In Colorado, we believe everyone should have a chance to achieve his or her full potential. And we know that we are stronger as a society when we all have a fair shot at the American dream. Amendment 46 would limit that fair shot for many Coloradans and would do so with misleading and ill-defined language that will plunge the state into years of expensive litigation.
Amendment 46 is the same initiative that is being shopped around the country by a California millionaire intent on pushing his own narrow political agenda onto other states. We should say “no” to this constitutional amendment and reject its efforts to divide us with the false message that opportunity is a zero-sum game.
At a time when Colorado companies are facing increasing challenges to remain competitive in the global marketplace, companies located in Colorado need the most productive and most creative workforce possible. Equal opportunity programs and diversity strategies increase the odds of attracting that workforce. Knocking down barriers to full participation is good for everyone.
Colorado needs the flexibility to encourage girls to pursue careers in math and sciences, men to enter nursing, and people of all backgrounds to serve underserved populations. We need the contributions of women and minority business people. We need the ideas and experiences of qualified students from a range of backgrounds. We need strong, healthy, thriving communities that are able to contribute to the public good. That’s what equal opportunity programs are all about, and that is what Amendment 46 is trying to end.
The particularly dangerous thing about Amendment 46 is the way it will tie our hands for the future. For example, according to a recent report by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, communities of color in our state are disproportionately affected by disease, disability, and death. Amendment 46, with its vague and undefined restrictions, would eliminate our state’s flexibility to address these disparities directly and potentially save lives.
The Department of Health and Human Services just this month announced the Colorado Fatherhood Initiative, intended to offer grants to organizations that work with low-income fathers on parenting skills. This is gender-specific contracting, and Amendment 46 will put the program at risk.
The University of Colorado recently reported that, if Amendment 46 were to pass, it would have to re-evaluate the way it administers about 100 scholarships. If a private donor wants to give money so that a young woman can be encouraged to pursue a career in technology, or so that a Native American student can learn to be a doctor and take those skills back to his or her community, we should encourage that, not make it harder to do.
Proponents of Amendment 46 might try to suggest that these programs aren’t going to be affected. But in California, where language identical to Amendment 46 was added to the state constitution 12 years ago, the legality of dozens of state and city programs has been challenged in court. The people of California have had to pay significant amounts of public money to respond to these lawsuits.
I know members of the Colorado community who have heard about this proposal and think they will support it because they believe it is about eliminating race or gender-based quotas. That is what the proponents of Amendment 46 want us to believe. But this proposal is not about quotas. The proponents of this initiative want to eliminate programs that promote equality, expand opportunity, and give everyone in our community a fair shot at the American dream.
Peter Groff (peter.groff.senate@state.co.us) is president of the state Senate.
