DENVER-
State lawmakers said Tuesday they plan to rewrite the state’s tough new ethics law and take it to the voters next year.
In the meantime, they want to set up an ethics commission that would rule on ethics questions until voters can weigh in.
The plan is one of several trying to clarify just how far voters wanted to go when they passed Amendment 41 last year to ban lobbyists from buying meals or any gifts worth more than $50 for state lawmakers.
The constitutional amendment also bans gifts to any state employee or their families worth more than $50. Employees of cities or counties with their own ethics guidelines are exempt.
Lawmakers say what isn’t clear is whether state employees’ families can accept certain scholarships, whether professors can accept Nobel prize money and what gifts state employees can take. Some lawmakers say their hands are tied because they are barred from passing any law that weakens the state Constitution.
Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver, and Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, said they plan to introduce a bill that would rewrite the amendment to clarify that it would apply only to lawmakers and policymakers, including the governor and his department heads. The plan would go to the voters next year.
Until then, a separate bill would set up an ethics commission that would rule on any questions.
The House has a separate plan that would immediately put the new provisions in statute and ask voters to sign off on the changes next year.
Groff said that may violate the Constitution.
“I’ve always been of the opinion that we can’t begin to cut and paste provisions of the Constitution. If it’s ethics in government the voters want, let’s give them that,” he said.
House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said both proposals would accomplish the same thing, but she said the Senate plan would leave state employees in limbo for another year.
“Both of them put a cleaned up Amendment 41 back on the ballot,” Madden said.
Sponsors of the amendment didn’t return phone calls seeking comment, but they have asked lawmakers to step in and clear up the confusion, saying the amendment has had unintended consequences.
Rep. Michael Garcia, D-Denver, objected to the compromise, saying voters meant what they said, even if the measure did have unintended consequences.
He said no gifts means no gifts, and passing a statute to go around the constitutional requirements wouldn’t solve the problem. He said lawmakers cannot ask judges or voters to step in each time a question comes up about what a voter-approved measure means.
