U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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%
May 23, 2007 02:04 AM UTC
71 Comments
Loading ...
Laws can/have been/to a degree should be easy to enact and change-especially over “hot button” issues.
But a constitution is different. Making changes based off a small plurality can/has/and will continue to give us bad and short sighted policy. Requiring a “super majority” is a dang good idea.
This needs to happen. Everytime I hear that Romanoff is up to something, it is exactly what is best for the state. This is good for our states future. Now just adjust the way we redistrict and we’re all set.
who don’t support constitutional reform. Coloradans should be able to bring issues to the voters, but when it is as easy to amend the constitution as it is statute, something is wrong.
This is one of those issues that needs to pass but is hard to educate voters about. I’m glad to see White and Romanoff taking the lead. I wonder if this is why they killed White’s bill during the session.
In any case I’m interested to hear what people think.
The initiative process gives us people the power to go over the legislature’s (and courts’) heads. This provision became necessary because our legislators don’t listen to us and the real problems we face.
Denver, Boulder, and Jefferson counties are basically run by one party. I find that I have to work with downright serious crazies, who make our Dobby seem like a moderate on Xanax. Pols tend to pander to zealots because they tend to be the most active foot-soldiers. If you’re a ‘Pub in Denver, you might as well stay in the pub, for all the influence you can hope to have.
Professional pols and “public servants” detest ethics rules, because they regard their unique power to trade favors as a perquisite of their posts. But the rest of us in the real world, who can’t call on their good friend Joan or Andy or Mitch or Mary to “fix problems” for them, think our public servants should remain above reproach, and that we deserve a fair shake. Along comes Jared Polis, who has an idea that appeals to us Real People: a stringent code of ethics for public servants. Amendment 41 was born, and the Real People in Colorado applaud it. So what if it means that the son of a public official can’t accept a scholarship? It’s not like he couldn’t get a job in the real world (on sober second thought, when it comes to most public servants, they are only qualified for careers in the food service or hospitality industries). You signed the contract, you live with the consequences.
The system works, more-or-less. It works at least as well as that whited sepulchre with the golden dome (that doubles as a house of ill-repute) on Colfax. If there are serious problems with the original initiative that don’t become readily apparent until after passage, you fix them when you figure them out. Amendment 2 was found unconstitutional (as well it should have been), but Amendment 4 has worked out spectacularly for Black Hawk and Central City. Would that piece of legislation have gotten past the legislature? I rather doubt it.
A 50% threshold is fair, insofar as most Coloradans (myself included) tend to vote against amendments unless we can see a pressing need for them. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
We’re talking about Constitutional Amendments, not petitions or something like that. It takes a whole lot to amend the U.S. constitution, and that’s a good thing. 50% of the vote shouldn’t be sufficient to change a state’s constitution.
This isn’t taking power from the people. This is good policy. This is making sure that when the people do take up the mantle of going over elected official’s heads, they’re doing it in a way that isn’t going to mess over the state. This is a safegaurd to make sure that they’re fixing the problem the best way. Micro-managing anything through a Constitution is bad policy.
Hell, it’s not even like our bill of rights is enforceable in a Colorado courtroom.
The people of Colorado decided that 50% of the vote should be sufficient to change our constitution. What makes you right and them wrong?
I don’t know of anything coming out of the initiative process that has “messed over the state.” TABOR placed a much-needed brake on runaway government spending. Amendment 41 filled a desperate need that our corrupt bureaucrats and legislators were loath to meet. The solutions weren’t perfect, but they were far superior to the solutions provided by our esteemed legislators. For the most part, the voters of Colorado have been more responsible than our politicians.
Now, if we had had enshrined “Rocky Mountain High” as our state song or made bestiality a felony (is this really a problem?) via constitutional amendment, I’d be inclined to agree that “Houston, we have a problem.” But I can’t point to anything that the people have done through the initiative process that smacks of patent irresponsibility.
Not micro-managing through constitutional amendments. So, were our founding fathers wrong when they made it so hard to change the constitution? What makes you think that Colorado should be any different?
