HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Legislative Review Committee - 09/02/2008 -City Manager’s OfficeC’t”f City Halt7300Laporte Ave.rt C •LL”s
970.221.6505
9702246107-fax
fcgov corn
Legislative Review Committee
Meeting Summary
September 2,2008
Note:Information obtainedfollowing the September 2,2008 meeting is noted in italics.
Present:Doug 1-lutchinson,Ben Manvel,Kelly Ohlson,Darin Atteberry,Wendy Williams,
Carrie Daggett,Jerry Braden and Tess Heffeman
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
1.Ballot Initiatives
Jerry Braden reviewed each of the November 2008 ballot initiatives,followed by
Committee discussion:
Ballot Item City Position
Referendum L,Candidate requirements Neutral
Referendum M,Obsolete constitutional provisions Neutral
Referendum N,Obsolete constitutional provisIons Neutral
Referendum 0,Initiative Process (pending)
The City will take a neutral position until more information is known about who supports
or opposes this item.The following information was obtained after the meeting:this
Referendum was introduced in the Senate as a Concurrent Resolution by Senator Bacon
and a number of others.It passed the Senate and House committees and floors.Final
passage in the House was 57-6 and in the Senate 26-9.Additional information on
Referendum 0 is attached to these minutes,including a list of supporting organizations.
Per CML representatives Sam Mamet and Mark Radtke,it is opposed primarily by
Douglas Bruce.
Amendment 46:Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (2008)Oppose
This amendment is associated with a national movement to eliminate affirmative action.It
would affect universities to a large degree and also applies to employment.
Amendment 47:Right to Work Initiative Neutral
Amendment 48:Definition of Personhood Neutral
Amendment 49:Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions Initiative Neutral
Amendment 50:Limited Gambling Initiative Neutral
Amendment 51:Sales Tax for Developmentally Disabled Initiative Neutral
Amendment 52:Severance Tax &Transportation Initiative Neutral
Amendment 53:Criminal Liability of Executives Neutral
Amendment 54:Clean Government Initiative Neutral
Amendment 55:Just Cause Neutral
Initiative 82:Colorado Discrimination Preferential Treatment Neutral
Amendment 56 (formerly Initiative 92):Health Insurance Neutral
Initiative 93:Safe Workplace Initiative (pending)
Committee members asked for more detail before determining a position.Jerry Braden
will provide that information.
Amendment 58 (formerly Initiative 113):Severance Tax Initiative (pending)
Committee members want to learn what CSU’s position is on this initiative before deciding
the City’s stance.Jerry Braden and Darin Atteberry will contact CSU representatives and
report back to the Committee.CSU lobbyist Steve Durham later informed Jerry Braden
that the University has not taken a formal position on any of the ballot proposals..
Initiative 126:Savings Account for Education Initiative (pending)
Committee members want to learn what CSU’s position is on this initiative before deciding
the City’s stance.Jerry Braden and Darin Atteberry will contact CSU representatives and
report back to the Committee.CSU lobbyist Steve Durham later informed Jerry Braden
that the University has not taken aformal position on any of the ballot proposals.
2.Other Business
Committee members discussed a number of issues that might be included in the 2009
Legislative Policy Agenda.The following priorities were identified:
Opportunities to influence land use,especially as it relates to intergovernmental
agreements about growth management areas (GMA5).APA lobbyist Chuck Mallick
later told Jerry Braden that their group does not have any land use planning bills at
this time.Tess Heffernan has since met with Joe Frank and Ken Waido,who will
discuss this issue with APA committees that are meeting in the next few weeks.
r r
Strengthening the camera radar system,including the possibility of increasing the
consequences and reversing the “weakening”of the legislation that took place in earlier
sessions.Carrie Daggett will talk with Teresa Ablao and Terry Gilmore,and Jerry
Braden will look into any plans by the Chiefs Association.Wendy Williams spoke
with Chi ef Dennis Harrison after the meeting.Dennis will put this item on the agenda
for the September 12 Chief’s Association meeting.Dennis suggested that the City of
Fort Collins may wish to ask Bob Bacon to bring this item forward with support from
the Chief’s Association.It may also be possible to ask the Sheriff’s Association to
support a measure,though camera radar is not used by County Sher~ff’s.Jerry Braden
spoke with the Police Chief’s lobbyist,Ann Marie Jensen,who said their organization
has no plans to introduce legislation on photo radar.They do not think a bill could
pass of the House Transportation committee,where the chair is opposed to changes in
the current photo radar law.
