Opponents of this year’s Amendment 38, the Petition Rights Amendment, have routinely suggested that the measure, if passed, would destroy, damage, undermine, erode or shatter the very notion of representative government.
This is nonsense on a very large scale. Representative government has survived very nicely right alongside the people’s right to initiative which was made part of the state constitution in 1910. Earlier predictions about the death of representative government have not only been greatly exaggerated, they have consistently been premature.
In fact, if a person wanted to find some language that seems to pose a threat to representative government, look no further than the first few pages of the current state constitution. There you will find these two passages:
“All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”
“The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.”
Think about that. The constitution already says the people can change the government if that change would make them happy. So given that history, what might explain the uproar in business circles over the rather modest changes Amendment 38 would provide?
The answer to that question can be found in a review of those groups who are opposing the measure.
A glance at the records in the Secretary of State’s office shows that almost all of the $750,000 raised by the opponents comes from developers and business groups such as the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. Incredibly, there is only one large individual contributor, well-known rich guy and left-winger Tim Gill, who has given $50,000.
Are these folks concerned with something less grand and perhaps more selfish than the “death of representative government”? Or is it that ordinary voters don’t seem to see Amendment 38 as a threat to their rights or else they would be aiding the opposition campaign with their own contributions?
The text of the amendment (www.pra2006.com) makes it quite clear that the developers don’t have much to fear from the proposed expansion of petition rights at the local level.
Their oft-stated complaint that even meritorious developments might be held up by petition battles flies in the face of the amendment’s clear language that says citizens may not use the law to challenge zoning decisions or other matters that would “reduce private property rights.”
What these organizations may be worried about is the prospect that some communities might later wish to attach stiffer restrictions on prospective development through the initiative process. This, of course, couldn’t be done without majority approval, expressed at the ballot box.
Opponents also argue that measures like Amendment 38 clutter the state constitution. Odd that some of these same folks weren’t concerned about this issue when they were promoting gambling, or providing for open space, or giving extra revenue to public schools, or imposing campaign restrictions. Amendment 38 would actually make it more likely that in the future there would be fewer constitutional amendments and more initiated statutes.
Then there is the complaint that Amendment 38 would lead to ballot clutter. This year, the Colorado General Assembly has submitted seven ballot issues to the general public. None of them is urgent and several are plainly without merit. If anyone is cluttering the ballot needlessly, it is the state legislature, not the people who have initiated ballot measures of general interest.
Finally, there is the matter of whether citizens actually resent long ballots or whether these measures increase voter interest and improve voter turnout.
Supporters of pristine representative government might yearn for the day when voters were merely asked to occasionally choose between tweedledum and tweedledee, but those days are gone. That – whether they like it or not – is a very good thing.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@ mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
