Citizen rights group examines the consequences of a Colorado initiative bill passed in 2009

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 23:00, 5 April 2011 by Jacqueline (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

January 26, 2011

By Kyle Maichle

DENVER, Colorado: Two Colorado initiative proponents who fought to get an amendment on the 2010 ballot are facing a bigger fight over provisions in the state's initiative laws. [1]

Jon Caldara and Linda Gorman were both proponents of Amendment 63. [1] The amendment would have established the right to privately contract for health care in Colorado. [1] The proponents of the amendment are facing lawsuits over allegations that 50 circulators could have committed fraud while gathering signatures to qualify the amendment. [1] The fraud allegations were based on the circulator's affidavit not properly filled out on the petitions. [1]

Currently, a provision exists in House Bill 1326 that allows initiative proponents to be sued and held liable over any wrongdoing committed by others during a campaign[1]. A federal court is expected to decide if the provision would be overturned. [1] In 2010, a federal judge barred Colorado from enforcing two provisions in HB 1326. Those provisions included paying circulators per the signature along with a ban out-of-state petition circulators. [1] The bill was approved in 2009 with bi-partisan support in the General Assembly. [1]

The Citizens in Charge Foundation argued that House Bill 1326 is "the biggest single legislative attack on statewide petition rights in modern history." [1] The argument is based on other states reversing bans on out-of-state circulators and pay-per-signature. [1] [2] The citizen's rights group said that the risk of violating constitutional rights "didn’t stop this bi-partisan legislative attack."[1]

See also

Ballotpedia News