The push to change the Colorado Constitution to deny “nonemergency government services” to illegal immigrants is down, not out.
Barring remarkable circumstances, a Colorado Supreme Court decision Monday probably pushed the current anti-illegal immigrant initiative off the November ballot. But rest assured, something like it eventually will go to the voters.
Sooner may be better. After all, the Supreme Court has no business protecting us from our own bias and stupidity.
When we vote on this will never be as important as how we vote. We must all undergo a gut-check on immigration. We must choose if we will purposely hurt people who lack proper papers. The choice is moral, as well as economic.
Denying vaccinations to undocumented babies involves a heck of a dilemma.
It is just one of 100 challenges that will arise if you vote to take away “nonemergency government services” without knowing what they are.
Taxpayers could get to finance the legal defense of their decision against suits by nativists bent on keeping preventive health care for the undocumented. Or they could pay to fight the suits of illegal immigrants who can’t sell their homes.
“The initiative review process doesn’t seem to work very well,” said Richard Collins, a constitutional expert at the University of Colorado law school. “Badly drafted initiatives get passed. It’s always sort of Doug Bruce at his typewriter.”
Collins’ reference to Bruce, the author of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, works. Bruce would starve government out of existence if he could.
Likewise, anti-illegal immigrant zealots want to starve undocumented foreigners until they go back where they came from.
Monday’s Supreme Court decision sought to deal with open-ended liability and public misunderstanding before the fact. To Collins, that was procedurally wrong, even though he’ll probably vote against any anti-illegal immigrant initiative that gets on the ballot.
“A similar initiative passed in California,” he said. “It was tied up in court for years. In the end, most of it was declared invalid.”
The way the Colorado initiative is worded, the same thing could happen here, he predicted.
“There’s a good chance that this will not do all that its partisans hope,” Collins said. “Voters don’t really mean to adopt the partisans’ ultimate hopes. Courts recognize that.”
Thing is, courts are not supposed to rule until initiatives pass.
A flurry of lawsuits and court decisions will refine any anti-illegal immigrant initiative that passes in Colorado, Collins thinks. Then, things will calm down.
University of Denver law professor Alan Chen is not sure. The initiative in question lets any citizen sue any political subdivision providing nonemergency services to illegal immigrants, Chen said.
In addition, Chen said, specifying what services to cut could lead to more problems. The Supreme Court relied on a so-called “single subject” rule in blocking the current initiative. Naming a bunch of services to cut might violate that rule, Chen said.
Where nonemergency services cannot be defined, they exist in the eye of the potential litigant. Chen has a description for this – “open season on government.”
If the people of Colorado are naive, hate-filled or fearful enough about immigration to issue such a hunting license, they will likely be the prey.
Chen agreed with the state Supreme Court’s reasoning in knocking the anti-illegal immigrant initiative off the ballot. Still, he couldn’t suggest an easy solution.
“It was thrown out in part because of the broad language,” Chen said. “The breadth of the language will be difficult to fix.”
The answer rests with community compassion and understanding that initiatives which invite lawsuits can turn into financial and administrative nightmares.
“Voters,” Chen said, “need to know what they are voting for.”
Sure they do. But as long as they remain blinded by immigration hysteria, no judge can make them see.
Jim Spencer’s column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. He can be reached at 303-820-1771 or jspencer@denverpost.com.