Person freedom is perserved through a constitution that is specific in certain areas, and vauge in others. If the constitution can be changed on a whim, it underminds its purpose and allows any to make knee-jerk changes that can put our state in a fiscal crunch.
Personally, I think TABOR was a good idea, but other constitutional amendments like the ones specifying how much needs to be spent on schools and prisons should have been done by initiative, not constitutional amendment, which is what we’re talking about.
Haners: So, were our founding fathers wrong when they made it so hard to change the constitution? What makes you think that Colorado should be any different?
The people of Colorado decided in their infinite wisdom that it should be easier to change the state constitution, so they obviously saw a salient difference between the two situations, considering and rejecting that argument on the merits. As you are advocating the change, it is incumbent upon you to present a compelling rationale for the change.
Any suggestion that our personal rights are at risk on account of future constitutional amendments appears remote at best. First and foremost, the federal BoR acts as a floor, beyond which our rights cannot fall. Second, the people have to go along with it, which is unlikely. Our rights are menaced more directly by rogue judges, who can disregard them with impunity — Judge Bork referred to it as a “judicial coup d’etat,” and Justice Scalia has been almost as candid. Surely, you remember People ex rel. Salazar v. Davidson? Are you so unconcerned by this recurring problem that you would not vote for the Judicial Accountability Act of 2008 (which holds rogue judges personally liable in tort for willful misconduct on the bench)?
(All the JAA does is enhance the effectiveness of controls upon abusive judges that were put in the state constitution to begin with, which fall far short of a minimum standard of effectiveness. Moreover, the only way this can be fixed is via constitutional amendment, as the legislature has next to no power to impose their will upon the judiciary.)
As to the financial constraints imposed by amendment, this would not have happened if our legislators had not acted in an irresponsible manner. If it ain’t broke, people aren’t going to be inclined to fix it.
“As to the financial constraints imposed by amendment, this would not have happened if our legislators had not acted in an irresponsible manner. If it ain’t broke, people aren’t going to be inclined to fix it.”
That answer doesn’t work for me, it’s pretty hollow and simplistic. We have bad policy because people look at a bad situation and say “we need change”, and instead of fixing it by going over elected official’s heads and make a law, they change the constitution-a long term fix for what could be a short term problem. To view that as good policy is grossly irresponsible and is the whole reason why we are having this debate. Requiring a super-majority to change the constitution will keep the constitution from micro-managing the state as well as channel policy ideas through the proper venues. I don’t see how that takes away anyone’s right to petition, it just means that there needs to be a larger concensus when something like the constitution is changed.
“Any suggestion that our personal rights are at risk on account of future constitutional amendments appears remote at best.” I’m not the one claiming that this is removing our rights, you’re the one that began that train….
Haners: To view that as good policy is grossly irresponsible and is the whole reason why we are having this debate.
I don’t agree that the amendment process has given us bad policy, or that those Colfax clowns have a better idea.
Few institutions are more consistently irresponsible than that golden-domed house of ill-repute on Colfax (and the courthouse just to the southwest). While the people may not come up with the optimal solution, I would trust their sensibilities over those of Terrance Carroll every day and twice on Sunday.
Thanks for starting this diary, Lauren.
The draconian effect of TABOR and Gallagher, as well as the rigidity of Amend. 23, have led to financial disaster. These are but a few of the problems resulting from the current system.
The US Constitution is very difficult to amend, and for good reason. The same should be true of Colorado’s constitution.
There are problems, of course, with how exactly to implement the change. What to do about the current problem-child parts of the constitution? It took only 50% + 1 vote to get them on our backs. Should it take 60% to get them off our backs? Difficult questions….
Cuervo: The draconian effect of TABOR and Gallagher, as well as the rigidity of Amend. 23, have led to financial disaster.
Hardly. TABOR forced the state to prioritize and live within its means. The rest of us have to live on budgets, and occasionally do without; why not our government?
Those of you who suck Cuervo Gold at the public teat view the government as a growth industry; we ordinary taxpayers see it as a necessary evil, to be kept as small as practical.
