DENVER—New voter-mandated ethics rules that ban gifts to lawmakers and state employees are so broad they will have to be rewritten to make them constitutional, opponents told the state Supreme Court on Thursday.
Jean Dubofsky, an attorney representing opponents of the rules, urged the court to throw them out on grounds that they restrict free speech.
A lawyer for the state argued the opponents were interpreting the rules too narrowly.
The rules are part of a constitutional amendment approved by voters last November. They ban lobbyists from buying meals or gifts worth more than $50 for state lawmakers. They also ban gifts worth more than $50 to state employees or their families.
If the rules stand, Dubofsky said, lobbyists will not be able to meet with lawmakers over coffee to discuss legislation, Nobel winners at state universities won’t be able to accept their prizes and the children of government employees won’t be allowed to get scholarships.
“To make it constitutional, you’re going to have to rewrite it, and I don’t think that’s an appropriate judicial function,” she told the six justices hearing the case.
She said the only way to fix the amendment, which was drawn up by a group of private citizens, is to throw it out, which would leave lawmakers and other state employees covered by the state’s bribery laws.
The bribery laws are stronger, she said, because the new rules only impose a monetary penalty and state employees convicted of bribery could go to jail.
Deputy attorney general Maurice Knaizer asked the justices court to dismiss an injunction issued by a district judge that bars the state from enforcing the rules while opponents sue to have them declared unconstitutional.
Gov. Bill Ritter, who was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, appealed directly to the Colorado Supreme Court, saying it was his duty to enforce the will of the voters.
The rules left widespread confusion over how far they went. Attorney General John Suthers released an analysis in December saying university professors would likely be barred from accepting Nobel Prize money and children of public university employees probably could not accept many scholarships.
In the court challenge, opponents argued the rules restricted the flow of information and had a chilling effect on people who wanted to talk to policymakers.
Plaintiffs challenging the rules includes nonprofit groups, an economic development organization, elected officials, state employees, a lobbyist and other individuals.
Colorado Common Cause, one of the groups that campaigned for voter approval of the rules, predicted the courts would ultimately uphold a “common sense” application of them.
Opponents were suggesting “wild interpretations” of the rules, Common Cause spokeswoman Jenny Flanagan said.
Flanagan urged elected officials to abide by the rules despite the court ruling, and most lawmakers have complied, refusing to accept any gifts or even go to parties.
