Joint Committee Committee on Legislative Council (09/06/2006)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Date:	09/06/2006	ATTENDANCE

Time:	09:36 AM to 05:03 PM	Butcher	X
		Cadman	*
Place:	LSB A	Cerbo	X
		Garcia	*
This Meeting was called to order by		Gordon	X
	Representative Romanoff	Groff	X
		Harvey	X
This Report was prepared by		Hoppe	X
	Jennifer Thomsen	Johnson	E
		Madden	*
		May M.	X
		McElhany	X
		Spence	X
		Teck	X
		Tupa	X
		Windels	X
		Fitz-Gerald	X
		Romanoff	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
Speaker's remarks Kirk Mlinek Referendum E Referendum F Referendum G Referendum H Referendum I Referendum J Recess Referendum K Referendum J/39 Referendum K Amendment 38 Amendment 40 Referendum K (continued) Amendment 41		- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

09:37 AM -- Speaker's Remarks

The meeting was called to order by the chair, Speaker Romanoff. He made opening comments explaining the purpose of the meeting. He described the ballot analysis process followed by Legislative Council Staff and explained the role of the Legislative Council in reviewing the blue book. (A notebook containing the final staff draft of each ballot analysis, comments to the final draft from interested parties, a copy of the last draft mailed to interested parties, the contact list for each measure, and the text of each measure is appended as Attachment A.)

09:40 AM -- Kirk Mlinek's Remarks

Mr. Kirk Mlinek, Director, Legislative Council Staff, made opening comments. He decribed the blue book process and the applicable statutes and rules. Mr. Mlinek acknowledged Legislative Council Staff for their work on the blue book. He described the notebooks provided to the members of the committee and told the committee what to expect during the meeting. He walked through the first section of the notebook, describing the contents.

09:45 AM -- Referendum E

Mike Mauer and Josh Harwood, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to describe the final staff draft of the ballot analysis for Referendum E. Mr. Mauer described Referendum E, which concerns a property tax reduction for disabled veterans. He walked the committee through the final staff draft, which explains how the program works, provides examples of the reduction for qualified veterans, provides arguments in favor and in opposition to the referendum and estimates the fiscal impact of the measure.

09:47 AM

Mr. Harwood described the arguments for and against the measure.

09:48 AM

The following persons testified:

Senator John Evans, proponent of Referendum E, testified. Senator Evans thanked staff for their work on the ballot analysis. He addressed comments submitted to the draft. Senator Evans expressed concern with the use of the term "special interest." He expressed support for the term "special class" instead. Senator Evans described the number of veterans who would be eligible for the property tax reduction. He noted that the committee would hear from a disabled veteran on that issue. Senator Gordon thanked Senator Evans for his work on this issue.

09:54 AM

Mr. Douglas Bruce, representing himself, testified. Mr. Bruce went through his comments on the staff draft of the analysis. He noted that he feels the staff arguments are weaker than the arguments he is proposing. He described his suggested changes outlining his suggested arguments for the committee.

09:59 AM

Mr. Bruce continued his remarks. He said there should be at least three arguments for and against each measure, rather than the current two per side. Mr. Bruce highlighted his suggested argument, which addresses amending the state constitution. He continued, describing his reasoning for his argument concerning Referendum C. Mr. Bruce spoke to his argument that states that the measure provides unequal treatment. He spoke to the issue of a surviving spouse, to which, he said the tax break does not apply.

10:05 AM

Mr. Artie Guerrero, chairman of the committee to support Referendum E, testified. Mr. Guerrero expressed concern with the term "special interest." He said disabled veterans are not a special interest group. He noted this group has a special need. Mr. Guerrero said the text on page 3, line 15 of the final staff draft, concerning the federal government, should be removed. He expressed his concerns with argument number 2 against the measure. He spoke to a number of the arguments suggested by Mr. Bruce. He said citizens have a responsibility to veterans and asked the committee to keep that in mind.

10:13 AM

Mr. Guerrero responded to a question from Senator Spence regarding classification of disability. He also responded to a question from Representative Cadman regarding 100% incapacitation versus 100% disability classification and a question regarding taxation of disability benefits. He provided numbers of veterans that would qualify for the reduction under Referendum E. Discussion between Mr. Guerrero and Representative Cadman continued regarding Representative Cadman's questions.

