Gov. Bill Owens surprised almost no one, except perhaps with his timing,when he announced late Tuesday night that he’ll call the legislature into emergency session in an effort to circumvent the decision by the state Supreme Court that invalidated Initiative 55, an immigration-reform measure the governor supports.
We didn’t agree with the court’s ruling, but the justices declined to reconsider, and there didn’t seem to be any urgent reason for the governor or the legislature to be playing Monday morning quarterback.
The ballot measure in question proposed to restrict illegal immigrants’ access to state services. Seems sensible, except so far as anyone can tell, illegal immigrants don’t actually receive much in the way of state services, and several of its prominent proponents concede that the measure is largely symbolic. (Federal rules guarantee illegal immigrants access to many services.)
There’s a strong political component to the issue, as some campaign strategists believe an immigration measure could stimulate a strong Republican turnout for state elections this November.
Although Owens last night didn’t issue his formal “call” for the session, which will set the boundaries for what lawmakers can consider, it appears the session can potentially deal with more than just putting the text of Initiative 55 back on the ballot. Democrats are in the majority, and they seem unlikely to seek a simple reversal of the court judgment.
Owens spokesman Dan Hopkins said the governor’s call will include a compromise plan agreed to by both supporters and opponents of the ballot measure. That’s a welcome determination, matched by Democrats who said last week they hope to work with the governor on a practical approach during any special session. (That compromise is proposed legislation that would both crack down on illegal aliens seeking public assistance and on employers who hire illegal aliens.) But, Hopkins said, the governor’s call also would include “other significant immigration related issues.”
That sounds like a recipe for a wide-open special session, and we’re anxious to see exactly what Owens proposes today.
Lawmakers should consider an approach that demonstrates to Congress the need for what the governor smartly describes as a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. The governor and lawmakers also should seek a balanced approach to immigration reform that will avoid the litigation magnets that practically leap off the pages of the ambiguous version rejected by the high court.
Still, the special session probably isn’t really necessary. Truth to tell, the immigration problem won’t be solved in a campaign-year fistfight, and any need for legislation can be better addressed in a regularly scheduled session of the General Assembly.
Owens argues that the court “unfairly struck down the people’s right to petition,” and that it was more a political determination than a legal one and so requires a political response. We don’t buy the court’s reasoning, but we respect its role in the process. Ideally, sponsors of the so-called “Defend Colorado” initiative should clarify their ballot language and try again at a later date (it’s too late for them to amend their ballot language for 2006). In elaborating on its ruling Monday, the court provided useful guidance for wording an initiative that will pass constitutional muster.
Owens said the political chatter suggests that a debate on the immigration initiative would come out heavily in the Republicans’ favor. Others have argued that the GOP runs a risk of alienating Hispanic voters. Either way, there’s certainly no law against seeking political advantage in a campaign year. But it probably would have been better if the process of government wasn’t distorted by calling the legislature into emergency session.
This issue requires a national solution.
An emergency session of the Colorado legislature seems ironic when, after all, the speaker of the U.S. House has just posted a “go slow” sign on any federal legislation.
