April 15, 2007 04:36 PM UTC

Senate Stalling Amendment 41 Compromise?

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

As the Denver Post reports this morning, echoing a Colorado Confidential story from late last week:

Friday is the deadline for filing 2007 ballot proposals, and leaders of a coalition of people who both supported and opposed the ethics-in-government measure say they stand ready to put the issue back to voters in the form of a lobbyist tax if the Senate doesn’t get moving.

At issue is House Joint Resolution 1029, which was pushed through the House quickly after leaders from both houses and both parties announced agreement on how to narrow the amendment’s broad reach.

The resolution asks the state Supreme Court for guidance in determining the gift ban’s scope – including whether it affects inheritances, scholarships and gifts for rank-and-file government workers.

The resolution passed out of the House the day after it was introduced on April 2. But it was not introduced in the Senate until Tuesday. It was then referred to the Senate state affairs committee, which has not scheduled a hearing.

Senate President pro tem Peter Groff, who chairs the panel, said he thinks the committee will hear the bill Wednesday. House Minority Leader Mike May has accused the Senate of stalling, and Speaker Andrew Romanoff questioned why a committee hearing was even necessary…

“We are having a hard time figuring out what it is that is taking them so long,” said Eric Sondermann, spokesman for the coalition.

With the legislature set to adjourn on May 9, he says, “They are just getting so tight against the deadline to give the court any meaningful time to do anything.”

There’s another “deadline” looming as well, one that may help explain what the Senate leadership is up to more than anything else–the First Amendment Council, organized by lobbyists and legislators to fight Amendment 41 in court on constitutional grounds, has a hearing on their injuction request scheduled for May 7. Depending on the results of that hearing, all the work toward a legislative compromise may or may not be wasted effort.

Sen. Peter Groff isn’t a plaintiff in that suit, but it’s common knowledge he’d like it to succeed. We’ve also discussed at great length the political (spelled CD-2 primary) considerations affecting the Senate’s reaction to Amendment 41.

If the Senate tries to flake out on the May/Romanoff compromise, the question then becomes how much heat House Democratic leaders are willing to put on their Senate counterparts to save it–does Andrew Romanoff care enough about this deal to publicly challenge Sen. Groff, and by proxy Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald?