Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

Breaking News:

A better ballot measure

It's time to raise the bar for constitutional amendments

Rocky Mountain News

Published April 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Is the 14th time the charm? Let's hope so. Lawmakers recently introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, the 14th attempt in the past decade to change Colorado's initiative process.

We've long believed that amending the state constitution should be more difficult than passing a statute. But for the most part, we're glad that none of the previous 13 legislative measures to tackle this issue went to voters.

Several would have undermined the initiative by erecting unacceptably high barriers to direct democracy. Among them were requirements that initiated constitutional amendments win three-fifths or two-thirds supermajority votes before passing.

SCR 3 - inspired by a University of Denver blue-ribbon panel on constitutional reform - marks an encouraging change of attitude that does not give grass-roots activism short shrift.

Indeed, the measure could encourage some ballot campaigns, as it would reduce signature requirements for statutes. It would also raise the bar for qualifying constitutional amendments. And it would do both without unduly burdening citizen groups that - unlike deep-pocketed interests - cannot buy their way onto the ballot.

The resolution would base the signature level for qualifying ballot measures on the total votes cast in the most recent election for governor; that's typically higher than the secretary of state's race, on which the current threshold is set.

That said, the signature level for statutes would go down, from the current 5 percent of the vote to 4 percent. Based on the 2006 election, the resolution would reduce the signature threshold from 78,000 to 62,000.

Meantime, constitutional amendments initiated by voters would face a higher limit, needing signatures totaling 6 percent of the vote for governor - now nearly 94,000 verified signers. Petitions for amendments would also have to be circulated statewide, with at least 10 percent of the threshold (or 9,400) collected in each congressional district.

As another enticement for sponsors to take the initiative route, SCR 3 would make it tougher for the legislature to modify an initiated statute in the first six years it's on the books. Lawmakers now need only a simple majority to modify those voter- led measures. Under the resolution, a two-thirds vote in both houses would be required.

This should ease the legitimate concern that it's too easy for the legislature to thwart the will of voters by revising or rejecting ballot statutes lawmakers don't like.

All these changes would give initiative sponsors an incentive to offer statutes rather than amendments - but they would not prevent citizen-initiated amendments from reaching the ballot entirely. Moreover, sponsors could no longer qualify amendments by flooding Colorado's major cities with petitioners and ignoring other residents. Amendments are more likely to have a broad appeal before they go to voters.

There's one largely symbolic provision of SCR 3 that we're not wild about. It would require amendment sponsors to complete their signature-gathering efforts and file proposed amendments with the secretary of state seven months before an election, rather than the current three-month deadline. The idea is to give amendments more time for public vetting. But since voters typically pay little attention to ballot measures (whether they're amendments or statutes) until the final weeks of an election season, we can't see how earlier deadlines would matter much.

All in all, SCR 3 should improve the ways Coloradans directly modify the state's governing documents. We hope the legislature places it on the ballot, so voters can consider and approve it this November.

Comments

  • April 3, 2008

    8:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    Ah yes..

    by all means. Keep the peasants away from the process. And if they do manage to pass an initiative it would only require a slightly higher majority of those super beings we call legislators to undo the measure.

    Thanks, but no thanks. This is a thinly veiled attempt to shut the door to substantive change. Guess they're afraid we are going to pass a TABOR initiative on fees so they'd have to get rid of their special projects and actually use good sense instead of using our tax money to pay back the unions for getting them elected.

    The people have the means to pass laws that are needed by the people whether the professional politicians like it or not (they don't.)

    There have been many attempts to cut back the ability of the people in this area. The outrage that we put things in the constitution because they just legislated our initiatives out of existence is still bubbling. Let's put this one on the dust heap with the rest before we end up hogtied and overtaxed.

  • April 3, 2008

    9:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DougH writes:

    A good plan and a good start at reforming the process of Amending the State Constitution. I would like to see that Amendments could be repealed under the same rules that were in place when they were enacted. It would not be fair to make it harder to repeal a bad Amendment (like TABOR) .
    Unfortunately, deep pocketed interest have also bought their own Amendments,re: Phil Anschutz, so making it harder for that to happen is a good idea.

  • April 3, 2008

    1:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    I make it a principle not to sign any initiative for a constitutional amendment that should be a statute instead. I vote "no" on any such constitutional amendment initiative that makes it to the ballot box, even if it's something I agree with.
    It's high time we stopped treating the state constitution like the Colorado Revised Statutes.
    This is not a thinly veiled effort to shut the door on substantive change. This is an effort to get most initiatives in the statute books where they belong. Numerous states make if far more difficult to change their state constitution than the state laws.
    And a 2/3 vote in both houses is a high hurdle. In a partisan body, that won't happen unless there's major popular support.
    The constitution is not Douglas Bruce's playen.

  • April 3, 2008

    2:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    TABOR is and will continue to be a great amendment; it is amazing how some people can't see how we have been SCREWED by REF C. Anyone that thinks they should pay MORE taxes should go ahead and pay more instead of trying to tell the rest of us how to spend our money!

  • April 3, 2008

    2:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    RickyLee writes:

    Long live TABOR. The best law in Colorado in 100 years.

  • April 3, 2008

    9:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    Isn't it odd that the ones supporting these changes are all against TABOR. Must be because they know better than to try to lie their way through another attack on TABOR.

    We are putting the changes in the constitution because there is already a 2/3 majority required in both houses to change the constitution. There isn't a mere 6 year waiting period. Imagine if they could have legislated their way around TABOR.

    I don't like having anything "stuffed" into the constitution and would support a change that required a 2/3 vote in the legislature and then a majority of the voters to remove it.

    Read the history of the legislature. Neither party can be trusted to wisely choose between planning wisely or buying votes with tax dollars. We used to place statutes with ballot initiatives. Too often they were legislated around or outright killed at the first opportunity.

    Colorado was spared the horrors of unbelievable tax hikes by the grace of two Colorado laws (and there were screams of outrage for at least one of them). The first was the provision that we cannot have an unbalanced budget. No spending "anticipated" tax revenue. The second protection was TABOR. There was plenty of screaming because of the insanity of Ammendment 23, but the blame landed on TABOR.

    Letting them mess with the initiative process will end up gutting that process in favor of their superior knowledge. None of that knowledge seems to include how to SAVE money, trust the individual to know what is best for him/her or pass laws to punish the employers of illegal immigrants. That is another subject they are terrified will make it on the ballot and into the constitution so they can't buy illegal votes.

  • April 3, 2008

    10:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    Low tax equals freedom. Politicians, bureaucrats and those on the dole deny this eternal truth.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints