Title Board approves, rejects multiple versions of ‘Petition Rights Amendment’ – coloradopolitics.com

Out of a series of five proposed ballot initiatives that would revamp Colorado's direct democracy process, the Title Board on Wednesday signed off on two, finding that they satisfied the constitutional requirement to adhere to a single subject.

The measures from John Ebel of Lone Tree and Donald L. "Chip" Creager III of Denver were variations on the "Petition Rights Amendment," which would legalize ballot initiatives at most units of state and local government, alter the process for putting initiatives before voters and limit the ability of the legislature to shield laws from referendum, among other features.

In 1996 and 2006, the Petition Rights Amendment appeared on the ballot, where Coloradans voted it down. Proponents attempted multiple times to shepherd the policy through the Title Board in the 2020 election cycle, and are trying again this year. Heading into this week's hearing, a previous version, Initiative #6, is before the state Supreme Court after the Title Board rejected it for containing multiple subjects.

At issue was the initiative's attempt to repeal sections of the constitution using a statutory, not constitutional, amendment. Board members determined that this new style of changing the constitution was a second subject; Ebel and Creager argued to the Supreme Court that "The board is confused."

In the latest set of measures, Initiatives #8 through #12, the board rejected one for similar reasons: instead of outright repealing constitutional provisions, the language indicated that the relevant sections simply "shall not apply to petitions."

"While stated differently, it does have the effect of amending the constitution because it says it shall not apply," observed board chair Theresa Conley, the representative of Secretary of State Jena Griswold. "It is changing how the constitution applies."

The three-member board did agree to set a ballot title for two versions, Initiatives #10 and #11, which, instead of outright nullifying language in the constitution, stated: "This statute is an alternative to the existing petition process."

Proponents would have an option of standards to go by. So this alternative just provides a simpler path forward for proponents who seek to get an initiative on the ballot," Ebel explained.

Although board members expressed slight confusion about the logistics of such a provision, they ultimately agreed there was no conflict with the single-subject requirement, which is the board's primary responsibility.

The board also quickly rejected Initiative #12, which provided that "Any repeal or change to any part of this statute violates the First Amendment, United States Constitution Bill of Rights, and section 24 of Article II, Colorado Constitution Bill of Rights."

Jason Gelender, representing the Office of Legislative Legal Services, believed there were additional subjects arising from the elimination of judicial oversight and the inability of voters to amend the law.

The people themselves couldnt even change this amendment without violating the First Amendment," he said.

Ebel and Creager agreed to only attempt to bring one of the approved measures forward to the statewide ballot. If no party asks the Title Board for a reconsideration of its actions, proponents will be eligible to collect signatures.

View original post here:

Title Board approves, rejects multiple versions of 'Petition Rights Amendment' - coloradopolitics.com