Colorado lawmakers and government workers were tossed back into confusion Monday when the state Supreme Court reinstated what some consider an ambiguous and invasive ethics law.
The court ruled it was premature to toss out Amendment 41 because a panel to hear alleged violations is not yet in place, but justices did not clarify how far the ethics-in-government measure’s power stretches.
While supporters of the measure celebrated the news, inside the Capitol there was widespread annoyance at the court for not clearing up the voter-approved law’s obscurity.
Legislators once again were struggling to interpret Amendment 41, wondering whether they should eat at a bankers’ association luncheon Monday or cancel a trip to a convention.
“The Supreme Court punted,” said House Minority Leader Mike May of Parker. “They sidestepped. We’ll be in limbo for a while.”
Colorado Common Cause executive director Jenny Flanagan, one of the amendment’s chief supporters, accused critics of pouring on the hysteria.
“This was their campaign tactic from Day One,” she said. “They were rejected on Election Day and they were rejected again today. All of those fears that were put out there were mere speculation.”
Amendment 41 was supported by 60 percent of voters in November 2006.
Congressional candidate Jared Polis, the measure’s main financial backer, said the ruling upholds the “will of the people” for strong ethics reform and “begins to erode the power that special interests and lobbyists have on government.”
The law — put on temporary hold by a Denver District Court judge last May — prohibits lawmakers from accepting anything from lobbyists and anything worth more than $50 from anyone else. It also bans state, county and city workers from accepting gifts worth more than $50.
The amendment calls for an independent ethics panel to review complaints. Four of its five members have been appointed, but they have yet to set rules about how to accept complaints and impose sanctions. The group of “citizen volunteers” has received one complaint so far — a conflict-of-interest allegation against Secretary of State Mike Coffman from Colorado Ethics Watch.
Panel members met in a closed-door session for 2 1/2 hours Monday, then said they would not consider any complaints or requests for advice until they have a fifth commissioner and rules.
Interim chair Nancy Friedman said the commission, on its third meeting, is working fast to find another member and hire an executive director: “We’ve had a sense of urgency from the first meeting.”
But Colorado Ethics Watch director Chantell Taylor said the process hasn’t gone quickly enough — Gov. Bill Ritter didn’t make his appointment until September, and the chief justice followed in November.
“The time is long overdue for there to be some answers,” she said.
The legislature passed a law last year setting up the commission and attempting to clarify Amendment 41. That fix says the law applies when a public employee takes a gift intended to influence a vote or decision.
House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, announced the court ruling to lawmakers Monday morning and told them to “eat with caution.”
There also was confusion about whether the law went immediately back into effect or whether the temporary injunction would remain in place for two weeks while the law’s challengers considered asking for a rehearing.
“In either case, it would be wrong for members to take advantage of a technicality,” said Romanoff, who had asked state representatives to follow the law even when it was frozen by the district court.
Not everyone did.
About 10 of 100 lawmakers reported taking gifts last fall that would have been prohibited under strict interpretations of Amendment 41. Even the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general accepted event tickets.
The governor’s spokesman, Evan Dreyer, said Ritter likely would seek advice from the panel before accepting gifts that might fall under the ethics ban.
“That will hopefully begin to resolve the uncertainty and the fog that continues to exist around Amendment 41,” Dreyer said.
It’s possible the law will end up back in court after the ethics panel makes its rules and hears complaints, Attorney General John Suthers said. “We’re going to be dealing with this for many years,” he said.
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.”
“The tentacles of Amendment 41 stretch very far down. It’s not just about gift bans for legislators — this goes far deeper than that,” said Doug Friednash, attorney for the group of elected officials, government workers and nonprofit groups that sued the state.
Denver District Judge Christina Habas granted a preliminary injunction to suspend Amendment 41 in May after the First Amendment Council said the law was overly broad, invaded private lives and violated the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutional challenges, only that the law wasn’t “ripe” for a lawsuit.
Staff writer Jessica Fender contributed to this report.
Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com
Independent ethics commission
Nancy Friedman, D, Evergreen
Background: Appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter in September, she most recently worked as managing member of Lariat Group, a consulting and training company. Served as executive director of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute at the University of Denver, 1996-2003, and in different capacities from 1977 to 1995 for the New York City Council, including chief ethics counsel.
Education: B.A. in political science from Penn State; St. John’s School of Law.
Phillip M. “Matt” Smith, R, Grand Junction
Background: Appointed by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey in November, he most recently worked with the Grand Junction law firm of Traylor, Tompkins & Black. From 1996 to 2004, Smith served as state representative for House District 54.
Education: B.A. from Mesa State College; University of Wyoming College of Law
Roy V. Wood, D, Denver
Background: Appointed by Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff and approved by the House in May, Wood is the director of DU’s Center for Civic Ethics and a professor in the department of Human Communication Studies. He was named provost, dean of faculties at DU in 1988 and worked from 1968 to 1998 in a variety of teaching and administrative positions at Northwestern University.
Education: M.A. from DU; Ph.D. from DU
Sally M. Hopper, R, Golden
Background: Appointed by Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald and approved by the Senate in April, Hopper has served on a variety of boards, including the Rose Community Foundation Health Committee. She served in the state Senate from 1987 to 1998.
Education: B.A. in economics, University of Wyoming
