House Speaker Andrew Romanoff says he and Republican Sen. Josh Penry will introduce legislation this week to discourage voters from making so many changes to the constitution.
The proposal comes on the heels of Amendment 41, which targeted gifts to elected officials and government workers but has been interpreted to be so broad as to to prohibit children of government employees from accepting scholarships.
Romanoff said Monday that his proposal would make it easier for voters to propose statutory changes rather than constitutional amendments.
“There is no incentive for citizens to go the statutory route because it’s just as easy to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and it is more airtight from legislative interference,” Romanoff, D-Denver, said.
Currently, proponents of ballot measures must collect signatures from 5 percent of the number of voters in the last secretary of state’s race. Romanoff’s proposal would ask voters to raise that threshold for constitutional amendments and lower it for statutory changes.
“I think the real reason most folks go the constitutional route is because they have seen the legislature mess around with their statutes,” he said.
Under his proposal, lawmakers would need a two-thirds vote to make any changes to statutory initiatives within the first five years after they are passed.
The proposal will be introduced as a concurrent resolution, which requires two-thirds legislative approval. Penry, R-Grand Junction, and Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver, have signed on to support the proposal, Romanoff said Monday.
Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, has proposed a similar measure, House Concurrent Resolution 1001, that would require a two-thirds vote by the voters to change the constitution and a simple majority to change the statutes.
Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany of Colorado Springs said he has been hesitant to support any proposals to make the initiative process more difficult, though “as I understand the Romanoff proposal, I could like that better than most of the ones I’ve seen.”
McElhany said this is a bad time to change the rules.
“The main reason is that there is so much junk in the constitution, now that this is not the time to make it more difficult to get in and fix some of this stuff,” he said.
