Article Contributed on: 11/4/2008 8:41:37 PM
YourHub.com is reporting live from local races around the metro area. Go to
http://denver.yourhub.com/elections to read live reports and to read candidate Q&A's.
Referendum with complex implications, long list of influential backers, fails in close decision.
Despite predictions of long lines, many Coloradans spent more time in the voting booth than waiting to cast a ballot this year. With two-, four- and six-year votes falling on the same year for representatives, president and senators, voters had a big ballot to take on. It's a ballot that only got bigger with the addition of 14 constitutional amendments and four referendums.
Four amendments were safe to gloss over -
amendments put forward, then retracted, by Colorado labor leaders in exchange for help in defeating amendments 47, 49 and 54.
But even without amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 up for vote, Colorado's ballot was a doozy. One referendum, placed on the ballot by the state legislature, sought to change that - though it was never clear that it would actually shrink the ballot. It could, in fact, grow it.
Referendum O was written to strengthen incentives for putting issues on the Colorado ballot as statutory initiatives rather than as state constitutional amendments. As is, petitioners have little incentive to aim for a statutory change over a constitutional one as both require the same number of petition signatures to get on the ballot and, if passed, a constitutional amendment is considerably more difficult for state legislature to overturn.
The referendum would make it harder to amend the state constitution by increasing the number of signatures needed to get an amendment on the ballot and require that at least 8% of signatures come from each congressional district. O would simultaneously lower the bar on getting statutory changes on the ballot, and give those changes a five year period in which a two-thirds vote would be required for the state legislature to overturn it. That's the "simple" version, though the details and the effects of Referendum O are complex enough that the University of Denver's non-partisan Center for Colorado's Economic Future released an in-depth report,
viewable here.
Perhaps the biggest story, behind a referendum that had received comparatively little press, was that support and opposition to the measure did not break along party lines. Supporters of Referendum O included a number of Colorado city governments, legislators from both major parties, and groups that include conservative business interests and progressive activists. Opposition to O has generally not come from a monolithic campaign, but included members from across the ideological spectrum, as well as nonpartisan groups such as Colorado Common Cause (CCC.)
CCC named, among its objections in a
statement to the press, "Ref. O allows one part of the state to become a gatekeeper and prevent proposals from advancing, even if there is strong support elsewhere," and also cites changing deadlines for petitions as making the democratic process more difficult.
Opponents of O also include the unlikely pair of state representative
Douglas Bruce and head of marijuana legalization advocacy group Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation (
SAFER,)
Mason Tvert. Both have been active supporters of ballot initiatives including Bruce's TABOR amendment (and previous failed efforts for similar reforms) and Tvert's failed Amendment 44 and successful initiatives on Denver ballots to legalize marijuana and make it Denver's lowest law enforcement priority.
"Obviously I'm pleased," said Bruce. "I was one of only six house members who voted against it. It was a naked power grab by the government." He noted the patchwork opposition to O, compared to the large network of supporters. "The establishment always has the money," he said.
Tvert said that while he agreed with the idea of supporting referendums over amendments to the state constitution, he found plenty not to like about O. "I find the minimum number of signatures per geographic area troublesome in that it defies democracy."
Brenda Morrison, of Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense and part of the Yes on O campaign saw it differently, calling the argument "ironic." "Right now, an interest group may collect all of the signatures necessary in Denver. Remember when you couldn't walk out of a King Soopers or down the 16th Mall without being asked to sign something?" she said. "On the other hand, it is very rare when citizens in the rural parts of the state ever are asked to sign a petition." Morrison also pointed out that signature requirements to amend the state constitution in Colorado are lower than anywhere else.
Perhaps the biggest irony of the fight over O, though, has gone unmentioned: Colorado's long ballot had been framed as a selling point for the referendum. But with the signature requirement for statutory changes lowered, we could have seen more ballot measures than ever. The choice, then, was whether Colorado should encourage statutory changes over constitutional amendments, and if Referendum O is the way to do that.
Colorado's answer, as of the morning of Nov. 5, is no.
Got a comment? Leave us a comment or
post your own story.