Fiive e Fa actts abou ut A Amen ndin ng Colo orad do’s Con nstitutio on 2050 Old Bridge Road,, Suite 103 Lake Ridgge, VA 22192 (703) 4922‐1776 Citizensin nChargeFound dation.org Five Facts about Amending Colorado’s Constitution Colorado lawmakers are considering major changes to the state’s citizen initiative process in the form of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (SCR‐1), a constitutional amendment that would (a) mandate that future amendments receive a 60 percent supermajority at the polls to pass, (b) require citizen initiatives to qualify petition signatures in all seven Colorado congressional districts as well as statewide in order to appear on the ballot, and (c) force legislators to garner a 2/3 vote or to wait 3 years before repealing all or part of a voter‐approved initiated statute. 1 2 As this amendment, SCR‐1, has passed the Colorado senate and is now pending on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives, the Truth in Governance project of Citizens in Charge Foundation looks into Colorado’s amendment history, drawing comparisons between Colorado’s constitution and those in other states. Historically, Colorado is Near the National Average The average state constitution has been amended 146 times. Colorado’s constitution has been amended 155 times, which is 5.2 percent more than the national average. Compared to Colorado, 14 other state constitutions – representing more than a quarter of the nation – have as many amendments or more. (See Table 1) Interestingly, half of these 14 states constitutions with higher numbers of amendments don’t have any process through which citizens can propose amendments by petition. Constitutions in three states lacking any initiative process – Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas – have been amended more than twice as often as Colorado’s constitution. In fact, the number of amendments to Colorado’s constitution (155) is roughly on par with amendments to Delaware’s constitution (140). Delaware not only doesn’t have a citizen initiative process, it’s the only state in which citizens are not afforded any vote at all on amendments to the state constitution. Two‐thirds of both houses of Delaware’s legislature can amend that state’s constitution. Colorado Average in Amendments in Recent Years, Too Between 2003 and today, the national average for the number of amendments to state constitutions was 12, which is certainly close to Colorado’s 13 constitutional amendments passed during this same period. During this time, constitutions in three states without a citizen initiative process – Alabama, Louisiana and Texas – had three times as many amendments as did Colorado. 3 4 5 Five Facts About Amendments to the Colorado Constitution – Truth in Governance Most Amendments Come from State Legislators -- Not Citizen Initiatives The Colorado Constitution has been amended 155 times, but only 42 of those (or less than a third) were proposed by citizens through the state’s initiative process. These numbers are a bit misleading, though, because Colorado’s constitution was adopted in 1876, while Coloradans didn’t establish the initiative process until 1912. Since the initiative was adopted, voters have approved 112 amendments to the state constitution – 70 amendments (63 percent) were referred to voters by the General Assembly and only 42 measures (37 percent) were placed on the ballot by citizens through the initiative. (See Table 2) In recent years, the trend of state legislators proposing more amendments to Colorado’s constitution than have been proposed through the citizen initiative has continued. In the last 20 years, there have been 38 new amendments – 20 of them placed on the ballot by legislators and 18 by way of citizen petition. One Source of Constitutional Material In 2002, Colorado voters passed Amendment 27, a constitutional measure concerning campaign finance reform. Voters deemed this issue required amending the constitution only after the state legislature repealed parts of a similar law that had been overwhelmingly approved by voters as an initiated statute in 1996. This single constitutional amendment added 5,685 words to the Colorado Constitution – roughly 8 percent. While Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 would make it much more difficult to amend the state constitution, it does also have a provision to make it more difficult for the state legislature to amend or repeal voter‐enacted statutes. Yet, notably, had SCR‐1 been the law between 1996 and 2002, it would not have protected the 1996 campaign finance statute from the legislature’s actions against it. What’s Missing? While the frequency of constitutional amendments is worth consideration, the content of those amendments is what is most important. SCR‐1 would require a 60 percent supermajority of the vote to pass a constitutional amendment. If SCR‐1 had been in effect from 1990 until today, what would Colorado citizens be missing from their state constitution? Under SCR‐1 during this period, 17 of the 25 initiative amendments would have failed. In other words, 68 percent of the ballot measures passed by a majority of Coloradans would be gone – including the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), Amendment 23 on funding for public schools, three separate term limits measures, medical marijuana and Colorado’s minimum wage. (See Table 3) For More Information Visit