahoe, joined liberal strongholds Boulder and Denver to put it over the top in the metro area in a low-turnout election (1.1 million voters).  It also carried several larger non-urban counties, such as Gunnison, La Plata, Logan and Routt. 

The pattern had some similarity to the 2004 victory of Democrat Ken Salazar for U.S. Senate with his wins in Jefferson and Larimer counties and a narrow loss in Arapahoe.  He also did well in many conservative rural areas, as did Ref. C.

While Colorado voters accepted this narrow exception to TABOR (removing the ratchet and addressing the immediate fiscal crisis), they did so cautiously. 

Polling and voting behavior shows the public is ambivalent about the TABOR Amendment.  Voters like several aspects of TABOR, but are uncertain if it works properly.  They strongly support major elements of the TABOR restrictions, such as the right to vote on all tax increases and placing some constitutional restrictions on spending, but TABOR as a governing concept only passed in 1992 by 54 percent and it normally doesn’t exceed the mid-50 percent range in polls.  However, changing it is not easy.  The only major previous exception, Amendment 23 funding of schools, also passed by a mere 52 percent.

Colorado voters’ moderate and somewhat populist disposition on taxes is reinforced by the rule that the government furthest away has the least trust.  State government, somewhere between federal and local, must constantly fight for voter attention and trust.

The closeness of the election was also a product of the surprising financial resources of the opponents and their ability to frame the early debate as being about a tax increase.

<< previous | next slide >>

[top] [archives] [home] [send this page to a friend]