Foundation of a Great State: The Future of Colorado's Constitution

8/8/2019 Foundation of a Great State: The Future of Colorado's Constitution

1/32

University of Denver Strategic Issues Program 2007 Colorado Constitution Panel Fl Rp

Foundation of a Great StateThe Future of Colorados Constitution


2/32

Table of Contents

Lr Frm h Chcr 1

Ovrviw Frm h P Chir 2Rpr h 2007 Crd Ciui P 4Te Nature of Constitutions 4Colorados Constitution 5Constitutional Strengths 5Constitutional Concerns 6

Constitutional Content 6Concerns About Process 8

Constitutional Amendment and Revision 8

Te Amendment Process 9Legislatively Referred Amendments 10Citizen Initiatives 10Citizen-Initiated Statutes 11Tresholds for Initiated Statutes 11Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments 12Tresholds for Constitutional Initiatives 17Informing Voters 17Fiscal-Impact Statements 18

Constitutional Revisions 18Calling a Constitutional Convention 19Limited Constitutional Conventions 19Establishing a Constitutional Revision Commission 20

Summry P Rcmmdi 24Ackwdgm 28P Mmr 29


3/32

Te measure o a great university is its commitment to the public good. At the University o Denver,we believe that one o our roles is to stimulate a rich and inormed public discourse on critical issues.

We do so in hopes o contributing to a sustainable uture or Colorado, our home since 1864.

It is with that in mind that the University sponsors the Strategic Issues Program. Te program brings

together concerned citizens rom across the state, convening as a strategic issues panel, to examine

the many acets o a single complex topic. Te two previous panels examined Colorados economic

uture and water issues. Upcoming panels will tackle questions every bit as important or the long-

term viability o our state.

Te 2007 strategic issues panel has conronted one o the most pressing and politically sensitive chal-

lenges acing Colorado: the need or constitutional reorm. Te panel was made up o distinguished

leaders rom varying walks o lie, coming together as a nonpartisan task orce. In the course o their

work, they heard rom Colorado legislators and an array o local and national constitutional experts

on the need and precedent or such reorm. Tey reviewed the experiences o other states in reorm-

ing their constitutions, the legal options or constitutional change in Colorado and the policy ramif-

cations o suggested constitutional remedies.

Tis report is the culmination o all their hard word and analysis. In it, you will learn about the seri-ous dilemmas growing out o Colorados conicting constitutional requirements. More important,

you will review the panels comprehensive recommendations or ensuring that this historic docu-

mentthe Colorado Constitutioncan eectively serve uture generations.

Te work o this panel is done. What happens next depends on the will o Colorados leaders

and the resolve o her citizens. What happens next is up to us.

Robert D. CoombeChancellor, University o Denver

Letter From the University of Denver

Chancellor

1


4/32

Constitutions are the oundation o civil society.

All that we do as a nation or state, all that we seek

to become as a community, is grounded in our

constitution. Constitutions protect our rights as

citizens and express our values. Tey empower

enterprise in the rules they set or human interaction.

Constitutions aect every person, every business and

every organization.

Because constitutions are so important, the University

o Denver, through its Strategic Issues Program, asked

that its 2007 panel examine Colorados Constitution.

Te choice o this issue was suggested, in part, by

the work o a prior strategic issues panel, the 2005

Colorado Economic Futures Panel (CEFP). Te CEFP

ound that the ease o constitutional amendment, and

the inability to change provisions once they were placed

in the constitution, was a major cause o the entangledfscal policies that beset the state.

Although the CEFP identifed constitutional issues as a

major area o concern, the thrust o its recommendations

was directed to the area o public fnance, consistent

with its mission. Tus, in one sense, the 2007 Colorado

Constitution Panel (CCP) picks up where the Economic

Futures Panel le o. However, rather than ocusing

solely on fnancial and economic matters, the 2007

panels purview was the entire Colorado Constitution.

As with prior strategic issues panels, this yearspanel was nonpartisan in nature and composed o

accomplished citizens rom various segments o the

Colorado community. Te panels 13 members were

appointed by the University o Denver chancellor, and

the panels work was supported by the University as part

o its ongoing commitment to support the public good.

During the all o 2007, the panel met on an intensive

basis, spending more than 40 hours listening topresentations, discussing issues and ormulating

recommendations. Eleven local and national

experts on state constitutions and government made

presentations to the panel. A number o presentations

ocused specifcally on the Colorado Constitution.

Other presentations looked at constitutional

processes used elsewhere in the country and abroad

with the goal o identiying best practices that might

be adapted or use in Colorado.

Panel members weighed the research and opinions

presented by various experts and engaged in

discussions based on the inormation presented and

panelists own views and experience. Tey identifed

problems to be solved, made fndings o act and

developed recommendations on the question o

whether Colorado should undertake major changes

to its constitution.

Overview From the Panel Chair

2


5/32

Constitutional improvement is not a simple subject.As the panel studied the constitution in depth, it

became clear that there were three interconnected

levels to consider. Te frst encompasses the overt

constitutional problems acing our state. Tese are the

tangible issues with which we must ultimately grapple.

Te second involves understanding the underlying

causes o these issues. Te third level deals with

identiying procedural and systemic solutions. Tis

is the level at which the panels recommendations areocused.

Aer careul consideration, the panel concluded that

the most serious constitutional issues acing the state

involve conicting provisions within the constitution;

the unintended consequences o constitutional

amendments; and policy matters that are, or all

intents and purposes, permanently rozen in the

constitution. Each o these conditions rustrates theability o policy makers to respond to changing times

and meet the diverse needs o Colorado citizens,

businesses and other organizations.

Te causes o these problems are rooted in our

constitutional processes. A growing ood o

amendments, many o which are brought orth by

well-unded special interests, has created a tangled web

o constitutional provisions. By itsel, this is di cultenough. In Colorado, it is made even worse because

there is no practical way to revise the constitutionand untangle conicting

provisions. Unless changes

are made, there is every

reason to believe that the

situation will become

increasingly di cult.

Te 2007 Colorado

Constitution Panel oundthat the issues we ace

with our constitutional

processes, while di cult,

are not impossible to resolve. Indeed, the panel

has concluded that several key changes could set

the groundwork or major improvements to the

constitution. Te panels recommendations on

these matters are contained in this report. As with

other DU strategic issues panels, the 2007 ColoradoConstitution Panel was ree to develop such

conclusions as panel members considered appropriate.

Tis report represents their collective insights into the

uture o Colorados Constitution.