10:19 AM

Speaker Romanoff put the draft on the table for amendments. The committee discussed the amendment proposed by Representative May.


BILL:	Referendum E
TIME:	10:19:30 AM
MOVED:	May M.
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 3, line 18, remove the reference to what voters might believe. Not having received the required 12 votes to pass, the motion failed on a 9-7-2 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Harvey
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	No
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Excused
	May M.	Yes
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	No
	Romanoff	Yes
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 7 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

10:26 AM -- Referendum F

Susan Liddle, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to describe the ballot analysis for Referendum F. She recognized staff who worked on the analysis. Ms. Liddle walked through the final staff draft for the committee. Referendum F concerns recall deadlines. Ms. Liddle described each section of the staff draft including the summary and analysis and arguments for and against the measure. She noted there is no expected fiscal impact. Ms. Liddle referred the committee to Mr. Douglas Bruce's comments. She noted that staff agrees with Mr. Bruce's comment that the measure applies only to state officeholders. She also addressed his comment regarding statutory deadlines. Ms. Liddle spoke to Mr. Bruce's comments regarding state versus statewide officeholders and the number of days in the deadlines.

10:32 AM

The following person testified:

10:32 AM

Mr. Douglas Bruce testified as an opponent of the measure. He walked through his comments, beginning with his concern that voters are not referred to the section of the state constitution being amended. He expressed concern that the background section does not state that in recent years only one elected state official, and no statewide elected official, has been recalled. He continued describing his suggestions to the committee. He stated that the current statutory deadline is unconstitutional and expressed his desire to have that indicated in the analysis. He expressed his concerns with the measure.

10:40 AM

Mr. Bruce continued describing his concerns to the committee, describing his concerns with argument number two in favor of the measure. He then moved on to his suggestions regarding the arguments against the measure. He expressed his concern that the arguments do not mention lack of cure. Mr. Bruce described his suggested new argument number three against the measure. He said there should be at least three arguments for and against the measure rather than the current two. Mr. Bruce expressed his concern about the ballot analysis process and changes to the draft. He highlighted concerns he has with the table on page two of the final staff draft.

10:49 AM

Speaker Romanoff put the analysis on the table for amendment. Representative Hoppe expressed her concern that it may not be clear to voters whether a measure is a statutory or a constitutional amendment.


BILL:	Referendum F
TIME:	10:50:31 AM
MOVED:	Hoppe
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft of the analysis for each referendum and amendment to make it clear on each measure whether the referendum or amendment proposes a constitutional or a statutory change by indicating such in a larger, bold, underlined font. The amendment passed on a 13-3-2 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Teck
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	No
	Groff	No
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Excused
	May M.	Yes
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	Yes
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	Yes
Not Final YES: 13 NO: 3 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	Referendum F
TIME:	10:55:49 AM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 3, strike lines 9 through 22 (the arguments against the measure) and substitute Mr. Bruce's suggested arguments. The motion failed on a 4-12-2 vote.
SECONDED:	Harvey
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	No
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	No
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	No
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Excused
	May M.	No
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	No
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	No
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 4 NO: 12 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Referendum F
TIME:	10:57:41 AM
MOVED:	Teck
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 1, line 1 strike "the" and substitute "section 2 of article XXI". The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Hoppe
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Excused
	May M.
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

10:59 AM -- Referendum G

Jason Schrock, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to describe the ballot analysis for Referendum G, which removes obsolete provisions from the state constitution. He walked through the analysis, including the summary and analysis section and the arguments for and against the measure. He noted there is no fiscal impact. Mr. Schrock responded to committee questions regarding the argument against the measure.

11:01 AM

Committee discussed the amendment proposed by Representative May. Deb Godshall, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to address a question regarding the balance of arguments for and against. Speaker Romanoff referred the committee to the constitutional provision regarding the blue book, which requires arguments for and against each measure.


