Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Pressure to fix ethics law

House speaker eyes court ruling; others look to legislature

Lynn Bartels And Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News

Published February 6, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More Colorado Government

More stories »

The filing of a lawsuit Monday to clarify Amendment 41 is the latest effort to get answers about an ethics measure that has confounded lawyers and legislators alike.

Lawmakers are facing increasing pressure to fix the unintended consequences of Amendment 41 - such as blocking scholarships or Nobel Prize winnings - but they're not sure how much leeway they have.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, announced Sunday that he wanted the state's highest court to determine whether the legislature can even "fix" a constitutional amendment.

He said the filing of the lawsuit by the Boettcher Foundation, which he has not read, likely won't change his desire to move forward with a high court ruling. That's because it's not clear when a state court would rule on the lawsuit, brought over the issue of scholarships.

"If we are going to pursue this path, our lawyers have recommended that we proceed swiftly," Romanoff said.

The Boettcher Foundation filed the lawsuit against the state, asking the court to clarify Amendment 41.

At issue are Boettcher scholarships awarded to the children of government employees.

Voters last November approved Amendment 41, which limited gifts to most government employees and their families to $50.

The constitutional amendment was put on the ballot by wealthy entrepreneur Jared Polis and the public-interest group Common Cause.

The supporters are now part of a coalition, Coloradans for Sensible Ethics, working to get legislation passed that might take care of some problems.

"We support any effort to clarify Amendment 41 and rid it of its absurd, tangential, unintended consequences," said Eric Sondermann, spokesman for the coalition.

"But we are concerned that any clarifying court verdict could be years down the road and narrow in scope, while the legislature has it within its power, right here and now, to implement this mandate in a sensible manner, as it did on multiple occasions with respect to Amendment 27."

That constitutional amendment, to limit campaign finance, was passed in 2002.

House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said she didn't support bills to change Amendment 27 because it meant changing the will of the people.

She said she personally called Polis last year to ask him to pull Amendment 41 off the ballot but got nowhere.

"I explained the problems until I was blue in the face," she said.

Polis could not be reached for comment.

Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver, said backers of Amendment 41 have lawmakers in a jam.

"Here's what 'Jared's Law' did," he said.

"It insinuated that lawmakers are unethical. Now Jared wants us to fix the problem he created, and the public is saying, 'You better not change it. We don't trust you. You were being unduly influenced.' "

John Straayer, a veteran political science professor at Colorado State University, said lawmakers find themselves in a tough spot.

"(Amendment) 41 had great curb appeal," he said. "It sounded so neat: 'Oh wow, we're going to enact ethics legislation.' Who could be against that?"

"If the legislature within three months tries to modify it . . . that could open the door for a lot of anti-government folks and general critics to say, 'Hey, two-thirds of the voters voted to put constraints on legislators and lobbyists, and look who's messing with it right away.' "

What's wrong with Amendment 41 and how to fix it: Q&A with state leaders

Gov. Bill Ritter

Did you support Amendment 41?

No. But the people have spoken, and as governor, it's my responsibility to make sure it is enacted and enforced.*

Why?

I felt there were too many unanswered questions and the potential for too many unintended consequences.

Why has fixing Amendment 41 become so contentious?

Because of unintended consequences and unfortunate outcomes which seem to conflict with the intent of the voters. That intent was to eliminate any undue influence by lobbyists on elected officials, not to prohibit the children of government employees from being able to accept a college scholarship.

What is the best way to fix it?

Judicial or legislative clarification.*The Rocky's Online Candidate Questionnaire Last Year Indicated Ritter Favored Amendment 41. But On Monday, Ritter Spokesman Evan Dreyer Said he himself filled out the questionnaire for his boss and marked the wrong box. Dreyer said on the campaign trail, the question rarely came up, but when it did, Ritter said he did not support it.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff

D-Denver

Did you support Amendment 41?

Whenever I got asked about it, I always said I thought it should be in statute, not a constitutional amendment.

Why?

If it were flawed it would be easier to fix.

Why has fixing Amendment 41 become so contentious?

