Right for the wrong reasons

Stop the presses: Colorado Luis actually agrees with a Republican-sponsored initiative to amend the state constitution. It's the amendment sponsored by Sen. Ron Teck (R-Grand Junction) that would require a two thirds vote of the people to pass a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution. Now, it is obvious that the reason some Republicans have gotten religion on this issue is the passage of Amendment 23. They feel horribly shackled by being required to -- gasp -- adequately fund public schools. But I don't care what their reasons are. This is a change that needs to be made.

But Luis, you may ask, the state Legislature is controlled by Republicans -- how are progressive policies going to get enacted if not by ballot initiative? My first response is that it wasn't so long ago Democrats controlled the state Senate and the governorship -- let's get them back. The House is tougher because the redistricting laws favor the rural areas over the cities, but GOP strength there can be neutralized.

On a more general level, I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the ballot initiative process can be a force for progressive change. For every Amendment 23 or medical marijuana initiative that passes, there is an Official English, an Amendment 2 or a TABOR. With the laws about signature collection and campaign spending on initiatives (basically there are no limits), the system favors wealthy single issue obsessives like Doug Bruce. And government by majority vote through ballot initiative encourages politicians to put initiatives singling out unpopular minorities for unfavorable treatment as a way to get their base out to the polls -- witness Amendment 2 or this year's immigrant-bashing initiative sponsored by Tom Tancredo.

Under Teck's initiative, statutes, as opposed to constitutional amendments, could still be passed by a majority vote of the people. Sure, the legislature and governor could override such a vote, but to do so would risk a backlash in the next election. If TABOR were a statute instead of a constitutional amendment, for example, it could be tinkered with now that we are in a budget catastrophe. Instead we have to go through the hassle of amending the state constitution to address the problem. And if there had been a two thirds requirement back in 1992, neither TABOR nor the anti-gay Amendment 2 would have become law in the first place. That's a good enough reason to support Teck's plan, which would have to be submitted to a vote (yes, a majority vote) this November.

(Edited to get Teck's name right.)

Comments

[Ralph]

And Colorado Luis is damned right.

Just because a Republican came up with an idea is no guarantee that it's a bad one. When they are right, let's give them their props. They are right about this one.

I'll add this argument. If people want an inititative, they should have to chose between a law and a constitutional provision. Right now, there's no choice. Why choose a law, when the legislature can just amend it later on. That's why our constitution is clogged up with stupid things like where gambling is legal, hog lagoons and live traps. The constitution is a mess and it will only get messier. There is almost no doubt that very soon a constitutional convention will be necessary.

However, let's also get any budget and fiscal considerations out of the initiative process. The constitution guarantees a republic, not a democracy. Fiscal policies should never, ever be set democratically.

Props to Teck for recognizing this horrible process and doing something to correct it.

[ohwilleke]

Before we lock the door on the constitution, we ought to make sure that all the snakes are out of the house.

As long as TABOR and other significant flaws remain in the state constitution, it needs to remain maleable. As Ralph aptly noted, the Colorado Constitution is full of junk. It is one thing to start out with a fairly neutral, pristine document and limit amendments. It is another to limit amendments once it is full of junk.

We would be better served by significantly changing the initiative process. The really bad amendments come by way of initiative because there is no room for compromise or discussion in the process of formulating them. It is up or down, warts and all, without amendments. Better to limit citizen amendment of the constitution to constitutional conventions, where the necessary kind of deliberation can take place, while continuing to allow citizens to use the initiative to adopt legislation, which can be fine tuned by the legislature over time.

Even if a TABOR like amendment had been proposed after a deliberative process, a group discussion would have allowed its flaws to be identified and corrected in a process of give and take, while preserving the basic idea, before they wrecked havoc on Colorado.

[Luis]

That's an excellent point. I should have mentioned that one of the things I like about Teck's amendment is that existing amendments would be grandfathered and could be amended/repealed by a simple majority vote. I'm sure their designs are on Amendment 23, but it would apply to TABOR as well.

[Ralph]

I don't have a big issue with what you said, but I think it is more likely that the constitutional amendment process will be used for progressive reform than it will to undo poison pill measures like Amendment One, that is, not very.

At this stage, a constitutional convention wouldn't be the worst thing that happened to Colorado, except maybe if it completely degenerates into open bloodletting, which it likely would.

We need to concentrate on what brings us together as Coloradans--like keeping our water out of the hands of those filthy Nebraskans.