Liberal and Loving It

Initiative O - Improve the initiative process

Summary

This measure will make it harder for citizens to place constitutional amendments on the Colorado ballot for voter approval, but easier to call a vote on state statutes. It will do this by increasing the signature requirement for constitutional amendments by more than 15,000, drop the signature requirement for placing a new state law on the ballot, add a distribution requirement (requiring at least 8% of petition signatures to be gathered in each congressional district), and establish an earlier deadline for filing initiatives.

Vote Yes

Look at this year's ballot - we have 14 proposed amendments to our state constitution. This is nuts. This does two very important things. First it makes it easier to get state statues on the ballot which will encourage people, when they can use either the statue or amendment approach, to go with the statue. This is very important because if an initiative turns out to have some major problems, the legislature can amend it.

Second, it makes it a bit more difficult to get an amendment on the ballot. And with 14 proposed amendments this time, the need for that is very clear.

Arguments For

Laws sometimes need to be updated to keep pace with a changing world. Referendum O encourages citizens to propose statutory rather than constitutional initiatives. Statutory initiatives preserve the citizens' right to initiate laws, while giving the legislature flexibility to react when laws require clarification or when problems or unforeseen circumstances arise.

Because the requirements for proposing constitutional initiatives are no different than the requirements for proposing statutory initiatives, the constitution is susceptible to detailed provisions that cannot be changed without another election. Colorado has one of the easiest constitutions to amend through the initiative process. Placing detailed provisions in the constitution limits the ability of the legislature to address policy and fiscal matters. Requiring more signatures for constitutional initiatives makes it more difficult to initiate constitutional amendments, which may make the Colorado Constitution a more enduring framework for state government.

Requiring that signatures for constitutional initiatives be gathered from each congressional district ensures that citizens from across the state support measures before they are placed on the ballot. Due to the relative ease of collecting signatures in heavily populated urban areas compared to sparsely populated rural areas, rural citizens may have a limited voice in determining which issues appear on the ballot.

Allowing the public and state legislators to comment on an initiative at a public meeting early in the process makes the review process more open and helps citizens gain a better understanding of the measure. It also helps proponents identify potential problems, make sure that the measure clearly expresses their intent, and avoid unintended consequences.

Limiting the ability of the legislature to change initiated statutes strikes a balance between protecting initiated statutes and permitting the legislature to address problems that may arise. The two-thirds legislative approval requirement is stringent enough to protect voter intent, but still allows for non-controversial changes that clarify, correct, or improve a statute.

Arguments Against

Referendum O makes it more difficult and expensive for citizens to exercise their right to initiate constitutional changes. Requiring more signatures to qualify for the ballot restricts the public's ability to address issues that the legislature, courts, and executive branch have not addressed to the public's satisfaction or in which government officials have a vested interest.

Initiatives M & N - Eliminate Obsolete Provisions

M: Summary

When the state constitution was adopted in 1876, it allowed the state legislature to pass laws to delay taxing any increase in the value of private land from planting hedges, orchards, and forests. Historical documents suggest that this delay was included in the constitution to promote and encourage the growth of forests on lands owned by private citizens. In 1876, the state legislature adopted a law excluding such plantings from taxation for ten years – through 1886.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the state legislature adopted other laws to delay taxing increased property value from tree plantings. As the law is written today, it excludes from taxation any increase in the value of private land resulting from the planting of trees for a period of 30 years from the date of planting. The law is not used in the way property is currently valued for property taxes. In addition, other sections of the constitution adopted more recently define allowable tax exemptions, and a tax exemption for planting hedges, orchards, or forests on private land is not included.

N: Summary

The manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol beverages are regulated by both the state and federal government. The federal government regulates the manufacture and import of alcohol to ensure the content is safe and the labeling is accurate. Colorado law regulates such things as standards of health, cleanliness, purity, quality, storage, and transportation of alcohol that is manufactured, distributed, and sold in the state. Referendum N repeals two sections of the state constitution relating to alcohol beverages.

Vote Yes

This cleans some obsolete provisions out of the constitution. With all the new stuff people are trying to jam in the constitution, cleaning out obsolete provisions makes even more sense. Vote Yes.

Arguments for & against

These two proposals make so much sense, there are no real arguments against either.

Initiative L - Lower the age for the State Assembly

Summary

Requirements for serving in the state legislature. The state constitution requires that a representative or senator in the state legislature be at least 25 years old, be a United States citizen, and reside in the district from which he or she is elected for at least twelve months prior to being elected. Referendum L lowers the age requirement to 21. The existing age requirement has been in the state constitution, unchanged, since 1876.

Vote Yes

This is a reasonable question to bring to the voters and a candidate at age 21 has been an adult for 3 years, can vote, and has usually been working and/or in college or the military for those 3 years. If a candidate is "too young," the voters can make that determination at the ballot box. Vote Yes.

Arguments Against

Younger candidates may lack the maturity and real-world experience to be effective legislators. The policy decisions and political pressures that legislators face are best handled by people with more life experience. Lack of experience could hinder a young legislator's ability to represent a constituency effectively.

The current age requirement strikes an appropriate balance between youth and experience. It has been the standard for Colorado since the enactment of the state constitution. Further, it aligns with the age requirement for service in the United States House of Representatives and many other state senates.

Arguments For

Excluding 21- to 24-year-olds from seeking election to the state legislature is an unnecessary restriction. A 21-year-old is considered an adult under the law. Voters can judge whether a candidate possesses the maturity, ability, and competence to hold political office without regard to age.

Allowing 21-year-olds to run for office encourages civic engagement of young people. By opening access to the ballot to a wider group of potential legislative candidates, young candidates and their supporters can offer a new and different perspective on issues that come before the state legislature. Additionally, young legislators can encourage legislative debate on and elevate issues important to young adults.

Amendment 59 - Increase funding for K-12 schools

Summary

This is a very complex bill, for two reasons. First the restrictions of TABOR require significant complexity in addressing it's ratchet-down effect. Second, it focuses this funding on core educational expenses so that the money is effectively spent.

Vote Yes

Without this bill, in a couple of years when Referendum C ends, we will again be back in a system where state revenue, adjusted for inflation, will drop over time. Reduced income means reduced state spending. And when that last happened it had a catastrophic impact on the state. We cannot lead in the 21st Century when we are spending at 19th Century levels.

In short, this is not just about education, it is about providing adequate funding for the state. If you want to invest in our state's future, this is the single most important vote on the ballot.

Arguments For

Amendment 59 - creates a savings account for public education. SAFE dedicates a permanent source of funding to public education, preserves the right of citizens to vote on taxes, and untangles the fiscal knot in Colorado's constitution.

It will dedicate a permanent source of funding to preschool-12th grade education and enables the state to protect public schools from cuts during economic downturns. The State Education Fund can be used only for public education, from preschool through the 12th grade.

Arguments Against

Amendment 59 places future funding for education at the discretion of the state legislature. Without fixed increases, legislators could provide less than inflationary increases for K-12 education in some years.

Without a limit on spending, government is more likely to increase fees. TABOR requires that money collected above the spending limit be returned to taxpayers. When the state is providing rebates, government has little incentive to raise fees because the additional money is rebated to taxpayers. Amendment 59 weakens this disincentive and thus is likely to result in an increase in the amount of fees charged to people.

Amendment 58 - Increase Funding for Higher-Ed

Summary

This initiative will eliminate a severance tax credit that was granted to the Oil & Gas Industry back when gas prices were very low. The increased revenue will mostly be directed to college scholarships for Colorado residents attending state colleges and universities - as well as the preservation of native wildlife habitat, enhancements in renewable energy and energy efficiency, transportation projects in counties and municipalities impacted by the severance of oil and gas, and community drinking water and wastewater treatment grants.

Vote Yes

This amendment is where we see if an eminently fair and sensible amendment can be defeated by overwhelming spending by a special interest group trying to continue their free ride.

The severance taxes in Colorado are lower than they are in Wyoming - and Wyoming is not an anti-oil liberal haven. At the same time, oil profits are in the stratosphere and they are drilling with every rig they can find.

We would love it if there was no taxes on the people creating this site. We all would prefer that everyone else is taxed, but we are not - so we get the benefits of government without paying for the costs. The oil companies are no different.

At the same time, a college education is critical for each resident to have a good job and be a strong contributor to our state. Yet Higher-Ed funding is so tight that many students must forgo College because they cannot afford it. This is sentencing them to a life of economic poverty.

