There have been many instances in which ballot initiatives have been challenged because they violated the state’s single subject rule. One on immigration didn’t make it to the ballot just last year because of that rule.
The issue doesn’t come up as often in the state legislature, but this year there is a classic example of how the legislature seeks to play by a separate set of rules.
House Bill 1094 has two unrelated parts. It would do away with the death penalty in Colorado and create a state fund for the investigation of cold-case murders, defined as unsolved homicides at least a year old.
Surprisingly, there has been little or no comment about the fact that on its face, it appears to violate the single-subject rule, which applies to the legislature as well as ballot initiatives. There is no logical connection between the two major elements of the bill.
It is certainly possible for the state to have the death penalty – which, incidentally, has been approved in a statewide vote – and a cold-case fund. The creation of a cold-case fund is in no way dependent upon the elimination of the death penalty. The only reason for these two elements to be in the same bill is to make the overall package appealing to the largest number of lawmakers.
But if it is permissible to have two subjects within the same bill in order to make it more attractive, why not three or four?
The obvious violation of the single- subject rule is not the only reason to oppose this bill, however. The only reason offered in the legislation for repealing the death penalty is to save the money that would then be used for cold-case investigations. Yet is there anyone who doesn’t know that the death penalty is an expensive proposition, specifically because there is a legal industry created to make sure it remains expensive?
Twice before – in 1966 and 1974 – Colorado residents approved of the death penalty, knowing it would be expensive and time-consuming.
While Colorado has executed only one person in the last 40 years, considering the roadblocks that have been created during that period by the Colorado Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, reluctant prosecutors and the defense bar, the wonder is that even one took place.
Two men are currently on death row, and at least one murderer who was sentenced to death died in prison. In addition, three others escaped the sentence by virtue of a failed state sentencing scheme involving three-judge panels. Still others managed to duck the sentence in the appeals process.
It wouldn’t take much of an imagination to dream up the type of crime that might cry out for the death sentence in the future.
As for the proposed cold-case program, it needs work before it could stand on its own merits. The bill before the legislature mandates that if a family member of a homicide victim asks for state help in investigating a cold case, the local police agency must decide within three days whether to accept that help.
This is a very bad idea. Family members could be expected to want state help. Local agencies could accept such help without regard to the actual costs of the promised investigations. It would spawn needless disputes about whether a case cried out for more investigative work.
It should be up to local agencies to decide how to dispense limited investigative funds, and the state shouldn’t be on call just because a family member might wish it.
If that sounds harsh, too bad. One can favor giving every reasonable consideration to victims of crime without favoring this scheme, which promises to waste money, not save it.
HB 1094, in short, is a solution in search of a problem (or is it two problems?). Instead of being a bill in two meritorious parts, as some editorialists have suggested, neither half is worthy of passage.
Al Knight of Fairplay
(alknight@ mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
