Colorado Referendum O (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Colorado Constitution
Articles
Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX • XX • XXI • XXII • XXIII • XXIV • XXV • XXVI • XXVII • Schedule

The Colorado Referendum O, also known as a Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, appeared on the November 2008 ballot in Colorado as an legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have altered the requirements for initiatives in Colorado. The measure would have made it more difficult for citizens to place an initiated constitutional amendment on the Colorado ballot for voter approval, but easier to call a vote on an initiated state statute. It was placed on the ballot after passing both the House and the Senate by the required two-thirds majority.^[1]

Election results

Colorado Referendum O:
		Votes	Percentage
Yes		960,323[2]	48%
NO		1,058,216[2]	52%
Total votes		2,018,539[2]	100%

Specific Provisions

If passed, the measure would have:

• Increased the signature requirement for constitutional amendments by more than 15,000
• Reduced the signature requirement for placing a new state law on the ballot
• Added a distribution requirement, requiring at least 8% of petition signatures to be gathered in each congressional district
• Established an earlier deadline for filing initiatives.

Supporters

The measure was supported by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. The committee campaigning for the measure is called Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense.

Supporters include:

Editorial Support:

• Rocky Mountain News^[6]
• Aspen Times^[7]
• Reporter Herald^[8]

Arguments in Support

Notable arguments made in support included:

• Referendum O encourages citizens to propose statutory rather than constitutional initiatives. Statutory initiatives preserve the citizens' right to initiate laws, while giving the legislature flexibility to react when laws require clarification or when problems or unforeseen circumstances arise.
• Because the requirements for proposing constitutional initiatives are no different than the requirements for proposing statutory initiatives, the constitution is susceptible to detailed provisions that cannot be changed without another election.
• Requiring more signatures for constitutional initiatives makes it more difficult to initiate constitutional amendments, which may make the Colorado Constitution a more enduring framework for state government.
• Requiring that signatures for constitutional initiatives be gathered from each congressional district ensures that citizens from across the state support measures before they are placed on the ballot, not just those in highly populated areas.
• Allowing the public and state legislators to comment on an initiative at a public meeting early in the process makes the review process more open and helps citizens gain a better understanding of the measure, as well as avoid unintended consequences.
• The two-thirds legislative approval requirement is stringent enough to protect voter intent, but still allows for non-controversial changes that clarify, correct, or improve a statute.^[9]

Funding

Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense raised $19,100 in August 2008 to promote the measure.^[10] The group raised an additional $79,000 in the first two weeks of September. The Colorado Dairy Farmers and Rocky Mountain Prestress each gave the group $10,000.^[11]

Opponents

Opponents included:

• Common Cause Colorado^[12]
• State Representative Doug Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, well known for writing the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)^[13]
• Pam Kiely
• Environment Colorado^[14]

Arguments in Opposition

Notable arguments made in opposition included:

• Referendum O makes it more difficult and expensive for citizens to exercise their right to initiate constitutional changes.
• Requiring more signatures to qualify for the ballot restricts the public's ability to address issues that the legislature, courts, and executive branch have not addressed to the public's satisfaction or in which government officials have a vested interest.
• The protections in Referendum O for statutory initiatives may not be sufficient to preserve voter-approved statutes from changes by the legislature.
• The requirement to collect a certain number of signatures from each congressional district could enable one part of the state to block a change favored by the rest of the state.
• The geographic diversity requirement would also make petitions too difficult for grassroots groups, while wealthy out-of-state campaigns could afford it.
• It becomes more difficult to meet the signature requirement if the number of congressional districts increases.
• Requiring constitutional initiatives to be filed halfway through the legislative session limits the ability of citizens to respond to action, or inaction, by the legislature on issues of importance to the voters.
• Referendum O is an attempt to fix a perceived problem where none actually exists. In the past 50 years, voters have rejected almost two-thirds of all citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.^[9]

See also

External links

References

v • d • e 2008 ballot measures Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Illinois • Idaho • Iowa • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wisconsin • Wyoming •

	v • d • e State of Colorado Denver (capital)
Ballot Measures	2008 ballot measures | Historical listing of ballot measures | Initiative procedures | History of I&R | Campaign finance requirements | Direct democracy laws | Recall process |
Government	Colorado State Constitution | Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | House of Representatives | Senate |
Elections	Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections |
Judiciary	Colorado Supreme Court | Court Election (2008) | Court of Appeals | District Courts | Judicial Nominating Commission | County Courts | Judicial activist organizations |
Transparency Topics	Open Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
Divisions	State | List of Counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of township websites | Evaluation of school district websites |