It’s not unfolding in that crisp, efficient way we learned in civics classes, but the early part of the 2006 campaign is shaping up to be an intriguing lesson in litigation and ballot access.
After traditional methods failed, gubernatorial hopeful Marc Holtzman turned to the courts to put him on the August primary ballot. Meanwhile, one of Colorado’s most high-profile ballot issues – involving illegal immigrants – was derailed Monday by the state Supreme Court.
On a 4-2 vote, the state’s high court tossed an anti-illegal immigration measure from the ballot, saying it violates a state law that initiatives deal with only one subject. Had it been approved by voters, it would have restricted government services to only citizens and legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants would have been denied everything except services mandated by federal law, such as K-12 education and emergency medical care.
Backers of the proposal used ballot language written two years ago, thinking it was bullet-proof because it already had been vetted by the secretary of state and Supreme Court. Back then, the court rejected a legal challenge that the wording was misleading. (But that initiative lacked the signatures to make the ballot.)
However, the court wasn’t asked in 2004 if the wording violated the single-subject rule. That’s how opponents challenged the measure this time, and the justices ruled that it has two unrelated purposes: to decrease taxpayer expenditures that help illegal immigrants and to restrict access to administrative services.
“Because we determine these purposes are unrelated, we conclude they comprise multiple subjects connected only by a broad and overarching theme,” the ruling said. To the average voter or editorial board member, that may sound like a stretch. We find the initiative obnoxious and unnecessary, but it certainly seemed straightforward enough.
Former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, who’s leading the charge on the measure, called the ruling “outrageous judicial activism, Exhibit A in how courts disregard precedent to reach a political result. This isn’t law, it is raw, naked politics,” he said.
Proponents have vowed to tweak their proposal and collect enough signatures to get it onto the ballot, but it may be too late for this year. The Title Board, which approves the wording of ballot issues, held its final meeting last month.
Holtzman’s court battle
Holtzman, on the other hand, is trying to use the courts to get onto the ballot. He figures a little judicial activism would go a long way.
Secretary of State Gigi Dennis ruled earlier that he failed to turn in enough valid signatures in the 1st and 7th congressional districts. State law requires candidates for statewide offices to get the signatures of 1,500 registered electors from their party in each of Colorado’s seven districts.
In a perfect world, that would show the candidate has diverse support across the state. But this gerrymandered political world is hardly perfect. It’s tough to find 1,500 registered Republicans in the 1st Congressional District, or 1,500 Democrats in the 6th.
Holtzman’s lawyers will argue this week that a statewide candidate should only need 10,500 signatures statewide, not 1,500 from each congressional district.
“You’re allowed to vote anywhere in the state for a statewide candidate,” said Holtzman attorney Mark Grueskin, the same lawyer who successfully upended the illegal immigration measure. “Why can’t you get signatures from anywhere in the state?”
The courts will have to provide an answer. The law was drawn in an earlier time, and its requirement has been made more difficult by partisan gerrymandering and now superceded by legislation passed in 2002 to allow for statewide provisional ballots.
We’d like to see the 2007 legislature update the ballot access law but, in the meantime, we think Holtzman should have seen this one coming.
More initiatives coming
While the courts will play a role in the illegals measure, and in Holtzman’s fate, more than a dozen other measures also are jockeying for ballot access.
Secretary of State Dennis expects about eight measures will make the ballot, but there are as many as 18 in the pipeline. (The record came in 1992, when 13 statewide issues qualified for the ballot.)
The 2006 possibilities include five ballot issues referred by state lawmakers and a handful of citizen-sponsored initiatives, among them one that could make it easier to put more issues on the ballot by allowing the state legislature to lower the number of signatures required for initiated laws, but not constitutional amendments.
Other citizen initiatives still seeking signatures would: define marriage as between one man and one woman; restrict condemnation proceedings; outlaw late-term abortions; guarantee the right of workers to unionize; legalize possession of marijuana statewide; and limit metro housing growth.
It’s possible some of those proposals could end up in the courts, too.
Our political system is set up in a way that candidates, or those backing or opposing initiatives, can wrangle in the courts before they go before voters. It’s a crucial cog in the political machinery, but we’ll all breathe a sign of relief when the ballot is set and the tough decisions are being made by voters rather than litigants and judges.
