INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM UNDER THREAT IN COLORADO

The following article from a Colorado newspaper illustrates how fragile the direct democratic institutions we have at the state level have become. When those in power are capable of convincing citizens that it is preferable to surrender what little power they have to self-legislate simply because the majority has produced some legislation that they may be in disagreement with, it shows us that we must struggle ever harder to protect the initiative and referendum process where it exists at the state level, and strive harder to expand it at that level, and above to the federal level as well... Clearly, the following article does not he reflect the views of this editor, but the comments posted by one Colorado citizen that appear after the article certainly do. - Editor

A Better Ballot Measure

It's time to raise the bar for constitutional amendments

Rocky Mountain News
Thursday, April 3, 2008

SOURCE: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/03/a-better-ballot-measure/

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

Posted by p_myers661 on April 3, 2008 at 8:05 a.m.

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.