As for me, I don’t see why Colorado’s constitution should be that tough to amend. If we hire you legislators to pass laws for us by bare majorities, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why the people of Colorado can’t pass their own legislation by a bare majority. Our state legislators — or even our federal ones (Allard, Tancredo, Musgrave, Salazar) aren’t exactly our best and brightest; if we need to do the job ourselves, it is nice to know we can.
Expect this insider-friendly power grab to go down like a lead balloon.
I can’t think of the margins in which it passed, so I ask in all seriousness, would TABOR have passed if the 60% rule was in place?
I totally agree that we need to stop the insane barrage of proposed changes to our constitution. Then we need to hold a state convention to right-size TABOR/GALLAGHER, etc., get rid of the silly stuff in the constitution, and make most of it statute.
Our legislature is too busy passing bills making sex with animals a felony and making “Rocky Mountain High” the state song to do anything serious.
Should bestiality not be a felony?
The Carrolls could barely keep a straight face.
Damn nanny state.
Oh wait a second…
It’s not like we’re WYOMING….
Muhahahahaha!
without taking power away from the people as some are suggesting – make sure that normal initiatives can still be put on the ballot the way amendments are now. The people can still have their say and things like TABOR, A23 and A41 can be easily fixed by the lege.
Changing it from “when we speak, that is the final word” to “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable” is a power grab, plain and simple. TABOR, A23, and A41 don’t need fixing … and if they do, the legislature can pass referred legislation.
The lege won’t just go about taking those laws off the books or making them toothless. They do care about their jobs enough not to muck with voters’ intentions too much. I’d rather they suss it out than have a bunch of special interests (let’s face it, almost none of these are generated by ordinary citizens) take advantage of the electorate to get their wishes made into law.
The good outweighs the bad by a lot in this scenario.
… and I hold no illusions that a state legislator would ever want to get it through, because they all have a good reason to cultivate good relations with the judiciary (getting favorable rulings because they are legislators). Besides, the only way to impose controls on the courts is to pass a constitutional amendment, given the unique drafting anomalies in the Colorado Constitution (total separation means no meaningful checks and balances).
I’ve talked to some Republican pols about the issue, and the people who backed Andrews’ plan think it sensible. Marc Holtzman thought it was a great idea, and the 35-40% who vote against judges as a matter of principle is your built-in base. John Andrews’ idea was to swing an anvil where a scalpel was more appropriate, and he almost sold the idea despite its flaws.
As for our legislators caring about what we think, half of us are disenfranchised by definition, as most districts are so heavily gerrymandered that pols can ignore us with impunity. I don’t see any good in raising the bar, and a lot of bad.
But it does work-granted, not all of the time, but it does work.
The best instance that comes to mind occured in Washington, a heavily dem state. Car tab taxes were through the roof, and someone submitted a petition to reduce the fees to a flat rate of $30.00. After it passed overwhelmingly, it was deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
The Dem leg stepped in and passed a constitutional version of the petition. They did it in large part because of the public out cry over the issue.
That was a good day for the conservatives in the state-we were pretty stoked that the system worked. It does happen…..
….but I go on without it because I must.
The only time our public officials get off their keisters is when there is a large hue and cry. The rights of individual citizen are invariably forgotten, because our politicans only deal in wholesale as opposed to retail. The system only works when wrongs affect large groups directly.
That’s part of what made Ronald Reagan such a human rights giant. He understood that rights don’t belong to groups or ethnic blocs, but they were the indefeasible property of the individual.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any system of government wherein a “public servant” can flout the law with impunity is inherently tyrannical in nature. This is the true state of affairs in our Third World banana republic.
In the words of Judge Bork, America is victim of a judicial coup d’etat. This is easily demonstrable and conclusively proven, and must be reversed if liberty is again to flourish on our shores.
except fpr all the others – Winston Churchill.
….nay, not even close. Even the most trivial federal regulation written by some fresh-faced Ivy League frat rat in Washington can trump any and every provision of our precious state constitution. Tin-horn dictators like Mary Mullarkey interpret them out of existence on a whim. It’s not a timeless da Vinci masterpiece; it’s just a work in progress.
