With the 2006 Colorado general election just days away, many registered voters opt to study proposed changes to the state Constitution prior to entering the polls. The following are proposed Colorado state constitutional amendments that will go before the voters Nov. 7. Pro and con statements regarding the proposed amendments are included.
- Amendment 38 – Petitions: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning initiative and referendum petitions, and, in connection therewith, changing petition rights and procedures; allowing petitions to be submitted at all levels of Colorado government; limiting initiative ballot titles to 75 words; changing single-subject requirements and procedures; limiting the annual number of new laws that governments may exclude from possible referendum petitions; establishing standards for review of filed petitions; specifying that petitions may be voted on at any November election; limiting the use of government resources to discuss a petition; requiring voter approval for future petition laws and rules and for changes to certain voter-approved petitions; and authorizing measures to enforce the amendment?Yes: Douglas Campbell, Citizens for Petition Rights chairman, said, “In an effort to create uniform rules for petitions, our objective is to have a process that doesn’t vary city to city and county to county, with minor variances, and to extend those rules to all levels of Colorado government. The petition process is an additional checks and balances against mistakes government might make, and with petitions citizens can overcome the inadequacies or outright bad behavior of government. Petitions only apply to legislative policy, not administrative decisions.”No: Rocky Mountain News editorial Oct. 9: “The amendment has some good points, but it’s a very dense document and tries to cram in too many extraneous, even wrong-headed, elements. Yes, we still believe in the initiative process as a vital citizen right (even if we are increasingly convinced that it should be harder to pass a constitutional amendment than a statute). But we see no reason to make it much easier to get issues on the ballot. This proposal would not only make it easier to reach the ballot, it would expand the initiative process to all levels of government, including counties, school districts and other special districts.”
- Amendment 39 – School district spending requirements: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning a requirement that in each fiscal year a school district must spend at least 65 percent of its operational expenditures on classroom instruction, with limited exceptions?Yes: Tim Mooney, First Class Education director, said, “Amendment 39 will ensure that at least 65 percent of our education dollars will reach our Colorado classrooms, its teachers and students. Currently, Colorado is ranked 47 of all 50 states in getting money to the classrooms. Amendment 39, over time and with flexibility, will put an additional $400 million more in the Colorado classroom without a tax increase. It’s not more money; it’s spending our money more wisely. The top four states in student achievement, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Vermont, all spend 65 percent of their money in the classroom and they have highest test scores.”No: Frank Waterous, Bell Policy Center senior policy analyst, said, “Studies have found no correlation between a mandated percentage of spending and student outcomes. Also, the definition of what the 65 percent includes is very narrow. We are concerned it excludes services, such as principals, nurses, social workers, counselors and security, which have been shown to make a difference in student achievement. Although referendum J gives a broader definition as to services included, both measures would impose a mandate that has shown in studies to not have an effect on student achievement.”In addition to Amendment 39, referendum J is a proposed change to state statute regarding school district spending. Both ballot proposals establish requirements for school district spending, but referendum J allows voters to exempt a school district from the 65 percent requirement and requires each school district to submit an annual budget in a standardized format to the state. Voters may choose to vote for one, both, or neither of the proposals.
- Amendment 40 – Term limits for supreme court and court of appeals judges: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning term limits for appellate court judges, and, in connection therewith, reducing the terms of office for justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the court of appeals to four years, requiring appellate judges serving as of Jan. 1, 2007, to stand for retention at the next general election, if eligible for another term, prohibiting an appellate judge from serving more than three terms, specifying that a provisional term constitutes a full term, and making any appellate judge who has served ten or more years at one court level ineligible for another term at that level?Yes: John Andrews, former senate president and “Yes on 40” chairman, said, “Coloradans have long supported term limits as a protection against public officials abusing their power. Our courts are the only branch of government not now covered by term limits. Amendment 40 closes that loophole and responds to a pattern of court cases where judges attempted to rewrite the law. Amendment 40 provides tougher term limits for better courts.”No: Stacey Chesney, “Vote No 40” spokesperson and communication director for the Colorado Bar Association, said, “We believe amendment 40 goes beyond judges and courts because it forces out many appellate court judges at the same time causing a backlog in the current court system. It pushes out good judges for no reason, and it creates partisan politics by allowing the future governor to appoint more than half of the Supreme Court judges.”