BILL:	Referendum G
TIME:	11:01:52 AM
MOVED:	May M.
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 2, strike lines 1 through 4. Not having received the 12 votes required to pass, the motion failed on a 9-6-2-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Cadman
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	No
	Groff	No
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Excused
	May M.	Yes
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	No
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	Absent
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 6 EXC: 2 ABS: 1 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

11:07 AM -- Referendum H

Mike Mauer and Ron Kirk, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to to describe the ballot analysis for Referendum H, which limits the state business income tax deduction. He walked through the summary and analysis portion of the document for the committee. Mr. Kirk described the arguments for and against the measure. He described the potential fiscal impact of the measure.

11:10 AM

Douglas Bruce testified as an opponent of the measure. Mr. Bruce began by expressing concern about the estimate of fiscal impact for the measure. Speaker Romanoff asked Mr. Mlinek to come to the table to address the fiscal note issue. Mr. Mlinek described the fiscal note process for measures with TABOR impact, which is pursuant to state statute.

11:16 AM

Mr. Bruce began his remarks to the ballot analysis, beginning with the summary and analysis. He described his concerns with the arguments, describing several arguments he would advocate as replacements for the arguments in the staff draft. Mr. Bruce spoke to the issue of the estimate of fiscal impact, expressing concern with it. Mr. Bruce expressed concern that there are only two arguments for and two arguments against the measure in the staff draft. He referred the committee to nine suggested arguments he provided in his comments to staff. He then returned to the issue of the estimate of fiscal impact.

11:27 AM

Speaker Romanoff asked Legislative Council Staff for clarification of the use of "wages" versus "wages or other compensation" in the staff draft. Mr. Mauer came to the table to respond.


BILL:	Referendum H
TIME:	11:28:23 AM
MOVED:	Hoppe
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 1, line 16, after "wages", insert "or other compensation paid". The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Romanoff
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden
	May M.
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	Referendum H
TIME:	11:29:21 AM
MOVED:	Teck
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 1, line 29, strike "pay higher". Page 2, line 1, strike "wages to" and substitute "that hire". Not having received the 12 votes required to pass, the motion failed on a 9-8-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Hoppe
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	No
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	No
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	No
	May M.	Yes
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	No
	Romanoff	Yes
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 8 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Referendum H
TIME:	11:31:10 AM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 2, line 8, strike "taxes." and sustitute "taxes, but tax preparation time and cost will increase". The motion failed on an 8-9-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	May M.
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	No
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	No
	May M.	Yes
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	No
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 8 NO: 9 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

11:33 AM -- Referendum I

Carl Jarrett, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to review the analysis for Referendum I, which concerns domestic partnerships. Mr. Jarrett thanked staff who worked on the analysis. He walked through the analysis for the committee, describing the summary and analysis section and the arguments for and against the measure. He referred the committee to a staff amendment (Attachment B), which makes a correction to the estimated fiscal impact. He noted that the fee referred to in the estimate of fiscal impact increased on July 1 of this year, which necessitated the amendment to the analysis.

11:38 AM

Mr. Jarrett responded to a question from Representative Garcia regarding the arguments against the proposal.

11:38 AM

The following person testified:

Mr. Pat Steadman, Equal Rights Colorado and Coloradans for Fairness, testified. He thanked Legislative Council Staff for their work. He said he feels the analysis is balanced and fair. He expressed support for several specific portions of the analysis and asked that the committee not make any changes to the analysis.


BILL:	Referendum I
TIME:	11:41:39 AM
MOVED:	Fitz-Gerald
MOTION:	Moved the staff amendment (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Butcher
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden
	May M.
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

11:43 AM -- Referendum J/Amendment 39

Chris Ward, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to explain the ballot analysis for Referendum J and Amendment 39, concerning school district spending requirements. He walked through the summary and analysis and the arguments for and against the measure.

11:47 AM

Mr. Ward explained that combining the two measures would eliminate repetition in the blue book since the measures contain many of the same requirements. Mr. Ward responded to questions from the committee regarding what would happen if both measures were to pass, noting that districts would presumably have to comply with both measures, but noting that it would be up to the court to decide if a challenge were filed. Generally, he said, the constitutional provisions of Amendment 39 would supersede the statutory provisions of Referendum J. Speaker Romanoff asked that Legislative Legal Services staff be called to comment on that point. Speaker Romanoff stated that he would like to separate the two measures, rather than having them combined in one portion of the blue book. There was discussion about separating the measures.


