President – US Senator – Cory Gardner US House, district 5 – State Senate District 10 – Larry Liston State Senate District 12 – State Senate District 14 – Shane Sandridge State Senate District 15 – Dave Williams State Senate District 16 – Andy Pico State Representative District 19 - Tim Geitner State Representative district 20 – State Representative District 21 – District Attorney – Michael Allen County Commissioner District 2 – Carrie Geitner County Commissioner District 3 – Stan VanderWerf County Commissioner District 4 – Longinos Gonzalez

Amendment B: Repeal of Gallagher – Gallagher is terrible public policy and needs to be repealed. However, having been placed on the ballot by this socialistic legislature and as drafted, this initiative has unclear/insufficient safeguards against the legislature’s ability to raise taxes. Currently forecasted reductions in residential property taxes based on Gallagher’s requirements will be frozen. In other words, those reductions will not occur and due to increasing property values, the taxes will increase. Non-residential property taxes will no longer be subject to the burden of offsetting these residential reductions, which is a good thing but again, as written, this is not the safest way to fix Gallagher. I am voting no, but have to ask others to make their own assessment.

Amendment C: Conduct of Charitable Gaming – This does not belong in the State Constitution, will increase games of chance use and will introduce for-profit gaming into what is supposed to support charitable fundraising. My vote is NO.

Amendment 76: Citizen Qualification of Voters – Voting is a right of citizenship. My vote is absolutely YES.

Amendment 77: Local Approval of Gaming Limits and Games – This simply allows for expanded gambling and regardless of my support of local control, these communities attract and have impact on people throughout the State. The vast majority of those who participate in gambling in these towns are not local citizens. Additionally, this is not an issue for the Constitution. My vote is NO

Proposition EE: Taxes on Nicotine Products – My general opposition to tobacco products would imply support for this in an effort to dissuade the use of these products. However, I am also mostly opposed to tax increases of any kind and do not support more revenue for an out of control State legislature and the creation of new, ill-defined, fiscal-hungry government welfare programs with no sunset or accountability. My vote is NO.

Proposition 113: National Popular Vote – DISASTER! Nothing makes less sense than ceding Colorado’s voice in presidential elections to populous states like California and New York. America’s founders exercised both wisdom and vision when they created the Electoral College to protect the voices of smaller states, like Colorado from being drowned out by larger ones. Absent the Electoral College, presidential candidates will have no reason to listen to any voices outside the major population centers of this Country, including Colorado. Please do not let Colorado’s voice be silenced, and absolutely vote NO!

Proposition 114: Wolves – Individual communities most affected by the introduction of wolves should decide whether they want them, not those of us unaffected by this issue. My vote is NO.

Proposition 115: Prohibit Abortions After 22 Weeks – I believe that abortion is murder and for the sanctity of life and particularly to stop the barbaric practice of abortion of viable babies, I am voting YES!

Proposition 116: State Income Tax Rate Reduction – Any decrease in taxes that leaves more dollars in the hands and control of free Americans is a step in the right direction. My vote is YES.

Proposition 117: Voter Approval for Certain New State Enterprises – TABOR has been great for Colorado and extending its reach so that citizens can vote on all types of large state enterprises, including those that impose mandatory fees, is very good public policy which will save us from the crises being faced in so many other states. My vote is YES!!

Proposition 118: Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program - Family leave should be negotiated between individual employers and employees. A one-size fits all policy dictated and “managed” by the State is the worst possible and most expensive approach. Also, 118 will most certainly kill jobs. A definite NO!!

City of Colorado Springs Ballot Issue 2A: Retention of TABOR Surplus and Cap Adjustment – This is a two part question and a bit complex. This seeks retention of the City revenue surplus (over TABOR allowance) and elimination of the base revenue reduction that would otherwise be required by TABOR. I do not support undefined revenue retention. This comes with a “plan” but no ballot requirements as to how the City will spend the money. It also allows the City to avoid the ratchet effect of a slower economy due to business shut downs this year. However, those reductions in tax revenues have been offset by online sales. Having been in local government, I am sensitive to the ratchet effect of TABOR, but the City has not told the entire story on this matter. I no longer live in the City and so will not be voting on this. If I did, my vote would be NO.

City of Colorado Springs Ballot Issue 2B: Voter Approval Requirement for Parkland Transfers – We live in a Representative Republic. Our City Council is elected to handle the administrative and fiscal matters related to running the City through an open, transparent, public process. This issue is an over reaction by liberal leaning special interest groups to the Strawberry Fields/Broadmoor property exchange. City Council is publicly accountable and entrusted to make such decisions as are prudent for the overall management of the City. I no longer live in the City and so will not be voting on this. If I did, my vote would be NO.

City of Colorado Springs Ballot issue 2C: Supermajority Requirement for Parkland Transfers – My opinion is the same here as for Ballot Issue 2B. In addition, what other issues are so important that they should require a Supermajority? Why not all issues? I no longer live in the City and so will not be voting on this. If I did, my vote would be NO.