March 13, 2007 05:08 PM UTC

Breaking: Amendment 41 Deal Cut

• 0 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rocky:

Lawmakers have reached a deal on controversial legislation that implements an ethics measure approved by voters last fall.
The compromise calls for Coloradans this fall to vote on the proposed bill, basically asking them, “Is that what you meant when you voted for Amendment 41?” said House Minority Leader Mike May.

The Parker Republican played a key role in brokering the deal over House Bill 1304, which is to be debated on the floor this morning.

The bill will be amended to include an election in the fall, May said.

The bill defines terms in Amendment 41, making it clear, for example, that the children of government workers are eligible for scholarships.

Critics of HB 1304 – which had been expected to die in the Senate until the compromise was reached – said the legislation rewrote Amendment 41 to fix its problems, which is not allowed under the constitution. A companion measure asks the Colorado Supreme Court whether the legislation is constitutional.

May said if the court comes back and says the legislation is unconstitutional, there would be no election in the fall. But if the court declines to take up the issue or determines that the bill is constitutional, then the election would proceed.

Today’s original Amendment 41 post “Amendment 41 Injunction Requested” is now located below the fold. That’s what we in the business call the “news cycle” for you.

Original post: Amendment 41 Injunction Requested

In a move certain to make some of you happy, the Rocky Mountain News reports this morning that the legal challenge seeking Amendment 41’s whimpering and unceremonious death is now underway.

A group of Coloradans challenging a new ethics measure asked a court Monday to halt its enforcement until their lawsuit is heard.

The motion for a preliminary injunction against Amendment 41 was no surprise. The question is whether the court will act on it before the legislature votes on two bills related to the measure or adjourns May 9.

The suit against Amendment 41, launched in February, and the motion for the injunction were filed by former Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubrofsky [sic — Pols] and attorney Doug Friednash.

Their suit in Denver District Court says the measure is unconstitutional because it has a “chilling” effect on free speech and association.

“Overly broad and vague restrictions such as those imposed by Amendment 41 must be challenged,” Dubrofsky said in a statement.

Jenny Flanagan, director of Colorado Common Cause, which helped put Amendment 41 on the ballot, said “wild interpretations of the ethics law are not consistent with the measure’s language” and called on lawmakers to support HB 1304.

New plaintiffs in the suit, according to a press release, include Rep. Ann McGihon (D) and ubiquitous Gold Dome lobbyist Danny Williams.