- Amendment 41 – Standards of conduct in government: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning standards of conduct by persons who are professionally involved with governmental activities, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, or government employee from soliciting or accepting certain monetary or in-kind gifts; prohibiting a professional lobbyist from giving anything of value to a public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, government employee, or such person’s immediate family member; prohibiting a statewide elected officeholder or member of the general assembly from personally representing another person or entity for compensation before any other such officeholder or member for a period of two years following departure from office; establishing penalties for a breach of public trust or inducement of such a breach; creating a five-member independent ethics commission to hear ethics complaints, to assess penalties, and to issue advisory opinions on ethics issues; and specifying that the measure shall not apply to home rule jurisdictions that have adopted laws concerning matters covered by the measure?Yes: Jared Polis, co-chair of Coloradans for Clean Government and Mark Larson, a Republican state representative from Cortez. Comments printed in The Denver Post Oct. 14. “Coloradans are fed up with the corrupting influence of all the freebies and cozy relationships and question whether public officials are fighting for their interests or for special interests. To restore trust in government, it is crucial to have in place common-sense, meaningful restrictions that protect the public interest: 26 states ban or restrict lobbyist gifts, 27 states require a cooling-off period before former public officials can lobby their former colleagues and 39 states have ethics commissions. But Colorado does not prohibit or restrict lobbyist gifts to public officials, does not have a “revolving door” provision and lacks an ethics commission.”No: Mark Turner, Colorado Nonprofit Association manager of public policy, said, “Amendment 41 places a $50 cap per year on providing complimentary meals, travel reimbursement, event fees and other things of value to elected officials and state employees. Many nonprofits offer such goods and services at no cost to create opportunities that may not exist otherwise to educate and inform elected officials and state employees. Requiring elected officials and state employees to pay out of pocket for attending events, purchasing publications, and covering travel expenses will drastically reduce their opportunities to learn about and work with nonprofits providing vital services to Colorado communities”
- Amendment 42 – Colorado minimum wage: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning the state minimum wage, and, in connection therewith, increasing Colorado’s minimum wage to $6.85 per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, and providing that no more than $3.02 per hour in tip income may be used to offset the minimum wage of employees who regularly receive tips?Yes: Margaret Mora, Southern Colorado director of Colorado Progressive Coalition, said, “The coalition believes that hard work deserves fair pay, It’s not right that Coloradans working year round, full time, are still making below poverty level. A Colorado full-time worker at minimum wage brings in $206 per week, that’s $10,700 per year. It’s not OK they are only able to pay for food and rent, with things left out like medicine, and nothing left over to enjoy life.”No: Donna Moody, Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry vice president of government affairs, said, “If Colorado raises the minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage, it could put Colorado in a competitive disadvantage compared to other states. Our board feels it’s best left to the Legislature so that as economic conditions change, so could the minimum wage.”
- Amendment 43 – Marriage: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning marriage, and, in connection therewith specifying that only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Colorado?Yes: Jim Pfaff, Focus on the Family national representative for family policy councils, said, “We need an amendment to the Colorado Constitution because it will protect the definition of marriage and Coloradans know marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Referendum I gives all the benefits of spouses to domestic partnerships, and domestic partnerships will be given the same definition as marriage. It needs to be defeated because marriage is about children, not primarily about adults. That is why referendum I needs to be defeated and Amendment 43 needs to be passed.”No: Ryan Acker, Pikes Peak Gay & Lesbian Community Center executive director, said, “The center supports referendum I because it gives immediate relief for gay and lesbian families throughout Colorado. We oppose Amendment 43 because it writes discrimination into the Constitution. We want to keep the Constitution as broad as possible to protect rights of people, which includes everybody.”In addition to Amendment 43, referendum I is a proposed change to state statute regarding marriage. Under Colorado law, there is no process for same-sex couples to establish a legally binding relationship with legal protections, benefits and responsibilities. Referendum I creates such a process, beginning Feb. 12, 2007, and gives domestic partners the legal rights and responsibilities that spouses have. Voters may choose to vote for one, both, or neither of the proposals.
- Amendment 44 – Marijuana possession: Shall there be an amendment of the Colorado revised statutes making legal the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for any person 21 years of age or older?Yes: Mason Tvert, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation campaign director, said, “Every objective study has found marijuana use less harmful than alcohol for both the people who use it and those around them. The law would make it illegal to display and use marijuana in public, illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana, and illegal to sell or transfer marijuana to kids.”No: Beverly Kinard, Guarding Our Children against Marijuana spokesperson, said, “Marijuana is a very dangerous drug. There have been thousands of studies about the harmful effects of marijuana use. This (amendment) is going to increase the amount of drug use by young people. The usage decreases when teens know of the dangers. When the perception of danger goes down, the drug usage increases.”
