U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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 15, 2007 04:36 PM UTC

Senate Stalling Amendment 41 Compromise?

  • 14 Comments
  • 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?

Tweet
Share

Comments

14 thoughts on “Senate Stalling Amendment 41 Compromise?”

    1.   TABOR allows for tax-related ballot initiatives any year, odd or even.  (Recall Referendum C and D.) 
        Jared Polis and Co. have an idea to fix A-41 THIS YEAR by appending the remedial constitutional amendment to a “lobbyist tax provision.”
        Polis should go forward with filing his ballot proposal this week, let Joan Fitz-Gerald and Peter Groff demonstrate their good faith with the legislative compromise, and if it passes the Senate, Polis can always pull the proposed lobbyist tax initiative before Nov.
        Polis would be a fool to unilaterally disarm himself.

      2. because I usually agree with you, but Polis has already proven himself to be a fool.  He bankrolled this thing, now he wants to fix it?

        Where was the forethought?  Why wasn’t it “fixed” before it went on the ballot?

        1. IMO also Polis showed very poor judgment in not fixing this thing before putting it on the ballot.  But he can partially redeem himself by showing good judgment now.  I think Dems want to see him think things through and listen to warnings from knowledgeable people, rather than barrelling forward like he knows everything.

  2. …is just the latest example of why amending a state constitution shouldn’t be as easy as changing socks,  albeit very expensive socks.  The next amendment ought to be one requiring a two thirds majority for any future change in the state constitution.  The goal should be rare changes from that point on with the constitution serving as a stable framework, not a  vehicle for the wealthy and well-funded to get around the elected legislature and the legislature to avoid dealing with controversial issues.  As it is, it’s just too easy to reduce a complex issue to an attractive sound bite and too hard to deal with any unintended consequences.  “Fixing” amendments sucks up way too much time and too many resources.

    1.   I agree but I also gave up long ago ever expecting that people would agree to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. 
        The ballot initiative process is for interest groups (both left and right) what drugs are to an addict.

  3. …will not resolve the questions, in my opinion.  If the court denies the injunction, then the legislative response will be necessary (obviously).  But even if the court grants the injunction, a legislative response would still make sense because the district court’s decision would not be the final word….an appeal would be forthcoming.  If the injunction is reversed on appeal, then A.41 would be left in effect with all of its allegedly onerous consequences.

    I’ll bet the court scheduled the injunction hearing with the expectation that the parties would know the legislature’s (and maybe the supreme court’s) response by the time of the hearing, which could moot or lessen the urgency of any injunctive request.

  4. Which legislators?

    I’d support making it harder to change the constitution.  I don’t have addiction problems. (Unless you count Reeses Cups.)

        1. I was throwing current and former legislators in the same boat in hopes of capturing the intent of the author(s) who stated that legislators were involved in the organization.  I may have missed that boat.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

123 readers online now

Newsletter

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