A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
The Pueblo Chieftain, July 2, on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Stolen Valor Act:
We are disappointed with a Supreme Court ruling which found the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional.
As a newspaper which cherishes First Amendment rights, we know that freedom of speech and the press are vital to our form of government. But some speech goes too far.
The Court has held that yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Nor is lying under oath.
The Court heard this case after two different Circuit Courts of Appeals ruled differently over the act, the brainchild of former Puebloans Doug and Pam Sterner. The 9th Circuit in San Francisco found the law unconstitutional while the 10th Circuit in Denver upheld its constitutionality.
The act, sponsored in Congress by then-Rep. John Salazar of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District in 2006, was passed to give federal authorities the ability to arrest and prosecute those who falsely claim to be recipients of the Medal of Honor and other high military awards. In passing the act, Congress presented compelling reasoning for the act when it found that:
— “1. Fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, the Air Force Cross, the Purple Heart, and other decorations and medals awarded by the president or the armed forces of the United States damage the reputation and meaning of such decorations and medals.
— “2. Federal law enforcement officers have limited ability to prosecute fraudulent claims of receipt of military decorations and medals.
— “3. Legislative action is necessary to permit law enforcement officers to protect the reputation and meaning of military decorations and medals.”
In their 10th Circuit majority opinion issued in January, Judges Timothy M. Tymkovich and Bobby R. Baldock noted, “As the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech. Under this principle, the Stolen Valor Act does not impinge on or chill protected speech, and therefore does not offend the First Amendment.”
After last week’s ruling, Mrs. Sterner said, “We’re very disappointed with the court decision. We wanted the court to look at the law as a matter of identity theft and a misrepresentation, not a freedom of speech question.”
But she said U.S. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., “has a new version of legislation ready to go that includes language on fraud, so we’re hopeful.”
So are we.
Editorial:
———
Greeley Tribune, June 30, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act:
Depending on who you talk to, the U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act is either a great step toward improving health care for millions of Americans or it’s the end of the world as we know it.
But we applaud the court’s decision for many reasons. We think the hysteria surrounding the Affordable Care Act is generally unfounded and while not perfect, the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction toward reforming our health care system.
The Supreme Court specifically upheld the individual mandate provision, which will eventually require everyone of have health insurance. Those against the measure say it is an example of a government mandate aimed at controlling what should be a personal freedom to choose not to carry health insurance.
We argue, however, that this really isn’t that different than being required to carry auto insurance if you drive a car or being required to pay your taxes. It’s something we should all do to be contributing citizens of this nation.
But even more, those of us who do have insurance end up paying for those who don’t through higher health care costs.
In 2010, North Colorado Medical Center provided more than $71 million in services to indigent patients who didn’t have health insurance. It wrote off another $29 million in bad debt. Eventually, insured patients pay for that, in higher premiums and co-pays.
This provision isn’t meant to be a punishment. Programs are being developed to help those who truly can’t afford medical insurance.
There are other aspects of the act that are also good, including stopping insurance companies from denying coverage for people with ongoing conditions and the provision that will allow children to stay on their parent’s insurance until they are 26.
Frankly, in Colorado, where many aspects of the act have already been instituted, the numbers are hard to ignore. According to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s office:
— Because of GettingUsCovered, a high-risk insurance pool, 1,331 people with pre-existing conditions have received coverage.
— 43,997 more adults have gained health insurance coverage.
— Nearly 1 million residents of the state with private health insurance now have coverage for preventative health care.
— Nearly 2 million residents do not have to worry about lifetime limits on coverage, freeing those suffering from chronic diseases such as cancer of the threat of losing their coverage, and their ability to receive treatments.
There are many more reforms that are needed in our health care system. There needs to be more emphasis on preventative care. There needs to be more access to treatment for some patients who are suffering chronic illnesses. The skyrocketing cost of health care needs to be addressed.
We do believe this act will head the United States toward some of those reforms that eventually will be a direct benefit to patients.
Unfortunately, we also realize this is going to continue to be a political issue, and that is unfortunate. Access to good health care should be a right in this country for every single citizen, regardless of their income level. It shouldn’t be a tool for politicians to use scare tactics and myths to gain more power.
We hope this historic affirmation of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is just the first step toward improving access, and our health care system as a whole.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, July 2, on transparency in Colorado’s elections:
We’re not sure why the Colorado Supreme Court changed its mind last week and decided it would not review a lower court ruling that voted ballots are public records, but we’re not complaining. By allowing the existing decision to stand, the high court has made a strong statement for transparent government and verifiable elections.
It’s too bad the legislature didn’t do the same in its recently concluded session. Although it did pass a law ensuring public access to voted ballots, that measure imposed a number of conditions on behalf of the convenience of elected county clerks. No less disturbing, lawmakers created a privileged class that includes candidates and representatives of issue committees who may inspect voted ballots during a blackout period when everyone else is excluded.
But at least given the high court’s decision, the issue of public access to voted ballots is largely settled. We say “largely” because the new law gives lots of discretion to clerks over which voted ballots to release and it remains to be seen whether some clerks abuse that latitude.
A strong statement? Yes, but consider the clerks’ behavior over the past year. When the appeals court ruling in September sided with former Aspen mayoral candidate Marilyn Marks, who had sued that city in order to review copies of voted ballots, the county clerks association promptly declared the sky was falling. The clerks accused the court of removing no less than the “curtain from our voting booths. Most Coloradans believe their votes should be a secret from their friends, coworkers and even spouses, but today’s ruling means Coloradans’ personal choices can be seen by anyone who asks.”
Their statement was a gross exaggeration, and the clerks themselves must have known it. After all, a few months later they ended up supporting the bill that affirms public access to voted ballots. Surely the clerks don’t believe it’s all right to lift “the curtain from our voting booths” so long as the legislature does it?
The controversy of the past year has been instructive in one unexpected respect: The clerks have revealed that a limited number of voted ballots are traceable because of the complex and peculiar manner that ballots are counted. Unfortunately, they seem to think that’s fine so long as no one actually traces them, when in fact the public has no way of knowing if such security is always present.
What the clerks should be doing is ensuring that all ballots are anonymous and untraceable. But since it is unclear they intend to do this, the tireless Marks has stepped in and filed another lawsuit with the goal of forcing them to do so. Given her track record, they should be worried.
Editorial:
———
Canon City Daily Record, July 2, on help for residents affected by wildfires:
It was only a matter of days ago that the High Park Fire west of Fort Collins became the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history.
But that record already has been surpassed. The Waldo Canyon Fire on the edges Colorado Springs now is the most destructive. As of Friday, that fire had consumed 346 homes and killed one person, and it was threatening more than 20,000 additional homes. It prompted the evacuation of 32,000 people—about twice the population of Erie—and that figure stands as the largest single-area fire evacuation in state history.
These and other Colorado residents affected by multiple fires burning in the state need help. It behooves the rest of us to offer it.
“Coloradans are at their best when they work together to help each other in difficult times,” Gov. John Hickenlooper said of fire relief efforts. We agree.
Financial assistance is the primary way people can help. The state has established a Colorado Fire Relief Fund at The Denver Foundation, where donations may be made. The website helpcoloradonow.org provides a list of reputable agencies, especially the American Red Cross, that are engaged in fire-related activities and to which donations may be made.
Volunteer and material donations are also needed, but donors should first take steps to understand the specific needs of the agencies working on the fires.
We’re still in the early stages of the fire season, which, if the events of recent weeks are an indication, could become the state’s worst ever. Coloradans who are not running from flames, or returning to the charred remains of their homes, should help those who are.
Editorial:
