Amendment 54 Ruled Unconstitutional

As earlier reported, Amendment 54, approved by the voters in 2008, was challenged in court. On February 22, 2010 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the amendment unconstitutional by a 4 – 1 vote with 2 justices not participating. On page 4 of the opinion the court wrote, "[W]e find the Amendment’s deficiencies so pervasive that we must nullify the Amendment in its entirety…"

CO Supreme Court opinion on Amendment 54
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA224.pdf

2008 State Ballot Issues – 11 Months On

In 2008 the voters of Colorado only approved 4 state ballot issues (all constitutional changes): Amendments 50 and 54 and Referenda M and N. The approved referenda were housekeeping referenda to deal with obsolete provisions in our overburdened state constitution. Below are some follow-up comments on a few of the 2008 state ballot issues from the perspective of October 2009.

Amendment 50 – approved by voters (59% yes to 41% no)
Limited Gambling in Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek

Seventy-eight percent of the tax revenue increase from this amendment goes toward community colleges. David Skaggs was the Executive Director of CO Department of Higher Ed and lobbied hard for passage of Amendment 50. On Sept 11, 2009 David Skaggs resigned from his position citing an irreconcilable difference with the governor.


Amendment 54 – approved by voters (51% yes to 49% no)
Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors

In June Denver Judge Catherine Lemon temporarily halted implementation of Amendment 54. The Colorado Attorney General appealed the ruling to the State Supreme Court. The case has been fast-tracked and arguments will begin in the fall.

Colorado Independent article on Amendment 54
http://coloradoindependent.com/36511/colorado-supreme-court-fast-tracks-clean-government-amendment-case


Amendment 59 – rejected by voters (45% yes to 55% no)
Education Funding and TABOR Rebates

There are several big constitutional constraints on our state budget. Amendment 59 would have gotten rid of the Amendment 23 and TABOR rebate handcuffs, but voters rejected it. Meanwhile, the state budget situation is even bleaker today than a year ago. To help solve the budget problems, legislators used a loophole in the School Finance Act (SB 256) to delay until January 2010 some of the Amendment 23 funding. In January we will know if the delayed funding is actually available.

A column by Kevin Holst about Amendment 23
http://www.examiner.com/x-9202-Denver-Republican-Examiner~y2009m5d6-Amendment-23-and-the-new-fiscal-crisis-factor


Referendum O – rejected by voters (48% yes to 52% no)
Citizen-Initiated State Laws

Ref O proposed constitutional changes to the initiative process. It was rejected by voters, but since then a new law, HB 1326 (Integrity of Citizen-Initiated Petitions), makes many statutory changes to the initiative process including changing the way that state issues are presented on the ballot. Changes to the constitution will be called amendments and changes to the statutes will be called propositions.

Text of HB 1326
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/5A4C8A345E184B5487257537001A32E4?Open&file=1326_enr.pdf

Amendment 54 -- Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors

For any holder of a government contract valued at $100,000 or more which had fewer than 3 bidders, the officers, trustees, directors and major shareholders of the company or labor union and their extended families (e.g. grandparent, stepsister, niece, spouse’s child, domestic partner) would be prohibited from making any contributions to political parties or non-federal candidates for the duration of the contract and the subsequent two years. A database would be created and maintained at the state level to enforce these provisions. Financial contributors to ballot issues would be prohibited from entering into contracts related to the ballot issue. Any registered voter could file a complaint. Penalties include ineligibility to receive contracts for three years and removal of elected officeholders who received contributions. (Under current law, collective bargaining agreements are not considered no-bid agreements.)

Unwarranted CONSTITUTIONAL Change – ADDS Sections 2 and 15-17 to Article XXVIII and AMENDS Section 13 (regarding the date the change would take effect) in Article XXVIII

Recommendation: NO
The provision that applies to the extended families is enough to make this proposal worthy of outright rejection. The penalties are severe, and free-speech rights are curtailed because affected people are so limited in their ability to make campaign donations. If it were to pass, it would either suppress financial involvement in politics or it would bring extended families together because you would have to know what almost all your relatives are doing in order to make sure that you were not violating the constitution. (This amendment brings back the bad vibes engendered by Amendment 41 -- passed in 2006 -- which applied to giving “gifts” to any non-federal public employee or a member of his or her family and whose violations were solely complaint-driven.)


Website for Yes side (Clean Government Colorado)
http://www.cleangovernmentcolorado.com/

Website for No side (Protect Colorado’s Future)
No initiative-specific website found, but some info at website below.
http://www.protectcoloradosfuture.org/


Amendment 54 (Approved ballot title below)

Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning restrictions on campaign contributions, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the holder of contracts totaling $100,000 or more, as indexed for inflation, awarded by state or local governments without competitive bidding ("sole source government contracts"), including certain collective bargaining agreements, from making a contribution for the benefit of a political party or candidate for elective office during the term of the contracts and for 2 years thereafter; disqualifying a person who makes a contribution in a ballot issue election from entering into a sole source government contract related to the ballot issue; and imposing liability and penalties on contract holders, certain of their owners, officers and directors, and government officials for violations of the amendment?

Yes ________________ No ________________


To see the full text of the proposed measure, click here, then click on “2008 State Ballot Information Booklet” at the top of the page.