By Angie Knepell, STATE BILL COLORADO
DENVER — Out of more than a hundred initiatives filed for the 2010 election cycle and with petition deadlines looming, only a handful will make it to the November ballot.
Amid court challenges to HB09–1326, legislation that attempted to rein in the citizen activism seen on the 2008 ballot, the path to the ballot is paved with some success, but mostly failure.
Early successes
The initiatives already on the ballot are familiar: taxes and “personhood.”
Another attempt at the failed 2008 “Personhood Amendment” comfortably met the requirements for the ballot. It has been slightly re-worded and is now Amendment 62. Proponents believe the revived initiative will fare better. According to the Personhood Colorado website, proponents say that high-level GOP support, which the 2008 measure did not enjoy, is indicative of more support in general.
Proposition 101, which would reduce various vehicle registration taxes, is on the ballot alongside a pair of tax-related initiatives. Amendment 60 proposes reducing property taxes and Amendment 61 prohibits state and local governments from taking out loans without voter approval.
Race to the deadline
More than a hundred initiatives have been filed, and some still face the daunting task of gathering the minimum 76,047 signatures required by Aug. 2 to be placed on the ballot.
Of the many is the Jon Caldara’s “Obama Care” initiative, which is a challenge to the federal government ‘s right to legislate health care in Colorado.
Caldara, president of the Independence Institute,
Proponents have a much better chance since U.S. District Judge Phillip Brimmer on June 11 gave the legal green light to use paid signature gatherers, said Caldara, president of the conservative Independence Institute. Brimmer decided in favor of Caldara and others, who sued Secretary of State Bernie Buescher contending that HB09–1326 was unconstitutional.
“Volunteers say we’d absolutely be able to get enough signatures,” Caldara said. “Personally, I say no. I can’t tell you actual numbers but, with volunteers we think we think we’ll get at least 20,000 signatures. With the paid signature gatherers we think we’ll get 100,000 signatures.
“We are very optimistic (about making the ballot). I’ve been involved in the process enough to know when I’m shooting rubber bands at the moon.”
Dead or delayed
Some citizen movements have delayed or withdrawn their initiatives because of the challenges of organizing a grassroots effort in time to gather enough signatures.
Clean Campaigns Colorado has decided to suspend efforts on gathering enough signatures to land its campaign finance reform initiative on the November ballot. Still, James Hoffmeister, head organizer of the campaign, is invigorated by the experience.
“Our achievements, though they fall short of getting the initiative on the ballot, have been remarkable. [The experience] has been positive and exciting. We gathered about 5,000 to 6,000 signatures but considering we started on April 29, our overall feeling is one of success.”
Hoffmeister is now looking to the future, to 2012. “We learned a lot from the process. Remember, it took three attempts to pass TABOR.”
Another attempt to legalize marijuana in Colorado also will be delayed until 2012. Mason Tvert, executive director of Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation, or SAFER, says that’s for political and funding reasons. Tvert joined Caldara in the HB09-1326 lawsuit.
“We were not able to run the initiative this year because we determined the funds would not be able to cover the cost of a petition drive,” Tvert said. “Had the federal court issued the injunction blocking the legislature’s anti-initiative and petitoning law earlier, it probably would have been possible.
“Turnout will be far greater in 2012, seeing as it is a presidential election year. Also, polls show that about 49 to 50 percent of Coloradans support making marijuana legal for adults, regulating it, and treating it like alcohol. By 2012, support should be well over 50 percent given the rate at which it is growing.”
Lighter load
Some derided the 2008 ballot for having too many citizen initiatives. The 2010 ballot figures to have fewer, which perhaps will lessen the debate over the ease by which citizens can propose law in Colorado.
Both Caldara and Tvert say the path to putting an initiative on the ballot is anything but easy. “For example, the [2008] Personhood Amendment had the depth of organization required [to make it on the ballot],” Caldara said. “They worked through the churches. If you don’t have paid signature gatherers and that kind of organizing, it won’t happen.
Tvert says, “Getting an initative on the ballot in Colorado is exceptionally difficult unless you are incredibly well-funded. Essentially, the current process makes it incredibly difficult for grassroots and smaller groups to access the ballot and challenge opponents.” •

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

An initiative aimed at blocking the effects of the federal health care reform bill in Colorado is one step closer to making it on November’s ballot, Law Week Colorado reports.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that proposed initiative 45, which would prohibit state law from requiring people to buy health insurance, meets the state’s single subject requirement for ballot initiatives.

The court, in its 5-2 decision, also held that the proposed initiative’s title, “Right to health care choice,” is neither misleading nor an impermissible slogan.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Colorado’s business and political leaders are searching for ways to mend fences and join forces after a divisive legislative session, The Denver Post reports.

The common enemy that could reunite them is three November ballot measures that seek to reduce the taxes collected for roads, bridges and schools.

