DENVER — A bill introduced last week in the state House of Representatives would put additional information about ballot measures in the state voter information guide, or Blue Book. HB11-1035, sponsored by Rep. Lois Court and Sen. Morgan Carroll, both Democrats, gets its first hearing Thursday morning in the House State Veterans & Military Affairs Committee.

The bill requires a statement before each measure in the Blue Book saying that language that appears in the ballot title is just a summary drafted by professional staff, and is not the actual language that will go on the books.

The bill calls for an additional statement, which is different for referred measures and initiated measures. For referred measures, the statement would tell voters that its text was thoroughly debated by the general assembly and is included on the ballot because it passed majority vote by the legislature. For initiated measures, the statement would tell voters that its text was drafted by the initiative’s proponents and appears on the ballot because proponents had gathered the required amount of signatures.

The idea for the bill came out of Court’s conversations with constituents, many of whom were confused about where ballot measures come from, she said.

“I teach American government at community college, so the natural pedagogue in me wanted to give my constituents more education,” she told State Bill Colorado.

Court considers the language of her bill “pretty neutral,” and said Tuesday she was unaware of any opposition to the bill, though she added, “I suspect some people will think it’s overkill.”

The proposal comes with a fiscal note of approximately $5,000 because of higher printing costs.

Backers of Amendment 62, known more commonly as the “personhood amendment,” will hold a rally and press conference on the west steps of the state Capitol Tuesday to encourage voters to trash their Blue Books and “seek accurate information about the amendment.”

However, opponents of the personhood amendment maintain that the initiative is deceptive and dangerous.

Jennifer Mason, communications director for Amendment 62, said the so-called Blue Book by the Legislative Council is rife with inaccuracies and outright lies. Amendment 62 states: “the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

“The Blue Book is replete with lies about Amendment 62, and it was paid for with our tax dollars,” Mason said in a press release. “Since the Legislative Council trashed our amendment with deceptions, we are asking voters to trash their Blue Books, treating them like the garbage that they are, and to seek accurate information about the amendments.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the amendment released a radio ad in Northern Colorado over the weekend blasting the amendment.

Foes say the amendment is deceptive and dangerous and would give legal rights to fertilized eggs under the state constitution. The NO on 62 Campaign said in a press release that the amendment would ban abortion in all cases, even for victims of rape or incest and when a woman’s life is at risk.

But proponents of Amendment 62 said the language in the Blue Book is neither fair nor impartial. They say there are “several falsehoods” stated in the Blue Book about their initiative, including controversy surrounding the definition of a “person” as the “beginning of the biological development,” which is the main goal in the initiative’s aim to ban abortion.

Other complaints from proponents include statements in the Blue Book from opponents that women would be denied health care for certain emergency procedures — such as for miscarriages — if Amendment 62 is backed by voters this fall. Proponents are also concerned that the Blue Book includes language from opponents suggesting that the measure could subject doctors and nurses to legal action.

Proponents had filed a lawsuit against the state for a “biased” analysis of their measure. But Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt threw out the challenge, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have jurisdiction to intervene in advance of a general election. He ruled that the language of the Blue Book is a legislative function, not a decision to be made by the courts.

Opponents said in a press release that if the amendment passes, emergency contraception could be banned, even for victims of rape or incest; and many commonly used forms of birth control could be banned, including the pill.

NO on 62 also said the amendment could result in a ban of in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies.

Amendment 62 backers, however, say the opposition has it wrong.

In an op/ed submitted to the Denver Daily News, Dennis Hoshiko, Personhood Amendment 62 Northern Colorado campaign coordinator, wrote that if the amendment passes:

» Contraception won’t be banned. Barrier methods of contraception that prevent the union of sperm and the egg (fertilization) won’t be prohibited since neither a sperm nor an egg by itself is a human being;

» In vitro fertilization won’t be banned. Current in vitro practices will have to be reformed, but the procedure itself would not be prohibited. Instead, scientists will have to develop ethical alternatives to the mass production and extermination of human beings that currently occurs at fertility clinics;

» Human embryonic stem cell research will be banned. Using human embryonic stem cells for research will be prohibited. Using umbilical and adult stem cells doesn’t require the creation and destruction of human beings for medical experimentation and treatments and such procedures actually work compared to using embryonic stem cells that has never worked.

