A proposal to make it harder for citizens to change the constitution won initial approval Thursday after supporters said Colorado’s too-easy process has resulted in a constitution cluttered with “fiscal chaos.”
The House state affairs committee sent the proposal to the full House on a 7-4 vote, overriding criticism of a legislative power grab.
“Our constitution is a mess,” said Rep. Larry Liston, R- Colorado Springs. “We’re becoming the laughingstock of the nation by all of our initiatives that are handcuffing the legislature and everybody else.”
Colorado has added 21,000 words to the constitution since 1990. That’s three times the size of the U.S. Constitution, said Jerry Groswold with the Colorado Economic Futures Panel.
The proposal from Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, would require a three-fifths – or 60 percent – vote of the people to change the constitution. The standard now is a simple majority, 50 percent plus one.
The Colorado Constitution is one of the easiest to change in the nation. Voters have amended it 23 times in the past 10 years.
The result is a constitution that includes everything from medicinal marijuana to animal trapping to fiscal policy, including the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
The legislature has killed similar proposals each of the past three years. But momentum is building this year out of opposition to Amendment 41, Colorado’s new ethics law, which spawned confusion over whether it banned things like scholarships and inheritances for government workers and families.
“The debate is ripe with the debacle over Amendment 41,” White said. “If we don’t change it, I’m fearful of what we might see.”
But Rep. Kent Lambert, R- Colorado Springs, criticized his colleagues for having “elitist” attitudes in thinking that a majority of voters aren’t smart enough to have the power to change the constitution. “I am shocked by the arrogance I am hearing in this room,” Lambert said.
Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, shot back: “I don’t consider it arrogance. I simply call it on-the-job training. If you did the Jay Leno walking interviews, I think that we would be very disappointed.”
Other lawmakers said they’ve heard repeatedly from constituents who didn’t realize Amendment 41’s far-reaching scope when they voted for it.
“If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it 100 times – that they didn’t read beyond the title,” Liston said. “They depend on our vote, and they trust us. If they have a problem with us, they can throw us out every two years.”
Supporters of House Joint Resolution 1001 also said they are frustrated with wealthy backers “buying” petition signatures and advertising to push through a constitutional change.
The proposal “moves us away from bumper-sticker public policy,” said Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver. “It moves us away from a constitution that’s available to the highest bidder.”
The measures would have to pass the legislature with two- thirds approval and then a public vote by simple majority in November 2008.
House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, said he had considered introducing an alternate proposal to raise the number of signatures required for ballot initiatives but said he would hold off until next year.
“We have work to do tilling the fields outside the Capitol,” he said.
Staff writer Jennifer Brown can be reached at 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com.
