Former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm called Monday’s ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court “outrageous judicial activism,” and current Gov. Bill Owens said he might call our legislature back into session. Meanwhile, state Attorney General John Struthers plans to ask the court to reconsider.
At issue is a ballot initiative to amend our state constitution to prohibit providing tax-funded non-emergency public services to people who are not legally in the United States.
The question before the court was whether the ballot measure conformed to a constitutional provision that requires ballot measures to deal with only one subject. The court ruled 4-2 that this proposal embraced two topics: reducing public expenditures and restricting access to public services.
Yet in 2004, the court approved a very similar proposal, which failed to get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Little wonder that Lamm, who is part of an organization called “Defend Colorado Now,” was irate. “This isn’t law; it is raw, naked politics,” he said.
But if you think our courts already meddle in too many matters, consider how things might have worked if this proposal were adopted.
Article V, Section 51 of our state constitution would then state that “Except as mandated by federal law, the provision of non- emergency services by the state of Colorado, or any county, city, or other political subdivision thereof, is restricted to citizens of and aliens lawfully present in the United States of America,” and “Any person lawfully residing in the state of Colorado shall have standing to sue the state of Colorado, or any county, city, or other political subdivision of the state of Colorado, to enforce this section.”
Federal law requires the provision of K- 12 education, regardless of immigrant status, so the schools would not be affected. The same holds for emergency medical services and the like.
But public libraries should qualify as offering a “non-emergency service.” Libraries generally want some proof of identity and residency when they issue a card. The Defend Colorado Now amendment doesn’t exactly require libraries to also check for citizenship or immigration status before issuing a card, but any citizen could bring a suit against the library for failing to do so.
What if someone just comes in to the library to use a public computer to check her e-mail or to read some magazines? That’s a “non-emergency service,” so the library would have to check her status before allowing her past the front door, just to avoid possible litigation.
Someone who just stepped in to use the restroom or water fountain at the library, or any other public building, might have to explain whether he came for an “emergency service,” in which case no status-checking would be required, or a “non-emergency service,” in which case status-checking would be required to avoid litigation.
What of our city parks? Will all visitors be required to prove they’re in the country legally before they can use a picnic table? Will kids on swings and slides be checked for residency status and citizenship, lest someone sue the city for allowing the wrong people to enjoy a non-emergency service?
Such questions could extend indefinitely, since this proposed constitutional amendment provides for no enforcement mechanism other than litigation.
Already there have been modern “Minutemen” volunteers watching along the Mexico border. Suppose something like that happened in Colorado on account of this amendment, with volunteer vigilance squads monitoring public facilities, and filing lawsuits whenever they suspected that illegal aliens were availing themselves of non-emergency tax-funded services.
Wouldn’t that just put a further burden on our court system?
And to comply with rulings, or to avoid going to court, public agencies would have to cut services by putting employees in charge of checking the immigration status of every library or park visitor, or else add to their staffs and thereby increase taxes. Yet the amendment was supposed to cut spending and presumably improve public services by cutting out illegal immigrants so that there would be more for those of us who are here legally. If we end up spending $10 of public money to keep from spending $1 on services for illegal immigrants, are we coming out ahead?
Defend Colorado Now’s amendment sounds attractive in theory, since it promises lower taxes by limiting public services. But in practice it would raise taxes and reduce public services while clogging courts.
Even so, the proposal still should go on the ballot, providing it gets enough signatures. Issues like this deserve a thorough public debate before they’re defeated.
Ed Quillen of Salida (ed@cozine.com) is a former newspaper editor whose column appears Tuesday and Sunday.