Excessive Oil company profits created on the backs of residents forced to live a life of economic poverty is wrong. The oil companies will spend over 20 million to try and continue their free ride. A yes vote will right this wrong.

Arguments For

Amendment 58 eliminates a state tax credit for an industry that is currently experiencing record profits. Better uses exist for state dollars than this credit. Amendment 58 directs the new money to state and community programs that help improve the state's economy, environment, and infrastructure. These programs are a sound investment in Colorado's future.

Increasing access to college for middle- and low-income Coloradans is critical to ensuring the state's long-term economic health. The scholarships funded through this measure offset the high cost of college, making a college education attainable for more residents. As Colorado graduates more state residents, businesses benefit from a larger pool of educated workers that can help grow Colorado's economy.

Oil and gas production is necessarily limited by the location of reserves. Raising the extraction cost of those resources is not likely to have much of an effect on production in Colorado. Colorado currently has the lowest severance tax rate among large-producing western states. By eliminating the state tax credit and tightening the small-well tax exemption, Amendment 58 increases the compensation that Colorado citizens receive for the extraction of natural resources and brings Colorado's tax rate more in line with other states.

The money raised by Amendment 58 provides benefits to the state with little or no increase in the cost of energy for Colorado consumers. Oil and gas prices are influenced by numerous factors, and a change in Colorado's severance tax is not a large enough factor to make a significant difference in Colorado's prices. Colorado produces less than one-tenth of one percent of the world's oil. Increasing the state's severance tax on this level of production is unlikely to affect the market price of gasoline. Likewise, since most of the natural gas produced in Colorado is sold elsewhere, any additional costs are likely to be paid by consumers outside of Colorado.

Arguments Against

There is a list of arguments against this proposal but they are all such utter self-serving B.S. that I will not repeat them here. It's all FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt).

Amendment 57 - Companies Liable for any Injury

Summary

The measure would require every employer in Colorado to provide their employees with a "safe and healthy work environment." Failure to comply with obligations of the measure, if passed, would open employers to damage lawsuits that could be filed by injured employees, in addition to any claims through the workers compensation system. No definition of "safe and healthy" is included in the proposal.

This initiative is part of the union's response that will destroy the Labor Peace Act of 1943.

Vote No

Ok, so what exactly is a "safe & healthy" workplace? If a company brings in donuts for all employees, well donuts are bad for you and that is not healthy. Could an employee with cholesterol issues then sue? No one knows. The courts will decide over time.

Also, just how big a problem is this? No workplace is 100% safe, just as no home is. But there have not been any stories, not any, about unsafe working conditions in Colorado recently. This is a solution looking for a problem. (And attorneys will invent the problem to then win awards in court.)

In addition, to continue with the incredibly successful Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943, this (and the other 6 peace act violators) must be defeated.

Arguments Against

The amendment allows an injured employee - currently entitled to damages and the full protection of the law - to double-dip and collect all of the benefits from the Workers Compensation Act no-fault system of liability, and to sue the company through District Court. This new dual system will dramatically raise insurance costs and other costs of doing business in Colorado, which will result in lower wages, lost benefits and lawsuit abuse.

This system will cost business and in response those businesses will need to reduce salaries and cut benefits. Companies that don’t leave the state may choose to reduce their labor force to fewer than 10 employees, transition employees to seasonal, part-time and independent contractor status, to avoid the impact of this costly measure.

The Amendment will create legal paralysis. The measure is a trial lawyers dream and a small employer’s nightmare. Despite the fact the amendment allows an injured employee to sue in District Court for compensatory and punitive damages, if the employer fails to provide a safe and healthy workplace, the term “Safe and healthy workplace” is not defined by the initiative. The language is confusing, misleading and likely to trigger damaging unintended consequences.

Arguments For

The workers' compensation system does not always meet the needs of injured employees. While an injured employee already receives medical care at no cost, the choice of doctor and treatment options are limited. Further, an injured employee who is unable to work may receive wage payments that are far below the employee's previous take-home earnings. By allowing the courts to review individual cases, Amendment 57 establishes another avenue for employees to seek compensation for injuries, such as pain and suffering, beyond the benefits provided by workers' compensation.

