Look beyond summary in eyeing petition plan

Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Amendment 38 would make it illegal for elected officials and public workers to discuss proposed ballot initiatives on government time and using taxpayer money.

Backers of the amendment hail that provision as critical to keeping politicians out of the people's business.

Opponents call it disastrous, preventing public employees from explaining an initiative to voters who must choose whether to approve it.

Dennis Polhill and Doug Campbell crafted Amendment 38 - also called the Petition Rights Amendment 2006 - because they think elected officials and the state Supreme Court have too much power to stop citizens from taking ballot measures to voters.

At first, they said their provision didn't limit officials' discussion of facts - just advocacy.

But Campbell eventually tightened his interpretation of the provision to this simple rule: "An official can't talk on company time. He can as a private citizen."

That brings him close to the interpretation reached by Amendment 38's opponents: Public officials will be muzzled when citizens or journalists call them seeking facts about the issue.

"They can't answer any questions," said Rick Reiter of Coloradans for Responsible Reform - 2006.

The fine of $3,000 or more that would be levied on any government employee who violates the rule is just one of many details about Amendment 38 that you won't find in the short summary on your ballot.

They're in the text: 3 1/2 pages in the Blue Book voters guide, or online at www.state.co.us/gov_dir/ leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/BlueBook2006.pdf

Even backer Polhill says of Amendment 38: "To really understand it, you have to read it."

Among the things Amendment 38 would do:

• Give citizens the right to petition 90 percent of governments in Colorado, including many counties, cities, school boards and special districts that don't allow it now.

• Shift the duty of checking petition signatures to see if they are registered voters from election officials to local courts.

• Sharply limit the state Supreme Court's time frame for deciding to bar a petition from the ballot.

Proponents say they aimed to eliminate rules and procedures that have kept measures off the ballot or made it very difficult to get them on the ballot.

Recent examples include a petition to limit the forced sale of private property for government- sponsored projects, some measures sponsored by anti-tax activist Doug Bruce and his allies, and last summer's Supreme Court rejection of a measure that would have prohibited illegal immigrants from receiving most state services. The court said it violated Colorado's "single-subject" rule.

In the last case, the court's decision came too late for supporters to revise the language and still make the deadline to get the measure on the November ballot.

Amendment 38 shortens to five days the time opponents have after an amendment's ballot title has been approved to protest to the Supreme Court. The court then has only seven days - instead of months - to decide if the petition is legal for the ballot.

But Reiter says the Supreme Court can't possibly operate that quickly because each side in a case is given the opportunity to argue, rebut, answer questions, and rebut again, and that can't be done in seven days.

Reiter thinks amendment backers' real purpose is to "logjam" courts so they won't have time to scrutinize petition signatures.

But proponents like eliminating all the hoops that may keep petitions from reaching the voters.

"Anybody who can get 110,000 signatures, that's enough of a hurdle," said Bruce, author of numerous tax-cut petitions, including the TABOR Amendment.

Successful statewide petition campaigns currently turn in more than 100,000 signatures to be sure that 68,000 are validated as registered voters.

"I think the circulation process is way too burdensome on the petitioner," agreed Bruce's longtime ally, Jeff Wright. One petition, "Tax Cut 2000," required a 3 1/2-foot stack of legal documents to get on the ballot, Wright said.

Voters rejected the measure, which called for $25 cuts in four types of taxes, year after year.

Conversely, opponents worry about making petitions too easy.

"People on the fringes of issues will be able to use it as a threat," said Bill Ray of Coloradans for Responsible Reform.

Under Amendment 38, most laws wouldn't take effect until 91 days after passage, to give opponents a chance to gather signatures against them.

"It could put a chilling effect on nimbleness" of government, Ray said.

Also under Amendment 38, the Blue Book voters' guide would change dramatically. No more legislative council - presumably a bipartisan, unbiased group - interviewing both sides and writing a summary of their arguments. No more calculation of the measure's cost, unless it's a tax or debt issue.

Polhill dislikes the current system because the legislative council chooses what points are important. "I may disagree."

Instead, under Amendment 38, proponents would write up to 1,000 words in favor of the measure that would be published without changes. Opponents would be limited to the number of words used by the proponents, and their comments also would be published unedited.

That would eliminate battles over the language in the voters' guide. But it also means petition backers could turn in five words if they wanted," Ray said. That would limit the opponents to five words and leave the voters with almost no information on the proposal's effects, he argued.

In addition, 300 groups may oppose a measure, but if only one can write a response for the Blue Book, "Who gets to write it?" Ray said.

Proponent Campbell agreed that both sides could write false information for the voters' guide under this system. But, he said, "You can read the text of the measure," and liars would lose their credibility.

Amendment 38

Would make it easier for citizens to propose ballot initiatives at all levels of state and local government.

KEY PROVISIONS

• Initiatives could be brought before all cities, counties, school districts and special districts.

• Elected officials and government employees could not discuss proposed ballot measures on the job, or would face fines of $3,000 and up.

• Appeals to Supreme Court on ballot summaries and single-subject limit would have to be filed in five days of title-setting and decided within seven days after that.

• Would reduce number of signatures required to be placed on ballot in some localities.

WHO SUPPORTS IT

• Let Us Vote, has spent $300,000 but hasn't reported it.

• Active Citizens Together, has spent $25,000 without reporting it.

WHO OPPOSES IT

• Coloradans for Responsible Reform - 2006. Contributors include Denver Metro Chamber, home builders, Realtors, teachers and office parks. Collected $415,500 and spent $342,000.

FOR MORE INFO

• Pro side,www.pra2006.com

• Anti side, www.cml.org