BILL:	Referendum J
TIME:	11:56:41 AM
MOVED:	Romanoff
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft by separating the analysis of the two measures, while giving a reference in the blue book to where the other measure is located in the booklet. The motion passed on a 16-1-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Groff
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	Yes
	Groff	Yes
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Yes
	May M.	Yes
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	Yes
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	Yes
Not Final YES: 16 NO: 1 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

12:00 PM

The following person testified:

Tony Salazar, representing Coloradans for Excellent Schools, testified. He asked the committee not to make any substantive changes to the ballot analysis. He responded to a question from Senator Windels, noting that an emphasis on the fact that one measure proposes a constitutional change and the other a statutory change is good. President Fitz-Gerald asked Mr. Salazar to comment on comments provided by Vicki Newell, who commented that bot measures may violate the local control provisions of the state constitution. Senator Spence commented on the issue of local control as well.

12:03 PM

Speaker Romanoff stated that consideration of the final staff draft of the ballot analysis would remain open pending the opportunity for a member of Legislative Legal Services staff to comment on what would happen if both measures pass. The committee recessed.

01:04 PM -- Referendum J/Amendment 39 (continued)

Julie Pelegrin, Legislative Legal Services, came to the table to discuss what would happen if both Referendum J and Amendment 39 pass. She stated that the Colorado Department of Education would have to implement both. If they find a conflict, she said, the provisions in the Constitution would prevail. Ms. Pelegrin explained the differences between the two measures. The speaker asked that staff draft language for the analysis stating what would happen if both were to pass.

01:08 PM

Mr. Ward returned to the table to discuss what might be included in the proposed language and agreed to come back to the committee with the drafted language. The committee discussed the proposal.

01:13 PM -- Referendum K

Carl Jarrett, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to present the ballot analysis for Referendum K, which requires the state to sue the federal government to demand enforcement of federal immigration laws. He discussed a staff amendment (Attachment C), which was due to comments received after the final draft was completed. Mr. Jarrett responded to questions about state enforcement of federal immigration laws, stating that states can only enforce federal criminal laws, not civil laws.

01:21 PM

Mr. Jarrett responded to a question from Speaker Romanoff regarding the argument against the measure. The Speaker spoke to the staff amendment, expressing concern about the language in the amendment. Committee discussion on state enforcement of federal immigration law ensued. Mr. Jarrett offered to amend the language of the argument against to address the committee's concerns about enforcement of immigration laws. The Speaker took the analysis off the table to allow staff time to work on the language in question.

01:27 PM -- Amendment 38

Cathy Eslinger, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to present the ballot analysis for Amendment 38. Amendment 38 adds a new section to the state constitution regarding citizen petitions. She described the summary and analysis section of the ballot analysis. She described a proposed staff amendment (Attachment D) making a change to Table 1 in the analysis. She noted that there are four arguments for and four against the measure. She outlined the arguments to the committee. Ms. Eslinger described the estimate of fiscal impact, noting state and local impact.

01:33 PM

Ms. Eslinger responded to questions from the committee. President Fitz-Gerald noted that citizens may not understand that counties are a subdivision of the state. Speaker Romanoff provided clarification to the President's question. Ms. Eslinger responded noting that the focus of that part of the analysis is current law. Representative Hoppe asked a question about the estimated fiscal impact and how it was determined. Brad Denning, Legislative Council Staff, came to the table to address questions about the estimated fiscal impact. Mr. Denning described how that estimate was reached. He related a number of statistics to the committee regarding petitions submitted to the Legislative Council Staff. Representative Hoppe made follow-up comments to the fiscal estimate.

01:39 PM

Senator Teck made further remarks to the fiscal impact of the measure, noting its wide impact. Mr. Denning responded to Senator Teck's comments. Representative Cerbo asked additional questions about the numbers used to arrive at the fiscal estimate.

