The Post editorial:

A legal hurdle has snagged Colorado’s new Raise the Bar rules for amending the state constitution.

Alegal hurdle has snagged Colorado’s new Raise the Bar rules for amending the state constitution, and thank goodness. While the voter-approved Amendment 71 meant to make life saner, its key requirement for winning a place on the ballot has never struck us as fair.

Turns out, it’s not. According to District Court Judge William Martinez, the provision stands at odds with protections provided by the law of the land. Martinez took issue last month with 71’s insistence that a citizen measure can go to voters only if at least 2 percent of registered voters from each of the state legislature’s 35 Senate districts sign a petition in support. The judge says the stricture violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

We wanted to support the Raise the Bar effort in 2016. The process for amending Colorado’s constitution was so easy it invited mischief.

Prior to 71’s passage, petitiongathers needed to secure signatures of registered voters equal to at least 5 percent of the total vote in the last race for secretary of state. That done, they needed to convince 50 percent of voters. Now a ballot measure needs 55 percent of the vote to pass, a provision Martinez left in place.

But unless Colorado’s secretary of state provides convincing evidence to the contrary by week’s end, Martinez’s finding should settle the matter.

At issue are the protections provided within the concept of “one person, one vote.” Raise the Bar’s backers rightly note that state Senate districts are drawn based on an equal number of residents as determined by Census figures. But activists who challenged 71 are also correct to see the disparity among the number of registered voters among districts.

Consider a district in Colorado Springs, where many military members and families might account for large Census numbers, but fewer voters registered in Colorado.

Martinez argues simple math supports the argument that voters in districts with low voter rolls hold far more clout than those in districts with large numbers of registered voters. That’s why we don’t draw legislative districts without regard for population; it would be hardly fair for a district with 10 residents, say, to be on equal footing with one that has 10,000.

So it’s similarly unfair to base citizen-initiative requirements on a district’s total population. And yet, in Colorado the voter-role disparity can vary as much as 60 percent among districts.

And though other states have allowed geographic boundaries similar to Colorado’s new rule, Martinez found that apparently in none of them has the question of voter dilution come under review.

Colorado’s deputy secretary of state, Suzanne Staiert tells us the office plans to meet Martinez’s Friday deadline. Expect argument that all the facts aren’t in and analysis that shows districts redrawn to voter-roll specifications would be unworkable.

We’ve argued the 35-districts rule makes it too expensive for all but the most well-heeled campaigns to go to Colorado voters, a violation of the spirit of our state’s citizeninitiative process.

Proponents say they wish to give rural voters more say in the process and that’s certainly laudable. But those good intentions are belied by the fact that much of t he Raise the Bar effort was co-opted by the oil and gas industry to drive a stake through efforts to curtail energy production in our state.

We hope Martinez’s order leads to a better system all around.