But Dr. Andrew Ross, a general OB/GYN in Denver, an opponent of Amendment 62, said if passed the amendment could turn women’s wombs into potential crime scenes.

He described Amendment 62 as an attack on physician-patient relationships. He also shared his and his wife’s personal experience with a tragic miscarriage.

“Shortly after we were married, my wife became pregnant,” Ross said. “Between six and eight weeks of pregnancy, the heartbeat we had seen on ultrasound disappeared. This is a sad scenario I see regularly in my practice, and medical studies show that one in three women will experience a miscarriage in her life. If Amendment 62 passes, this becomes an unexplained death and would require a coroner’s report. My wife’s uterus becomes a potential crime scene, and her medical treatment would be delayed.”

Untrue, Mason said.

“There’s no way Amendment 62 could affect the treatment for miscarriages,” she said.

And that’s the purpose of Tuesday’s rally/press conference: to set the facts straight on Amendment 62, she said.

“Because honestly, as a woman who has suffered several miscarriages, if I read that I would be influenced against 62 if I didn’t know what it was all about.”

‘Trash the Blue Book’ press conference

Where: West steps of the state Capitol

When: 10:45 a.m. Tuesday

Buck’s campaign said he is not taking a position on state ballot initiatives, despite having originally taken a position in support of a pro-life state ballot initiative before stating that he is opposed to the proposal.

The AFL-CIO said last week that it would like to know how Buck feels about Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101. Critics of the proposals, including the AFL-CIO, say the initiatives would cripple government’s ability to provide basic services to working families.

The union believes if Buck is to represent Colorado — even on a federal level — he should take a position on the local initiatives.

“The time has come for Ken Buck to take a position on the Bad Three,” said Stephen Clapham, an Aurora Station 14 firefighter and International Association of Fire Fighters union member “He has evaded taking a stand on the most important issues to working families and we deserve to know his position. Colorado would not be able to compete in a 21st century economy if the amendments pass. Our jobs are on the line here.”

Amendment 60 would reverse a measure that froze property tax mill levies in local school districts, and also reverse the effects of the 2005 voter-approved Referendum C, which approved a five-year reprieve from TABOR refund requirements to be spent on education, health care and transportation.

Amendment 61 would prohibit government from incurring any debt without voter approval, and then reduce tax rates after borrowing is fully repaid.

Proposition 101 would reduce vehicle ownership taxes over four years; end taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phase in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sales price tax exemption; set total yearly registration, license and title fees at $10 per vehicle; lower the state income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent, then phase in a further reduction to 3.5 percent; and end taxes on telecommunication services, except for 9-1-1.

A spokesman for Buck told the Denver Daily News that because Buck would be representing Colorado on a federal level, he is not taking a position on state ballot initiatives. When asked why Buck took a position on Amendment 62, the spokesman avoided a direct response.

“Ken is running for federal office, and is focused on issues at that level,” Owen Loftus, Buck’s campaign spokesman, said.

Buck had originally come out in support of the pro-life so-called “personhood” ballot initiative when he stated for a Christian family group’s questionnaire that he supported Amendment 62. But following attack ads by his Democratic opponent, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, Buck eased back on his originally definitive pro-life stance.

Bennet is opposed to Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101. He is also opposed to Amendment 62.

“Michael stands with most fair-minded Republicans and Democrats in opposing these extreme, job-killing measures that are just wrong for Colorado,” Michael Amodeo, spokesman for Bennet, said in a statement. “We still don’t know where Ken Buck stands, but after his attempts to hide other extreme positions like limiting common forms of birth control and eliminating taxes for billion dollar corporations, it isn’t surprising.”

