Dozens of state organizations and elected officials have endorsed Referendum O, a measure that proposes to transform Colorado's ballot initiative process.
Under current state law, there is no difference in the process between putting a statutory measure or a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Ref O seeks to change this.
According Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, special interests have no reason not to put something in the constitution. “If they’re going to the trouble of collecting signatures, spending money in the media to get a "yes" vote for their campaign, if there is no difference between statutory and constitutional, they’re going to go for a constitutional measure,” she said in a Face The State podcast.
Ref O would alter the process between statutory and constitutional measures by changing signature-gathering requirements, mandating that campaigns gather signatures from each of the state’s seven Congressional districts. It would also increase the number of voter signatures needed for a constitutional change to 6 percent of the votes cast in the last gubenatorial election, up from the current requirement 5 percent, or just over 76,000.
According to Ref O's backers, the Colorado Constitution has been amended 55 times since 1980, while the U.S. Constitution has only been amended 27 times in more than 220 years. Roberts says Ref O will create an incentive for people to seek the statutory route. Under Ref O, citizen-initiated statutory measures will be off limits to any changes by the General Assembly for five years, unless they have a two-thirds majority.
Ref O was sent to the ballot by 82 of 100 state legislators. Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, said he likes the idea that more initiatives should be statutory and fewer constitutional. “It raises the bar, slightly, to require more support for constitutional amendments,” he said, adding that final passage will still require only a majority vote.
The Rocky Mountain News also endorsed Ref O Tuesday morning, writing, “we don't believe for a minute that this shift would prevent activists with deep pockets from qualifying amendments that should be statutes. But by reducing the signature requirement for statutes, and setting no geographical quotas for collecting them, the statutory route may be more attractive.”
On the opposition side, Rep. Doug Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, who has used the petition process frequently over the last few decades, said Ref O will “strangle the right to petition.” Paul Jacob, president of the Citizens in Charge Foundation, agrees, pointing to what he says are Ref O's unfair new deadline for signatures submissions. Instead of having until the beginning of August, which is the current deadline, petitioners would have to submit signatures on the 60th day of the legislative session, which falls in late March or early April.
“It’s easier to collect signatures during those summer months, especially if you depend on volunteers,” said Jacob. “In other states like Florida where the deadline was moved back from August to February, far fewer initiatives now qualify. Missouri moved its deadline from July to May, and more petition drives have failed because they don’t get those good weather months.”
With 14 different citizens initiatives and 4 referred measures on this November’s ballot, Mitchell points out that Ref O is going to have a hard time contending in a crowded field. “All the ballot measures are going to make it harder for everyone,” he said.