DENVER—Ethics rules aimed at curtailing influential gifts for lawmakers and other state officials will likely be back in force after the state Supreme Court ruled Monday that a lower court did not have the authority to delay them.
A Denver district court had ruled in May the rules went “beyond what was anticipated or intended” and blocked the law from taking effect with an injunction.
But the Supreme Court tossed out that ruling and lifted the injunction, saying the lower court did not have jurisdiction.
The decision means the ethics rules, called the toughest in the country by the National Conference of State Legislatures, would be back in play after a two week window for opponents to appeal.
The rules are part of Amendment 41, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November 2006. They ban lawmakers from accepting gifts from lobbyists or gifts of more than $50 from anyone. They also ban gifts worth more than $50 to state employees or their families.
A group of not-for-profit agencies and individuals had challenged the rules on the grounds they restricted the flow of information and had a chilling effect on people who wanted to talk to policy makers.
Their attorneys said they were discussing their next step with their clients.
The Supreme Court didn’t pass judgment on the merits of the rules. Instead, the high court said the case was not “ripe”—meaning it was too soon to tell.
The court said the commission that will judge ethics complaints is not yet operating, with only four of five commissioners appointed. The commission is required by the amendment.
“Because the commission is not in existence and has not yet developed the means to enforce the gift bans, we find that this challenge fails to meet the requirements of ripeness,” Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey wrote in a 32-page decision.
Attorney General John Suthers, who defended the rules before the courts, called the decision “a very judicious approach.”
He said the ruling effectively states, “Let’s wait until this constitutional amendment starts being applied, then we can give more definite focus” on its merits.
“The problem, of course, is it gives very little direction to all these public employees out there,” Suthers said.
Gov. Bill Ritter’s spokesman, Evan Dreyer, agreed the ruling “is more procedural than substantive.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys, Doug Friednash and Jean Dubofsky, said they were “extremely disappointed” the Supreme Court didn’t address the merits of the challenge but only vacated the injunction.
“With this decision there are no ‘winners,’ but there are hundreds-and-thousands of losers,” the Friednash and Dubofsky said in a statement. “The decision leaves every state and county employee—along with their families—in limbo.”
But Colorado Common Cause, an advocacy group that helped defend the amendment in court, declared victory and called the plaintiffs’ attacks “fear mongering.”
“Big money fought the law, and the law won,” executive director Jenny Flanagan said. “Today the Colorado Supreme Court struck down the frivolous attacks on the voters’ ethics law. Today is a good day for open, honest and accountable government.”
Congressional candidate Jared Polis, a central figure in creating Amendment 41 who has been criticized its opponents, also lauded the decision.
“Today’s ruling upholds this will of the people and begins to erode the power that special interests and lobbyists have on government,” he said.
Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany, a Colorado Springs Republican, was unfazed by the ruling.
“It’s the law. We need to live with it. I didn’t come here for the free lunches,” he said.
Still, the ruling had an immediate impact at the Capitol Monday. Before lawmakers broke for lunch, Republican and Democratic leaders in the House told members about the decision and reminded them to follow Amendment 41.
Knowing that lawmakers had been invited to have lunch with a banking industry group, House Minority Leader Mike May reminded them to “be careful about what you eat and don’t eat.”
———
Associated Press reporter Colleen Slevin contributed to this report.
