Gay-rights advocates struck out Thursday on their first attempt to challenge a proposed ballot initiative aimed at prohibiting domestic partnerships before it gets to the ballot.
The initiative, which asks voters to prohibit the state from recognizing a legal status “similar to that of marriage,” is too vague and could confuse voters, lawyers Patrick Steadman and Jean Dubofsky argued before the Colorado Title Setting Board.
The board rejected the challenge and let the wording stand by a 3-0 vote, but Steadman said he would appeal within the required seven days to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Steadman and Dubofsky, who successfully fought the anti-gay- rights Amendment 2 a decade earlier, called the current initiative’s language “purposefully obscure” and said it violates both fairness and accuracy criteria as well as the requirement that initiatives stick to a single issue.
Although the measure is aimed at same-sex couples, voters might not understand exactly how the law could also apply to other relationships such as common-law marriage, they said.
“It’s all rooted in vagueness, and nobody knows what this prohibits or what laws might become unconstitutional if it should pass,” Steadman said.
But backers of the initiative countered that the initiative as written will be clear to voters.
“In one sense, I welcome this challenge because it’s a big issue,” said state Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who has pushed the initiative with the help of retired Colorado Springs businessman Will Perkins. “But the merits of their argument I find to be a little incredible.”
The legal strategy in some ways mirrors an approach gay- rights advocates used in Georgia, where a judge recently struck down an amendment to the state constitution that would have banned same-sex marriage.
Although the measure passed easily, the court found that it violated the state’s single-subject rule. The Georgia court didn’t rule on the technical issues until after the measure passed, but Colorado law deals with such matters before the vote, Steadman said.
Lundberg said his group will move forward and print petitions to gather 100,000 signatures – about 68,000 are needed before the August deadline to put the initiative to the ballot – even though an adverse court ruling could effectively kill the effort for this year.
“Time is limited,” he said, “and we won’t be held hostage by somebody trying to slow the process.”
