Changing rules in the middle of the game is almost never fair, and it was appropriate that a judge struck down an Aug. 2 secretary of state’s requirement that changed the rules for some organizations that donate money to candidates.
The rule issued by Secretary of State Gigi Dennis, nudged by a group of Republican lawyers, required membership organizations to obtain written permission from members to have their dues used for political purposes. The GOP goal was to halt union contributions to Democrats before the November election.
Last Friday, Denver District Judge John McMullen struck down the Dennis rule, finding that the secretary exceeded her authority. “Because of the date of adoption” of the rule and “the proximity of the 2006 election,” it “would substantially impair members’ abilities to have their dues used for political purposes for the 2006 election,” the judge said. McMullen added that Dennis’ move “denies the members … the constitutional rights to associate, that is to essentially pool their small contribution into a large contribution” which would be “more likely to have some influence.”
This seems to be a never-say-die issue for state Republicans. Deputy AG Jason Dunn said Monday that Attorney General John Suthers will appeal the ruling. On cue, Gov. Bill Owens weighed in with an amicus brief supporting the appeal and saying the secretary of state had been unfairly criticized. (Among others, Dennis has been criticized by both candidates for secretary of state.)
The AG is wrong to spend more taxpayer money to prolong the agony. With 51 days before the Nov. 7 elections, Dennis should focus on running a smooth and credible election and leave the GOP establishment to push its case next year with the legislature.
Dennis has argued that her rule will ensure transparency required by Amendment 27, a campaign-finance measure approved by voters in 2002. The AG’s office echoed that sentiment in announcing its appeal.
There’s a legitimate debate to be had on that issue, but McMullen was right to decide that such a question shouldn’t be decided administratively three months before Election Day. (In fact, in past years more than one legislature has debated similar disclosure rules and voted them down.)
There’s an odor of partisanship about the whole thing as the GOP scrambles to maintain key state offices (such as governor, secretary of state and attorney general).
The interests of fairness will be best served if the short-term issue is resolved quickly by the appellate courts and the long-term question given due consideration by the legislature.
