Colorado Citizen-Initiated State Laws, Referendum O (2008)
|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 • XXVIII • XXIX • Schedule|
Known as Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, 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.
|Referendum O (2008)|
Election Results via: The Colorado Secretary of State
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.
The measure was supported by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. The committee campaigning for the measure is called Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense.
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.
Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense raised $19,100 in August 2008 to promote the measure. 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.
- Common Cause Colorado
- State Representative Doug Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, well known for writing the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)
- Pam Kiely
- Environment Colorado
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.
- Colorado 2008 ballot measures
- Procedures for qualifying an initiative in Colorado
- Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado
- Changes in 2008 to laws governing the initiative process
- 2008 ballot measures
- Full text of the amendment
- Rocky Mountain News: Editorial: "Yes on Ref O," Sept. 2, 2008
- Opinion in Denver Post by Attorney Rob Corry
- Access to the ballot, Denver Post, December 14, 2008
- Colorado Secretary of State, 2008 Election Results
- Aspen Times: "Referendums L, M, N and O deserve your support," Oct 1, 2008
- Delta County Independent: "Club 20 takes positions on 11 of 18 ballot measures," Sept. 17, 2008
- Rocky Mountain News: "Editorial: A better ballot measure," April 3, 2008
- Rocky Mountain News: "Union's Aug. ballot fight fund: $160,000," Sept. 3, 2008
- Rocky Mountain News: "Local union gives $3 million to fight right-to-work measure," Sept. 15, 2008
- Common Cause,"Colorado Common Cause statement in Opposition to Referendum O"
State of Colorado
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Commissioner of Education | Commissioner of Insurance | Commissioner of Agriculture | Executive Director of Natural Resources | Executive Director of Labor and Employment | Chair of Public Utilities |