Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Judge partially dismisses challenge to right-to-work amendment

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 7, 2008 at 9:45 p.m.

Text size  

More More Business

More stories »

A legal challenge to a proposed right-to-work amendment has been partly dismissed by a Denver district judge, who ruled this week that her court has no authority over key parts of the case.

A labor-backed group had alleged a "pattern of massive fraud" by the measure's proponents and also challenged the state's process for validating the signatures required to put a proposal on the statewide ballot. But Denver District Judge Christine Habas threw out about half of the claims after ruling the court lacks jurisdiction.

"What the court has said is there's no way to challenge fraud in the signature-gathering process," said Jess Knox, head of the Protect Colorado's Future coalition that filed the court challenge.

The Denver district judge has not ruled yet on a narrower set of legal claims that relate only to the signatures the secretary of state verified in its standard random-sampling process.

But Knox said his group plans an appeal, which can take the matter directly to a higher state court.

"We're going to appeal all of this," he said of the judge's initial decision. "The Supreme Court's going to have to weigh in on this."

The group pushing for a "right-to-work" amendment issued a statement referring to the lawsuit as "desperate," "frivolous" and "a hopeless attempt to defeat Amendment 47 in the courtroom and deny Colorado voters the right to decide its fate."

The right-to-work measure would change the state Constitution by doing away with the process of allowing employees to vote on whether to set up all-union workplaces. If approved, such arrangements require all workers covered by collective-bargaining contracts to contribute financially in return for being represented by a union.

"This campaign looks forward to engaging in a healthy debate on the merits of Amendment 47 from now to Election Day," said Kelley Harp, a spokesman for A Better Colorado.

Comments

  • August 8, 2008

    10:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TRILL writes:

    I wouldn't call a lawsuit alleging a massive pattern of fraud "frivolous." These are serious charges against Amendment 47's petitions. If they really did lie and cheat their way to the ballot, the court should weigh in. Kelley Harp and the backer of 47 should not try to deny Colorado courts the right to decide its fate.

  • August 8, 2008

    4 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Specialk writes:

    If only their was a way to prove those signatures were false...

    Even if they weren't forged, the people who signed them must have been misinformed by the petitioner. If they knew how the annual income goes down atleast $5,000 in all the states it has passed in they would have kept walking.

    Only the billionaire CEO's (like Jake Jabbs and Jonathan Coors) who spent their money to put it on the ballot would benefit from this deadly attack on the middle class.

  • August 8, 2008

    5:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Chipdip writes:

    Well said, specialk.

    I hope the appeal is successful and 47 gets kicked off the ballot. Colorado will be DEVASTATED by this deceptive amendment. And it will hurt our families, not the CEOs.

  • August 13, 2008

    10:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Amendment 47 affirms employees can't be forced to join the union and pay forced union due just to keep their job. Its simple and its fair.

    Amendment 47 text from State website reads:

    Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
    SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

    Section 16. Right to work.

    (1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT".

    (2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
    (I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
    (II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.

    (2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.

    (3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.

    (4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.

    (5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "LABOR UNION" MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.

    SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.

    YES on Amendment 47 for all Coloradans.

  • August 14, 2008

    11:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dmp2420 writes:

    Yada yada, we all know what the language says and that's the problem. And if there wasn't fraud in the petition-gathering, there is still FRAUD in the ballot language because it IMPLIES that people are being forced to join unions when in fact federal law prohibits it. As long as its backers continue to imply that something is true which is NOT TRUE, there is FRAUD at the core.

    Even when 75% of all workers agree (as required by Colorado's unique Labor Peace Act of 1943) to a closed shop any new employee can assert their "Beck Rights" and not pay union dues. They are required then to only pay a pro-rata share of the actual costs involved in contract negotiations and don't have to contribute financially to any other union activities such as backing political causes they find objectionable.

    If you go to the backer's website, you will find an Al Lewis column on it that talks about one anti-union backer of Amendment 47. That guy says he doesn't want to pay the dues he is paying and he knows he can get out of it, but admits he is just TOO LAZY.

    Protecting the Bill of Rights takes some paperwork, doesn't it? If people are too lazy to fill out a bit of paperwork to protect the rights they say they want to protect, isn't the REAL problem that they're lazy? Maybe they should back an amendment to outlaw laziness instead! That would make more sense than this one.

    Colorado's unique labor laws aren't broke and they don't need this idiotic amendment that is backed only by the willfully misled and the utterly uninformed. When you know the facts, you will vote NO on Amendment 47.

  • August 14, 2008

    10:49 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    YES on 47, Stop Forced Unionism and Forced Union Dues