Some critics are calling this year’s Colorado legislature lackluster because it didn’t fully live up to its pre-session promises. But judging from the state’s voting record on ballot issues, Coloradans aren’t looking for luster in their legislature.
Voters don’t seem to want an ambitious, activist lawmaking body. To heck with bold innovation; give us modesty, even timidity. And what’s so bad about inefficiency, anyway?
Representative government in Colorado is frustrated by two factors: Citizens who want to change the constitution face fewer obstacles, and as a result the legislature has fewer powers, than in any other state.
Over the past couple of decades, Colorado voters have passed term limits, TABOR, Amendments 23 and 41, and other ballot issues that have whittled away at legislative powers. Colorado has the only legislature in the country that can’t raise tax rates without voter approval.
Whether from the political left (Amendments 23 and 41) or right (TABOR and term limits), citizen-initiated constitutional amendments have been intended to correct what their proponents see as an inefficient, overly political partisan process. But the “corrections” end up making the process worse, not better.
One of the legislature’s bad traits, and it predates the problematic amendments, is that it puts off significant policy issues until the closing days of the session.
It could be that legislators simply want to take all the time they can before deciding important issues. But when they’re all jammed together at the end, there’s not enough time to give each issue the careful attention it deserves.
Fiscal reform suffered this year because it came late and without firm support. It won’t help existing budget problems, but another last-minute action could give future legislators more maneuvering room.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 is a constitutional amendment intended to make it easier for citizen activists to amend the statutes and more difficult to amend the constitution. The legislature approved it with the required two-thirds vote in each chamber on Tuesday, with 14 votes to spare in the House and just three in the Senate.
Statutory changes are easier for legislators to deal with. Statutes can be adapted to meet changing conditions. Constitutional provisions can be changed only by going back to the voters for approval.
Opponents called it a power grab, but Rep. Al White pointed out a contradiction in their argument. They claim they have “ultimate trust” in the voters to make wise decisions, he said, but “just don’t trust them to vote on this issue. Boy, the dots don’t connect on that one.”
SCR 3, which won’t go into effect unless more than 50 percent of voters approve it in November, says petitioners wanting to change the state constitution must collect signatures representing 6 percent of the total vote in the most recent election for governor. For statutory changes, the requirement is 4 percent.
Current law requires signatures equaling 5 percent of the total vote for secretary of state — and it’s the same for statutes or the Constitution, which may be the lowest threshold in any of the 24 states that even allow citizens to petition issues onto the ballot.
Proponents of statute changes would have six months to collect signatures; just three months for constitutional changes. Geographical distribution would be required, as it is in several other states: At least 8 percent of the signatures on constitutional petitions would have to come from each congressional district.
It’s a modest step away from lawmaking by campaign ad, and back toward representative government.
Fred Brown (punditfwb@aol.com), retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post, is also a political analyst for 9News. His column appears twice a month.
