Marianne Goodland reports for the Colorado Springs Gazette on multiple attempts yesterday by House Republicans to undermine the power of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission–action on the heels of a highly controversial vote by notoriously anti-LGBT Republicans on the Joint Budget Committee against funding for the commission:
The House Judiciary Committee Tuesday voted 10-1 to draft a bill to extend the Colorado Division of Civil Rights and the civil rights commission for nine more years. House Republicans offered six amendments that attempted to make sweeping changes to the commission, without success…
Republicans attempted to change how the commission is appointed and its authority. One amendment, offered by House Assistant Minority Leader Cole Wist of Centennial, would make the commission’s sole purpose to investigate and research discrimination, and strip it of its ability to hold hearings or review appeals.
The hearing function would stay in the statute but discrimination cases would go to an administrative law judge and hence wouldn’t take away the rights of a complainant to have his/her case heard, Wist said. But without its hearing authority, one Democrat said the change would make the commission little more than an academic body.
Goodland reports on other proposed alterations of the Civil Rights Commission, including reducing the sunset review period and allowing legislative leaders to appoint members to the commission in addition to the governor. The individual proposals offered by Republicans to “reform” the Civil Rights Commission aren’t really what matter, though.
It’s the fact that Republicans believe the Commission needs “reform” at all.
Readers will remember that the current partisan battle over the Civil Rights Commission has two principal origins: first in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a Lakewood cake baker accused of discrimination against a same-sex couple, and second in an embarrassing episode for Senate Republicans last year in which they refused to reappoint an LGBT member of the commission. After Senate Republicans’ stated rationale for denying Heidi Hess another term was shown to be preposterously in error, the only thing left to justify their action was Hess’ support for anti-discrimination legislation passed years ago.
And, of course, the fact that Heidi Hess is a member of Colorado’s LGBT community.
Politically, this sustained retaliation against the Civil Rights Commission by Republicans in the Colorado legislature seems destined to backfire. The benefit of rallying religious-right voters doesn’t come near to compensating for the swing-voter support Republicans stand to lose by continuing this grandstand. It’s not the first time local Republicans have seized on anti-LGBT wedge politics in a major election year: the then-one seat House GOP majority’s extraordinary shutdown of the House to kill a civil unions bill that would have otherwise passed with bipartisan support in 2012 being a strikingly similar example.
If the 2012 elections are any guide to how this ends, a very serious mistake is being made.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: kwtree
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Delta County’s Rep. Matt Soper Opposes Birthright Citizenship
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: NotHopeful
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
You just admitted that Republicans don't want to kill the commission, just make some common sense changes. Thank you!!
Oh, you mean like make it easier for Christofascists to discriminate against GLBT people in the name of "conscience"? Making it easier to tam your religion of hate down our throats.
Moderatus — what is "common sense" about taking away an ability to hold hearings? Why would it make sense to strip the Commission of an ability to review appeals?
If those same proposals were made to the Oil and Gas Commission, would they be "common sense"?
There is nothing wrong with requiring higher ethical standards for commission members, or to require some of them be judges or lawyers. That's smart. Given what you're doing to Jack Phillips, they are just exercising due diligence.
Higher ethical standards? Says the dimmy who is 100 % in goose step with Trump.