Amendment 56 - Require Health Insurance Coverage

Summary

The measure would require every employer that employs twenty or more employees in the state of Colorado to provide major medical health care coverage for its employees (paying 80% of the cost) and their dependents (paying 70% of the costs).

This initiative is part of the union's response that will destroy the Labor Peace Act of 1943.

Vote No

This initiative is not just a job killer, it will decimate entire sectors of the economy here in Colorado. Most companies that offer poor or no health insurance do so because they choose to. Rather it's because what they offer (if anything) is all they can afford. This does not magically produce health insurance at no cost, rather it will force out of business those industries that can not offer this level of insurance and still make a profit.

This proposal is anti-worker as it will reduce the number of jobs in Colorado. And with the massive unemployment from this initiative, those lucky enough to have a job will have a difficult time getting a raise.

In addition, to continue with the incredibly successful Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943, this (and the other 6 peace act violators) must be defeated.

Arguments Against

First you have companies that do provide health insurance, but not at the mandated 80%/70% amounts. So let's take a real example of a company that pays 100% of the individual and 0% of the family part. And it is set up this way based on employee feedback because many employees are single and many others have a spouse's plan covering the spouse & kids. This change can be made at no cost to the company, but the employees will be worse off.

Lets take a second real example where a company provides health insurance at a bit below these percentages. But it's a really good plan, covering most everything, and is through Aetna so that claims are paid with a minimum of hassle. Again, at no additional cost to the company they can get a plan that covers less through a carrier that is a PITA to deal with, but meets the percentages. Again, the workers are less happy.

Now the above examples are the best case scenarios. The workers are a bit worse off, the business is a bit worse off, but no jobs were lost. Lets get in to the bad cases.

Next we have the case of a company that provides no health insurance or what they provide is so much less than this, that in either case they are looking at a much larger expense. What's key here is that this expense is per employee. Not per dollar paid to employees. Not per dollar of income received. It's a flat fee per employee.

So what this company must do is layoff every employee it can, while getting the remaining ones to work as long and as hard as possible. Better to layoff 1 person and pay 2 others for 20 hours/week of overtime each.

This measure will reduce jobs substantially in those industries that provide little or no health insurance. And those jobs are overwhelmingly lower paying jobs - this really hurts the blue collar worker.

But that's not the worst case. Lets now look at the companies that require lots of unskilled or semi-skilled labor, have a very low profit margin, and can be located anywhere. Those companies are gone. You can't bring in an added expense like this and still compete against companies that don't have this additional overhead.

Granted, these are jobs that suck. They don't pay well. Those workers having no health insurance is a national shame. But eliminating the job is not the answer because the job, lousy as it is, beats no job.

The Health Insurance Initiative will be devastating for the workers at the lower end of the economic scale in this state. And for most of them it doesn't mean they will get health insurance, it means they will go from a job with little or no health insurance ... to no job at all.

Arguments For

Amendment 56 increases access to affordable health insurance for working people and their families. When individuals and families have health insurance, they are better protected from the financial burden of catastrophic medical events. By establishing cost-sharing requirements between employers and employees, the measure provides more workers with a viable option to obtain health insurance.

Employers in the state share in the responsibility for solving the problem of access to health care. While a majority of Colorado employers offer health insurance to employees, employers that do not provide this benefit have an unfair competitive advantage and create a financial burden on those that do. The costs of treating people with little or no health insurance are passed on in the form of increased charges for health care services and increased insurance premiums, which in turn raise the cost of health care for everyone.

Amendment 55 - Prohibit Firing Employees

Summary

This initiative will essentially make it impossible to fire an employee. Yes the initiative says you can fire for "Just Cause", but the courts make that determination, and if they disagree can award back pay and force reinstatement of the employee. The potential penalty is so severe that companies will not be able to afford the risk.

And there is not even a probationary period. If from the first day of work a new employee is a disaster - too bad.

Vote No

This is without question the most damaging proposal on this year's ballot (56 is a close second).

Companies that are based on highly skilled knowledge workers cannot succeed if forced to retain those that can't do their job. It's not they they will not do as well - they will fail. Software companies, bio-tech companies, renewable energy companies - they all compete in a global market where location in Colorado provides no competitive benefits.

These companies will have to either move... or go out of business. If we are going to drive out these types of companies, what are we left with? This puts us on the path to have an economy like Mississippi where the available jobs are low-paying blue-collar jobs along with high unemployment.

