President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 08, 2008 05:31 PM UTC

Liberals support Doug Bruce in opposition to petition legislation

  • 35 Comments
  • by: NEWSMAN

(We’ve had a lot of discussion about the Colorado Constitution, so I find it interesting that Doug Bruce is taking on this issue.  I’m sure this will generate some discussion! – promoted by Haners)

Look who the bipartisan Republican is.  It’s Doug Bruce, reaching across the aisle to enlist liberals to oppose tampering with the citizens ability to petition.

Liberal “Common Cause” agrees with him.

By MICHAEL DAVIDSON THE GAZETTE

State Rep. Douglas Bruce and liberal advocacy groups joined forces Monday to oppose making it harder to change the state constitution.

 

The unlikely allies objected to a proposed constitutional amendment that would increase the number of signatures needed to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot.

It also would require that 10 percent of the signatures belong to residents of all of the state’s seven congressional districts.   The proposal, Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, is the result of months of work by a bipartisan panel of lawmakers to find a way to encourage changing statutory law rather than the constitution.

 Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, introduced the proposal despite believing more significant constitutional reform is needed. He said his commission’s scope was limited to fixing the initiative process, so it offered minor changes.

 “We weren’t trying to reinvent the wheel,” Tapia told the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

The proposed amendment would make it easier to change statutory law, which the Legislature can later change or rescind, while making it harder to amend the constitution, which only voters can change. To get a statutory initiative on the ballot, a group would need to collect signatures equal to 4 percent of the votes cast in the previous election for governor. Getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot would require 6 percent of the vote in the governor’s race, and those signatures would have to come from around the state.

Currently, statutory and constitutional initiatives require 5 percent of the votes cast for secretary of state.

 As an added incentive, the Legislature would not be able to alter a statutory change for six years unless it had a two-thirds vote of both houses.

Legislators have long complained that too many initiatives have cluttered the constitution. Some outlaw nuclear detonation within the state while others conflict with each other, such as Amendment 23, which requires increases in funding for education, and TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which caps government spending.

Bruce, R-Colorado Springs and the author of TABOR, called the measure “an overt, blatant attempt to undermine the First Amendment rights of the people.”    He also complained about his exclusion from the panel, which he chastised for “not giving preference to people who know the most about the process.”

 Jane Feustel, who represented Common Cause and the Colorado Progressive Coalition, said requiring signatures to come from around the state would severely strain the resources of grass-roots groups.

The committee will vote on the measure Wednesday. To be on the November ballot, it must pass by a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate.

http://daily.gazette.com/Daily…  

Tweet
Share

Comments

35 thoughts on “Liberals support Doug Bruce in opposition to petition legislation”

  3. Anyone who believes that ordinary citizens are the ones who are using the current process us a gold-plated jackass. Ordinary citizens can’t buy signatures.

  4. We elect our representatives for a reason; to represent the will of the people in making law while keeping in mind what’s best for the future of the state. I’m not saying we should abolish the petition process all together, but making it harder to change the state constitution – absolutely I agree with that.

      1. Common Cause is a political interest group like any other. They may be on the side of the angels but their concern is pragmatic – they want to use the initiative process like any anti-tax group and want the fewest impediments toward this end. They probably don’t care how in Colorado this can completely hamstring government from doing its job.

      2. I am fine with our representative government, flawed though it may be at times. If I really want something, I’ll do a statutory initiative, not change the constitution. Besides, with the way things are going for the Colorado GOP, I don’t seem to be in danger of that situation, at least for the near future.

    1. I may have to unmake my reservation for Common Cause’s fundraising dinner this week.  A41 I get – it had some drafting issues, but was totally consistent with Common Cause’s mission.  Opposing a reasonabel effort to distinguish between constitution and statute book is nuts.

  7. that can be changed so easily.  The constitution ought to be a broad, general frame work.  Most specifics ought to be dealt with via garden variety legislation.   If the details don’t work, all it takes is further legislation to correct the problem.  

