A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Reporter-Herald, Oct. 10, on video inside the Supreme Court:
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States embarked on its constitutional mandate to settle disputes of the law and set precedents to be followed by judges in the federal court system nationwide.
Among the high-profile topics on the court’s docket this year are issues involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, immigration enforcement by local entities and, perhaps next summer, the biggest of them all: federal health care reform.
Such weighty hearings will be in the public consciousness throughout the year—and they will be seen by only a few hundred people.
Right now, the Supreme Court justices do not allow visual recording devices into the courtroom; in fact, while they do allow audio recordings of arguments before the court, often those arguments are not released until months after they occur.
In placing the ban, justices have said they oppose video coverage of cases because they believe the process would be compromised.
Similar arguments were made when Congress fought the installation of video coverage of their proceedings, too. What resulted from that fight is C-SPAN and its companion networks, which provide coverage of the proceedings in the House, Senate, their committees and subcommittees as well as other public policy events in the Washington, D.C., area. To some, it’s riveting footage; to most Americans it’s something to turn on only in the most dramatic of times. Most likely, coverage of the Supreme Court would be the same.
This week, former federal judge and Solicitor General Ken Starr—he of the Bill Clinton investigation—rightly pointed out how the same court that has strongly advocated for the First Amendment and open government should itself be more open.
The time has come for members of the Supreme Court to open the curtain to a wider audience, because it is only through transparency that members of the American democratic republic can know the scrutiny to which the nation’s laws are subjected.
Editorial:
———
Montrose Daily Press, Oct. 9, on the death of Steve Jobs:
The world lost one of its greatest contributors last week, when technological genius Steve Jobs succumbed to a rare form of pancreatic cancer.
Jobs, co-founder of Apple, developer of the MacIntosh, and the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, was only 56. His contributions to our world stand among the most significant in history—as significant as was the printing press or the telephone. These technological advances greatly increased humankind’s ability to communicate. So did Steve Jobs—even if, perhaps, he made us all a little too accessible.
This man shaped our world, and you have only to walk down most any street in Montrose to see people using his devices.
What you likely will not see by walking down the streets of this country is the terrible toll of pancreatic cancer. This pernicious disease kills an estimated 43,000 Americans every year—or to put it another way, it kills the entire town of Montrose twice over.
The disease strikes down the famous, such as Jobs, Randy Pausch (“The Last Lecture”), Patrick Swayze and, just this week, Dr. Ralph Steinman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on the human immune response—three days after his death. It also kills scores of ordinary folks, like the daughter of a Montrose woman who died of the disease at 21. Yet despite the death toll, pancreatic cancer research receives only 2 percent of the federal dollars allocated for cancer research.
Pancreatic cancer is one of the worst, most tortuous types, but all cancer is terrible. Underscoring that fact: In Montrose last Saturday, scores of people turned out to walk for breast cancer awareness and raise money to combat that awful disease. Better funding for cancer research, period, is a good investment.
But in regard to the disease that killed Jobs, there should be, at minimum a greater push for pancreatic cancer awareness. Beyond that, we need to find a way to fund research that can give pancreatic cancer victims something better than last-ditch chemotherapy that buys the “lucky” few a little more time.
The world can’t afford to lose another Steve Jobs. And families around the world cannot afford to lose more fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and children to pancreatic and other forms of cancer.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, Oct. 8, on a recent ruling on inactive voters:
A judge’s ruling last Friday that he would not prevent Denver from mailing ballots to inactive voters is a victory for electoral inclusiveness.
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler had sought to prevent Denver’s clerk from sending ballots to otherwise eligible voters who had failed to cast ballots in the 2010 general election or any subsequent election.
We thought he was wrong as a matter of law and policy, and we are glad to see District Judge Brian Whitney bat down Gessler’s request for an injunction to keep Denver from mailing to the city’s 55,000 inactive voters.
Let’s be clear, however, that it’s only a victory for the moment.
The underlying lawsuit Gessler filed against Denver continues, as does the conflict at the core of the action.
State lawmakers need to consider several issues in the upcoming session to bring clarity to Colorado law when it comes to inactive voters.
Policy options, as we see them, include deciding whether mailing to inactive voters should be at the option of local jurisdictions, or required. Should the definition of “inactive voter” be broadened to increase the time frame in which a voter had not cast a ballot?
Gessler’s office indicated at the hearing that the secretary was considering the option of writing rules that would clarify the inactive voter issue.
Word late Friday was that Gessler decided not to write emergency rules to stop ballots from being mailed to inactive voters, a move that would have, in our view, been an end run around the ruling.
However, barring legislative action first, the secretary could still use the regular rule-making process down the road. A statement he issued Friday underscored his commitment to the same principles that he has espoused in pursuing the lawsuit.
“Coloradans can continue to expect my office to enforce the laws on the books, preserve statewide uniformity, and ensure election integrity,” Gessler said.
Gessler argued that elections ought to be conducted uniformly throughout the state, a goal that would be undermined if only Denver mailed to inactive voters. Never mind the concept of uniformity already had been blown by Denver mailing ballots to inactive overseas and military voters.
It’s important to keep in mind just who “inactive” voters are. These voters failed to cast a ballot in the last general election, any subsequent election, and didn’t respond to postcards prompting them to activate their status. They are electors whose address, identity or eligibility to vote are not at issue.
In the past, state lawmakers have shown a commitment to increasing participation in the electoral process, and we hope they’ll reinforce that with statutory changes that will leave no doubt as to who should get mail ballots in Colorado.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Reporter-Herald, Oct. 8, on funding for public schools:
Who wants to stand against proper funding for Colorado’s public schools?
Not us. But we do have concerns about the effect and the unfortunate timing of Proposition 103.
Proposition 103, the brainchild of state Sen. Rollie Heath, would raise state income and sales taxes for five years, beginning in 2012, to raise an estimated $3 billion dedicated to Colorado’s schools.
A good cause, to be certain, but as with other ballot successes that have tied the hands of the Legislature, this would lock Colorado into a tax and funding box. It does not take into account any other state need for the next five years. The growing problem at the statehouse is that much spending is predetermined, leaving elected representatives little or no wiggle room for decisions, and this merely would exacerbate the problem.
Making budget decisions at the ballot box is a poor way to run a representative government. And Prop 103 is, as some have said, a Band-Aid approach to flawed fiscal policy. When the tax runs out in 2017, then what? Unless the Legislature takes charge—and that means presenting referenda to disentangle competing amendments, then making difficult budget decisions—this five-year fix will not be enough. Yes, ultimately, that likely will mean a tax increase, but it is preferable to deliberate the state’s priorities in the Legislature than to have factions continually coming to voters.
Finally, this is a bad time to come to taxpayers for more money. Even if the effect is only a few hundred dollars a year, supporters of Prop 103 must acknowledge that a tax increase at this time can present a significant hardship on many of the state’s residents.
Proposition 103 is a well-meaning idea. Our schools should be properly funded, but this is not the best way to do it.
Editorial:
