Here's an opinion piece written by Dick Lamm on the subject of the state Supreme Court ruling to keep the Defend Colorado Now initiative off the ballot this fall. He writes, "Two years ago, the state Supreme Court upheld nearly identical language but delayed its decision until it was too late to gather the required signatures. This year, the justices also waited until it was too late to place a new proposal on the ballot, then voted to disallow the initiative a place on the November ballot, claiming the initiative violated Colorado's 'single-subject' rule. The lack of intellectual integrity in this decision, ironically, can be judged by the words of our opponent's attorney, who wrote two years ago in his reply brief on virtually the same language we propose, 'Petitioners do not contend that this is a separate subject, nor could they do so in a principled manner.' Exactly. Single-subject wasn't even an issue. Everyone knew the initiative dealt with a single subject: Who is eligible for taxpayer monies? There was no argument. Last Monday's decision was not a matter of high judicial decisionmaking; it was a matter of raw, naked, arbitrary political power on the part of the court. In a decision that does not reflect legal reasoning but instead a political agenda, four members of the Colorado Supreme Court decided not to let Coloradans vote on this issue. Their action was unprincipled, unjust, unfair and unjustified...
"We applaud Gov. Bill Owens for his leadership on this issue. He saw injustice and acted. Calling the Supreme Court decision "inconsistent, inappropriate and irresponsible," Owens also severely criticized the court for not ruling in a timely manner. Justice delayed truly is justice denied. The court didn't like the initiative and arbitrarily removed it from the ballot, while delaying their announcement until corrective action could not be taken. Black robes cannot disguise their political agenda. Defend Colorado Now is planning to file a motion for reconsideration with the court, and we hope for a positive, reasonable outcome. Absent that, we welcome a special session of the legislature. But it should not have to come to that. The Colorado Supreme Court decision is wrong. We are seeking the most basic of remedies under our constitution: a vote of the people. Whether to spend taxpayer dollars supporting illegal immigrants is an issue long overdue for a vote by the people."
As always Ed Quillen is the voice of reason on the initiative. He writes, "Article V, Section 51 of our state constitution would then state that 'Except as mandated by federal law, the provision of non- emergency services by the state of Colorado, or any county, city, or other political subdivision thereof, is restricted to citizens of and aliens lawfully present in the United States of America,' and 'Any person lawfully residing in the state of Colorado shall have standing to sue the state of Colorado, or any county, city, or other political subdivision of the state of Colorado, to enforce this section.' Federal law requires the provision of K- 12 education, regardless of immigrant status, so the schools would not be affected. The same holds for emergency medical services and the like. But public libraries should qualify as offering a "non-emergency service." Libraries generally want some proof of identity and residency when they issue a card. The Defend Colorado Now amendment doesn't exactly require libraries to also check for citizenship or immigration status before issuing a card, but any citizen could bring a suit against the library for failing to do so. What if someone just comes in to the library to use a public computer to check her e-mail or to read some magazines? That's a 'non-emergency service,' so the library would have to check her status before allowing her past the front door, just to avoid possible litigation."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
10:36:55 AM 
|
|