CitizensInChargeFoundation.org Five Facts About Amendments to the Colorado Constitution – Truth in Governance Table 1: Colorado’s Constitution Has Near the National Average Number of Amendments State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming National Average Total Constitutional Amendments in 2011 807 29 147 98 525 155 30 140 118 72 110 123 12 47 54 95 41 164 171 225 120 30 120 123 114 31 229 136 145 44 160 220 35 150 171 187 249 30 10 497 215 39 467 115 54 46 103 71 145 98 Constitutional Amendments Added 2003‐2011 64 1 14 3 18 13 1 4 22 4 10 6 1 4 2 3 1 51 2 7 0 7 2 2 11 4 10 5 2 1 14 5 4 6 11 22 15 2 0 13 103 3 57 12 1 8 8 1 12 7 146 12 Allows CitizenInitiated Amendments No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Citizens in states highlighted in yellow have chosen to amend their state constitution more times than Colorado voters. Source: 2010 Book of the States For More Information Visit CitizensInChargeFoundation.org Five Factts About Am mendments tto the Coloraado Constitu ution – Trutth in Govern nance Table 2: Most Amendments Com me From Leggislators, No ot Voters Citizeen Initiatives 37% Referrred by Generaal Assembly 63% Table 3: 17 Measure es Favored b by a Majorityy of Voters W Would Havee Failed Und der SCR‐1 Year 2008 2008 2006 2006 2004 2000 2000 1998 1998 1996 1996 1996 1994 1992 1992 1992 1990 ‘Yes’ Vote 58% 51% 55% 53% 53% 53% 52% 54% 50% 54% 52% 51% 51% 58% 53% 53% 57% Limited G Gaming: Ce entral City,, Black Haw wk, Cripple Creek Campaign n Contribu utions from m Certain G Gov’t. Con ntractors Marriage e Raising Colorado’s Minimum Wage ble Energy Requirem ment Renewab Allowing Medical U Use of Marrijuana d Funding ffor Public Schools Increased Requiringg Parental Notificatio on for Abo ortion Voluntaryy Congresssional Term m Limits P Pledge Term Lim mits – Ballo ot Notation n Prohibite ed Method ds of Takin g Wildlife State Trust Lands mits On Loccal Officialss Term Lim Lottery R Revenues fo or Parks, R Recreation n, Wildlife TABOR ‐ TTaxpayer B Bill of Righ hts No Protected Statu us for Sexu ual Orientaation Gaming: Black Hawk,, Central C City, Cripple Creek Limited G For More Information Visit CitizensInChargeFoun ndation.org Five Factts About Am mendments tto the Coloraado Constitu ution – Trutth in Govern nance Table 4: Summary of SCR‐1 eral Assemblyy Website: ww ww.leg.state..co.us Source: Colorado Gene Five Factts About Am mendments tto the Coloraado Constitu ution – Trutth in Govern nance Table 4: Summary of SCR‐1 Co ontinued eral Assemblyy Website: ww ww.leg.state..co.us Source: Colorado Gene Five Factts About Am mendments tto the Coloraado Constitu ution – Trutth in Govern nance Table 5: Colorado Vo oters Value TTheir Right tto Initiativee In a 201 10 survey cconducted by Pulse O Opinion Reesearch, 5000 likely Co olorado voters were assked this question: “In 26 states citizeens can sig gn a petitio on to put laaws or constitutionall amendmeents on the b ballot to bee decided b by voters a at a statew wide electioon. This pro ocess is known as initia ative and reeferendum m. Would yo ou favor or oppose thhe initiativve or referend dum proceess in your state?” For More Information Visit CitizensInChargeFoun ndation.org n Govern nance Project The Truth in Truth in Governance, G a project of Citizens C in C Charge Fou undation, prroduces facttbased d reports on the initiativ ve and refereendum proccess through hout the Un nited States. Truth in Governan nce reports id dentify sourrces of initiaative campaaign fundingg, research and quantify q casees of ballot initiative i fraaud and pro ovide inform mation on leegal preced dents as well as state-by y-state comp parisons of initiative ru ules and resu ults. Too many y citizens, leegislators an nd opinion m makers lackk basic know wledge conceerning the in nitiative process or remain uncertaiin about thee extent of p petition righ hts underr the First Amendment A . One of thee most criticcal roles the Foundation n plays is in n provid ding accuraate and objecctive inform mation to thee public thro ough these Truth in Govern rnance reportts. n Charge Fo oundation is the only n national orgaanization co ommitted to o Citizens in provid ding educattion and litiggation services to proteect the initiaative and refferendum rights of every Am merican, wiithout any regard r to paartisanship o or the particu ular politicaal issue involved. Citizens C in Charge C Foun ndation belieeves citizen ns should bee in charge o of g t, and that th he initiativee and referen ndum proceess comprisees one of the their government most effective too ols citizens possess p for holding h pubblic officialss accountablle and makin ng necessary y reforms to o public poliicy. The Foun ndation work ks with activ vists, legislaators, opinio on leaders aand, most imporrtantly, citizzens across the t country, who comee together to o defend theeir rights and protecct the initiattive and refeerendum pro ocess in thee 26 states w where it exists in some form, and also to o extend thiss process to states curreently withou ut statewidee initiative and reeferendum. Citizens in Charge Fou undation ed ducates the ggeneral pub blic on the benefi fits of citizen n initiative, referendum m and recall. The Found dation also llitigates in state and a federal courts to prrotect and ex xpand the ppetition righ hts of Ameriicans. For more information n visit CitizeensInCharggeFoundatio on.org