A measure on the Colorado ballot for November would ban all borrowing by the state and severely restrict it at the municipal level, making Colorado the only state whose agencies would be unable to issue debt, municipal experts say.

Nor would state agencies be able to turn to banks, since the proposal prohibits raising money that way, too.

Proponents of a ballot initiative aimed at banning abortion in Colorado lost a court challenge yesterday to change contested language in the so-called Blue Book state voter guide.

Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt threw out the challenge ruling that the plaintiffs did not have jurisdiction to intervene in advance of a general election. He ruled that the language of the Blue Book is a legislative function, not a decision to be made by the courts.

An 18-member bipartisan council decides the language of the Blue Book.

Personhood Colorado says the language in the analysis is not “fair or impartial, but in fact glaringly biased against Amendment 62.” Proponents sharply disagreed with Hyatt’s ruling yesterday, arguing that the ruling places no pressure or accountability over the Legislative Council. Proponents said they plan on appealing the decision.

“It is apparent that the court believes there is no authority over the Colorado Legislative Council, and that is scary,” said Gualberto GarciaJones, co-sponsor of Amendment 62. “The Colorado Legislative Council can print anything they want to based on their own prejudices, and my tax dollars have to pay for it.”

Amendment 62 would define a “person” as being “from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

Critics of the initiative are concerned that the Personhood drive could turn doctors into criminals by making it illegal to perform in vitro fertilization procedures, prescribing birth control pills, or even conducting emergency procedures on pregnant women, such as if a fertilized egg becomes lodged in a woman’s fallopian tubes.

Opponents also raise fears over the possibility of the ballot initiative essentially banning abortion and paving the way for a challenge of Roe v. Wade, setting a precedent for cases across the country.

The opposition campaign states that Amendment 62 “still goes too far,” and concerns have been raised that re-defining the term “person” in Colorado could have far-reaching legal repercussions, both intended and unintended.

A similar effort failed in 2008 when it received only 27 percent of the vote.

Proponents were facing an uphill battle with their lawsuit. The Blue Book has already started to show up in voters’ mailboxes, though proponents were seeking to not only have the language changed, but for new copies to be sent to voters.

Since 1996, there have been five challenges in Denver District Court to the content of the Blue Book, according to the Office of Legislative Legal Services. Each of those cases was dismissed, according to the office.

The most recent case, a challenge in 2006 by proponents of a marijuana-legalization initiative, set a precedent when it was dismissed because the court found that the plaintiffs did not have jurisdiction to intervene in advance of a general election, according to the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

The group of pro-lifers say none of more than 70 pages of notes that they submitted to Legislative Council was used in the Blue Book. They say that the final language was not sent to them, and they didn’t find out about the language until recently when they looked online. Proponents say had they been notified of the final language sooner, they could have filed objections without having to file a lawsuit in Denver District Court.

The Blue Book states in the “Arguments Against” section for the initiative that the “beginning of the biological development” is a term which is “not defined within the measure, has no established legal meaning, and is not an accepted medical or scientific term.” Proponents call the statement “erroneous and misleading,” and provided evidence of peer-reviewed medical and bioethics journals, as well as medical textbooks, which use the term “beginning of the biological development.”

Other complaints from proponents include statements in the Blue Book from opponents that women would be denied health care for certain emergency procedures, such as for miscarriages, if Amendment 62 is backed by voters this fall. Proponents are also concerned that the Blue Book includes language from opponents suggesting that the measure could subject doctors and nurses to legal action.

“The Blue Book’s false claims are so egregious that we were forced to take action,” said GarciaJones. “Outright lies were printed about Amendment 62 É That is why we plan to appeal this dismissal and right the grievous wrong that has been committed against our campaign.”

While some ballot measures may try and beat the odds, one ballot measure is asking voters to give the legislature the authority to transfer oversight for games of chance–namely Bingo and raffles– from one state agency to another.