01:42 PM

The following persons testified:

Douglas Campbell, a proponent of the measure, testified. Mr. Campbell said the scope of the measure does not apply to administrative decisions, only to laws. Mr. Campbell noted that a number of petitions that are filed with the Legislative Council Staff are reiterations of previous filings, not new filings. He commented on the length and complexity of the initiative process and noted that the intent of the measure is to simplify. Mr. Campbell spoke to the estimate of fiscal impact relating a number of statistics on the number of initiatives and referenda in past years.

01:48 PM

Mr. Campbell continued, discussing the tables contained in the analysis. He commented that he does not believe the information contained in the boxes is helpful to the average voter. He made a number of recommendations to remove some of the information. Representative Cerbo remarked on gathering petition signatures.

01:51 PM

Mr. Dennis Polhill, a proponent of the measure, testified. Mr. Polhill spoke to the estimate of fiscal impact. He noted that the fiscal impact is indeterminate. Mr. Polhill provided two handouts to the committee (Attachments E and F). He described trends in the number of petitions filed year to year. Mr. Polhill responded to a comment from President Fitz-Gerald regarding the estimated fiscal impact. Speaker Romanoff asked wrap-up questions of Mr. Polhill.

02:01 PM

Representative Butcher asked about the applicability of the measure to specific local entities.

02:02 PM

Douglas Bruce testified. He responded to the President's earlier comments regarding the impact of the measure. He responded to additional questions from President Fitz-Gerald regarding whether additional text is needed in the blue book specifying which decisions by a local or county body are considered legislative decisions. Mr. Bruce commented on the assumptions used in the estimate of fiscal impact.

02:10 PM

Mr. Bruce continued describing his objections to the estimate of fiscal impact. Mr. Bruce referred the committee to his handout entitled "Some Savings from Amendment 38" (Attachment G). He continued with his remarks to the estimate of fiscal impact.

02:18 PM

Mr. Bruce continued his testimony, saying that the analysis is too long. He said there are 45 boxes in the analysis, making the measure more complicated than needed. He said there is information in the boxes that has no bearing for many citizens. He suggested a number of specific boxes in the analysis that should be deleted. He referred the committee to his comments on the final draft, which contains his suggestions for shortening the analysis.

02:24 PM

Mr. Bruce continued his testimony, commenting that he does not believe the amendment is treated fairly in the analysis. Mr. Bruce commented on the fact that the word "petitions" is not used in the bullet points. He outlined a number of suggested changes to the bullet points. He continued his testimony, relating his suggestions regarding the summary and analysis portion of the analysis.

02:31 PM

Mr. Bruce continued his testimony regarding the summary and analysis portion of the ballot analysis. Mr. Bruce continued to express a number of concerns with the tables in the ballot analysis and he suggested that a number be deleted and others be amended. He commented on the use of the safety clause by the General Assembly and the number of citizen challenges to laws adopted by the General Assembly. He continued, expressing his concerns with the argument section of the analysis.

02:39 PM

Mr. Bruce continued his testimony.

02:40 PM

John Hershey, Office of Legislative Legal Services, came to the table to address questions regarding the scope of the measure and the definition of "legislative policy." Mr. Hershey responded to a number of follow-up questions from Speaker Romanoff. He responded to a question from Representative Madden regarding whether citizens would continue to have the right to sue challenging the constitutionality of a law. Representative Butcher asked if "elected officials" is a term used in the measure itself. Mr. Hershey said the only use of the term is in section (3) (b) of the measure. Mr. Hershey responded to follow-up questions about the applicability of the measure from Representative Butcher.

02:49 PM

Mr. Hershey responded to a question from Speaker Romanoff regarding the product of legislative process. Ms. Eslinger responded to questions from Representative Cadman regarding the arguments against the measure and who had input into those arguments.


