Amendment 38?
Here's an opinion piece in favor of the proposed Amendment 38 from the Rocky Mountain News [January 13, 2006, "Speakout: Petition amendment unfairly assailed"]. From the article, "Here are four false criticisms of the proposal:
"1. Amendment 38 is faulted because it does not make amending the state constitution harder. But 38 cannot do so. By law, ballot issues must contain a single subject. Because ours is "petitions," not "constitutions," we cannot regulate rules for referrals by the legislature. To say that we should restrict the voters' right of constitutional amendment, while in the same measure strengthening their petition right is contradictory.
"In addition, critics fail to understand that 38 does encourage petitions that amend statutes rather than the state constitution. First, 38 lets the legislature reduce the signature requirement for statute petitions. Second, 38 will protect petitioned statutes from legislative tampering by requiring voter approval of subsequent changes, thereby ending the need to put all reforms into the constitution.
"2. 38 is falsely accused of shortening the time for filing court challenges to ballot titles. Not true. It is five days now, and with 38 it remains five days.
"3. Current law says the Colorado Supreme Court must decide ballot title disputes "promptly." Translation: whenever they get around to it. Some disputes are resolved in a few weeks; others take five or six months, based on whether the judges like your petition. But "justice delayed is justice denied." Why should a citizen's petition progress be delayed for six months? For years, legislators have refused to enact a firm deadline for such decisions. 38 says a claim that the Title Board set an unfair title (or covered multiple subjects) must be decided in seven days by simply reading the text and comparing it to the ballot title.
"4. 38 is faulted for limiting ballot title length. Existing law says "Ballot titles shall be brief," but that vague rule is also violated. Only a fixed number is enforceable, so 38 says that since petitions can be only one subject, 75 words is enough to outline and distinguish them from other ballot issues. Any student would get an F for writing a rambling 200- to 300-word sentence. Why impose such legalistic blather on petition signers and voters? Legislators get to write their own short-and-sweet titles on issues they refer to voters (titles that cannot be challenged, no matter how false or misleading). Politicians know the value of the ABCs of accuracy, brevity and clarity. They just don't want citizen petitioners to enjoy those benefits."
Here's the link to the proponents website.
Denver Voters have a chance to weigh in on the issue of voting centers today. From the Denver Post, "Denver residents can share their opinions on a plan to do away with precinct-style elections and let residents vote anywhere in the city at a meeting Wednesday. The Denver Election Commission Stakeholders Committee, which is holding the meeting, is looking into the suitability of places such as recreation centers, arenas and theaters as voting centers. The meeting will be at 3 p.m. in the second-floor conference room of the Denver Election Commission, 200 W. 14th Ave."
Also from today's Post, "A town-hall meeting on immigration hosted by 9News will air Saturday at 6 p.m. There will be a rebroadcast Jan. 21. The program, 'Immigration: Bordering on Reform,' features top Colorado policymakers and community advocates, including U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, Gov. Bill Owens, state Rep. Terrance Carroll, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and former Gov. Dick Lamm."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
6:27:45 AM 
|