In other coverage:

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: The issue committee that has fought several revenue-limiting ballot questions over the past decade and a half is gearing up for yet another battle. But this year’s effort to defeat Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 could be the biggest challenge yet for Coloradans for Responsible Reform, says its leader, Denver political consultant Rick Reiter.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

A bill approved 56 to 9 by the state House of Representatives on Wednesday would provide school districts an alternative way to patch funding holes caused by cash-flow shortages if Amendment 61 passes on November’s ballot, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

According to Senate Bill 205, the state provides about $471 million a year in interest-free loans to Colorado school districts with cash-flow issues. The loans are repaid by the districts within the same fiscal year they’re issued.

Amendment 61, which would limit state and local borrowing, would make it illegal for the state to issue these loans.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

The last time the personhood amendment made the Colorado ballot in 2008, a number of anti-abortion Republican leaders either distanced themselves from it or outright opposed the idea because they said it went too far.

None of that seems to be the case with the 2010 version of the measure, political observers tell the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.

As a result, all of the top-named GOP candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate have publicly supported the ballot question that would declare that life begins at conception.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

“Put the people first” was the refrain heard from the Senate floor Friday  among Republican lawmakers who argued against a proposal to reverse the order in which statewide ballot issues are presented to voters. The measure passed, thanks largely to majority Democrats.

Currently, ballot issues called citizens’ initiatives–which require petitioners to gather voters’ signatures–get top billing. Underneath those go ballot issues called referred measures, which  are placed on the ballot by the legislature. Senate Bill 216, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Rollie Heath of Boulder would invert that order.

Heath said that he decided to sponsor the measure because referred measures that propose to change the state constitution are so difficult to get on the ballot in the first place that they get rigorous scrutiny–and infrequently survive the legislative process. Lawmakers must garner a two-thirds majority in both chambers before passing them on to voters, a tall task.

“To get a referred measure on the ballot, we know how tough that is,” said Heath. “I seriously doubt we’ll get any through this year.”

Yet, Republicans said the people deserve top billing over the General Assembly.  Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, said the citizens’ efforts should be honored.

“The work that they have done is significant.  It’s taken a whole lot of effort, a lot of money,” said Cadman.  “Out of deference to the work and the will of the people, we ought to give them that place on the ballot.”

The GOP’s Sen. Kevin Lundberg, of Berthoud, defended the current ballot order as well, calling the proposed change,  “a slap in the face.”

Lundberg also noted that citizens’ initiatives can be costly and therefore the bar is much higher for citizens than for lawmakers. He also said SB 216 sends the wrong signal.

“It does send a message to the voters that what they put on the ballot is less important than what we put on the ballot,” Lundberg said. “It sends a message that our ideas are more important than their ideas.”

Ballot order is a bone of contention for fear that “ballot fatigue” sets in  as voters must work their way down a lengthy list of complicated issues. Participation is thought to drop off from one issue to the next.

“There is an edge to being first on a ballot.  It may be minute, but if a ballot measure wins or loses by a few votes, the placement could mean the difference,” said Cadman.  “The people deserve that edge.”

The measure now goes to the House for consideration.  With three days left in the session, the measure must pass by the full house on Tuesday before a final vote on Wednesday.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

In a year that could bring a November ballot full of proposed amendments to the constitution, the chances of a vote on making it harder to change the state constitution might be getting slimmer, The Denver Post reports.

Lackluster support from the business community isn’t helping the bill. Voters in 2008 rejected Referendum O, which also would have restricted initiatives, and supporters spent relatively little to campaign for it.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Lawmakers Wednesday debated and approved in committee a measure that would make it more difficult for citizens to amend the state constitution— but only if those same voters approve the measure in November.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, which has bipartisan sponsorship–Democratic Senator Abel Tapia of Pueblo and Republican Al White of Hayden, is being touted by Tapia as the “new and improved” Referendum O,  a previous ballot measure which failed by about two percent of the vote in 2008. Tapia said that SCR3 is much less complicated and was crafted with the added benefit of hindsight.

“The intent was to bring something very simple—something that people can understand, and get behind,” said Tapia as he presented the resolution to the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee.

Currently, for a citizen’s initiated measure amending either the constitution or state statutes, the law requires a certain number of signatures from registered voters–five percent of the total number of voters who voted in the most recent Secretary of State’s race.

Referendum O asked to raise the number of signatures required to eight percent, and required that those signatures come from each congressional district rather than from the state at-large.  The current proposal leaves the requirement at five percent, requires signatures from each congressional district, and adds a provision that if a measure asks to amend the constitution it must receive at least sixty percent of the vote in the election to pass.

Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, questioned whether or not the enhanced requirements would disenfranchise citizens from the initiative process who may not have financial resources that larger more prosperous individuals would have in order to overcome the additional hurdles.