Consider the wisdom of Justice William Douglas:
The franchise is a peaceful revolution … and more importantly, an ongoing one. Let the people decide what their government will be!
While the Conservative in me loathes the populist rhetoric against the amendment, the Republican in me tends to agree that isolating power in the hands of the government is indeed a bad thing.
Though I think the small-c conservative part wins the day, noting that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Then again, we may still get to see the warning that a consentual government lasts only so long as the people don’t realize they can vote themselves rich in Real Live Action. That would suck.
Talk about a schizoid mess.
I say leave it as it is, and start bugging your state legislators constantly. When you’re on a first-name basis with them (and you don’t even have to be a crony or anything), it’s even easier to “do the right thing” for the State.
At least, that’s the theory of this whole wonderful mess.
Kind of like this thread 🙂
Colorado’s constitution is the easiest one to amend in the United States. We are guinea pigs for wing nuts (both parties) who float test balloons to see if their pet issue will fly. The current process doesn’t protect the right of the voters to amend the constitution, it protects the right of special interests to amend it. That isn’t and shouldn’t be the intent of the I&R process.
In our state, initiatives for constitutional amendments need 76,000+ signatures to be approved by the Sec of State. All of them could come from the Front Range alone, leaving the majority of Colorado out of the loop. This many signatures is difficult to get for citizens, but moneyed interests routinely fork out $150k to get the signatures they need. No filing fee is required and the same measures can be proposed year after year. Other states use one or more rules to limit the number of unnecessary initiatives each year, but Colorado does not.
It should be harder to change the constitution than it is statute. Beyond what some people say here about the Legislature not acting in the interest of the citizens it is just untrue and reflects a lack of knowledge about how things work under the dome. The checks and balances of our system work to prevent too much change from occurring at one time – this is one of the greatest strengths of our system. The ease with which people can change our constitution circumvents those checks and balances and leaves those who govern our state in a very difficult position when constitutional amendments pass that intersect and cause fiscal dilemmas for this state.
I’ve seen enough of Terrance Carroll disrespectfully wolfing down lunch (not that he’s ever turned down a meal) while people testify about a bill that has already been decided and is by definition dead on arrival, while maintaining the facile illusion that “the people are being listened to.” I know more than a few legislators and public officials (and yes, I almost wish I didn’t know McCasket at this point), and know what they tell me. I’ve had an hour of Tancredo’s undivided attention, and long sit-downs with my reps. I have friends who are lobbyists. I think I have a pretty good working understanding of what happens under the Dome — and have understandably lost every shred of respect I had for our Golden Domers.
What I don’t understand, CAR, is how a judge can decide a case in which she is properly a defendant in tort (which SCOTUS has held to be a patent violation of the 14thAm), in light of the fact that a clear statutory provision empowers her to call in non-conflicted judges to hear the case. What I don’t understand is how a judge can take jurisdiction over an appeal that the Legislature has clearly given via statute to another court. What I don’t understand is how a state judge can willfully defy the authoritative and binding pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court — for her own personal benefit — with total impunity. What I don’t understand is how public officials like Mike Norton, Mitch Morrissey, and Andrew Armatas can willfully refuse to do their duties under law, and not be held to account for it. With respect to Morrissey in particular, I honestly don’t understand how he can refuse to prosecute a crime for which every fact of any legal consequence has been established indelibly and conclusively in the public record.
If someone could answer these questions for me in a credible manner, I might be more inclined to accept what has happened to me. However, I know enough of the law to know that there is and can be no credible explanation for what can only be described as rampant judicial tyranny and lawlessness.
If our system wasn’t hopelessly broken — as evidenced by my direct experience with it — I wouldn’t be trying to fix it. If I thought that our legislature gave a flying fuck about a single individual who has been wrongfully assaulted by the relentless sledgehammer of state government, I wouldn’t need to seek remedies through the initiative process. But when we complain publicly of the injustices we have suffered, we are victimized again — by snot-nosed little brats like our Cuervo, who wouldn’t have the personal integrity and courage to be seen in the light.
