Voters who take the time to read Amendment 41 are likely to be confused, but they shouldn’t worry, because most lawyers are confused by the measure, too.
Amendment 41 is the latest example of people trying to amend our state constitution with provisions that have no business being there.
One dictionary defines a constitution as “the system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions and limits of a government or other institution.” Our constitution is already littered with provisions that should have been laws instead of constitutional amendments.
If the elements of Amendment 41 made sense – which they don’t – they would belong in Colorado’s statutes, not our constitution.
Beyond this constitutional problem, Amendment 41 imposes unreasonable, indefensible restrictions on Colorado citizens. Proponents of the amendment will tell you it only stops lobbyists from spending money on legislators and keeps legislators and other elected officials from becoming lobbyists for at least two years after leaving office.
The truth is that the amendment places the same “gift ban” restrictions on all employees of state and local governments as it does on the governor or the speaker of the House. It is defined so broadly that any independent contractor who does work for the state or a local government is covered as well.
The plain language of Amendment 41 makes no distinction between government employees who are decision-makers and ordinary workers. Section 3, paragraph (2) of the amendment says no government employee, including independent contractors, may “accept or receive any gift or thing of value having either a fair market value or aggregate actual cost greater than fifty dollars ($50) in any calendar year.” To make matters worse, this prohibition also applies to the spouses and dependent children of government employees and independent contractors.
Voters who take the time to read Amendment 41 are likely to be confused, but they shouldn’t worry, because most lawyers are confused by the measure, too. Do we want to put something this problematic in our constitution?
I believe that even such things as scholarships for the children of government workers could be restricted by the broad language of Amendment 41. The child of a community college faculty member couldn’t be taken out by a friend’s parents if the total value of the excursion exceeded $50. I’m afraid I would even be restricted from giving gifts to my grandchildren simply because their mother is a municipal employee.
Amendment 41’s enforcement mechanism is also flawed. It establishes a five- person ethics commission with extraordinary powers to intrude into people’s private lives, and the commissioners would be appointed by the very politicians they’re supposed to be regulating. In addition, each member of the ethics commission would be empowered to issue subpoenas for documents or witnesses. Giving this kind of power to five individuals without any checks or balances invites abuses of power.
The proponents of this ill- advised proposal say it is needed to protect the public from unscrupulous elected officials and lobbyists. Their amendment goes far beyond that concern. It amends our constitution, placing ridiculous restrictions on people who having nothing to do with making public decisions. It imposes draconian restrictions on children of government employees. It establishes a new government entity and gives its members extraordinary and unchecked authority to invade our privacy. It is overreaching and wrong. It must be defeated.
Vote “no” on Amendment 41. Let the proponents come back with something that truly addresses ethics and doesn’t reach so far into the personal lives of people who are not decision-makers.
Norma Anderson is a retired state senator who served 19 years in the Colorado legislature.
