Whole new world for state politics
Earlier this year, Mayor Anita “Sweetie” Marbury saw something unusual on the picturesque streets of Durango: young people with clipboards.
“They were sure of their topics and presented well; they weren’t aggressive,” Marbury said. “They were very polite people.”
They were canvassers, gathering signatures for proposed constitutional amendments -- a common sight in big cities ahead of elections, but one that Marbury hadn’t seen since she arrived in 1974 to the southwest Colorado city, population roughly 18,000.
“I think that normally, smaller towns have not been part of the conversation,” she said.
This year was different. In 2016, voters approved an amendment that forced constitutional campaigns to travel to every part of Colorado. Just as supporters promised, the “Raise the Bar” amendment, also known as Amendment 71, gave rural voters more influence over the state’s ballot and likely forced constitutional campaigns to spend hundreds of thousands more dollars.
But the critics of the change see Raise the Bar as a Trojan horse funded by the oil and gas industry -- one that could have undermined new drilling regulations, if they had passed.
“There’s no question it was a reaction to grassroots campaigns that got on the ballot and offered changes to Colorado that threatened special interest groups,” said Owen Perkins, an advocate of campaign finance reform.
Changing the calculus
Colorado is one of 19 states and territories in which citizens can launch initiatives to amend the constitution. In Colorado, campaigns first have to gather voters’ signatures to get on the ballot.
The recent revision makes that harder by requiring signatures from districts across the state rather than allowing campaigns to focus more on the urban Front Range. It also requires that amendments win 55 percent of voters’ approval instead of a simple majority.
“It made it basically impossible for a grassroots campaign to be able to afford the logistics,” said Anne Lee Foster, a key organizer for the Proposition 112 campaign to increase setbacks for new wells. “And that was the purpose of 71 ... to raise the bar so high that only corporate players could afford it.”
Political consultant Rick Ridder estimates that signature-gathering costs increased 25 to 30 percent or more under Colorado’s new law.
That changed the calculus for Foster and
her fellow “fracktivists.” They couldn’t afford to run a constitutional measure, which environmentalists had attempted in 2014 and 2016. This year, it would have cost millions, Foster said.
Instead, they went for a weaker statutory change, cutting the signatures’ cost to $750,000. But the savings came at a cost: Unlike with amendments, state lawmakers can revise or reverse statutory changes. And Gov. John Hickenlooper already has mentioned the possibility of a special session if Prop 112 passes, although his office later said it would be to address technical questions.
Legislators in the past have been “reluctant to displace the exand press will of the voters immediately after something passes,” said Mark Grueskin, an attorney who specializes in legislation and ballot measures.
It appears to be a moot point: Proposition 112 failed Tuesday night.
Still, it’s true that fossil fuel groups were the primary supporters of Raise the Bar. They contributed nearly $5 million, or about 81 percent of the campaign’s budget, in 2016. The initiative passed with 56 percent approval.
Greg Brophy, the former state senator who spearheaded Raise the Bar, said oil and gas supported the measure because it protects all businesses. It’s “working exactly as intended,” by incorporating statewide input and making amendments harder, he said.
Colorado’s signature requirements now are among the broadest, according to information collated by the National Conference of State Legislatures. About half of the citizen-initiative states have rules requiring signatures from different geographic areas, but most of those only require signatures from a portion of the state.
One more wrinkle: A judge struck down the new signature rules in Colorado, but they were left in place for this year. The court battle is likely to continue.
Left standing
Voters decided on three petition-initiated amendments this year.
That’s a drop from 2016’s total of four: the Raise the Bar question, universal health care (failed), cigarette taxes (failed) wages (passed). There have been much busier years, too: Petitions resulted in seven amendment requests in 2006 and 10 in 2008.
This year, the petitioned amendments are:
Amendment 73 to raise income taxes for public schools.
Amendment 74, which requires governments to compensate landowners when regulations hurt property values.
Amendment 75, a campaign finance reform measure.
Six more constitutional questions were placed on the ballot by lawmakers this year. They, too, would have to hit 55 percent.
Brophy, now a political consultant and farmer, pointed to the education taxes campaign as proof that the process is still reasonable.
“My observation is that they did what we said you could do: Have a strong grassroots network and some funding combination and get all your signatures statewide,” he said. The education advocates were able to mobilize a statewide network of volunteer teachers and parents to gather signatures, Ridder said.
Perkins counters that the change has ultimately benefited the wealthiest players. “Amendment 74, which is largely paid for by oil and gas … is on there as an amendment because they have a fairly unlimited budget,” he said.
But that budget evidently wasn’t enough: The measure had only 47 percent support on Tuesday night -- far short of the newly raised bar.