Protecting the initiative

DU panel devises worthy reforms that keep citizen right intact

The Rocky

Published January 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated January 8, 2008 at 9:42 a.m.

Text size  

• 1 Comment
• Email
• Print

Given its impeccable establishment credentials, the University of Denver's 2007 Colorado Constitution Panel might have been expected to try to undermine grass-roots advocacy when suggesting changes in the way citizens amend the state constitution. We would not have been shocked to see proposals shifting more power to elected officials or to institutions that were even less accountable to the public - say, commissions much like DU's panel.

To the panel's immense credit (and credibility), it did not. Instead, it offered thoughtful and innovative approaches that would protect the initiative process while improving it.

Consider the problem of political activists preferring to put constitutional amendments on the ballot rather than statutes because they fear lawmakers will simply revise or repeal a statute they don't like. As a result, policy issues become enshrined in the constitution, where they can't be adjusted to changing circumstances except through another statewide vote.

Thus, the spending formulas written into Amendment 23 tied lawmakers' hands during the budget crunch earlier this decade. And Amendment 41's ridiculously expansive ban on "gifts" to public officials makes some basic human interactions potential violations of the law.

One way to discourage would-be amendments would be to require sponsors to get more signatures to qualify for the ballot. But the DU panel rejected that idea. After all, as panel chairman Jim Griesemer explained, a higher signature threshold would not deter deep-pocketed activists from qualifying amendments, only average citiziens.

The panel also rejected the idea of forcing amendments to get a supermajority of votes at the polls, arguing that this could stifle the process, too.

Instead, the panel offered two ideas, one to create an incentive for activists to choose statutes over amendments and the other to improve the quality of the amendments themselves.

The first proposal is to bar the legislature from modifying any ballot-approved statute for 10 years unless two-thirds of the members of both houses approved the change. That should be more than enough to satisfy the fears of activists that lawmakers will meddle with their handiwork.

The second proposal is more complex, and meant to subject citizen-based amendments to greater scrutiny before they reach the ballot.

Under the plan, the legislature would review any amendment that qualified for the ballot. Lawmakers could hold hearings to solicit public feedback, work with sponsors (when they're willing) to modify amendments if problems were identified, and even refer competing amendments to the ballot.

Lawmakers could not, however, remove an initiated amendment from the ballot.

Not only would this process provide an opportunity to fix any obvious flaws up front, it would give voters months to consider amendments rather than weeks.

Finally, the DU panel advocates a regular review of the constitution. Once every decade, a commission appointed by the governor, the legislature and the Supreme Court would undertake a year-long review. As many as one-third of the articles of the constitution could be revisited. Voters would have to approve any suggested changes, as they do other constitutional amendments.

Such long-lasting reforms should not preclude more immediate fixes. For instance, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff may seek a legislative amendment this year that would suspend the single-subject requirement one time. Voters could then later consider a separate amendment, for instance, to resolve the fiscal conflicts in the constitution between the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Amendment 23 and the Gallagher amendment.

We'll have more to say about this idea if it moves forward. But it should not prevent the state's political, business and civic leaders - and anyone else who wants to restore the constitution to its proper role - from taking steps now to ensure that voters can consider the DU panel's worthwhile recommendations.

• January 8, 2008

  11:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  peterpi writes:

  The problem with this editorial, and other commentaries similar to it over the years, is that what the RMN considers to be flaws, the amendment sponsors were just fine with. For example, regarding the TABOR amendment, the RMN considers provisions in the amendment, such as the so-called "ratchet" effect, as flaws. But Douglas Bruce and other TABOR proponents see the ratchet as working exactly as intended. To them, the severe effects on government during Colorado's recessionary period wasn't a flaw, it was what they wanted. Same with the Gallagher amendment. Its disproportionate effect on business property taxes compared to residential property taxes isn't a flaw, it's what then-Senator Gallagher wanted to happen. So any effort to fix "flaws" in proposed citizens' initiatives will be met with resistance because what the high muckety-mucks see as flaws, the initiative's sponsors see as merits.

Featured

• Through Your Lens

  

  Submit your photos or see the Editor's Choice slide show here.

• Rocky Multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Holiday Lights

  

  Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.

• Holiday Gift Guide

  

  Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?

• Mount Crushmore

  

  Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.

• Bronco Dean's rant

  

  Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.

• Broncos Video

  

  Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.

• Calendar wallpaper

  

  Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman