Initiative process could face reform
Committee urges it be harder to alter constitution
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 12:30 a.m., March 7, 2008
Updated 01:53 a.m., March 7, 2008
Coloradans this November could be asked to change the initiative process by making it more difficult to amend the constitution but easier to change state law.
A bipartisan committee looking at constitutional reform issued its recommendations Thursday after a sometimes testy hearing.
Proposals include requiring backers of constitutional measures to collect more valid voter signatures than those pushing statutory changes.
"The right of citizens to act directly to shape public policy is an important part of Colorado's heritage," said Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, a reform committee member.
"But there is a growing consensus that too many minor matters are clogging our state constitution," he said.
Mitchell stressed that the recommendations wouldn't impact the often controversial 1992 Taypayer's Bill of Rights, which regulates taxation and spending.
"I sometimes fear that people who drive this discussion have the primary objective to loosen restrictions in the TABOR Amendment," he said.
"I would have resisted going in the direction of dismantling TABOR. The committee doesn't do that."
The proposals will be presented to the House and Senate as a resolution.
Lawmakers will debate the proposals, likely make changes and then vote on whether to place the issue on the 2008 ballot.
Colorado has about the easiest state constitution to amend, requiring only a simple majority of voters to add provisions.
Since 1980, the Colorado Constitution has been amended 52 times.
Citizens have passed measures ranging from tax issues to regulating hog farms.
Those initiatives cannot be changed even if they conflict with previous measures or are found to have flaws.
Lawmakers can, however, amend statutory measures, if needed.
Currently, it takes 76,047 signatures to get either kind of measure on the ballot.
If the proposed reforms were in place this year, the number of signatures required for a constitutional measure would be 91,256.
Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, chairman of the reform committee, initially upset Republicans on the panel when he said that the Democratic leadership did not want the panel to set specific thresholds.
"Partisan politics entered into it in a way that had not previously been evident," Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Grand Junction, said afterward. "We were relegated to a much more generic and somewhat empty position of only reinforcing what the majority party wanted us to do."
Tapia later relented and the committee recommendations included specifics.
bartels@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5327
Proposed changes
Coloradans can put issues on the ballot through a process that includes collecting enough valid voter signatures.
* Now: The number of signatures needed is based on a percentage of votes for secretary of state in the previous election.
* Proposed: The number would be based on a percentage of votes in the governor's race, which attracts a higher turnout. Therefore, more signatures would be needed.
* Now: The number of signatures needed to put either a state constitution or statutory issue on the ballot must equal at least 5 percent of the voters for secretary of state in the last election.
* Proposed: A 4 percent requirement for statutory initiatives; 6 percent for constitutional measures.
* Now: Signatures can be collected anywhere in state, but petitioners often concentrate only on the Front Range.
* Proposed: At least 10 percent of signatures must be collected in each of the seven congressional districts.
* Now: It takes only a majority in the House and Senate to change a statutory initiative after it has become law if a problem is discovered or the situation changes.
* Proposed: A two-thirds vote would be needed in the first six years after the initiative becomes law.
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.
March 7, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
While I support some reform, this is an area where legislators should tread with care. The right of the people to amend the law and if necessary the constitution must be respected and preserved. I do believe that raising the bar for amending the Constitution should be raised, but only if the matching law limiting legislative amendment of citizen initiated statutes is also passed. One of the reasons the citizen put so much in the Constitution is that we do not trust the legislators to not mess with what the citizens passed. Some of these proposed ideas seem to be intelligent compromises, but they need much more discussion.
March 7, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Your point is well taken buffsbig. It is a matter of trust for our
legislative bodies that has struck fear in my heart for some time.
It appears that our elected officials, not all, but for the most part, on local, state and certainly federal levels do not represent their constituents, rather their own agenda(s). So our
lack of trust is founded and documented in congressional voting
records.
March 7, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Any changes must include provisions that prevent the legislature from tampering with the will of the people expressed through citizen initiative. In the past the repuglicans in the legislature were quick to change the initiatives passed into something barely recognizable to the suporters of the initiative. That's why the citizens revert to constitutional amendments to express their will.