Tess Heffernan will be meeting with CML staff on September 10 to discuss further
action,including the possibility of convening a group of cities currently using camera
radar in order to build a coalition for changes in this area.
Explore options for new or stronger laws to curb alcohol abuse;partner with other
university towns to develop a strategy.Wendy Williams,Teresa Ablao and Tess
Heffernan met with Boulder colleagues on September 2,2008 to discuss an action
plan.Staff will review the recommendations from the 2005 CSLI Alcohol Task Force
as these efforts move forward.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
r r
3rd Draft
Referendum 0
Citizen-Initiated State Laws
I Referendum 0 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:
2 +decrease the number of signatures required to place a statutory
3 initiative on the ballot;
4 +increase the number of signatures required to place a constitutional
5 initiative on the ballot;
6 4 require that eight percent of signatures for consttutional initiatives be
7 gathered from each congressional district;
8 4 require that drafts of proposed constitutional initiatives be submitted for
9 review earlier in the year;
10 4 extend the time period for collecting signatures for statutory initiatives;
U 4 increase the number of votes required for the legislature to change a
statutory initiative for five years afler the statute takes effect;and
•allow the public and state legislators to comment on proposed initiatives
14 at a public meeting.
15 Summary and Analysis
16 In Colorado,citizens may propose new state laws or changes to existing laws
17 through the initiative process.Under this process,proposed laws are put on the ballot
18 by citizens instead of being proposed within the state legislature.Initiatives must be
19 approved by voters to take effect.
20 Citizens may initiate changes either to the state constitution or state statutes.In
21 general,the constitution defines the powers of the legislative,executive,and judicial
22 branches of government and contains the bill of rights.The constitution may be
23 changed only with approval of the state’s voters at an election,and therefore is a more
24 permanent set of laws.Statutes,on the other hand,are more easily changed because
25 they may be amended through any of the following ways:
26 4 a bill passed by the state legislature and approved by the governor;
27 4 a bill passed by the state legislature and approved by the voters;or
28 4 an initiative approved by the voters.
29 When conflicts arise between the constitution and statutes,the constitution prevails.
30 Referendum 0 changes the requirements for proposing statutory and constitutional
31 Inlt!atives,making it easier to propose statutory initiatives and more difficult to propose
32 constitutional initiatives.
0
3rd Draft
1 Signature requirements.To place an initiative on the ballot,proponents must
2 collect a certain number of signatures from registered voters.Currently,there is no
3 difference in the signature requirements for constitutional and statutory measures.
4 Referendum 0 differentiates between the two types,requiring 50 percent more
5 signatures for constitutional initiatives than statutory initiatives,giving proponents of
6 statutory initiatives an additional 3 months to collect signatures,and requiring
7 proponents of constitutional initiatives to collect signatures throughout the state.Table 1
8 compares the current signature requirements to those proposed by Referendum 0.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Table 1:Current and Proposed Signature Requirements
29 Review of initiatives.Under current law,initiatives must be submitted to the
30 nonpartisan legislative staff for review.This review helps to ensure that the initiative’s
31 wording expresses the proponents’intent and notifies the public that an initiative has
32 been submitted.The staff prepare written comments that address the wording,intent,
33 and purpose of the initiative and discuss those comments at a meeting with the
34 proponents.The public may attend the meeting,but may not testify.Referendum 0
35 requires that constitutional initiatives be submitted to legislative staff earlier than
36 statutory initiatives and that an opportunity for public comment be provided at the
37 meeting.Table 2 compares the current and proposed process for reviewing initiatives.
Issue Current Initiative Process Referendum 0 Initiative Process
How many valid An amount equal to 5 percent constitut ona -An amount equal to 6
signatures are of all votes cast for secretary percent of all votes cast for governor at the
required to place an of state at the most recent most recent election;93,497 signatures
initiative on the election;76,047 signatures required for 2008.
ballot?required for 2008.Statutory.An amount equal to 4 percent of
all votes cast for governor at the most recent
election;62,331 signatures required for
2008.
Where must An~here in the state.constitutional At least 8 percent of the
signatures be minimum required number of signatures
collected?must be collected from each congressional
district;7,480 signatures required from each
of the 7 congressional districts (52,360 of the
93,497 total required signatures)for 2008.
