According to a press release:
A former Senate Republican leader, who carried legislation to enact a campaign-reform amendment approved by voters in 2002, says his bill was fundamentally different from a now-pending attempt to exempt large groups of people from voter-approved Amendment 41.
Mark Hillman, who served as Senate majority leader in 2003-04 and as minority leader in 2005, was Senate sponsor of a 2003 bill that implemented Amendment 27. Hillman disputes current claims that the bill made substantive changes to Amendment 27 in the way that some now propose for Amendment 41, the government-ethics law voters adopted last November.
“Legislators are in a real bind. Either they uphold the plain language of the constitution, which is the first oath that they take, or they do what is politically popular and ignore the plain language of the constitution.”
“(The enacting bill) did not narrow the plain language of Amendment 27,” Hillman said. “House Bill 1132 could have been written to cast a broader net, but you cannot go into that bill and find anything that directly contradicts the plain language of Amendment 27.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Early Worm
IN: BREAKING: Restraining Order Stops Dave Williams Ouster Efforts Cold
BY: Duke Cox
IN: BREAKING: Restraining Order Stops Dave Williams Ouster Efforts Cold
BY: Duke Cox
IN: J.D. Vance Really, Really Not Going Over Well
BY: Air Slash
IN: Republicans are Totally Not Terrified of Kamala Harris
BY: Air Slash
IN: Republicans are Totally Not Terrified of Kamala Harris
BY: Air Slash
IN: BREAKING: Restraining Order Stops Dave Williams Ouster Efforts Cold
BY: Air Slash
IN: J.D. Vance Really, Really Not Going Over Well
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: BREAKING: Restraining Order Stops Dave Williams Ouster Efforts Cold
BY: Air Slash
IN: J.D. Vance Really, Really Not Going Over Well
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Richard Holtorf Jumps Into Colorado GOP Chairmanship Fracas
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Hillman is irrelevant.
I would like to see the nonsense stripped out of 41 as much as anyone. But the legislature can’t, in good faith, contradict the plain language of the amendment, and IMO the CO Supremes will have to reverse them if they do. There isn’t any “the voters wouldn’t have voted for that language if they had read it” exception to statute interpretation.
Every time he makes a mistake he will just do like he did with Amendment 41 and ask for a Mulligan. What a joke.
The full story can be found at the link below, although apparently ColoradoPols has a problem with linking directly to this particular source.
http://www.colorados…
They quote press releases directly, no links usually, unless they’re in the release.