“Checks and balances” are of little value to those of us who have felt the fickle wrath of our government. Indeed, if we cannot reliably call upon the protection of the law at need, we don’t even have the basic incidents of citizenship. Why should we worship at the altar of your constitution?
Seems like the right leaning crowd are arguing that the people should have the power to amend the constitution because they don’t trust the politicians.
I’m a small govt type but I’m for raising the % required to amend the constitution. Frequent constitutional change means less stability, more chaos, and greater legislative involvement. Here’s to slow, thoughtful change – whether it be by the legislature or by the people.
I’m for reforming the process because I believe that the process has been seized upon by special interests of all nature to bypass the lege and get their oversimple laws passed by an electorate who may or may not understand all the implications of what they’re voting on.
Rio might say that this is a good thing, and there are times when it is, but my beef is largely that these laws suddenly become part of the constitution and therefore dictate how the state governs things. It’s retarded that ballot initiatives become part of the constitution. Sorry, Rio, but the people in all their wisdom were wrong when they let this be so easy.
But there is another reason to make these things harder to pass, whether it’s as a constitutional amendment or as a provisional law: Allowing the special interests who have the money necessary to both collect signatures and advertise for their cause to legislate at the ballot box is, IMHO, basically antithetical to the idea of representative government. Yes, it’s an imperfect system. But unlike others I ultimately trust the elected legislators to do their duty and pass laws that are fully fleshed out and do more good than harm. That won’t always be the case all the time but it’s the case more often than not. If they’re truly doing something egregious the people will make their voices heard, as they have done with oft-maligned but popular amendments like A1 (TABOR), A23, and A41. If these things aren’t amendments the lege can fix the flaws (TABOR’s ratchet, A41’s all-encompassing definition of gift and all-inclusive definition of public employee) without going against the ultimate will of the voters.
So make amending the constitution harder but offset it with an initiative process that works well in other states.
The framers of our constitution were wrong when they removed our judiciary from any meaningful form of discipline; while it is important for the judiciary to be independent of the other branches of government, it can’t be above and beyond the reach of the law.
“All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.” Art. II, sec. 3. That provision isn’t worth the paper it is printed on any more, for our “servants” have become our masters. Neither is this one: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
Our constitution is broken, and what you propose is not going to fix it at its roots. It doesn’t need a new headlight; it needs a complete overhaul.
A comprehensive Constitutional convention to overhaul Colorado’s Constitution is long overdue in my opinion. Our Constitution has become a collection of laws that are indistinguishable from Colorado Revised Statutes. Our Constitution ought to be an overarching statement of fundamental principles that shapes and guides legislation and government.
Getting our legislators and elected political leaders to collaborate in a Constitutional convention, however, will be challenging to say the least.
Sounds good to me. Why do you think it will be difficult to get everyone on board?
In my view, both political parties are dominated by vocal single-issue special interests, march to the beat of their campaign contributors, and focused on trashing the “other guy” rather than honestly trying to find a solution to issues that’s balanced, fair or good for Colorado.
Look at this web site, for example — it’s rare that an issue is actually discussed/debated without devolving into name calling. I believe the same sort of partisan, unthinking dynamic would occur at a 21st century constitutional convention.
How constitutional conventions work in other states….are they done by the state elected officials, or are other people brought in to the process? Obviously, a non-partisan approach would probably work best.
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Partisanship has evolved into a corrosive rancor; Democrats and Republicans can’t seem to discuss matters civilly any more. It may be Rush Limbaugh, and it might have been Karl Rove, but I suspect that the fault here is that everyone is anonymous.
If we were down at LoDo’s, a lot of things said here would be likely to result in a brawl.
I know I’ve been seriously pissed off here before, but face to face politics isn’t much better. I try to write it off as just part of the game, or I ignore the people who often spout crap.
can either be really enlightening or really frustrating, depending on how much of a bully some people can be in those situations.
Online you can at least write out everything you want to say and those who are interested in your view can get the whole thing without, say, having to cope with people talking over (if not yelling at) each other. If this means that people occasionally are rude, that’s okay. As Haners says, you can ignore them. Or, if you’re like me, you can show off your superior wit and put ’em in their place. 😉
That made me smile, thanks.