Statutory -No change
What is the maximum 6 months Constitutional -No change
time allowed for Statutory -9 months
collecting signatures?
r
Issue Current Initiative Process Referendum 0 Initiative Process
What is the deadline for The date changes annually,but Constitutional -No later than the 60th
submitting the text of generally falls in the second half day of the legislative session prior to the
initiatives?of April;April 25 for the 2008 election;March 8 for the 2008 election.
election.Statutory -No change
When must staff provide Within 2 weeks after the measure Written comments must be provided to
written comments and is submitted proponents within 2 weeks and the
hold a public meet ng?meeting must be held within 3 weeks
after the measure is submitted.
Who may provide Only legislative staff and Members of the public and state
comments at the proponents legislators,as well as proponents and
meeting?legislative staff
Protection for statutory initiatives.Under Current law,once a statutory initiative is
15 passed by the voters,the legislature can pass a bill at any time to change that statute
16 with a majority vote (33 representatives and 18 senators).Referendum 0 requires a
17 two-thirds vote in the legislature (44 representatives and 24 senators)to pass a bill
18 changing an initiated statute within five years of the statute taking effect.
19 Arguments For
20 1)Laws sometimes need to be updated to keep pace with a changing world.
21 Referendum 0 encourages citizens to propose statutory initiatives,which can be
22 changed more easily than constitutional initiatives.Statutory initiatives preserve the
23 citizens’right to initiate laws,while giving the legislature flexibility to react when laws
24 require clarification or when problems or unforeseen circumstances arise.
25 2)Currently,the requirements for proposing constitutional initiatives are no different
26 than the requirements for proposing statutory initiatives,making the constitution
27 susceptible to detailed provisions that cannot be changed without voter approval.In
28 addition,some issues are limited to even-year ballots,and the political will to change a
29 constitutional amendment passed by the voters often does not exist,even when
30 problems become apparent.Requiring more signatures for constitutional initiatives
31 makes it more difficult to propose constitutional amendments,thereby making the
32 Colorado Constitution a more enduring framework for state government.
33 3)Requiring that signatures for constitutional initiatives be gathered from each
34 congressional district ensures that citizens from across the state support measures
35 before they are placed on the ballot.Due to the relative ease of collecting signatures in
36 heavily populated urban areas compared to sparsely populated rural areas,rural citizens
37 may currently be unaware of proposed ballot measures until late in the election season.
3rd Draft
Table 2:Current and Proposed Review Procedures
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 0
3rd Draft
1 4)Allowing the public and state legislators to comment on an initiative at a public
2 meeting early in the process makes the review process more open and helps interest
3 groups and voters gain a better understanding of the measure.It also helps proponents
4 identify potential problems,make sure that the measure clearly expresses their intent,
5 and avoid unintended consequences.
6 5)Limiting the ability of the legislature to change initiated statutes strikes a balance
7 between protecting voter-approved statutes and permitting the legislature to address
8 problems that may arise.The two-thirds legislative approval requirement is stringent
9 enough to protect voter intent,but still allows for non-controversial changes that clarify,
10 correct,or improve a statute.
11 Arguments Against
12 1)Referendum 0 limits the ability of citizens to amend the constitution,which is the
13 only set of laws that requires voter approval to be changed.Constitutional initiatives are
14 the best way for citizens to set fundamental policies of the state that govern the
15 legislature,the executive branch,and the courts.They also allow the public to address
16 issues that the government has not addressed to the public’s satisfaction.Requiring 22
17 percent more signatures to qualify for the ballot makes it more difficult and expensive for
18 citizens to exercise their right to petition for constitutional changes.
19 2)The protections in Referendum 0 for statutory initiatives may not be sufficient to
20 preserve voter-approved statutes from changes by the legislature.With a two-thirds
21 vote,the legislature can overturn the decision of a majority of the state’s voters almost
22 immediately.Further,after only five years,the statute can be changed or repealed by
23 majority vote.
24 3)The requirement to collect signatures from each congressional district could
25 enable one part of the state to block a change favored by the rest of the state.Also,it
26 becomes more difficult to meet the signature requirement if the number of congressional
27 districts increases.Ultimately,this measure makes it mathematically impossible for
28 citizens to place constitutional initiatives on the ballot if the state’s population grows
29 large enough to include thirteen congressional districts.
30 4)Requiring constitutional initiatives to be filed halfway through the legislative
31 session limits the ability of citizens to respond to action,or inaction,by the legislature on
32 issues of importance to the voters.This change puts citizens at a disadvantage
33 compared to the legislature,which can still propose competing alternatives or bills that
34 weaken an initiative after it has been filed.
