The opponents of the Petition Rights Amendment on the November ballot find themselves in an awkward position.
The foes, mostly government and business types, are arguing against reforms of the petition process that would expand and protect the rights of citizens to both initiate laws and, in fairly extraordinary circumstances, reject laws passed by the legislature or governing boards of governmental subdivisions.
At the same time, however, the opponents of the PRA are demonstrating why it is so difficult under existing law to amend the state constitution or pass an initiated statute.
Not only must proponents gather thousands of signatures, they have to withstand challenges at every turn – for example, the setting of the title and the determination of whether the measure is limited to a single subject.
Once those goals are met, things can really get rough. The media become aroused, opposition forms, ads are broadcast, and almost inevitably lies are circulated. In the end, no measure becomes law without a majority vote.
So, there are really two questions for Colorado voters regarding petition rights: Can the existing system stand improvement and will the proposed amendment provide it?
The answer to the first question is an emphatic “yes.” Just weeks ago, the Colorado Supreme Court blocked a measure on immigration on grounds so flimsy as to be nearly laughable. Nor was it the court’s first misstep. The PRA deals with the process of single-subject challenges, imposes deadlines for court action and requires the Supreme Court to be specific in rejecting portions of a measure.
In recent years, a number of government agencies used tax money to oppose ballot measures. They did so knowing there is no serious penalty for such behavior. The PRA would fix that by fining offending government entities.
Importantly, the ballot measure makes no attempt to reduce the number of signatures required for state issues but would expand the right to petition to government subdivisions not now covered.
The PRA would provide more opportunity for citizens to challenge acts passed by legislative bodies. These challenges, however, are not expected to mushroom in number, simply because it remains difficult to get a measure to the ballot. Voting on all referred and initiated matters would still be limited to November elections.
Ever since 1932, when Coloradans effectively challenged a statute imposing a tax on margarine, the Colorado General Assembly has routinely been adding an emergency clause to every piece of legislation. This clause is intended to defeat timely challenges to legislative enactments. The PRA would expose the bulk of new laws to possible challenges by limiting the number of emergency bills the legislature could pass every year.
Some critics of the PRA have suggested that this measure is a carbon copy of a 1996 ballot issue defeated by the voters and that it therefore should be defeated.
These critics are ignoring the history of the last 10 years. Those years, if anything, illustrate the fact that citizens should be more, not less, involved. Some of the act’s provisions will make it easier for citizen groups by modestly expanding deadlines (a year to gather signatures, for instance, instead of just six months). Had more time been allowed under existing law, a couple of measures – including one on governmental condemnation powers – might have made it to this year’s ballot.
The state’s first initiatives were adopted in 1912 and since then there has been constant fretting over whether that right to initiatives is being abused.
The beauty of the American system is that mistakes can be corrected. The PRA is a part of the correction process. It continues to advance the belief that the initiative and the referendum are still the best tools for an electorate when it becomes either angry at a government gone wrong or impatient with a government too lazy or too afraid to act.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial- page staff. His column appears Wednesdays.