The only thing I don’t like about blogging is it’s hard to get a read on people. I have a hard time telling when they’re joking, or it’s easy to misread what people are saying. I have a harder time communicating thoughts in writing as opposed to speaking. Plus I don’t look like an idiot when I speak since I don’t have to worry about spelling words and such.
You pointed out a good point, at least we’re not yelling over each other.
But there are people who are pretty rude on this site that I doubt (or just hope) aren’t that rude in face to face conversations
The comments got me wondering how a Constitutional Convention is called in Colorado. Below is the text from the Colorado Constitution that outlines the process…
Requires 2/3ds of General Assembly. There would be 70 members of the convention (twice the number of Senators)elected from the Senate districts, just like Senators (does that include party primaries?), ratified by the majority of the electorate. Process of actually drafting the constitution seems pretty vague.
I’m not sure it’s possible to get 2/3ds of the General Assembly to agree on anything. If the 70 conventioneers were non-partisan (not sure how to guarantee that), then something might get done. Ratification by the electorate is also required, so a convention could have its product rejected by the electorate.
The general assembly may at any time by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house, recommend to the electors of the state, to vote at the next general election for or against a convention to revise, alter and amend this constitution; and if a majority of those voting on the question shall declare in favor of such convention, the general assembly shall, at its next session, provide for the calling thereof. The number of members of the convention shall be twice that of the senate and they shall be elected in the same manner, at the same places, and in the same districts. The general assembly shall, in the act calling the convention, designate the day, hour and place of its meeting; fix the pay of its members and officers, and provide for the payment of the same, together with the necessary expenses of the convention. Before proceeding, the members shall take an oath to support the constitution of the United States, and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully discharge their duties as members of the convention. The qualifications of members shall be the same as of members of the senate; and vacancies occurring shall be filled in the manner provided for filling vacancies in the general assembly. Said convention shall meet within three months after such election and prepare such revisions, alterations or amendments to the constitution as may be deemed necessary; which shall be submitted to the electors for their ratification or rejection at an election appointed by the convention for that purpose, not less than two nor more than six months after adjournment thereof; and unless so submitted and approved by a majority of the electors voting at the election, no such revision, alteration or amendment shall take effect.
Nice job getting the information together, I’m impressed. Where did you find that?
Not that impressive. Lexis/Nexus is the official publisher of Colorado statutes. Here’s their web site:
http://www2.michie.c…
Search “Constitutional Convention”
Raising the percentage does not rule out change, it just makes it a little more difficult to pass amendments that say, ban Spring bear hunts. That sounds good to me.
Only five votes against so far. Interesting.
Again, I think it’s good policy. I would love to see a super majority required on tax-hikes too….
If 50% of the people vote to require a 60% vote – then a standard majority put the change into effect and therefore you can’t claim that 40% overruled 59.9999%.
…to keep your precious state constitution “pure?” Freedom of speech? Equal protection under law? Due process of law? Recognition of your existence as a human being?
For me, this is not a theoretical question, for I have lost them all.
The fundamental flaw in Colorado’s constitution is that it invests our judiciary with untrammeled and unchecked power over individual citizens. The state legislature has almost no oversight authority, and the commissions we have set up to police their activities are utterly feckless. District attorneys have so-called ‘prosecutorial discretion,’ which enables them to endorse criminal acts against us citizens by refusing to prosecute crimes. Judges gave themselves tort liability (not that they have the legal authority to do so) under Colorado law. In the final analysis, our judiciary has rewritten the constitution itself, and more specifically, the provision that “Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.” It’s a dead letter, and my experience with our corrupt courts constitutes conclusive proof of same.
While politicians get their panties in a bunch when untold thousands beat down their doors demanding immediate change, the lone victim of official misconduct is generally ignored, marginalized, and as you can see here, even victimized. CAR wouldn’t lift a finger — to say nothing of using one of his/her five bills — to rectify an obvious wrong; s/he’d rather use it for vapid “feel good” legislation, like enshrining “Rocky Mountain High” as our state song. Cuervo believes I should get over the loss of my rights under law; one wonders how he would feel if our situations were reversed.
