Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly are pleased with how they handled the legislative session that wrapped up last Monday, and they probably wouldn’t mind if it translated into a longer run in the legislative majority.
They wanted to show they could accomplish what the Republicans couldn’t, and that they could do it without too much partisan rancor.
But the Democrats’ leaders insist it was more policy than politics. It wasn’t just an act designed to keep the faith with the state’s independent voters, who were instrumental in giving the Democrats a stunning upset last November.
Whatever the motive, the Democratic leadership managed to mute some of the party’s more liberal ideas. And the Democrats have a term-limits advantage in 2006 that could help them keep and even increase their majorities in both chambers.
But before then, the Democrats need affirmation from voters, and they may have to give ground on one of their cherished ideals: increased education spending.
With the exception of some of the legislature’s more conservative Republicans, most Capitol insiders agree the new majority party did a decent job in 2005.
The Democrats delivered on their major promise – to craft a proposal for loosening the strings on the state’s TABOR fiscal straitjacket. They had to make some compromises with Republican Gov. Owens to do it, but that’s the way government works.
The Democrats also managed to cut the legislature’s workload by more than 100 bills from 2004. And they did it all in 52 hours less than their constitutionally allotted 120 days. That’s a small but important bit of symbolism. It’s the first time lawmakers didn’t work up to the 11th hour since the 120-day limit took effect 16 years ago.
“It was the most productive, bipartisan, efficient session in the five years I’ve been involved,” said House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.
He and Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald tried to steer a course down the middle, without letting their party run off the left side of the road.
That’s a political message to the third of Colorado voters who aren’t affiliated with either major party – that the Democrats can do more than the Republicans because they’re more reasonable.
And, of course, not everyone is tickled pink with the new order. Some conservative Republicans argue that the Democrats pushed a leftist agenda as hard as Republicans pushed conservative ideas when they were in control.
Colorado Springs Sen. Doug Lamborn is one of the more prominent – and unrepentant – Republicans who will fight the budget compromise the Democrats reached with Owens. Even though it doesn’t raise any tax rate, they say, it’s still a tax increase.
“If you keep excess tax and spend it, what else can you call it but a tax increase?” Lamborn asks.
Not only are the Democrats tax-raisers, they also “encroached on business and personal rights,” Lamborn said. They pushed new driving restrictions, bills expanding the definition of discrimination, pro-union workplace regulations and “threats to school choice and accountability.”
“If this session is them wanting to be moderate,” Lamborn said, “I’d hate to see them when they’re being radical.”
Fortunately, the Republicans still have Owens to represent the conservative view and veto the Democrats’ worst ideas, Lamborn said. But he’s disappointed with the governor’s embrace of the TABOR fix, which will appear on the Nov. 1 ballot as Referendum C.
“I’m sure he feels under pressure from all different directions … but I personally believe there has to be at least some pressure on us lawmakers to maintain fiscal discipline,” Lamborn said. “Referendum C removes that pressure.”
He’s one of a number of legislators who believe the Democrats, now that they have a TABOR amendment on the ballot, are obliged next year to make changes to Amendment 23 of 2000.
That ballot issue required the legislature to increase public school funding by 1 percent more than the inflation rate through 2011. Many Republicans say it, more than TABOR, is responsible for the state’s budget problems.
Most legislators accepted the argument that it couldn’t be addressed this year because it’s a constitutional amendment, so it can’t go on the ballot until the next general election in 2006.
Sen. Norma Anderson, a moderate Republican from Lakewood, says she’s confident that Democrats who promised to take up the Amendment 23 issue in 2006 will do so. “It depends on what happens at the ballot box,” she said. “Those that have promised to look at it will.”
But Pete Maysmith of Colorado Common Cause says Referendum C needs to be given time to work. “If it turns out we still have big budget problems, then look at it.”
Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards is amenable to a closer look at Amendment 23 if Referendum C passes and voters “bring the state’s budget out of intensive care.”
“CASB has always said if there are changes to TABOR, changes should be made to 23 as well,” she said.
Romanoff concedes there are “differences of opinion” among Democrats about changing Amendment 23. He thinks the automatic 1 percent increase should be deferred if revenue falls.
But that’s for next year. This year, there’s a muted post-session glow that hasn’t been evident in recent years. Even Owens called the Democrats “moderate.”
Lobbyists, who tend to be skeptical, said they noticed a change, too. Maysmith said committee hearings were more cordial and open to citizen access. “That was huge,” Maysmith said. “There was a different tone and level of respect … . It just felt different.”
Urschel said there was a bipartisan spirit evident in almost everything, even in the last-day skits where the minority party spoofs the majority. She attributes that to the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Democrats promoted their issues, “but they weren’t married to them,” she said.
Some Democrats and their constituencies might have preferred a little more spoils for the winners of the 2004 election.
Labor had disappointments. Environmentalists were busy, but not big winners. “This was not the year to address every Democratic fantasy,” said Romanoff.
But, he said, there was no conspiracy to stifle the left so the Democrats would have a better chance of winning more seats in 2006. “There was no grand plan,” he said; “people are trying to paint a picture that just wasn’t there.”