Jim Griesemer, Chair

Colorado Constitution PanelUniversity o Denver

ConstitutionalIssues

Underlying Causes

Areas ofRecommendation

Conflicting fiscal provisions

Unintended consequences

Unchangeable policies

Ease of amending constitution

Inability to revise constitution

Constitutional amendment processes Public information and discussion

Constitutional review and revision

3


6/32

Te Nature of ConstitutionsConstitutions are the basic social compact.No document is more ar-reaching or has

greater impact on our lives than a constitution.

Constitutions create the government, defne the

powers o its branches, determine the limits o

legislative authority, protect individual rights and

set broad policy. Every law that is passed by a

legislature, every regulation that is adopted, every

action that is taken by a governor and every court

case that is decided, is subject to the constitution.

As important as constitutions are, we usually take

them or granted, i we think about them at all.

For most o us, constitutional law is something to

be argued over by lawyers or opined upon by the

courts. In truth, however, constitutions are the

unique province o the people. Legislators can passlaws, executives can issue orders, courts can render

decisions, but only citizens can approve or amend

a constitution.

While most people are amiliar with the U.S.

Constitution, there are actually several types o

constitutions, each designed or a dierent level o

government. In addition to national constitutions,

there are supranational constitutions such as

that o the European Union, and subnational

constitutions such as Colorados state constitution.

National constitutions typically establish the structure

o government and may protect certain rights. Our

ederal constitution, or example, defnes the branches

o government, enumerates powers and provides or

individual rights. Importantly, the U.S. Constitution

makes clear that any powers not granted to the ederal

government are reserved or the states. As documentsthat articulate broad grants o power, national

constitutions can be reasonably concise, as illustrated

by the U.S. Constitution with its spare language.

Like national constitutions, state constitutions

provide the architecture or government. However,

where national constitutions serve primarily to

grantbroad powers, state constitutions typicallylimitthe way in which powers can be used. In

part or this reason, state constitutions tend to

be longer and more detailed than the ederal

constitution. Tis is certainly true o the Colorado

Constitution, which is not only longer than the

U.S. Constitution, but also much longer than most

state constitutions. How this came to be is where

the story o Colorados Constitution begins.

Report of the Colorado Constitution Panel

Te 2007 Colorado Constitution Panel meetsin the Schneider Board Room o the

Daniels College o Business.

4


7/32

Colorados ConstitutionOn July 1, 1876, aer fve previous attempts,

citizens o the Pikes Peak erritory adopted

a constitution. Shortly thereaer, the state o

Colorado was born. As with all constitutions,

Colorados document responded to the tenor o the

times. It reected, among other things, a distrust

o the ree-spending ways o ormer territorial

o cials, fscal conservatism and a general wariness

o governmental power.

oday, Colorado is one o only 20 states that

retains its original constitution. In the years since it

was frst adopted, society in general, and our state

in particular, has changed in proound ways. While

Colorados Constitution contains much that is

useul, in recent years the Economic Futures Panel

and other observers have expressed a numbero concerns with the constitution. Is it time to

modernize the document? Should the state o

Colorado consider constitutional revision? And i

so, through what process?

Answering these questions seems to be, above all, a

matter o balance. I the concerns with Colorados

Constitution are relatively minor, opening up the

entire document or wholesale revision through

a constitutional convention could lead to a host

o unknown outcomes. Conversely, i problems

with the constitution are becoming more serious,

inaction may only serve to place the state at greater

risk. In any case, i change is needed, how might it

best be achieved without opening a Pandoras box

o unintended consequences?

Constitutional StrengthsLike the humans who create them, constitutions

are imperect documents. Our constitution is

no exception. It has weaknesses as well as some

important strengths. As a starting point, it is useul to

begin by looking at whats rightabout the document.

Colorados Constitution contains a number o

desirable provisions. For example, it has a strong

bill o rights and a airly clear distribution o

powers among various branches o government.

In Colorado, thanks to the axpayers Bill o

Rights (ABOR), voter approval is required to

increase or adopt new taxes. Te constitution

also contains a strong home-rule provision or

cities and towns and permits county residents to

select home rule as well. It specifes nonpartisan

selection o judges and uses a modern commission

Legislators can pass laws, executives can issue orders, courts can renderdecisions, but only citizens can approve or amend a constitution.

Senior sta proessionals rom theNational Conerence o State Legislatures meet

with the 2007 Colorado Constitution Panel.

5


8/32

system or reapportionment o state house and

senate districts. And, importantly, Colorados

Constitution prohibits the inclusion o nonfnancial

items in appropriation bills, in marked contrast to

appropriations at the ederal level.

Aer examining the document in depth, the panel

concluded that the Colorado Constitution is by no

means a candidate or abandonment. o be sure,

there are issues to address i Colorado is to havethe type o eective and exible constitution that

will serve its citizens in changing times and remain

relevant in a competitive global economy. But revision

is not the same as abandonment. At this point in

our history, the panel concludes that Colorados

Constitution needs to be revised, not discarded.

Constitutional Concerns

While the constitution has a number o strengths,

there are also areas o concern. In undertaking

its work, the panel did not try to identiy every

potential problem that might exist. Rather, the

panel ocused on key processes that, i addressed,

could signifcantly improve the unctioning o the

constitution, and thereby the eectiveness o state

and local government.

Constitutional Content

In a document that is well over 100 years old and

crammed with detail, it is not too di cult to fnd

areas o concern. A prime example is the knot

o conicting fscal provisions that exist in the

Colorado Constitution. Te report o the Colorado

Economic Futures Panel discussed this issue in

depth. Te panel recommends that readers look

at the CEFP report, which can be ound at the

DU Strategic Issues Program Web site (http://

www.du.edu/issues) or an in-depth discussion o

constitutional fscal concerns.

Te internal conicts that exist among fscal

policy issues in the constitution are the frst

major area o concern. Provisions that provoke

unintended consequences are a second signifcant

issue. Examples o unexpected outcomes abound.For example, it is not likely that supporters o

constitutional Amendment 23 intended to provide

additional unding o K-12 education at the

expense o higher education. But thats essentially

what happened when Amendment 23, the ABOR

amendment and an economic downturn came

together in 20012004.

Richard Robinson, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

6


9/32

Its also unlikely that the Gallagher amendments

proponents intended to disadvantage the very

businesses that create Colorados jobs. But that is

one o the unanticipated outcomes as Gallagher

continually shis the property tax burden to

nonresidential property. No one knows when, or i,

a tipping point will be reached where Colorado is no

longer viewed as a avorable place to locate businesses

due to an unreasonably high property-tax burden.

Nor is it likely that the supporters o recently

adopted Amendment 41 intended to discriminate

against state employees with their constitutional

ethics amendment designed or public o cials.