If you stand alone, no plea can be powerful enough.
But what you fail to see is that at the end of the day, we are all a minority of one. By refusing to stand for meaningful reform now, you are creating a precedent which may reach you. Consider if you will the thoughts of Abe Lincoln: “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”
…of course, you were denied a law license because you were suspected of being MENTALLY UNSTABLE. And virtually every post you publish here lends support to that suspicion. Even good-hearted and big-brained Yev tried to reason with you for awhile, only to discover that you are too absurd for reason to penetrate your thoughts.
So don’t try to hide your personal vendetta against the state supreme court in high-minded (ha!) platitudes about protecting the people’s rights. Your every post is ultimately motivated by the fact that you are personally bitter because you’re not allowed to be a lawyer. And that’s why you want to keep it easy to change the constitution (so you can try to pass your silly but dangerous “judicial accountability act”). And the fact that you conjure up the “judicial misconduct” refrain at every opportunity, no matter how absurd or how irrelevant, simply proves this point.
The rest of the anti-court crowd must cringe every time they see you post.
Invest in some happy pills. We would all be better off.
I do not know rio-but I do know that the court system is broken and needs to be reformed and that accountability is lacking in the judiciary. Ordinary citizens are treated like crap by the court system. Something needs to be done-sooner rather than later.
…when someone else must bear it.
This is about the people’s rights, even if you haven’t the wit to perceive it. The right to due process of law. To equal protection under law. The right to speak your mind on issues of the day, without fear of direct or indirect retaliation by a local apparatchik. And especially, about the judiciary’s obligation to administer the law in a fair, transparent, and even-handed manner.
I assume that even you know that your argument is an obvious ad hominem, logically irrelevant to any rational discussion of the topic. But let’s deal with this “mental instability” bullshit straightaway, shall we?
The bottom line in this case was that the Bar objected to my activities exposing televangelists. To wit: “The Panel was concerned primarily with what appeared to be Applicant’s inordinate interest in exposing alleged frauds committed by an individual named Bob Larson.” “Panel A requested that Applicant submit … copies of ‘all information relative to any evangelical ministry [Applicant has] published on the Internet.” “Applicant was asked if he had been involved with additional investigations about Bob Larson and other tele-evangelists.”
David Lane observed: “These excerpts show without question that it was the content of Ken Smith’s speech which triggered the demand for an IME and the resulting recommendation that he not be admitted into the bar.”
Why is this problematic? Ask Justice Bender of the Colorado Supreme Court:
Am I angry? You’re goddamned right, I am. Do I not have the right to invoke the protection of the laws of the state of Colorado? You seem not to think so. And I, for one, would like you to slither out from under the counter of anonymity like a good little cockroach, and tell us who you are, so we can know exactly what horse you have in this race. I rather suspect that it would be more than illuminating….
Should Elie Wiesel not be permitted to talk about the lessons of the Holocaust, because he was a resident of Buchenwald? If anything, I am more qualified to speak about the scourge of judicial tyranny, precisely because my career has been interred in our legal Buchenwald. Others here have suffered equal and even greater indignities — ever spent Christmas night on the cold floor of a Denver jail cell, awaiting arraignment on a warrant that doesn’t exist?
Does this matter to you? It might, because you might just be lucky enough to be next. And ultimately, this is why this matters to everyone.
Cuervo is as dumb as a box of rocks on his best days, but it does not appear that today is among them. He blathered:
First and foremost, there is that nasty little thing about ex post facto laws which prevents me from writing a law that would benefit myself. Second, even if you could pass your amendment taking power from the people, it couldn’t affect amendments offered in the 2008 cycle. As such, I don’t have a dog in that hunt that would benefit me, and anyone with a working knowledge of the law would know that. I do, however, assert that the proposal made here (making it substantially more difficult for citizens to amend the state constitution) is unwarranted at this time. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
My motivation here is plain and simple: to put a law on the books that would be likely to prevent anyone else from being victimized by our corrupt courts in the way I was.