Finally, this does not protect the job, it protects the bozo presently holding the job. When a company fires someone, it's rarely a downsizing, it's because they need someone better. So the job still exists, it's just they will offer it to someone else. So this initiative does not protect jobs per-se, it merely protects the person presently in that job who is inadequate for the position.

In addition, to continue with the incredibly successful Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943, this (and the other 6 peace act violators) must be defeated.

Arguments Against

Lets look at high-tech start-ups because they are the job engine for high-tech job growth. Most of them fail. Of the ones that succeed, most of them come very close to failing several times before they finally make it. It is a very tough Darwinian environment where you have to be very good, react very quickly, and have an idea that people actually will pay for once it's delivered. And the people who put money into these ideas have to look for the ones where the odds, while bad, are better than any of the other opportunities.

So what does this initiative do to start-up companies? It kills them.

1. Start-ups fire people who are competent. Because competent is not sufficient, to survive in the start-up world you need people who are incredibly good (the rule of thumb is the top 5%). Having to hang on to people who are average (or god forbid mediocre) means we get beat by another company that is staffed with superstars.
2. Start-ups fire superstars. Because how well a team works together has a larger impact on success than the skills of any individual. So someone who is the best programmer, but does not play well with others, is actually a detriment to the team as a whole.
3. Managers make mistakes. In a start-up you have to make decisions quickly. By definition some of those decisions are wrong. But if you make sure on every decision, once again you're out of business. So at times you fire people who were competent, and would have done a good job, but you made a bad decision.
4. Lets say they are clearly incompetent. We hired (on contract) a sales team who's job was to call leads. And they were required to work at least 20 hours/week. So when we ended the contract and ended up in court as to was it "for cause," even though the sales team admitted they had made a total of 1 call over 2 months and had worked under 20 hours some weeks, the judge still found it was not for cause (and we had to pay for an additional 30 days of time). So even if someone is clearly incompetent, that doesn't mean a judge will agree.

So what does the above do to startup companies (which grow to over 20 people quite quickly)? They will get saddled with incompetents. And that will have a devastating effect on morale as the others then have to work even harder to make up for these boat-anchors. A successful start-up is a group of people that are putting their heart and soul into making a long-shot a success. This kills that drive.

And so what happens to the venture capital money? Venture capitalists aren't stupid - that money all goes out of state to places where a company can fire those they need to fire. For really good ideas they will tell people that if they move to any other state, they will fund them. Which is ironical since we presently have people moving to Colorado for the start-up environment here.

In short, rather than building on the companies we presently have here and possibly becoming the top place in the country for renewable energy start-ups, this will stop virtually all future start-ups and piss away what we presently have. This puts Colorado on the road to an economy where the only businesses here are ones that must be here such as mineral extraction & retail. For any company that can locate elsewhere, it will.

High-tech companies compete world-wide. They derive no advantage from a geographical location. Nor do they derive an advantage from being inside the U.S. They have competitors located in both China and India and their location also has no impact on who wins sales. They successfully compete against these other companies while paying higher salaries, health insurance, more in taxes, etc. But they can't compete with this proposed albatross around their neck.

And here's the kicker, when they go out of business, there's no jobs. Even if this level of job protection is imposed, when a company shuts down, all the jobs are gone. So if you impose iron-clad job protection for all employees at a 55 employee start-up, you have not protected those 55 people from being fired - you have destroyed those 55 jobs.

Arguments For

This measure provides employees of private-sector companies with the same protections available to most government employees and employees protected by collective bargaining agreements.

Amendment 54 - Ban some from the political process

Summary

Amendment 54 will prohibit certain government contractors from contributing to a political party or candidate for the contract's duration and two years thereafter; prohibit contributors to ballot issue campaigns from entering into certain government contracts relating to the ballot issue; apply the prohibitions on campaign contributions and ballot issue contracts to any contractor with a government contract or contracts that does not use a public and competitive bidding process soliciting at least three bids and with a total value greater than $100,000 in a single year; and‚ apply the prohibitions on campaign contributions and ballot issue contracts to a labor organization holding a collective bargaining agreement with a state or local government.

This initiative is one of the group attempting to destroy the Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943.