    Micro-managing via constitution means unforeseen consequences can’t be easily addressed.  Our legislators need room to legislate and citizens who don’t like their legislation ought to vote them out, not make a contradictory mess of locked-in mandates out of our constitution.  

    It should require a super majority that shows a VERY broad consensus to change the constitution.  It shouldn’t be used by every well funded interest group as a means to get some pet concern locked in on the strength of a sound bite or as a way of introducing wedge issues designed to bring out their vote.

    Most voters don’t have the time or inclination to study the zillions of these things that get on the ballot every year.  That’s what representative democracy is all about. That’s  how it is we don’t all have to take the time to study and vote directly on everything.  

    We select legislators to study and deal with these things. We vote them out if we don’t agree with their choices.

    We can’t afford to let everybody just vote for whatever sounds good on a bumper sticker and in almost complete ignorance of the details or potential interaction with existing amendments, locking one complicated formula after another into our constitution and tying our legislators hands. It’s  the main the reason things are so screwed up and it’s so hard to fix them.

  8. 1) Must pass with 60% of the vote – first approval.

    2) The legislature passes the required legislation.

    3) Must pass in the next general election, again with 60% of the vote.

    So there is 2 years to discuss the amendments impact and get the law all in place, and then with all that info it must pass again.

    1. First, if the petition process is the same for getting it on the ballot, it will lead to a very cluttered ballot (more so than it already is). Second, I don’t think the negatives would really come home to the average citizen over two years, but maybe it would for enough people. I say lets stop the problem at its source: make it harder to get on the ballot at all. Maybe we can add your suggestion as well.  

        1. so I think people will still spend money on most of them, if not more money to increase the chances. Plus, if it passes once, it will definitely be on the ballot the second time. Plus the cost to get something on the ballot won’t change, so I think there will still be a lot of people trying to get them on there. Couple that with the ones that are going up for a second time, it looks like more clutter to me. All I’m saying is address the problem at its source.

  9. Constitution by petition. It’s an awful remnant. This proposal goes a long way.

    I have no problem with initiatives as such. Long ballots don’t scare me. I do not, however, like the Constitution toyed with so easily. It should not be up to the richest donor to determine what our rights are. Make them statutory and raise the bar for Constitutional amendments. I have no issue with that, and Pete Maysmith can stick it.

  10. I do not have the latest information, but my understanding is that Common Cause supports almost all of this proposal.  The only objection is to the requirement for the number of signatures from each congressional district.  Among other things, it puts restrictions on citizens that the legislature does not put upon itself.  They can refer amendments without geographic balance from their legislative members.  Why require that of citizens?

    And, by the way, that one objection is the only one stated in the article.  The rest of the criticism of Common Cause is not based on fact but on speculation and projection on the part of posters.

    Many of you bought into The Gazette’s linking of Bruce and others in their lede.  Just because you want to make one change in a proposal that Bruce wants to kill puts you into bed with him?  It is sad that one has to point out what an absurd position that is. After all, I agree with Ron Paul on Iraq and cheer his efforts on that issue, but please don’t associate me with his nut-case positions on other issues.  

    1. They can refer amendments without geographic balance from their legislative members.  Why require that of citizens?

      In an ideal world that makes sense, but practically it does not any longer. IMHO, the process now has nothing to do with citizens petitioning laws to the ballot. Professional political groups, funded by God only knows who, have taken over the process and it’s citizens who suffer when they vote on this stuff without thinking it through. Think all those contradictory amendments would have passed if they did?

      Of course, they could preserve the process if they still allow petitioning laws (not constitutional amendments) in the current fashion. I support making that tougher given what I said last paragraph, but can compromise to this at least if amendments are made tougher, say at least as tough as it is to amend the US Constitution.

      1. amend the Colorado constitution, I can tell you it’s plenty tough to do under the current rules.  It took 3 tries and from 1988 to 1992 to pass the Bill of Rights for Taxpayers aka (TABOR).