No one wanted to prohibit the children o state

employees rom obtaining a scholarship or prevent

a citizen rom inviting a government worker and

her amily over or dinner. Te conused labyrintho this amendment is in court at this writing,

awaiting fnal determination. Whatever the result,

Amendment 41 is a perect, but only the most

recent, example o unintended outcomes rom

Colorados constitutional amendment process.

A third broad area o concern relates to the excessive

level o detail in the Colorado Constitution. Our

state has the third longest constitution in the

nation, about twice as long as the average state

constitution and nearlynine times as long as the U.S.

Constitution. Even granting that state constitutions

tend to be longer than national constitutions, ours is

very long, and getting longer ast.

In the last 17 years, we have amended our constitution35 times, compared to just 27 amendments to the U.S.

Constitution in 217 years. Since 1990 alone, we have

added 22,414 words to the Colorado Constitution,

nearly three times the length o the entire U.S.

Constitution, including all its amendments.

While constitutional length may not be a problem in

and o itsel, excessive detail is. Colorados Constitutionis replete with policy matters that would be ar better

expressed in statute rather than chiseled, virtually

orever, into the constitution. Unlike the ramework

o government or individual rightsoundational

matters that should change very slowlyoperating

policies need to respond to the times. When

detailed statutory-type provisions are rozen in the

constitution, it can become di cult or impossible or

o cials to make timely and eective policy decisions.

Amendment 41 is a perfect, but only the most recent, example ofunintended outcomes from Colorados constitutional amendment process.

G. Alan arr, director o the Center or StateConstitutional Studies and distinguishedproessor o political science at Rutgers

University, meets with the 2007 ColoradoConstitution Panel.

7


10/32

Concerns About Process

While conicting provisions, unintended

consequences and unchangeable policies in

the constitution are serious problems, they are

not the cause, but rather a result, o underlying

process issues. From the panels perspective, the

most urgent problems that exist with Colorados

Constitution are not substantive, as important as

those may be, but rather, procedural.

Te issues that exist with Colorados Constitution

are primarily the result o a food o amendments,

coupled with the inability to reconcile conficting

provisions, resolve unintended consequences

and reduce unnecessary detail. Tese problems

are the result o (1) Colorados constitutional

amendment process and (2) the lack o an eective

constitutional revision process.

And therein lies the panels most basic concerns

about the Colorado Constitution: the twin issues

o amendment and revision.

Constitutional Amendment and Revision

Constitutional scholars make a distinction between

amendinga constitution and revisinga constitution.

Tis distinction is important in raming the issues with

Colorados Constitution.

Any constitutional change, even changing a single

sentence or subsection, is an amendment. By

this defnition, Colorados Constitution has been

amended many times over the past 132 years.

Every one o these changes was accomplished

through a citizen initiative or legislatively reerred

measure approved by a majority o voters, and

virtually all o these amendments modifed only a

single provision o the constitution. Tat situation

will continue since today, by law, all amendments

are required to relate only to a single subject.

Where a constitutional amendment is a single change

to the document, constitutional revision involves

a broader perspective. Because a constitutional

amendment can relate to only a single subject, it

precludes the amendment process rom being used or

broader constitutional revision. Constitutional revision

oen involves multiple provisions when used to

reconcile conicts, resolve unintended consequences

or modiy provisions that span a number o articles.

... the rate at which the constitutionis being amended today has doubled.

Rebecca Mae Salokar, associate proessoro political science, Florida International

University, and Richard B. Collins,proessor o law and director o the

University o Colorado Law Schools ByronR. White Center or the Study o American

Constitutional Law, speak with the Colo-rado Constitution Panel.

8


11/32

Tese amendment and revision processes are, o

course, related. Te amendment process usually

puts provisions into the constitution, while the

revision process is used to rationalize or remove

provisions. In Colorado, it is easy to add provisions,

but there is no practical way to revise the

constitution. As a result, individual amendments

tend to pile up, with no way to reconcile them.

Te Amendment Process

Although the 1876 constitution still governs our

state, the document has been amended more than

150 times by our citizens. In recent years, the

pace o constitutional amendment in Colorado

has quickened. In the past 44 years, rom 1964 to

2006, 79 constitutional amendments have been

approved. Tis compares to just 73 measures

approved during the prior 88 years, rom 1876 to

1964. In essence, the rate at which the constitution

is being amended today has doubled.

Tis is depicted in Chart 1, which levels out

amendments in individual years to show the trend

o amendments. As can be seen rom the chart,

the rate at which Colorados Constitution is being

amended has increased dramatically since 1964.

Not only is the rate at which the constitution is being

amended increasing, but the number o constitutional

amendments is increasing within that most recent

44-year period. A comparison between the frst decade

o the period (19641973) with the most recent decade

(19942003) shows that the number o amendments

has increased over 18 percent. Tis trend suggests

what the uture will look like or our state. Unless

something changes, Colorado will experience more

amendments with the likelihood o more conicting

provisions, more unintended consequences and more

statute-like policy detail in the constitution.

Constitutional Amendments 1876 2006160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1876 1898 1920 1942 1964 1986 2007

Chart 1 - Pace of Constitutional Change in Colorado

9


12/32

Legislatively Referred Amendments

Tere are two means o amending the Colorado

Constitution: legislative reerral and citizen

initiative. A third method o amendment, calling

a constitutional convention, is considered under

the section o this report on constitutional

revision. Since Colorado became a state, all o

the amendments to our constitution have been

accomplished through the citizen-initiative or

legislative-reerral processes.

Amending the Colorado Constitution by legislative

reerral requires approval by two-thirds oall of

the members o both houses, ollowed by approval

o a majority o citizens voting at the next general

election. Achieving the required two-thirds vote

usually involves broad discussion and debate and

brings out many points o view. Media coverageo the debate tends to raise the level o public

awareness about the issue.

A strong consensus among legislators is required

to adopt a proposal and move it orward to the

voters. As a result, legislative-reerral proposals,

with their visibility and wide range o support,

are oen approved by the electorate. In Colorado,

between 1964 and 2006, more than 75 percent o

legislatively reerred constitutional amendments

were approved by the voters.

Te panel fnds that the legislative-reerral processor constitutional amendments unctions well and

thus recommends that the process or legislatively

reerred constitutional amendments remain intact.

Citizen Initiatives

Te ability o citizens to introduce statutes or

amendments to the constitution through direct

petition is, to many, a cherished right, and one

that the panel supports. Te panel recommends

that the right o citizen initiative be retained; with

modifcations to the processes or citizen-initiated

constitutional amendments and with special

protections or citizen-initiated statutes.