And pray tell, what is so “dangerous” about holding public servants personally liable for willful misconduct? We have that law with respect to all other public servants; why not judges?
I would say that I await a cogent and non-abusive response from Cuervo that addresses the substance of the JAA (as opposed to simply attacking me ad hominem), but I am persuaded that he is not capable of same.
They’re all being hijacked, so I’ll bring up a point that seems to have been overlooked in the “discussion”.
The proposal that died in the Senate also included a provision to add a 5-year kicker to all legislative initiatives: a 2/3 majority would be required in the Lege to override or substantially change any initiative-passed law. After the 5-year initial time had passed, it would revert to being a regular law with no special protection: enough time for the effects to set in and become accepted.
I’m 110% behind this change. I’d suggest that any prior amendments could be converted into a legislative provision – complete with the 5-year kicker – with a simple majority vote, to prevent grandfathering in some questionable amendments on both sides, and to make it easier to move some of our financial issues into law and out of the State Constitution.
…but I think you could make this work. Financial amendments are by their very nature unwieldy, and cause too much clutter. By making them the subject of mere initiatives (as opposed to amendments) as a matter of constitutional law, you could solve the problems a future TABOR might cause.
It still seems that there is no need for a comprehensive overhaul of our system of amending the constitution.
You can either keep the amendment process as-is, and allow anyone with a half-baked, half-thought-out idea to submit something and try and ram it past 50% of the voters and into a place where no-one can correct it for at least a year (and more likely two), or…
You can modify the requirements for changing the Constitution to 60% of the popular vote, and then make regular legislative initiatives harder for legislators to override, removing most of the need for amendments.
The Constitution shouldn’t become a substitute repository for the State Code, and it’s working on it right now…
TABOR, Gallhager, Amdt. 23… All things that should have been at least partially enshrined in law, not as part of the foundational document of the state.
The world hasn’t ended.
Besides, your proposed solution wouldn’t have stopped Am41, as it passed with 62% of the vote. Besides, the flaws in most legislation don’t become clear for a few years (except in the case of Amendment 2, which was so patently unconstitutional on its face that it was folly to even advance it). After all, it took us forty years to see how feckless our system of judicial discipline is.
And let us not forget the margin of victory for Ref C.
Try as I might, I just don’t see the emergency. TABOR had to be enshrined in the constitution to keep the legislature from messing with it (as spendthrift legislators always do). Am23 (a narrow win) and Gallagher (which won 2-1) belong in the same category, restraining greedy legislators with untoward designs on the budget.
Where’s the beef?
…is a joke of national proportions. The world hasn’t ended, but I submit to you that they’re not better off for the results, and neither are we.
My personal proposal would have been 2/3, not 60% (check the archives) – I’m just repeating the proposal on the table.
TABOR was enshrined in the Constitution so that rational legislators couldn’t fix it when it broke things – it was designed to strangle the government, not to control it. 23 and Ref C were only passed because of the effects of TABOR, and Gallagher (thanks of the spelling correction) is almost as broke in theory as TABOR. People who aren’t closely attached to the realities of state funding should not be making unalterable decisions about state funding. Broad guidelines and tolerant limits, perhaps – even ones enshrined in the Constitution (like balanced budgets and voter-approved tax increases…) – but not hard numbers that bump up against reality.
PS – It only took *you* forty years to see how feckless you think our system of judicial discipline is. The rest of us don’t want in on your personal windmill-tilting adventure – sorry.
This is a good thing. Our government is a monster, that will not obey.
I have learned quite a bit -not sure if it has changed my mind yet,but a lot of food for thought. I just think that our legislators are to slow to respond to the needs of the people and the state.
Imagine if laws were passed with every change in the wind.
It’s called our courts. They routinely write designer law, applicable to one and only one set of litigants — never to sully the pure stream of binding precedent.
And yet, some of you don’t see this as problematic….
Perhaps sometimes problematic, but surely not the most egregious problem in our political system. And surely not enough to fixate on. Work for change, sure. Obsession, no.