The "Safety Clause" on Colorado laws. My two cents on the ballot issues.
The "Safety Clause" on Colorado laws...
I saw an article in the online newsletter "The Reload" recently (see the first link below) about the Massachusetts governor invoking her legal power to thwart a citizen-led challenge to a recent gun law.
I'll leave it to you to read up on that fight below. Not good in my view, but given that it's Massachusetts, it's not surprising either.
I want to turn to Colorado so that you have a sense of how similar dynamics can (and do) play out here.
Article 5 of our state constitution spells out legislative powers. Interestingly, quite a bit of the text in article 5 relates to things you as a citizens (as opposed to the legislature) can do.
Right up there at the top of, you will see what I copied there in screenshot 1 which comes from the second link below.
Abstracted and simplified, you as a citizen have the right in our state constitution (with conditions on the time and number of signatures, etc.) to repeal any law or part of a law by petitioning and putting it to a vote of the people.
With one exception.
That exception is if the legislature puts a so-called (stay tuned on that) safety clause in the law. See the third link below for some more context on the timeline and the safety clause.
If you are curious as to whether or any given bill has a safety clause, open the full text of the bill and look right above the very end. That's where it will be if there is one. Screenshot 2 is from SB157 linked fourth below and shows its safety clause (the language is always the same, don't expect different for different bills).
One last thing: the state legislature is NOTORIOUS for abusing the safety clause. You have a prime example in SB 157 linked below.
This was the bill that exempted the legislature from Colorado Open Meetings Law. Is any of what this bill does necessary for the "immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety"?
Does any of the bill affect the ability to keep the state running by appropriating money?
No. Neither of these apply, and yet the safety clause is there. This is something else that you'll see that is the same about many bills: there will be a safety clause in things that don't need them.
https://thereload.com/massachusetts-governors-emergency-action-thwarts-challenge-to-gun-control-law/
https://leg.colorado.gov/publications/safety-clauses-and-act-subject-petition-clauses
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-157
My two cents on the ballot issues ...
I recently had a virtual sit down with Rachel Gabel and we talked about ballot issues.
If you've wondered where I stand on them, give the podcast episode below a listen.
My two cents' worth.
Late addition:
Got my ballot last night and it's almost entirely filled out. Struggling mightily with Amendment 80.
The crux of the matter for me is not school choice. Longtime readers will note how much I support this. The crux is having our UBER liberal state courts deciding the meanings of the terms in this amendment.
TABOR was pretty straightforward but look at what a hash they've made of it.
If I can't find a way to clarity here, I may use my default advice and vote NO based on the fact that we can always try again later.
Any measures you're struggling with?
I wrote about the evil safety clause last year when covering a piece about a law to raise and redistribute motor vehicle registration fees to pay for dangerous protected bike lanes.
https://principledbicycling.substack.com/p/this-act-is-necessary-for-the-immediate?utm_source=publication-search
Thanks for the podcast on the blue book. Mostly it helped solidify my decisions, but, like you, I had a few I was not sure of. We seem to think very much alike.