In Colorado, between 1964 and 2006, more than 75 percent of legislativelyreferred constitutional amendments were approved by the voters.

John Dinan, associate proessor o politicalscience at Wake Forest University,

discusses state constitutions with the 2007Colorado Constitution Panel.

10


13/32

Citizen-Initiated Statutes

Te Colorado Constitution provides or two types

o citizen-initiative processes. In addition to the

ability to initiate constitutional amendments,

citizens also have the right to initiate statutes. While

there currently is no practical means o changing

or removing a constitutional amendment once

enacted, a statute can be revised i necessary to

take account o changing conditions. Since the

only certainty is change, the panel considers the

exibility o initiated statutes to be a very desirable

alternative to the rigidity o locking detailed policy

provisions into the constitution.

For this reason, the panel believes that the right

o statutory initiative is important to the citizens

o Colorado and recommends that the right o

statutory initiative be preserved in its present ormand strengthened.

o encourage statutory rather than constitutional

initiatives, the panel proposes that initiated statutes

be given a high level o protection rom legislative

changes. Specifcally, the panel recommends that

initiated statutes not be subject to any amendments

by the legislature or 10 years afer the eective

date without a two-thirds vote. In practical terms,

achieving a two-thirds majority o all members o

the house and senate would be possible only with

a widely shared consensus that the initiated statute

was in urgent need o modifcation. As a result,

amendments would largely be limited to correcting

errors or remedying unanticipated consequences.

Tresholds for Initiated Statutes

As a percent o the states population, Colorado

has the lowest number o signatures required

or initiative petitions o any state. And, like

most other states, Colorado requires only a

simple majority to adopt either a statutory or

constitutional initiative. Tese low-threshold

requirements, together with our relatively small

population, make Colorado an ideal place or

interest groups, including out-o-state special

interests, to promote their causes.

Raising the number o signatures required to place

an item on the ballot has oen been suggested as

a means o limiting the number o special interest

initiatives. Similarly, requiring a super-majority

vote or the passage o an initiative is also an idea

that has been oered among those concerned aboutthe great number o initiatives on Colorados ballot.

Donna Lynne, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

11


14/32

In listening to constitutional experts, the panel is

persuaded that increasing the number o signatures

needed or requiring a super-majority election vote

is not likely to reduce the number o petitions rom

large, well-unded special interests. What raising

these thresholds is likely to do, however, will be to

make it more di cult or Colorado-based grass-roots

organizations to get their issues on the ballot. Tese

groups, typically less well unded than large national

organizations, would likely be the ones disadvantagedby changing signature and election requirements.

Tereore, the panel recommends that the current

number of signatures required for statutory

initiatives and the simple majority requirement for

voter approval both remain unchanged.

Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments

In Colorado, it is just as easy to initiate a constitutional

amendment as to initiate a statute. Not surprisingly,

most proponents preer constitutional amendments

to initiated statutes since, or all practical purposes,

constitutional measures cannot be changed once

enacted. While such special-interest protectionism is

understandable, it is bad government. In a ast-moving

world, reezing detailed policy provisions in the

constitution substitutes rigidity or exibility, paralysisor responsiveness.

Te panel fnds that, as a procedure or amending

the most important document in the state,

the citizen-initiative process or constitutional

amendment is awed and in need o updating.

In its present orm, the constitutional initiative

is subject to abuse by special interests and is a

major source o the ood o amendments being

experienced in our state. Many o the examples o

conicting constitutional provisions, unintended

consequences and constitutional clutter given inthis report are the result o initiated constitutional

amendments. As it exists today in Colorado, the

constitutional-initiative process is neither good

democracy nor good government.

In his bookDemocracy Derailed, David Broder,

a longtime observer o the American political

scene, has noted that the citizen initiative as a

method o lawmaking has become the avored

tool o millionaires and interest groups that use

their wealth to achieve their own policy goals. It

has given the United States something that seems

unthinkable not a government o laws but laws

without government. It is also a big business, in

which lawyers and campaign consultants, signature-

gathering frms and other players sell their services

to [those] with private political agendas.

As it exists today in Colorado, the constitutional-initiative process

is neither good democracy nor good government.

Cathey Finlon, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

12


15/32

In Colorado, the citizen initiative is oen not the

true grass-roots citizen activity that reormers

envisioned when they added it to the constitution

in 1910. Rather, it is a process used by highly

organized, oen well-unded groups and individuals

to promote their special causes. Although we know

that change is the only constant in lie, those who

would lock their solution into the constitution

behave as i they have ound the answer or all time.

A key theme o the panels work is that

constitutions are oundational documents that

aect the lives o all citizens and the operations

o every organization. Any time a constitutional

change is presented, every eort should be

made to assure that the proposal receives careul

consideration and the public receives accurate,

balanced inormation. As practiced today, the

initiative process or amending Colorados

Constitution alls ar short o those goals.

Te procedures or citizen-initiated constitutional

amendments allow time or neither thoughtul

analysis nor thorough discussion. In some cases,

editorial writers may try to present a more balanced

analysis o the proposal through the media. But

more oen, public inormation comes in the orm

o paid advertising messages reecting only the

views o proponents or opponents. It is a process

in which 30-second sound bites substitute or

thoughtul debate and only those with signifcant

fnancial resources have a real voice. From the

panels perspective, this is no way to make the most

important public decisions in our state.

Given the importance o constitutional

amendments and the need or thorough andthoughtul public discussion, the panel concludes

that the citizen initiative process or constitutional

amendment requires signifcant reorm. o this

end, the panel recommends that Colorado adopt a

process or initiated constitutional amendments

that requires petitioners to engage with elected

representatives o the people while protecting the

petitioners absolute right to have citizens vote

on their proposal afer public hearings. Te panel

calls this the Colorado Legislative Engagement and

Reerral (CLEAR) process and believes it reects

the traditions o openness and collaboration that

underlie the culture o our state. Here, in outline

orm, with approximate dates shown, is how the

process would work.

Chris Diamond, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

13


16/32

Pre-review o Petition Proposal (about 18 months

prior to November election)

Nonbinding review o proposed ballot language by

Legislative Council. Review and approval o the ballot

title and determination o appropriate constitutional

article or the proposal by the Ballot itle Board.

Review o Signed Petitions (approximately one

year prior to November election)

Signed petitions fled with the O ce o the

Secretary o State. Te secretary o state will have

a reasonable period to review the petition or

su ciency. A required fscal-impact analysis will

also be conducted during this period.