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	02:54:44 PM
MOVED:	Garcia
MOTION:	Moved the staff amendment (Attachment D), as amended (see next vote sheet). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Tupa
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden
	May M.
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	02:56:16 PM
MOVED:	Fitz-Gerald
MOTION:	Moved an amendment to the staff amendment. Insert "additional", before the second "ten days". The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Butcher
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden
	May M.
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	02:58:21 PM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 6, strike lines 5 through 18 and substitute with Mr. Bruce's suggested statement of estimated fiscal impact. The motion failed on a 7-9-2 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	McElhany
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	No
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	No
	May M.	Yes
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	No
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 7 NO: 9 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	03:03:23 PM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 5, lines 24, strike "By easing current requirements, the citizen petition process"; line 25, strike "could become a powerful mechanism for placing numerous measures on the ballot.". The motion failed on a 3-12-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	McElhany
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	No
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	No
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	No
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	No
	Teck	No
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	No
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 3 NO: 12 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	03:05:45 PM
MOVED:	Madden
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 4, line 39, strike "could not be challenged by voters because they". Not having received the required 12 votes to pass, the motion failed on a 9-6-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Cerbo
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	No
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	No
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Yes
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	No
	Spence	No
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	Yes
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	Yes
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 6 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	03:11:11 PM
MOVED:	Gordon
MOTION:	Moved a substitute motion, page 4, line 39, after "voters", insert "by petition". Not having received the required 12 votes to pass, the motion failed on a 8-7-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Tupa
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	Yes
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	No
	Hoppe	No
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	No
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	Yes
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	Yes
Not Final YES: 8 NO: 7 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	03:18:58 PM
MOVED:	Madden
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 5, line 14, strike "that have not received sufficient refinement and that cannot" and substitute "that are unconstitutional, conflict with current law, or cause serious budgetary problems. Even so, such laws could not". Not having received the required 12 votes to pass, the motion failed on a 11-4-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Butcher
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	Yes
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	No
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Yes
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	No
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	Yes
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	Yes
Not Final YES: 11 NO: 4 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	03:23:31 PM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Moved an amendment to Representative Madden's amendment striking "or cause serious budgetary problems". The motion failed on a 6-9-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Hoppe
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	No
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	No
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	No
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 9 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	03:27:52 PM
MOVED:	Romanoff
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 3, line 1, strike "Voters" and substitute "Registered electors", and after "may", insert "by petition". The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Gordon
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	Amendment 38
TIME:	03:29:44 PM
MOVED:	Butcher
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 5, line 29, strike "today." and substitute "today and may result in laws that may conflict with other laws, may be unconstitutional, or may create budgetary problems.". The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Windels
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

03:43 PM -- Amendment 40

Susan Liddle, Legislative Council Staff, reviewed the final staff draft of the analysis of Amendment 40, concerning term limits on Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Judges. She thanked staff who worked on the analysis. She walked the committee through the summary and analysis section and discussed the arguments provided for and against measure.

03:45 PM

Ms. Liddle responded to a committee question about whether any other states limit the terms of court of appeals and supreme court judges, saying that she is not aware of any.

03:46 PM

The following persons testified:

Robert Miller, representing Vote No on 40, came to the table to discuss the ballot analysis. He provided three specific suggestions for changes.
He advocated language discussing "forcing" judges to leave office. He further discussed potential language regarding the appointment of judges by the governor. He responded to questions from the committee.

03:49 PM

Former Senator John Andrews, representing Limit the Judges Yes on 40, discussed the ballot analysis and offered a suggestion for the first argument in favor of the measure on page 2, lines 8 and 9. His suggestion is to add a new opening sentence to read: "Term limits are a check against the abuse of judicial power, which concerns many citizens today."