Two legislative sessions ago in 2009, lawmakers passed House Concurrent Resolution 09-1003, placing Amendment P on the 2010 ballot, asking voters to allow the legislature to determine which state agency will have oversight over games of chance.  In 2010, the legislature passed Senate Bill 141, which moves the oversight from the office of the Secretary of State to the Department of Revenue, of called DOR, which already regulates casinos in Colorado.  SB 141 can’t take effect without the voters’ approval of Amendment P.

Republican Sen. Keith King, of Colorado Springs, sponsored both legislative measures upon request of the Secretary of State’s office, agreeing that the Revenue Department would be a better fit for bingo and raffles.

“The Secretary of State is not really the correct place to have it anymore because all the gaming has since gone to the Department of Revenue,” said King, adding he also believes it may translate into some cost savings in the long run.  “This is a common sense amendment and I think it’ll create more government efficiency.”

It was a vote of the people that originally placed bingo and raffles under the purview of the Secretary of State’s Office back in the 1950s, where it has remained.  Since that time, the Lottery, casinos, and other gaming activities were legalized and funneled into the Department of Revenue.  Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Office, says the Department of Regulatory Agencies has been suggesting the regulatory move since 1992.

However, since the original bingo and raffle laws are written into the state Constitution, it will ultimately be up to the voters to decide whether to give authority to the legislature to determine which agency will have oversight. The Secretary of State’s Office says it is happy to oblige the voters either way.  If amendment P passes, SB141 will go into effect allowing the transfer to occur.

“We’re happy to ask the voters if this is a move that they want to see,” said Coolidge.  “The exact same people that do the (oversight) investigations in our office will move directly into the Department of Revenue.”

The Department of Revenue says they are also game for the change if the people approve Amendment P, especially since they have the expertise to seamlessly absorb the new bingo and raffle division.

“If it’s the will of the people we’ll take it on, we’re willing to take on the responsibility,” said DOR spokesperson Mark Couch . “We were asked throughout the process and we thought it made sense.”

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Members of a legislative panel briefly locked horns last week over proposed language in a ballot initiative defining the word “person”– constitutionally speaking–as it applies to the unborn. In dispute was wording prepared by legislative staff in drafting the proposal’s pros and cons as they will appear in this year’s “Blue Book,” to be mailed to voters in advance of the November election.

The arguments for and against Amendment 62, dubbed the “personhood amendment,” were reviewed by the 18-member Legislative Council Committee, chaired by Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, and vice-chaired by Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, after public testimony and input from staffers. The proposal, placed on the ballot by a citizens group after it gathered sufficient signatures, seeks to expand the constitutional definition of “person” as a human being to include “from the beginning of biological development.” The draft may be amended by the legislative committee if a two-thirds majority agrees.

At issue was the use of the term “human life” versus “human being.”  The term that will appear on the ballot and in the constitution should the amendment be approved by voters, is “human being.”  The use of the term “human life” was chosen by council staff in articulating the arguments supporting the measure.  Proponents of the measure told the panel that the terms are not interchangeable in this instance. Opponents said they prefer the term “human life” be left in.

Minority Republicans on the committee were vocal about their concern that the proponents’ arguments may have been compromised in the publication, but the GOP members were unsuccessful in amending the language, with the vote counts falling primarily along party and ideological lines.

Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, challenged the committee to consider amending the draft language to preserve the integrity of the proponents’ argument in favor of the amendment.

“If the ballot, the thing they got signatures for, and people signed onto, says ‘being,’ then the language should reflect ‘being,’ ” said Stephens. She said currently the constitution says, “the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being.”

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, concurred.

“These are the proponents and they brought forth the proposed amendment, and then we change their words in the arguments ‘for.’  Why not include their exact words as opposed to somebody else’s words?” asked May.

Legislative staff said that the term human life was used because they borrowed analysis language from a similar initiative in 2008 and because they felt that using the term human life is more inclusive.  It was also stated that as they prepared the drafts, they didn’t know the weight that proponents gave to the term since it was not brought up earlier by the proponents.

Before voting the modified language down, Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, offered her take on the issue.

“I think that the legislative council staff did a fair job of representing arguments.  I didn’t see the same kind of urgency to change the language,” Boyd.