Legislative Public Hearings (during the legislative

session)

During its regular session, the legislature will

conduct public hearings on those citizen initiatives

ound by the secretary o state to have su cient

signatures, that propose to amend the Colorado

Constitution.

Legislative Determination on Proposal (prior to

conclusion o legislative session)

Beore the end o the legislative session, the

legislature must express its views on each proposal.

Trough a majority vote, the legislature will:

Recommend that voters approve the

proposal as submitted; or

Recommend that voters reject the proposal.

In addition to expressing its views on the

proposal, the legislature may, with the approval o

two-thirds o all members, choose to:

Cra a revised proposal jointly with the

petitioners that would appear on the ballot

in lieu o the petitioners proposal; or

Present its own proposal to the voters or

their consideration.

Election Held (November)

Citizens would vote on the proposal, with a simple

majority governing approval, as is currently the case.

Whatever the legislative determination, petitioners

would always have the absolute right to take their

proposal, with their language, to the voters the

ollowing November. In the case o a joint proposal,

Te net result will be a more thoughtful, balanced discussionand a better informed electorate.

14


17/32

crafed collaboratively

by petitioners and

approved by a two-

thirds vote o all

legislators, petitioners

would withdraw their

original proposal.

It is important to note

that the ColoradoLegislative Engagement

and Reerral process

applies only to

initiated constitutional

amendments. Initiated

statutory proposals

are exempt rom

this process. Table

1 provides a graphic

representation o the

CLEAR process or

amending the Colorado

Constitution.

Pre-review of Petition Proposal(18 months prior to November election)

Legislative Council Ballot Title BoardAdvisory review of ballot language Approval of ballot title and location in constitution

Filing of Petition Fiscal-Impact Statement(One year prior to November election)

Secretary of State State Professional StaffReviews petition for sufficiency Conducts fiscal-impact analysis of proposal

Legislative Public Hearings(During legislative session)

Hearings open to public and mediaEncourages a wide range of d iscussion, raises visibility of issue, informs legislators and the public

Legislative ActionsLegislative Determination (Prior to end of legislative session) Optional Referred Measures

Recommend that voters approve Joint referred measure Alternative

or disapprove proposal crafted with petitioners referred measure

To Voters(November)

(With fiscal impact analysis also appearing on ballot)

or orApproved or Disapproved Joint Proposal Alternative ProposalPetitioners language on ballot Joint language on ballot Alternative language on ballot

Table 1 - CLEAR: Colorado Legislative Engagement

and Referral Process

Jerry Groswold, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

15


18/32

Te panel believes that the CLEAR approach ofers

a number o advantages compared to the present

citizen-initiative process. First, as its name implies,

the process helps make the proposal clearer to both

legislators and the public. Tis is in contrast to

the present process where lack o clarity about the

intent o the proposal and its likely consequences,

inadequate time or a thoughtul discussion and

ailure to provide a balanced perspective to voters

are all major shortcomings.

Te CLEAR model uses the visibility, diversity and

public nature o the legislative process to shed light

on the proposal. Te legislative hearing is designed

to be inormational rather than adversarial and

will involve a broad and balanced discussion o the

matter, ensuring all points o view to be heard. Te

goal o the hearings is to inorm both legislators and,

through media coverage, the general public about

the proposal and its likely implications and costs.

Te CLEAR process is not intended to, nor does it,

thwart the citizen-initiative process. Rather, it allows

time or discussion and uses the orum o the state

legislature as a vehicle to better inorm the public about

the proposal. It is important to note that, whether

the legislature recommends approval, disapproval or

creates an alternative proposal, at the conclusion o

the session, petitioners retain the right to take their

proposal, with their language, to the public or a vote.

Tat proposal, however, will have been vetted in

public and been subject to debate and discussion

rom a number o points o view. In the process,

the public will be better inormed and there will

be adequate time to consider, and perhaps avoid,

unintended consequences. I the legislativeprocess uncovers needed changes, and the

petitioners agree, an improved, joint proposal will

be submitted by the petitioners and the legislature

to the voters. I the legislature eels strongly

enough that the proposal is harmul to the interests

o the state, then the legislature can present its own

proposal or the voters consideration.

Te CLEAR process adds some additional time

to the citizen-initiative procedure and marginally

increases the workload or the state legislature.

Yet, what could be more important than a

careul process or amending the states most

undamental document? Te net result will be a

more thoughtul, balanced discussion and a better

inormed electorate. Tat, the panel believes, is in

the interest o all Coloradans.

Kim Patmore, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

16


19/32

Tresholds for Constitutional Initiatives

Because o the concern that Colorado-based grass-

roots organizations not be disadvantaged relative

to large national special interest groups, the panel

recommends against increasing either the number o

signatures required or changing the simple majority

vote required, even or constitutional initiatives.

At the same time, because constitutional

amendments can have a proound efect uponcitizens and businesses throughout the state, the

panel is concerned that citizens throughout Colorado,

not just those on the more populous Front Range,

be represented in the initiative process. Tereore,

the only change recommended by the panel relates

to the geographic distribution o signatures or

constitutional (not statutory) initiatives.

With this in mind, the panel recommends that

petition signatures or initiatives to amend the

Colorado Constitution must be collected rom

a majority o Colorados congressional districts.

Te ormula or this distribution will need to be

determined; however, it is the panels intent to

assure that Colorado citizens rom throughout

the state be included in the process o initiated

constitutional amendments.

Informing Voters

Providing voters with accurate, balanced

inormation on proposed constitutional

amendments is a primary objective o several o

the panels recommendations. Te panel recognizes

that the state o Colorado, through the Colorado

Legislative Council, already conducts a level o

proessional analysis on reerred and initiated

proposals. Te panel commends the Legislative

Council or its work and urges the legislature tocontinue to support the councils activities.

In addition to the inormation provided by the state

o Colorado, the panel would like to see a more

extensive analysis o the implications o proposed

constitutional amendments. Such an analysis would

examine the way in which the measure, i adopted,

would interact with other constitutional or statutory

provisions. Ideally, the work could be undertaken by

an independent, nonpartisan outside organization.

For tax measures or proposals with broad

applicability, such an analysis would be an invaluable

aid to raise the level o voter inormation. o that end,

the panel recommends thatprivate, independent,

nonproft organizations be encouraged to conduct

analyses o initiated or reerred proposals and share

their conclusions with the public.

Te legislative hearing will involve ... a broad and balanced

discussion of the matter, ensuring all points of view to be heard.

