In a year that could bring a November ballot full of proposed amendments to the constitution, the chances of a vote on making it harder to change the state constitution might be getting slimmer.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, if approved by at least two-thirds of lawmakers, would ask voters to put greater restrictions on initiatives.
Under current law, petition circulators must gather the signatures of registered voters equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the previous election for secretary of state. There is no geographic requirement.
The proposed resolution would require that signatures be gathered from each of the state’s seven congressional districts and that voters approve constitutional changes by a 60 percent majority, not the current simple majority.
A wide range of civic groups have supported the idea of making it more difficult to amend the constitution, and the bill had some early Republican support.
The legislation cleared a Senate committee last week and awaits action in the full Senate.
That is not where the problem is, said Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, the bill’s sponsor.
“I have the votes to get it out of the Senate. I just don’t know about the House,” Tapia said.
The measure needs 24 votes in the Senate and 44 in the House to qualify for the ballot.
Lackluster support from the business community isn’t helping the bill. Voters in 2008 rejected Referendum O, which also would have restricted initiatives, and supporters spent relatively little to campaign for it.
Business interests this time around say they don’t want to spend money on a similar measure because they are locked into a battle to defeat Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61. The three measures would slash nearly $2 billion in taxes, roll back property taxes statewide and dramatically limit government’s ability to construct buildings.
“Certainly, the business community thinks that reforming our current construct around ballot issues is important, but we’re very challenged this year financially with the idea of funding two campaigns,” said Kate Horle, spokeswoman for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.
“The business community is not saying ‘no’ to Sen. Tapia,” Horle said. “It’s just saying, ‘Not right now.’ “
Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, a co-sponsor of the bill, said without money for a campaign, the measure would “suffer a more ignominious defeat than Referendum O.”
White said supporters should pull the bill this year.
“If we put it on the ballot, and it loses again, I think the issue goes away for a decade,” he said.
Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com