In other business the committee looked at the eight other measures on this November’s ballot and made only minor changes. Those proposals are:

1. Amendment P – Regulation of Games of Chance

2. Amendment Q – Temporary Location for the State Seat of Government

3. Amendment R – Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property

4. Initiative 92 – Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs

5. Proposition 101 – Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees

6. Amendment 60 – Property Taxes

7. Amendment 61 – Limits on State and Local Government Borrowing

8. Amendment 62 – Application of the Term Person

9. Amendment 63 – Health Care Choice

Secretary of State Bernie Buescher’s office said today that it had certified that backers of an initiative petition that would rework the bail process had collected enough signatures to get the measure on the November ballot. Supporters needed the valid signatures of 76,047 registered voters.

Libertarian Jon Caldara on Friday submitted more than 130,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office seeking to place a question on the November ballot asking voters to exempt Colorado from major portions of federal health reform signed by President Obama in March.

Caldara said he was “thrilled” to have submitted the signatures on Friday after originally struggling to gather signatures. The deadline for turning in signatures for 2010 initiatives is today.

As part of his effort, Caldara fought a new state law prohibiting citizens from paying circulators by the signature. Circulators must be paid mostly by the hour. Critics say the law has resulted in quotes jumping in price by the equivalent of about $2 per signature.

Caldara and marijuana advocate Mason Tvert sued the state over the law, arguing that the new law has driven up the cost of collecting signatures so high that it has become almost impossible to run a citizen initiative.

A U.S. District Court judge in June issued an injunction against the law, allowing Caldara to move forward with his initiative.

The Health Care Choice for Colorado initiative asks voters to exempt Colorado from recent federal health care reform, including a provision requiring citizens and business owners to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Caldara says the initiative would also prevent the government from forcing people into a public or private health care plan against their will.

Critics, however, say federal health reform does not force people into specific plans.

Caldara is confident that the initiative will be certified for the November ballot, pointing out that proponents submitted about 50,000 more signatures than needed. He says his initiative is about choice.

“We’re going to make Colorado a sanctuary state for quality health care,” he said. “How they can argue that Coloradans should not have choice in their health care, in that somehow it’s good to force people into health care plans they do not want, is mystifying to me.”

Kjersten Forseth, interim executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, said the health care overhaul does not force people into plans. She says Americans still have choice over what plans they choose and what doctors they see.

She says Caldara’s ballot initiative would tear apart the reform effort, impacting how seniors pay for prescription drugs, how children receive care, how students receive insurance, and how people with pre-existing medical conditions find insurance, to name a few concerns.

“It’s important for people to understand how absolutely detrimental it would be for us to repeal health care reform É” said Forseth. “There’s just some really important parts of health care reform that we can’t afford to lose, and that we’ve been looking so forward to.”

An opposition campaign, Colorado Deserves Better, was announced on Friday, including a coalition of physicians, hospitals, consumer advocates and religious organizations. They say Caldara’s initiative would isolate Colorado from health care costs savings by shrinking the risk pool.

“In this economy, higher health care prices mean trouble for Colorado,” Edie Sonn, spokesman for the Colorado Medical Society, said in a statement. “Caldara’s amendment does exactly that: cost us money.”

Caldara acknowledges that if his initiative is backed by voters, it will likely be challenged in court.

Meanwhile, Republican Attorney General John Suthers has joined with 19 other states in a lawsuit to exempt Colorado from provisions of the sweeping health care overhaul. The lawsuit alleges that Congress does not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce that would force consumers to carry health insurance.

The U.S. Department of Justice in June filed a motion to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the federal health care overhaul. A response is expected this week.

Republican state lawmakers are also planning legislation that would exempt Colorado from a federal mandate requiring all citizens to buy insurance or pay a penalty, as well as other aspects of the overhaul.

Caldara says he is confident voters will back his initiative.

“This one’s going to be hard to lose,” he said. “I don’t know how you can go up and say it’s a good thing to take away health care choice.”