Tomas Williams, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

17


20/32

Fiscal-Impact Statements

Te Colorado Legislative Council currently provides

a fscal analysis o proposed amendments as a part

o its Blue Book analysis or voters. Te panel

believes distribution o the Legislative Councils fscal

analysis should also appear, in summary ashion,

on the ballot alongside the proposal. Tereore, the

panel recommends that all proposed constitutional

amendments and statutory initiatives be

accompanied by a fscal- impact statement, copies

o which shall be made available at the CLEAR

legislative hearings anda summarized version o

which shall also appear on the ballot alongside the

proposal. Te panel believes that ull disclosure o

the fnancial implications associated with a proposal

is in the interest o all voters.

Constitutional Revisions

It has been noted that the number o constitutional

amendments continues to grow and the rate at

which amendments are proposed is on the increase.

But what about the pace orevision? What about the

process or revising Colorados constitution, to keep

it organized and rationalized, to reconcile conicts,

to resolve unintended consequences and to reduce

unnecessary detail? Te practical answer is, there is

no process.

In Colorado, the only current means o broad

constitutional revision is through a constitutional

convention. A constitutional convention has

broad powers to amend the constitution. In act, i

called, a convention has the power to disregard the

existing constitution entirely and ashion a wholly

new one. And, although legal opinion is divided,

it could be that even a limited constitutional

convention might have the power to propose broad

changes beyond its mandate. Possibly because othe very signifcant powers available to such a body,

Colorado has never called a convention since its

original constitution was adopted in 1876.

Colorado voters are not alone in their reluctance

to call a convention. In the past 20 years, no state

has called a general convention. And its not

simply because voters havent been asked. Even

in states where voters are automatically asked, by

constitutional requirement, whether they wish to

call a convention, not a single convention has been

called in over two decades.

So Colorados only tool or revision is one that

we choose not to use, perhaps or good reason

given concerns about a runaway constitutional

convention. As a result, however, during the

Jon Zeschin, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

18


21/32

entire history o Colorado, there has not been a

single comprehensive revision o the document.

Colorados Constitution today is the product o

132 years o piecemeal amendment. Its like a book

written by many authors, with no editor.

Calling a Constitutional Convention

Tere is little question that Colorado needs a

method or periodically revising its constitution.With the constitutional amendment processes

in high gear and no practical means o revising

the document, the result is a growing bramble o

conicting provisions and policy detail, all cast

in concrete. While a constitutional convention

would have the power to revise the document

in a comprehensive way, calling a constitutional

convention in Colorado is a di cult undertaking.

Te process begins by obtaining an a rmative vote

rom two-thirds o all the members o each house in

order to place the question o calling a constitutional

convention beore the citizens. A majority o voters

must approve the call or a convention and voters must

also elect delegates. Aer the convention meets, the

proposed constitution must then be sent again to the

voters or approval. Tis is a lengthy process, which

requires multiple elections over several years. However,

given the power o a constitutional convention, the panel

fnds that the requirements are not unduly rigorous.

While a constitutional convention is one way

o dealing with the multiple subjects required

in a constitutional revision process, it is not the

only means o doing so. Te panel shares the

concerns o those who are reluctant to open up the

entire constitution to the possibility o wholesalerewriting. For that reason, the panel recommends

against convening a constitutional convention at

this point in Colorados history.

Limited Constitutional Conventions

Some observers have suggested that an alternative

to a regular constitutional convention could be a

convention that was limited to a specifed number

o topics. Te hope here is that this would avoid the

possibility o a runaway constitutional convention.

However, the Colorado Constitution does not

specifcally provide or a limited convention and

constitutional legal experts disagree on whether the

Colorado legislature could successully limit the scope

o a convention to one or more predefned subjects.

Whether or not it is possible to limit the scope,

... during the entire history of Colorado, there has been

not a single comprehensive revision of the document.

19


22/32

convening any type o a convention is a very

di cult undertaking, requiring super-majority

votes in both houses and multiple elections. In

addition, the convention process does not respond

to the need or regular periodic review o the

constitution. Conventions are usually called in

response to a crisis. Acting beore the crisis occurs

is a better approach.

Tus, while a limited convention may be moreappealing than an open convention, the panel

believes that the use o a Constitutional Revision

Commission is a better solution. It has the

advantage o providing or regular periodic

review and making needed revisions without the

possibility o making wholesale changes to the

constitution. Tereore the panel recommends

against using a limited constitutional convention

in avor o the more desirable Constitutional

Revision Commission.

Establishing a Constitutional Revision Commission

Over the past 40 years, at least 27 states have created

some type o Constitutional Revision Commission

(CRC). Tese commissions have normally been time-

limited and advisory in nature, although Utah uses

an ongoing commission. Commissions have been

created in various ways, by legislative resolution, by

statute or as a constitutional requirement.

In examining this matter, the panel fnds that thestate o Colorado would be well served by the

existence o a periodic Constitutional Revision

Commission. Central to this fnding is the

commissions ability to take proposals relating to a

limited number o constitutional articles directly

to the voters. In such cases, a CRC provides the

opportunity or broad periodic review without the

danger o wholesale constitutional revision.

With a mandate to take a broad look at the

constitution, a CRC would be able to identiy

conicting provisions and make recommendations

that respond to the interrelationships o various

provisions within the constitution. It would not

be limited to single-subject revisions; rather it

could address the real-world issues o interrelated

constitutional provisions.

Del Hock, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

20


23/32

In terms o the structure o the Constitutional

Revision Commission, the panel avors a

modifcation o an approach that has been used

with increasing success or some 20 years in Florida.

Tis approach provides, by constitution, or the

automatic creation o a CRC on a periodic basis.

Te commission is empowered to look at the

constitution broadly and may take recommended

changes directly to voters or their consideration.

Te panel recommends that Colorado adopt

an amendment to our constitution to create a

Constitutional Revision Commission that meets

periodically to provide a review of the constitution and

recommend proposed changes directly to the voters.

Te panel fnds signifcant advantages to the idea

o a constitutional revision commission. Te

recommended structure reects what the panel

believes to be an eective process or periodic

constitutional review and revision. Particulars o the

Colorado Constitutional Revision Commission are as

ollows:

A Colorado Constitutional Revision Commission,

established by constitutional provision, would

automatically come into existence every 10 years.

In the year prior to the automatic creation o the

commission, the governor, with the advice o the

legislative leadership, would appoint a planning

committee to establish logistics and recommend

a budget or the Constitutional Revision

Commission. Te planning committee would be

politically balanced, composed o Republicans,

Democrats, una liated members and possibly

representation rom signifcant minority parties.

Te legislature would be required to und the

CRC at an appropriate level, including unding or

public hearings, meetings, sta, research, et cetera.

