February 25, 2007 08:22 PM UTC

Romanoff: 'Amendment 41 Cease-fire'

• 0 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

Wearing a flak jacket and speaking from atop an up-armored Humvee,

SPEAKER ROMANOFF SEEKS ‘CEASEFIRE’ IN BATTLE OVER AMENDMENT 41
Two Groups on Opposite Sides of Ethics Initiative Agree to Ask Supreme Court for Guidance

DENVER – On Sunday, February 25, 2007 at 1:30pm, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D-Denver) will announce plans for a “ceasefire” in the battle over Amendment 41.  Two groups on opposite sides of the ethics initiative will join the Speaker in seeking guidance from the Colorado Supreme Court.

Since its passage at the ballot last fall, Amendment 41 has sparked a firestorm of debate – and considerable confusion – among elected officials, public employees, and their families.  State lawmakers have offered different proposals to implement the constitutional amendment.  Speaker Romanoff will introduce a formal resolution on Monday asking the Supreme Court whether – and to what extent – the legislature has the authority to clarify Amendment 41. 

The leaders of Colorado Common Cause, which supported the ethics initiative, and the Colorado League of Women Voters, which opposed it, will endorse the Speaker’s strategy in Sunday’s press conference.

His resolution must still pass a sharply-divided Assembly, of course, but it will be “clarifying” all by itself to see who opposes this move and why.

In other 41 news,

Governor Bill Ritter got bumped from the upcoming inaugural Lufthansa nonstop flight from DIA to Munich last week, since the free ticket cost more than $50. Responding, Ritter made (we think) his first public call for legislative clarification of Amendment 41, the Rocky Mountain News reports:

“There are a lot of situations like this, where I think the amendment painted with a far broader brush than the voters of the state intended it too,” Ritter said.

While he agrees with the amendment’s goal of stopping lobbyists from paying for access to state and local public officials, Ritter said there are problems with the measure that “have to be clarified legislatively.” (Pols emphasis)

We read that as a pretty significant statement in support for Rep. Rosemary Marshall’s “clarifying” HB-1304 over the alternative “strict implementation” measure introduced by leading 41 critic Sen. Peter Groff, SB-188.

A speedier opinion from the Colorado Supremes based on Romanoff’s resolution than the Scott Gessler/Jean Dubofsky-led injunction lawsuit could render–an opinion which would most likely be in agreement with previous rulings from the Supreme Court allowing “clarifying legislation” of the kind proposed for Amendment 41–could make the injunction effort largely moot. If that happens, we’re talking only about how 41 will be carried out, not whether it will be carried out–a significant victory for the much-maligned “Common Curse” and “Jared’s Law” Polis.

These developments suggest a shift in momentum over Amendment 41 towards the outcome that  Polis and supporters were looking for, though we still say he suffered lasting damage from the experience that could have been avoided. However, if the implementing process moves quickly to a face-saving resolution and Polis stays out of embarrassing situations for the next few months, he may not be as dead politically as conventional wisdom holds today.