State Rep. Douglas Bruce and liberal advocacy groups joined forces Monday to oppose making it harder to change the state constitution.
The unlikely allies objected to a proposed constitutional amendment that would increase the number of signatures needed to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot.
It also would require that 10 percent of the signatures belong to residents of all of the state's seven congressional districts. The proposal, Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, is the result of months of work by a bipartisan panel of lawmakers to find a way to encourage changing statutory law rather than the constitution.
Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, introduced the proposal despite believing more significant constitutional reform is needed. He said his commission's scope was limited to fixing the initiative process, so it offered minor changes.
"We weren't trying to reinvent the wheel," Tapia told the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.
The proposed amendment would make it easier to change statutory law, which the Legislature can later change or rescind, while making it harder to amend the constitution, which only voters can change. To get a statutory initiative on the ballot, a group would need to collect signatures equal to 4 percent of the votes cast in the previous election for governor. Getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot would require 6 percent of the vote in the governor's race, and those signatures would have to come from around the state.
Currently, statutory and constitutional initiatives require 5 percent of the votes cast for secretary of state.
As an added incentive, the Legislature would not be able to alter a statutory change for six years unless it had a two-thirds vote of both houses.
Legislators have long complained that too many initiatives have cluttered the constitution. Some outlaw nuclear detonation within the state while others conflict with each other, such as Amendment 23, which requires increases in funding for education, and TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which caps government spending.
Bruce, R-Colorado Springs and the author of TABOR, called the measure "an overt, blatant attempt to undermine the First Amendment rights of the people." He also complained about his exclusion from the panel, which he chastised for "not giving preference to people who know the most about the process."
Jane Feustel, who represented Common Cause and the Colorado Progressive Coalition, said requiring signatures to come from around the state would severely strain the resources of grass-roots groups.
The committee will vote on the measure Wednesday. To be on the November ballot, it must pass by a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. |