35 5)Restricting the ability of the legislature to amend or repeal initiated statutes for
36 five years erodes representative government.Voters elect their representatives to
37 respond to changing priorities,including amending statutes approved by voters.
r r
3rd Draft
I Estimate of Fiscal Impact
2 Requiring that signatures be collected from each congressional district for
3 constitutional initiatives wiN increase state costs to verify signatures.Costs are
4 estimated to increase at least $40,200 in the 2010 budget year and $106,000 in the
5 2011 budget year,but the actual increase will depend on the number of constitutional
6 initiatives submitted and the number requiring verification of each signature instead of a
7 random sampling of signatures.
July 23,2008 S iLCSIPROJECTS BALLOfl2008V,dasterdocsW3iSCR 08-003v3 rI
r r
REFERENDUM 0
Provided by Mark Radtke,Legislative and Policy Advocate,Colorado Municipal League
Referendum 0 promotes fairness by ensuring that special interests from one part of
the state can’t impose their will on the rest of Colorado through constitutional
amendments.
•Referendum 0 respects and protects Coloradani right to directly vote on laws by
making it easier for voters to put proposed new laws on the ballot and limiting the
legislature’s ability to change voter-approved laws.
•Referendum 0 limits clutter and conflict in the Colorado Constitution,which has
been amended nearly twice as many times since 1980 as the U.S.Constitution has
been amended in more than two centuries.
The Problem:
•Because it’s just as easy to amend Colorado’s constitution as it is to change state
law through a ballot issue,the state constitution has become a crazy quilt of often
conflicting mandates that together have unintended consequences.
olorado’s signature requirement for petitions to amend the state constitution is the
lowest in the nation.
•Colorado is the only state in the nation that allows ballot initiatives but doesn’t set a
higher signature requirement for constitutional amendments than for state laws.
•The Colorado Constitution has been amended 52 times since 1980,nearly twice as
many times as the U.S.Constitution has been amended since it was adopted by the
founding fathers 220 years ago.
•In just the past 18 years,21,000 words have been added to the Colorado
Constitution.These constitutional amendments are three times as long as the entire
U.S.Constitution.
•Currently,special interests can impose their will on the rest of the state by
collecting enough signatures for a constitutional amendment from just one part of
the state.This just isn’t fair.
The Solution
•Coloradans put a high value on their right to directly vote on laws through the
state’s ballot initiative process.
•Referendum 0 respects and protects this right,making it easier for voters to put
proposed new laws on the ballot by lowering the signature requirement for
petitions.
•Furthermore,Referendum 0 requires a two-thirds majority of the legislature to
change any law passed by the voters for the first five years,ensuring that the will of
the voters can’t be disregarded by legislators.
•By empowering voters in this way,Referendum 0 maintains the ballot initiative
process as a pillar of direct democracy in Colorado and a check and balance on the
power of the legislature.
What is does:
•
•At the same time,Referendum 0 makes the initiative process fair by requiring that
groups using petition drives for proposed constitutional amendments collect
signatures from each of Colorado’s seven congressional districts.
•This will ensure that special interests from one part of the state won’t be able to
force narrow political agendas on the rest of the state
•Supporting Referendum 0 is a broad bipartisan coalition that touches every corner
of the state.Of the 100 members of the legislature,82 legislators from both sides of
the aisle supported Referendum 0.Governor Bill Ritter backs the measure.
•In a complicated and contentious election season,Referendum 0 is a common-
sense measure that voters from across the state and across the political spectrum
can support.
Referendum C)endorsements
•Action 22
•AARP
•Adams County Economic Development Corporation
•Club 20
•Colorado Association of School Boards
•Colorado Association of School Executives
•Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
•Colorado Bar Association
•Colorado Competitive Council
•Colorado Concern
•Colorado Contractors Association
•Colorado Corn Growers
•Colorado Dairy Producers
•Colorado Education Association
•Colorado Egg Producers Association
•Colorado Farm Bureau
•Colorado Forum
•Colorado Municipal League
•Colorado Restaurant Association
•Colorado River Water Conservation District
•Colorado Rural Electric Association
•Colorado Veterinary Medical Society
•Colorado Water Congress
•Colorado’s Future
•Economic Development Council of Colorado
•Denver Regional Council of Governments
•Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
•Ft.Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
•Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce
•Greeley Chamber of Commerce
•Greenwood Village City Council
•Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance
•Progressive 15
•Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
•Southeast Business Partnership
•West Chamber Serving Jefferson County