January 14, 2007 07:37 PM UTC

Amendment 41 Developments

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

The Rocky Mountain News reported on Thursday about two conflicting efforts emerging to “fix” the perceived problems with Amendment 41, the “ethics in government” initiative approved by Colorado voters last November — now known by its new name, Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution.

The “clarifying” bill from supporters of 41, drafted by attorney Mark Grueskin, will be introduced either this week or the next. His bill if passed would take effect quickly, and would restrict Amendment 41’s provisions to “decision makers” in state government, according to the Rocky. The House sponsor will reportedly be Rep. Rosemary Marshall (D-Denver), a smart choice as she was a known opponent of Amendment 41 before the election.

Meanwhile, Minority Leader Mike May (R-Parker) is drafting a referred measure for voters in 2008 that would restrict Amendment 41’s provisions to elected officials only. Republicans in the state house are pretty much together on the argument that Amendment 41 can’t be altered by the General Assembly, and by law it can’t be altered by voters until the next general election — leaving two years of seemingly unavoidable, to quote Attorney General John Suthers, “absurd results.”

A number of Democrats agree with them, sometimes including Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff has inconsistently expressed both dismay and praise for Amendment 41 in the press. Witness his “All of Colorado is fuming” remark printed a week ago compared to his statement to the News Thursday that he wants “Colorado to have the highest ethical standards in the nation” and he thinks “we should treat this amendment as an opportunity to advance that goal.” He is privately said to be open to a legislative solution if one can be found, with one small caveat —

In the form of Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, who has consistently pushed a hard line on not altering the implementation of Amendment 41 in any way. She was quoted by the Denver Post as telling government employees to “take absolutely nothing and go to absolutely nothing and be as clean as Caesar’s wife.” A vocal opponent of Amendment 41 whose husband is a lobbyist for a Colorado-based mining corporation, her position would appear on the surface to be a commendable act of respect for the will of the electorate.

That is, until you take a look at the Big Line for CD-2. Much of the funding for the campaign to pass Amendment 41 came from Boulder gazillionaire Jared Polis, who along with Fitz-Gerald are considered the two likely frontrunners to replace Rep. Mark Udall when he makes his Senate run in 2008. Fitz-Gerald would be a fool not to see Amendment 41’s flaws as a stick she can beat Polis with — perhaps enough to overcome his vast personal wealth in a Boulder primary. Remember that it was CU President Hank Brown (R) who requested the opinion from AG Suthers on 41. However you feel about that opinion, it’s being taken very seriously at CU.

The outcome–and its effect on upcoming elections, if any–will depend on how the issue is spun on the floor of the legislature. All agree that the issue is complex, insider-driven and heavily spinnable by both sides. The only thing nobody can dispute is that Amendment 41 was approved by a big margin, one of the biggest of any statewide ballot measure in recent memory.

Polis has belatedly realized that his political future might depend on how this is resolved, and is working the phones hard with others who stand to lose if Amendment 41 goes down in history as a huge screw-up. The Denver Post and Boulder Daily Camera’s editorial boards have come out in defense of 41 and Grueskin’s clarifying legislation, calling out Democratic leadership in unusually strong terms. They strain to remind their audience that such legislation has been used recently on other constitutional amendments, and upheld by the courts.

Sources say Sen. Fitz-Gerald has been approached with the suggestion that with Republicans ready to pounce on the issue with their own solution and “reclaim” ethics from the Democrats, as well the harm that may result if Suthers’ strict interpretation of 41 actually governs the state for two years, this may not be the best issue to capitalize for her upcoming congressional race–a race in which she may already be the comfortable favorite anyway.