Because there's so much ambiguity. I think the language is at odds with what I understand was the intent. And, in fact, I think the language, to some extent, is at odds with itself.

What is the best way to fix it?

We should get the court's guidance on whether the legislature can fix the constitutional amendment. If the court says we can, we should. If the court says we can't, we should ask the voters to do so.

House Majority Leader Alice Madden

D-Boulder

Did you support Amendment 41?

No.

Why?

I fully supported the aspect as it applies to elected officials, but I knew there were problems with the part of the bill that focused on state and local government employees. There was obstinance on the part of the opponents to deal with the problem, and I had no choice but to pull my support.

Why has fixing Amendment 41 become so contentious?

I think perhaps because we were met with a brick wall when we tried to point problems out.

What is the best way to fix it?

I'm willing to do whatever I can, but I question whether we have the ability to change a constitutional amendment. I don't have great faith that we can fix it.

Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany

R-Colorado Springs

Did you support Amendment 41?

No.

Why?

You could see there were problems when you read the language.

Why has fixing Amendment 41 become so contentious?

I think Jared Polis (who put the measure on the ballot) is using his personal wealth to make it contentious. He has hired a huge crew of people to stir the pot, to say we have a duty to fix this when we can't change a constitutional amendment.

What is the best way to fix it?

Jared Polis should go back to the voters. He needs to say, "I made a huge mess. I hope you will help me clean it up."

House Minority Leader Mike May

R-Parker

Did you support Amendment 41?

I've opposed it all along.

Why?

I sat in with (lawmakers when we) did the voters' blue book. We had great debate about all the problems with it. We told (41 drafters) if this is something you want to do, do something that makes some constitutional sense . . . and not just run this Orwellian measure . . . that tells you when you can give your wife a birthday gift.

Why has fixing Amendment 41 become so contentious?

The fix involves violating the constitution that we all just raised our hands to uphold a few weeks ago.

What is the best way to fix it?

I think (any fixes) ought to be referred back to the voters, and we ought to say, "Let's not include all the state employees. Why is a highway worker included in this thing?"

John Straayer

Veteran Colorado State University political-science professor

Did you support Amendment 41?

No.

Why?

I've been watching this place (the Capitol) for almost 30 years. This is a pretty clean place. Interest groups can put money into campaigns and have an impact on who's in the legislature. But buying a vote with an Avalanche ticket or a nice lunch, that doesn't happen."

Why has fixing Amendment 41 become so contentious?

The legislature is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't do something, people say: "You should do something because these kids aren't getting their scholarships." If they do something, then the criticism is: "Hey you're messing with what the voters just passed."

What is the best way to fix it?

I almost think you have to go to the court. The problem is a fair reading of 41 basically says that the legislature cannot diminish its coverage or its impact. So for the legislature to try to modify what seems to be the plain language for the constitutional amendment is extraordinarily problematic. It's questionable whether it's legal or not.

Responses during election season

• Secretary of State Mike Coffman, Republican: "Amendment 41 is necessary in removing any real or perceived conflicts of interest on the part of both elected and appointed public officials in Colorado."

• Treasurer Cary Kennedy, Democrat: "I support efforts to reduce the influence of special interests on elected officials."

• Bob Schaffer, Board of Education, Republican: "This should apply to State Board of Education members."

• Sen. Paula Sandoval, D-Denver: "This is a solution in search of a problem."

• Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colo. Springs: "Having been in the legislature six years, I do not see this as a problem. . . . I would, however, be in favor of requiring prompt public reporting of such gifts. In my case, I rarely receive any."

or 303-954-5327

Comments

  • May 30, 2008

    8:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    babygirl writes:

    i personally think that jared's law should remain in the cafeteria considering it was him who was rolling around on a table. Not allowing teenagers in high school carry water bottles, use wooden pencils, wear big belts, all because of "jared's law" is rediculous. Im sorry for the parents loss of losing a son, but why make teenagers and young adults not be able to continue with life normally in different states who arent flopping around on tables. Once again im sorry for their loss but why make such rediculous subjectives to go with it