Vote No

There is the germ of a good idea in this initiative, that companies that receive large sole-source contracts cannot contribute to ballot issue campaigns. (Contribution to candidates are also limited, but those have such low limits per person anyways that this would not have much impact there.)

It's interesting that these ultra right-wing "small government" conservative groups then propose complex initiatives to be a rigid straitjacket added to our constitution. Yet usually they state they are in favor of unlimited funding of (their) candidates.

This proposal removes a class of large companies and unions from the political process. I'm sure it was "coincidental" that these groups being removed tend to be liberal in their outlook - yeah right. This is pure and simple and attempt to remove some political funding sources from the Democratic party.

Naked political power plays should not be added to our constitution.

In addition, to continue with the incredibly successful Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943, this (and the other 6 peace act violators) must be defeated.

Arguments Against

The broad scope of the measure could have far-reaching consequences for contractors, political candidates, and elected officials. For example, an individual holding a covered contract with one local government could be penalized for making a contribution to a candidate in a separate jurisdiction. To avoid violations and penalties, candidates and political parties will have to monitor each contribution to ensure that it is not made by a sole-source government contractor, or by the contractor on behalf of a relative. Furthermore, Amendment 54 establishes penalties that are severe relative to the offenses, including loss or disqualification from office for elected or appointed officials.

Amendment 54 proposes an inflexible approach to government contracting. Different regions and levels of government throughout the state have varying contracting needs and access to providers of goods and services. Because rural cities and counties typically have fewer contracting options than urban communities or state government, the measure presents unique challenges for small communities and their service providers. For example, if one organization in a small community is the only available contractor for community services, the organization would have to choose between accepting a contract and participating financially in the political process.

Arguments For

By prohibiting campaign contributions, Amendment 54 ensures that business interests, labor, and other covered government contractors do not influence policy decisions through campaign contributions.

Amendmnet 53 - Criminalize Management Incompetence

Summary

An amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes extending the criminal liability of a business entity to its executive officials for the entity's failure to perform a specific duty imposed by law, and, in connection therewith, conditioning an executive official’s liability upon his or her knowledge of the duty imposed by law and of the business entity’s failure to perform such duty; and allowing an executive official who discloses to the attorney general all facts known to the official concerning a business's criminal conduct to use that disclosure as an affirmative defense to criminal charges.

This initiative is part of the union's response that will destroy the Labor Peace Act of 1943.

Vote No

You want to drive businesses out of Colorado - this is a great start. This measure criminalizes traditionally civil and regulatory conduct. Any violation of any statute, ordinance, regulation, health standard, etc., would constitute a criminal offense under the statute. And the thing is, there are so many rules & regulations that probably every executive, no matter how hard they try, is probably violating some rule somewhere.

There are already numerous penalties for clearly illegal acts, starting with the fact that the executives involved will be fired and no other company will hire them. There are also numerous civil remedies as well as criminal for the most egrarious cases. This is unnecessary.

In addition, to continue with the incredibly successful Colorado Labor Peace Act of 1943, this (and the other 6 peace act violators) must be defeated.

Arguments Against

This will negatively impact a business climate in which most businesses and their executives comply with the law. For example, the new criminal penalties could drive higher insurance costs for law-abiding executives, which may ultimately be passed along to consumers. Additionally, fear of prosecution could hinder recruitment of top business talent and may leave community leaders reluctant to serve on nonprofit boards.

State and federal laws already hold business executives accountable. For example, executives can be prosecuted under Colorado law for their own criminal conduct on behalf of their business. Recent federal laws have strengthened criminal and civil penalties for business executives who commit fraud. Criminal prosecution when it is clearly deserved already exists.

This will lead companies who call Colorado home to leave the state, and those who are considering moving here to relocate to other places. It's a job killer.

Arguments For

Amendment 53 addresses a gap in state law. While business entities themselves can be prosecuted, their executives can currently avoid responsibility for their businesses' failure to follow state law. The measure helps ensure that these executives are held accountable when they know of a legal duty that their business has failed to perform. Over time, Amendment 53 can foster a business environment that attracts and retains responsible employers.

Amendment 53 may encourage a healthy and moral economic climate for Colorado. When businesses fail to comply with state law, the state's economy can be impacted in a variety of unexpected or far-reaching ways.