High court won't consider new ethics bill

April M. Washington and Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News

Published April 26, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Colorado Government

The Colorado Supreme Court today declined the legislature's request to review whether certain provisions of a bill dealing with a new ethics measure are constitutional.

The decision means the job of figuring out who is covered under Amendment 41 will fall to an ethics commission, once it gets appointed.

"The commission now will be left to sift through the constitutional mess," said Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver, who carried the legislation creating the commission.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff said legislative lawyers speculated the high court didn't take up the issue because traditionally the justices prefer legislation that's pending, not legislation that has already passed. Senate Bill 210 has already passed.

But Romanoff said this won't prevent legislature from creating the ethics commission required by Amendment 41 and providing clarification on what complaints warrant investigation and others that can be dismissed a "frivolous."

Voters last fall approved Amendment 41, which even the chief backer now concedes was so poorly written it led to widespread panic and confusion about who was covered under the ethics measure.

The legislature has grappled most of the session with how to implement the measure, and whether they could interpret what now is in the constitution. Lawmakers had sought the guidance of the Supreme Court.

Amendment 41 does several things, but the chief concern has been the provision that bans gifts of more than $50 to most elected officials, government employees, their families and government contractors. Some ranchers in southeast Colorado who work for the government have been told their ineligible to collect money donated to blizzard victims. And one woman testified her attorney told her she couldn't inherit her father's estate.

Amendment 41 also bans gifts to lobbyists, restricts lawmakers from lobbying after leaving their post and creates an ethics commission.

"The commission will have to issue opinions on what's appropriate or not," said Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs.

The supporters of Amendment 41 said it was never intended to prevent the children of government workers from receiving scholarships or other "absurd" interpretations.

A coalition formed to support the implementation of Amendment 41 had talked of going to the ballot this fall to try to clear up the confusion in the measure.

Coalition attorney Mark Grueskin said those plans have been scrapped. He said he believes Senate Bill 210 will provide clarity for government.

"I'm confident that employees will have more direction," he said. "If anything else is required, the commission will be able to fill in the remaining gaps."

Another coalition has sued to overturn Amendment 41 on constitutional grounds. That suit is pending.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News