Te Constitutional Revision Commission

would be politically representative, composed

o 33 members, none o whom could be

current state legislators or holders o other

statewide o ces, appointed as ollows:

Governor: 10 appointments, with

representation based upon the percent o

voters registered as Republicans, Democrats,

and una liated, along with minority

parties meeting a threshold that represent a

signifcant number o registered voters

Conventions are usually called in response to a crisis.Acting before the crisis occurs is a better approach.

Marguerite Salazar, 2007 ColoradoConstitution Panel member

21


24/32

Speaker o the House and President

o the Senate: 20 appointments total,

10 each, with representation based

upon the political composition o each

body (i.e. percentage o Republicans,

Democrats, una liated and signifcant

minority parties)

Supreme Court: 3 appointments

Members o the Constitutional Revision

Commission would receive no salary or other

compensation except or reimbursement o

reasonable personal expenses.

Te commission would meet or up to one

year. Te CRC would be empowered to review

the entire constitution and could recommend

revisions aecting no more than one-third o the

existing articles o the constitution.

Prior to proposing revisions to the

constitution, the commission would be

required to hold at least one public hearing in

each congressional district in Colorado.

In order to approve a proposed amendment or

consideration by the voters, the commission

would require a two-thirds vote o all members.

Te CRCs constitutional revision proposals

would not be bound by the single-subject rule.

Te frst Colorado Constitutional Revision

Commission would begin meeting two

years aer approval o the constitutional

amendment establishing the commission.

During the year prior to the commissions

meeting, the planning committee would

handle preparations and the legislature would

appropriate unds or the commissions work.

Aer the initial CRC cycle, the commission

would come into being every 10 years by

operation o the constitutional provision.

Steve Halstedt, 2007 Colorado ConstitutionPanel member

22


25/32

Te panel believes that the Colorado Constitutional

Revision Commission is a positive mechanism or

providing much-needed periodic constitutional

review and revision. It is important to note that

the role o the CRC is to rationalize and reconcile

a limited number of existing provisions o the

constitution. Unlike a constitutional convention, the

CRC cannot propose wholly new sections or create

a new constitution.

Although its powers are limited to revising the

existing document, a Constitutional Revision

Commission would ulfll a critical need in

Colorado. It would provide, or the frst time, a

practical means o resolving internal conicts

within the constitution, including the tangled knot

o conicting fscal provisions that exists today. A

Commission could recommend revisions to resolve

unintended consequences o amendments and

could rationalize the mass o detailed provisions

that burden the constitution.

At the moment, short o calling a constitutional

convention, there is no certain means o

accomplishing these very important tasks. For

these reasons, the panel believes that the creation

o a Colorado Constitutional Revision Commission

is an essential step to solve todays issues and to

secure the uture o Colorados Constitution.

... the Colorado Constitutional Revision Commission is a positive mechanismfor providing much-needed periodic constitutional review and revision.

Jennier Bowser, program principal,Legislative Management, National Coner-

ence o State Legislatures, speaks with the 2007Colorado Constitution Panel.

23


26/32

Recommendation 1

Retain Process for Referred Amendments

Te panel fnds that the legislative reerral process

or constitutional amendments unctions well

and does not require revision. Tus, the panel

recommends that the process or legislatively

reerred constitutional amendments remain intact.

Recommendation 2

Preserve the Right of Citizen Initiative

Te ability o citizens to introduce statutes or

amendments to the constitution through direct

petition is, to many, a cherished right, and one

that the panel supports. Te panel recommends

that the right o citizen initiative be retained; with

modifcations to the processes or citizen-initiated

constitutional amendments and special protections

or citizen-initiated statutes.

Recommendation 3

Strengthen Citizen-Initiated Statutes

While there is no eective means o changing

or removing a constitutional amendment once

enacted, a statute can be revised i necessary to

take account o changing conditions. Since the

only certainty is change, the panel considers the

exibility o initiated statutes to be very desirable

compared to the rigidity o locking policy

provisions into the constitution. For this reason, the

panel believes that the right o statutory initiative

is important to the citizens o Colorado and

recommends that the right o statutory initiative be

preserved in its present orm and strengthened.

Recommendation 4

Provide Special Protection

for Citizen-Initiated Statutes

In order to encourage statutory rather than

constitutional initiatives, the panel proposes that

initiated statutes be given a high level o protection

rom legislative changes. Specifcally, the panel

recommends that initiated statutes not be subject to

any amendments by the legislature or 10 years without

a two-thirds vote. In practical terms, achieving a two-

thirds majority o those legislators voting would be

possible only with a widely shared consensus that the

initiated statute was in urgent need o modifcation.

Recommendation 5

Maintain Tresholds for Initiated Statutes

Colorado has the lowest signature burden or

initiative petitions o any state and requires

only a simple majority to adopt a statutory or

constitutional initiative. Raising the number o

Summary of Panel Recommendations

24


27/32

signatures required to place an item on the ballot

or requiring a super-majority vote or the passage

o an initiative are ideas that have been oered.

In listening to constitutional experts, the panel is

persuaded that increasing the number o signatures

needed or requiring a super-majority election

vote is not likely to reduce the number o petitions

rom large, well-unded special interests. Rather,

the ones disadvantaged would be local grass-rootsorganizations. Tereore, the panel recommends that

the current number o signatures required or statutory

initiatives and the simple majority requirement or

voter approval both remain unchanged.

Recommendation 6

Reform Initiated Constitutional

Amendment Process

Constitutions are oundational documents that aect

the lives o all citizens and the operation o every

organization. As such, they should be changeable, but

not easily changed. Any time a constitutional change

is presented, every eort should be made to assure

that the proposal receives careul consideration and

the public receives accurate, balanced inormation.

o achieve these goals, the panel recommends that

Colorado adopt a process or initiated constitutional

amendments that requires petitioners to engage with

elected representatives o the people while protecting

the petitioners absolute right to have citizens vote

on their proposal afer public hearings. Te panel

calls this the Colorado Legislative Engagement and

Reerral (CLEAR) process and believes it refects

the traditions o openness and collaboration that

underlie the culture o our state.

Recommendation 7

Broaden Tresholds

for Constitutional Initiatives

Because o the concern that real Colorado-based

grass-roots organizations not be disadvantaged

relative to large national special interest groups, the

panel does not recommend increasing either the number

o signatures required or changing the simple majority

vote required, even or constitutional initiatives.

