We’re not fans of the so-called “Defend Colorado” initiative, which we consider to be mischievous and mean-spirited. But whatever its demerits, the measure strike us as falling clearly within the “single subject” requirements applied to ballot initiatives under the state constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court raised a ruckus Monday when it ruled otherwise, with logic that pretty much escaped the rest of us.
We think the justices should reconsider their split decision to throw out the proposed ballot measure asking voters to deny most state services to illegal immigrants – not because the ruling has been widely criticized but because it has been wisely criticized. We believe the decision contradicts several previous rulings of the tribunal on the very same legal issue.
The court, in a 4-2 ruling, strained to find that the initiative dealt with at least two subjects: decreasing taxpayer expenditures that benefit undocumented immigrants and denying administrative services to that group. But simple logic suggest that the latter “subject” is simply part of the implementation of the first.
That’s precisely the point Justice Nathan Coats made in a well-argued dissent: “The substantive provision of Initiative 55 contains a single mandate clearly expressed in a single concise sentence. Consistent with federal law, [state] government is required to restrict non-emergency services to those whose presence in this country is lawful. … It clearly treats a single subject.”
Colorado Gov. Bill Owens went overboard Tuesday in branding the court ruling as “arrogant,” but he did score by quoting the high court’s own previous decision, on a gun show initiative, that concluded: “The mere fact that the initiative contains detailed provisions for its implementation does not mean that it contains multiple subjects.” Owens called a news conference to engage in a game of “paper, scissors, rock” with the court, saying he would “likely” call a special session of the Colorado legislature to outflank the ruling, unless the court reverses its ruling.
If the court remains adamant in keeping the proposed initiative off the ballot, a special session couldn’t directly affect its ruling. But if the issue gains a majority, the legislature could go around the court to put the issue on the November ballot.
The legislature probably won’t craft a constitutional amendment on immigration because that would require an unlikely two-thirds majorities of both House and Senate. But the lawmakers could pass referred laws onto the November ballot with simple majorities.
More sensible by far is for the court to hear arguments on appeal and reverse course, restoring the proposed initiative to the ballot where voters can weigh the issue.
If the court does change its mind, we hope voters will eventually recognize that while the initiative has just one subject, it is a thoroughly misguided one.
This editorial has been corrected in this online archive. Originally, it misspelled the name of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nathan Coats.
