DENVER — Colorado’s ethics ban, passed by voters in November 2006 and put on hold last May, is back on track to take effect.
The Colorado Supreme Court today reversed a lower court order that put a freeze on Amendment 41, which bans lawmakers from taking anything of value from lobbyists and anything worth more than $50 from anyone else.
“This is the second win for the voters,” said Jenny Flanagan, director of Common Cause, the group that backed the constitutional amendment. “They won in 2006 and they won again today.”
The court reversed a temporary injunction against the ethics law, saying it was premature to claim the law violates First Amendment rights. A five-member panel that will hear alleged ethics complaints is not even in existence yet.
Four members have been appointed to the panel by Gov. Bill Ritter, legislative leaders and the Supreme Court. The panel is in the process of choosing its fifth member and has one ethics complaint to review: an allegation against Secretary of State Mike Coffman from the watchdog group Colorado Ethics Watch.
Challengers to the ethics law said they were disappointed the Supreme Court did not provide “any clarification as to how the measure should be interpreted and enforced.”
“With this decision there are no ‘winners,’ but there are hundreds and thousands of losers,” the First Amendment Council said in a statement. “The decision leaves every state and county employee, along with their families, in limbo. Every business and individual that contracts with the state will also continue to be uncertain as to what behavior is acceptable and what is not.”
The group has argued the law is strict enough to prohibit a government worker from accepting an expensive bottle of wine from a friend or a scholarship for a child.
The group has two weeks to decide whether to mount another challenge.
The Supreme Court said a Denver district court did not have jurisdiction to grant the preliminary injunction that effectively put the ethics law on hold.
Denver District Judge Christina Habas granted the preliminary injunction to suspend Amendment 41 in May. Her ruling came in response to a request by a group of elected officials, government workers and nonprofit groups that said the ethics-in-government law was overly broad, invaded private lives and violated the First Amendment.
In its 32-page opinion, the Supreme Court said the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction because the people bringing the suit “failed to meet the justiciability requirements necessary for a court to hear the case.”
The court did not rule on the constitutional challenges.
Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com