“We don’t want to make this a rich person’s process,” said Schultheis. “I think everyone needs to have an equal opportunity.”

Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, agrees that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but maintains that the higher bar encourages citizens to look at amending laws before looking at the constitution.

“I think the constitution should have a higher standard than just statutes,” said Bacon.

Schultheis said that he could not support the resolution because he believes that the motivation behind the referendum is an attempt to prevent citizens from enacting measures such as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rghts (TABOR).

“I’m convinced in my own mind that this is an end-run to undo TABOR,“ Schultheis asserted.  “I don’t feel that it’s right to take away this right to tell people “yeah you have the right to petition the government but were going to make it so tough on you that you really don’t have the right.”

Fellow GOP committee member Bill Cadman of Colorado Springs also said he opposes the resolution arguing that it dilutes the right of the people to petition government when they disapprove of legislative action or lack of action.

“They’re more afraid of what we do to them than what they do to each other,”  said Cadman. “This is their power, their authority.”

Democratic Chairman Rollie Heath of Boulder couldn’t help but point out the irony that he found in the results of focus groups asked to express their opinion on making it more difficult to amend the constitution.

“When Eight-nine percent of Colorado Springs thinks we need to do this, and only seventy-nine percent of Boulder [thinks we should pass this], it’s an overwhelming statement,” said Heath.

The resolution passed in committee with a 3-2 vote—a simple majority vote—but it must receive a super majority vote of two-thirds in both the house and senate before it can be put on the ballot.  Concurrent resolutions are not sent to the governor for signature.

Tapia said he ultimately believes that the will of the people will not be thwarted because “the bottom line is the electors are going to have the final say on this bill.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

State lawmakers may once again ask voters to make it harder to get constitutional amendments on the ballot, an idea Coloradans rejected in 2008, The Denver Post reports.

This time, though, there may be no attempt to encourage groups circulating initiative petitions to only change state statutes instead of the constitution.

“This is a simplified Ref. O,” said Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, referring to Referendum O, which voters shot down 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent in 2008.

The Pueblo Chieftain: The proposed concurrent resolution for the referred measure, which is yet to be introduced, would ask voters to: 1) Double the minimum number of voter signatures required to run a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution from 5 percent of the votes cast in the previous election to 10 percent. 2) Require a minimum of 1 percent of those signatures come from each of the state’s 35 state Senate districts. 3) Impose a supermajority of 60 percent voter approval for ballot initiatives that seek to amend the Constitution.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Lawmakers Tuesday looked at two measures that could make changes to the initiative process in Colorado.  The first measure addresses who is allowed to collect signatures for a ballot initiative.  The second measure requires disclosure of groups promoting or opposing a ballot issue.  Both measures passed unanimously out of the House State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.

House Bill 1366 sponsored by Rep. Dennis Apaun, D-Colorado Springs, prohibits someone who is on probation or parole for unlawful sexual behavior or felony fraud from collecting signatures for ballot initiatives.   The prohibition would apply to both paid and unpaid petitioners.

Apaun said he wants to make sure that participation by Colorado citizens in the political process will not have any negative consequences by having personal information falling into the wrong hands.

“They (Colorado citizens) deserve to feel confident that the information that they disclose will not be used for any unlawful behavior,” said Apaun. “ Their personal information should not be in the hands of sexual offenders or thieves.”

Rep. Edward Casso, D-Commerce City, thinks the measure is a step in the right direction, but questions why the prohibition doesn’t extend to those who are on a sex offender registry after they are released from parole or probation.

“We should probably look at people who are on the sexual offender registries and not just on probation or parole if we are going to do this,” said Casso.

Casso was joined by the GOP’s Mark Waller of Colorado Springs, who also thinks that the distinction between the supervision of parole or probation and having committed the crime in the first place is a small one when it comes to protecting personal information gathered from citizens.

“Perhaps these people should never be allowed to circulate petitions,” said Waller.

Michael Shea, Deputy Legal Council for the governor’s office stated when a person is on parole or probation they already have reduced first amendment rights and therefore the same limitations can apply for the initiative process—the distinction being a constitutional one.

The panel also considered House Bill 1370 sponsored by Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, that would require proponents and opponents of ballot measures be listed on the Secretary of State’s website with a statement in the Blue Book–a pamphlet produced by the government containing the ballot measures and arguments for and against–which directs readers to the Secretary’s of Sate’s website for full disclosure of the proponents and opponents.

Advocating for the disclosures bill was the Colorado Press Association, arguing the increased transparency and the value of the information disclosed would benefit media consumers and voters.

Court wrapped up the debate over her measure with a sentiment that paralleled the Press Association’s support.

“The more information sharing we can do…the better,” said Court.

HB 1366 will need to meet the House Finance Committee’s approval before it can go to the House floor for consideration. HB1370 is now headed to the House Appropriations Committee.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >