Wanted: a healthy dose of skepticism
Rocky Mountain News
Published October 4, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Coloradans are poised to vote on a host of ballot measures this fall, some of which will write language into the state constitution on very specific policy matters.
A few of these amendments are unavoidable in that they seek to change provisions already in the constitution that cannot be altered by statute alone. But others would enshrine very specific language in the constitution that simply doesn't have to be there - such as requiring the state to spend some portion of severance-tax revenue on roads (Amendment 52).
By now, Colorado voters should be familiar with the unintended consequences of a number of previous amendments that dictated policy better put into statute. The examples abound, from Amendment 23's spending mandates for schools to Amendment 41's absurdly overboard approach to keeping lobbyists on a leash.
But if you still aren't convinced, consider another example from recent ballot history that is outlined in a lawsuit filed this week against the state of Colorado on behalf of restaurants in Pueblo, Gunnison, Yuma, Crested Butte, Salida, Sedalia and La Junta.
You may have noticed that those restaurants reside outside big urban centers. There's a reason for that. They're suing the state over an amendment approved by voters two years ago hiking the minimum wage and linking it to "the Consumer Price Index used for Colorado."
One problem: As the lawsuit points out, "There is no CPI 'used for Colorado.' " The federal government publishes a consumer price index for the entire country as well as for regions, such as a 13-state Western area that includes Colorado. But there is no statewide CPI - only an index for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley area.
That's significant, the lawsuit argues, because this local CPI "contains no data whatsoever relating to any rural areas of Colorado and no data from any of the areas in Colorado within which plaintiffs' businesses are situated." It's also relevant because "the rate of inflation and cost-of-living is lower in the areas where plaintiffs do business than in the Denver-Boulder- Greeley metropolitan areas."
In short, an amendment supposedly designed to help the little guy is shafting small family businesses in rural Colorado by assuming their experience - and the experience of their employees - is the same as that of their urban counterparts.
Yet there's nothing that can be done about this state of affairs except to return to voters to change the constitution - a hugely difficult task - or make the legal case, as these restaurants have done, that the measure is unconstitutional.
We're not sure they have a strong case against the measure's constitutional merits, but they do make a terrific factual case against its fundamental fairness. They also point out, for example, that the amendment factors in tip income in such a way as to ensure that employees relying on a combination of tips and wages actually get annual pay boosts consistently above the consumer price index - which is almost certainly contrary to voters' wishes, or least their understanding at the time.
A flaw in the writing of the amendment? Yes, but Colorado's stuck with it - as are the family businesses who will not be able to control their costs.
Look, we're not making the case that you reject every constitutional amendment. What we are saying, emphatically, is that voters need to approach such measures with a healthy degree of skepticism because of the atrocious track record of some. This election season, let's all resolve that we won't be fooled again.
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.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
October 4, 2008
1:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on Amendment 47, Coloradans government workers have the Right-to-Work, shouldn't all Coloradans have the Right-to-Work?
October 4, 2008
6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSWren writes:
Yes, be skeptical & informed. Read, think, and talk with others!
Join us for Denver Speakers Corner, 4 p.m. tomorrow (Oct 5) and every Sunday between now and the elections, Denver Civic Center, North Pavilion on Colfax across the street from the Denver Newspaper Agency, more information and optional RSVP at http://cocacop.meetup.com/2
October 4, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
I'd vote yes on Amendment 47 if it actually guaranteed a paying job like it's dishonest title says. But Amendment 47 is a lie from the get go.
It's nothing more than a way to eliminate labor unions and encourage unbridled abuse of workers and even professional employees.
If you live on a trust fund and don't work for a living like Jonathan Coors, who wrote Amendment 47, then you have an excuse for not caring.
If you work for living then vote NO on Amendment 47.
October 4, 2008
8:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
Thanks HolierThanThou.
For those of you who are unaware (and have been conned by the pro-business groups), Colorado is already considered a "Right to Work" state because:
1) you do NOT have to join a union in Colorado even if you go to work in a so-called union shop
2) you do NOT pay full union dues if you are working in a union shop and are NOT a union member; you pay that portion of the dues which are deemed to be the portion for negotiating wages and benefits (which are typically above non-union shops), in addition if you work in a union shop and not a union member, BY LAW the union must fight for your rights, including if you feel you were fired/laid off without cause.
What folks like jacka won't tell you is that the states that have something like this amendment in place are the 22 LOWEST wage states in the country. It is no wonder they have high employment rates - at least half the population has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
October 4, 2008
10:02 p.m.
HopiMedicineMan writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 8, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spoonfly writes:
I live in Salida. Take my word for it, contrary to the writer's opinion, the cost of living is NOT less here than in Denver-Boulder- Greeley metropolitan areas! Gas averages 30 cents higher per gallon, real estate is very pricey, and so are groceries. The restaurant owners are cheap and want to keep all the profits for themselves! Similar things could undoubtedly be said for Crested Butte, and Gunnison.