At the same time, because constitutional amendments

can have a proound eect upon citizens and

businesses throughout the state, the panel is

concerned that citizens throughout Colorado, not

just those on the more populous Front Range, be

represented in the initiative process. With this in

25


28/32

mind, the panel recommends that petition signatures

or initiatives to amend the Colorado Constitution must

be collected rom a majority o Colorados congressional

districts. Te ormula or this distribution will need

to be determined, however it is the panels intent

to assure that Colorado citizens rom throughout

the state be included in the process o initiated

constitutional amendments.

Recommendation 8

Expand Voter Information

Providing voters with accurate, balanced

inormation on proposed constitutional

amendments is a primary objective o several

o the panels recommendations. Te panel

commends the Colorado Legislative Council or its

eorts to inorm voters through the Blue Book and

urges the legislature to continue supporting the

councils activities.

In addition to the inormation provided by the

state o Colorado, the panel recommends a more

extensive, independent analysis o the implications

o proposed constitutional amendments, especially

tax measures or proposals with broad applicability.

o that end, the panel recommends thatprivate,

independent nonproft organizations be encouraged

to conduct analyses o initiated or reerred proposals

and share their conclusions with the public.

Recommendation 9

Show Fiscal-Impact Analysis on Ballot

Te Colorado Legislative Council currently provides a

fscal analysis o proposed amendments as a part o its

Blue Book analysis or voters. Te panel believes the

fscal analysis should also appear, in summary ashion,

on the ballot alongside the proposal.

Tereore, the panel recommends that all proposed

constitutional amendments and statutory initiatives

be accompanied by a fscal-impact statement, copies

o which shall be made available at the CLEAR

legislative hearings anda summarized version o which

also appear on the ballot alongside the proposal. Te

panel believes that ull disclosure o the fnancial

implications associated with a proposal is in the

interest o all voters.

Recommendation 10

Call for a Constitutional Convention Unnecessary

Tere is little question that Colorado needs a

method or periodically revising its constitution. A

constitutional convention is one way o dealing with

the multiple subjects required in a constitutional

Summary of Panel Recommendations

26


29/32

revision process, but it is not the only means o doing

so. Te panel shares the concerns o those who are

reluctant to open up the entire constitution to the

possibility o wholesale rewriting. For that reason, the

panel recommends against convening a constitutional

conventionat this point in Colorados history.

Recommendation 11

Use of a Limited Constitutional Convention Unclear

It is not at all clear whether Colorado could legallycall a constitutional convention that was limited to

one or more predefned subjects. However, both

limited and unlimited conventions are very di cult

to convene, requiring super-majority votes in both

houses and multiple elections.

While a limited convention may be more appealing

than an open convention, the panel believes that

the use o a Constitutional Revision Commission

is a better solution. It has the advantage o

providing regular, periodic review and making

recommendations to voters, without the potential

liability o making wholesale changes to the

constitution. Tereore the panel recommends

against using a limited constitutional convention

ormat in avor o the more desirable Constitutional

Revision Commission.

Recommendation 12

Establish a Constitutional Revision Commission

Te panel fnds that the state o Colorado would

be well served by the existence o a periodic

Constitutional Revision Commission with the

ability to take proposals relating to a limited

number o articles directly to the voters. Such a

commission will provide the opportunity or broad

periodic review without the danger o wholesale

constitutional revision. Te Constitutional Revision

Commission would not be limited to single-subject

revisions; rather it could address the real-world

issues o interrelated constitutional provisions.

Te panel recommends that Colorado adopt

an amendment to our constitution to create a

Constitutional Revision Commission that meets

periodically to provide a review of the constitution andrecommend proposed changes directly to the voters.

Te CRC would exist by constitutional provision

that would require a commission to be created every

10 years. Politically representative in nature, the

commission would be empowered to look at the

constitution broadly and take recommended changes

directly to voters or their consideration.

27


30/32

Tis report represents the consensus o the 2007 Colorado Constitution Panel. It was written by James

Griesemer, proessor and dean emeritus o the Daniels College o Business and director o the DU StrategicIssues Program with editorial assistance provided by Sarah Arbuthnot, program assistant.

Te Colorado Constitution Panel wishes to acknowledge and extend its appreciation to the ollowing

individuals whose expertise contributed to the process and the report:

Jennier Bowser, Program Principal, Legislative Management Program, National Conerence

o State Legislatures

Charles S. Brown, Director, Center or Colorados Economic Future, University o Denver

Douglas G. Brown, Former Director o the Colorado Of ce o Legislative Legal Services

Richard B. Collins, Proessor o Law and Director o the University o Colorado Law SchoolsByron R. White Center or the Study o American Constitutional Law

John Dinan, Associate Proessor o Political Science, Wake Forest University

Brenda Erickson, Program Principal, Legislative Management Program, National Conerence

o State Legislatures

Honorable Andrew Romanof, Speaker o the House, Representative District 6

Rebecca Mae Salokar, Associate Proessor o Political Science, Florida International University

G. Alan Tarr, Director o the Center or State Constitutional Studies and Distinguished Proessor

o Political Science, Rutgers UniversityCamden

Honorable Al White, Representative District 57

Robert F. Williams, Associate Director o the Center or State Constitutional Studies and DistinguishedProessor o Law, Rutgers UniversityCamden.

We thankPhyllis Resnick who provided research assistance throughout the program, Lisa Mattiace o

the Daniels College o Business or her advice and assistance, and Sarah Arbuthnotor her support o thepanels activities.

Finally, we wish to extend special appreciation to University o Denver Chancellor Robert D. Coombe

or his support o the Strategic Issues Program and to Provost Gregg Kvistador his advice and guidance

throughout the programs operation. Teir commitment to supporting the public good in Colorado has

been instrumental to the panels work.

Acknowledgements

28


31/32

Members of the 2007 Colorado

Constitution Panel:

Jim Griesemer, Chair

Professor and Dean Emeritus, Daniels College

of Business, University of Denver

Chris Diamond

President & COO, Steamboat Ski & Resort

Corporation

Cathey Finlon

Chairman & CEO, McClain Finlon

Advertising

Jerry Groswold

Consultant/Retired

Steve Halstedt

Managing Director, Centennial Ventures

Del Hock

Retired CEO & Chairman, Public Service

Company of Colorado

Hal Logan

Private Investments

Donna Lynne

CEO, Kaiser Colorado

Kim PatmoreExecutive Vice President & CFO, First Data

Corporation

Richard Robinson

CEO, Robinson Dairy

Marguerite Salazar

President & CEO, Valley-Wide Health Systems

Tomas Williams

President & CEO, Te Williams Group

Jon Zeschin

President & CEO, Essential Advisers, Inc.

Panel Members

29

Foundation of a Great State: The Future of Colorado's Constitution

Documents

Transcript of Foundation of a Great State: The Future of Colorado's Constitution