BILL:	Amendment 40
TIME:	03:51:49 PM
MOVED:	McElhany
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 2, line 8, strike "By"and substitute "Term limits are a check against the abuse of judicial power, which concerns many citizens today. Additionally, by". The motion failed on a 5-10-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Cadman
		VOTE
	Butcher	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Cerbo	No
	Garcia	No
	Gordon	No
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	No
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	No
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	No
	Windels	No
	Fitz-Gerald	No
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 5 NO: 10 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 40
TIME:	03:54:27 PM
MOVED:	Cerbo
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 2, line 28, strike "leaving" and substitute "forced to leave"; line 32, strike "substantial" and substitute "disproportionate", and line 43, after "judges", insert "to the Court of Appeals and a super-majority of the Supreme Court". The motion passed on a 12-3-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Butcher
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	Yes
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	Yes
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Yes
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	No
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	Yes
	Tupa	Yes
	Windels	Yes
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 12 NO: 3 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	Amendment 40
TIME:	03:56:38 PM
MOVED:	Madden
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 3, line 2, strike "unnecessary." and substitute "unnecessary and no other state has enacted such limits.". Not having received the required 12 votes to pass, the motion failed on a 10-5-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Hoppe
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	Yes
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	No
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Yes
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	No
	Spence	Yes
	Teck	No
	Tupa	Yes
	Windels	Yes
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 10 NO: 5 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 40
TIME:	03:59:12 PM
MOVED:	Butcher
MOTION:	Amend the final staff draft, page 3, strike line 1; line 2, strike "unnecessary." and substitute "Colorado would be the first state to limit the terms of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges.". Not having received the required 12 votes to pass, the motion failed on a 9-6-3 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Madden
		VOTE
	Butcher	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Cerbo	Yes
	Garcia	Yes
	Gordon	Yes
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey	No
	Hoppe	Yes
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden	Yes
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany	No
	Spence	No
	Teck	No
	Tupa	Yes
	Windels	Yes
	Fitz-Gerald	Yes
	Romanoff	No
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 6 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

04:05 PM -- Referendum K (continued)

Carl Jarrett, Legislative Council Staff, discussed clarifying changes staff made to the argument against the measure.


BILL:	Referendum K (continued)
TIME:	04:06:17 PM
MOVED:	Teck
MOTION:	Moved the staff amendment (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Hoppe
		VOTE
	Butcher
	Cadman
	Cerbo
	Garcia
	Gordon
	Groff	Excused
	Harvey
	Hoppe
	Johnson	Excused
	Madden
	May M.	Excused
	McElhany
	Spence
	Teck
	Tupa
	Windels
	Fitz-Gerald
	Romanoff
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

04:07 PM -- Amendment 41

Chris Ward, Legislative Council Staff, discussed the summary and analysis of Amendment 41, concerning standards of conduct in government. He described each section of the analysis including the bullet points, summary, and arguments in favor and against the measure. President Fitz-Gerald asked about how members of the ethics commission would be chosen. Senator McElhany asked what constitutes a government employee. Mr. Ward responded that the measure defines government employees at various levels of government.

04:15 PM

Senator Norma Anderson, representing herself, spoke in opposition to certain parts of the analysis as drafted. She noted her opposition to including such a measure in the state Constitution and that the measure is too far reaching. Senator Anderson explained the proposed changes to the summary and analysis.

04:26 PM

Gregory Williams, Colorado Society of Association Executives, encouraged strengthening language in the analysis regarding to which government employees the proposal applies.

04:27 PM

Jenny Flanagan, Colorado Common Cause, spoke as a proponent of the initiated measure. She discussed the intent of the proponents in sponsoring the measure and the general public support of the proposal. She made comments in response to the opposition's proposed language of the ballot analysis. She expressed concern that information in the blue book be accurate and fair for the voters. She responded to President Fitz-Gerald regarding the subpoena powers of commission members. Common Cause interprets the language as assuming the commission members would be working together when in individual is subpoenaed. Representative Garcia asked for clarification as to whether the dependent of a state or local government employee would be prohibited from accepting a college scholarship because of their relationship. Ms. Flanagan indicated her belief that because the acceptance of the scholarship is not an illegal act, the scholarship money would not fall under the law.

04:49 PM

Bob Lackner, Office of Legislative Legal Services, responded to questions from the committee concerning what types of gifts might come under the definitions in the initiative. Representative Garcia restated his question as to whether a dependent of a government employee would be precluded from receiving benefits such as scholarships. Mr. Lackner indicated that the appropriateness of receiving certain benefits or gifts would be dependent upon the circumstances surrounding the gift. President Fitz-Gerald asked about activities with entities like National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Council of State Governments (CSG) and others because of those entities receipt of corporate funding. In the case of NCSL, as Ms. Flanagan noted, the initiative would not impact legislators or staff participation with the organization, however, activities with other entities that receive more than five percent corporate funding could potentially be prohibited.

05:02 PM

Speaker Romanoff adjourned the meeting until 9:30 tomorrow morning. He reminded Executive Committee members that they will meet at 7:30 a.m.