        That Amendment was as true a citizens petition as there has ever been.  No big business contributions, no party or official sanction.  No help from major sponsors. No major endorsements from either party.  Lots of denouncements from every corner of the establishment.

        But the citizens in that case prevailed, because after 3 tries, the taxpayers agreed that goverments ability to raise our taxes needed some checks and balances.  

        They now need our prior permission.  

        The powers not specifically given to the Federal goverment or to the states are retained by the people.  And the petition process is their voice.  It needs no wholsale revision.

        1. That is simply not the situation today.

          I’m all for a petition process; but can you say why it has to be a constitutional amendment and not a simple proposition like other states have?

          1. to change or overrule is a major plus for the grassroots that have no major political platform to constantly combat those who oppose the citizens petition like TABOR.

            1. They won’t tamper with popularly passed issues. In Washington they even enacted laws when the initiatives were struck down in court.

              Besides, TABOR is the prime example of what’s wrong with writing that stuff into the constitution. It’s oversimple and gives the lege no wiggle room at all. It threw the baby out with the bathwater, as have numerous other amendments. The lege could have fixed that and the majority of those who voted for it would be happy as the spirit would have remained intact (remember, the GOP held the majority then and for long after it passed.)

              So, since you aren’t challenging my assertion that the process is now in the hands of professional unelected politicians, can I take that as assent?

              1. I won’t get into an argument on that first sentence, but you are flat wrong about the second.  In 1996 the citizens passed the Fair Campaign Practices Act as Am15–by 66% (which would seem to qualify as “popularly passed”). This was a statute. A federal court struck down some parts of it, but upheld most of that statute. In 2000, however, the legislature “tampered” by gutting that statute.

                In 2002, citizen groups came back with Am27–a constitutional amendment–to reestablish the FCPA. It passed by 65%. If the legislature had respected the voice of the citizens on the FCPA as a statute, it never would have become part of the constitution.

                Given that experience, citizens (who aren’t dumb either) learned: Legislators will “tamper with popularly passed issues.” The legislature needs to acknowledge it bears some responsibility for the constitutional amendment problem.

                1. I’ll accept that. Thank you for the facts. But I’ll point out that, IIRC, the GOP was still in control of the lege. In my experience Dems are more respectful of the electorate. I bore witness to that in Washington state and have no reason to suspect that Colorado Dems are any different.

                  1. I hope that is true, and I think that is true of many of the current crop of Dems in the legislature. Speaker Romanoff certainly has taken the lead in making that point. Unfortunately, in the 1996-2002 era, Dems let the GOP take the lead in fighting and then gutting Am 15, and opposing Am 27, but they were equally opposed. They just kept their mouths shut while hoping the GOP succeeded and took the heat. Also, while Dems like Rep. Michael Merrifield and Sen. Ron Tupa tried ethics reforms prior to Am 41, they did not have enough backing from their fellow Dems to succeed.

                    I have worked hard for the Democratic party and Democratic candidates for years and I continue to do so, but on issues that directly concern office holders–campaign finance, ethics, etc.–a number of them need as much of a kick in the butt from the citizens as the Republicans do to maintain “respect for the electorate.”  

                    1. I won’t put it past the Dems to be motivated by politics (as opposed to what they believe to be right) in anything they do. But that’s politics. Ultimately it’s the course of action they follow that matters.

        2. but again, petitions defeat the purpose of a representative government. If people want to get involved, why don’t they spend their time working to elect someone that will bring about the change they desire? To clarify, I’m not saying we should get rid of it all together, but the state (and US) Constitution should be sacred.

          As part of a campaign I worked on, I petitioned for a Constitutional Amendment as well and found it to be quite easy. It shouldn’t be. As another example (not the campaign I worked on BTW), the Colorado marijuana initiative made it onto to the ballot to change the statutes, but it could have just as easily made it on the ballot to change the State Constitution. It didn’t pass, but who knows, after two or three tries, it could pass (like TABOR). Do you really think that there should be a Constitutional Amendment about marijuana?  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

205 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!