Thread: Court bumps illegal alien measure off Colorado ballot

http://www.kaj18.com/Global/story.asp?S=5019188


Court bumps illegal alien measure off Colorado ballot


DENVER An effort to deny most state services to illegal aliens is getting knocked off Colorado's ballot.

The proposed amendment to the state constitution was tripped up by an existing provision of that document. Colorado's Supreme Court says the proposal violates a requirement that initiatives deal only with a single subject.

The unanimous decision deals a setback to supporters, including the governor. Efforts were already under way to collect signatures to get the measure on the November ballot. But backers promise to revise the language and start over.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00541.html

Colo. Ballot Can't Have Immigrant Measure

By JON SARCHE
The Associated Press
Monday, June 12, 2006; 11:47 AM



DENVER -- The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a proposal to deny most state services to illegal immigrants cannot appear on the November ballot.

The proposed constitutional amendment, promoted by Defend Colorado Now, violates a state constitutional requirement that initiatives deal with only one subject, the court said in a 5-2 opinion.

The measure aimed to decrease public spending for the welfare of illegal immigrants in Colorado and restrict access to administrative services, the ruling said.

Proponents, who include former Democratic Gov. Dick Lamm, already had begun gathering petition signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The state Title Board approved the measure's language this spring.

Activist Manolo Gonzalez-Estay challenged the measure in court after the Title Board rejected his request to reconsider its approval of the initiative's language.

Fred Elbel, director of Defend Colorado Now, has said if the court found a problem with the measure, he would revise it and supporters would begin gathering signatures anew. He did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.

The measure would not stop the state from paying for federally mandated services such as public education or emergency medical care. But Elbel has said it would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving welfare and in-state college tuition.

Let's continue to side with illegal parasites and their handlers against our own citizens.......worthless politicians and judges.

'Rules' can be bent when the need arises obviously not a surprise.

Well, the opponents just played their only ace.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 12-ON.html

Colo. court spikes ballot measure dealing with illegals

Associated Press
Jun. 12, 2006 03:11 PM


DENVER - A lightning-rod proposal asking voters to deny most state services to illegal immigrants is likely dead for this year under a Colorado Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday.

In a 4-2 ruling with one justice abstaining, the court said the proposed constitutional amendment cannot appear on the November ballot because it violates a requirement in the constitution that initiatives deal with only one subject.

Supporters cannot start over with a revised proposal because a key deadline has passed, but they said they will ask the court to reconsider.

Defend Colorado Now, the group behind the measure, had already gathered more than 30,000 of the required 68,000 voters' signatures required to qualify for the ballot and was on track to have about 100,000 by the August deadline, said former state Senate President John Andrews, a member of the group's steering committee.

Signature-gathering will continue, he said.

"This legal setback does not diminish the tremendous grass-roots support for voters saying 'enough' on the flood of illegal immigration into our state," Andrews said. "Clearly, voters want this issue on the November ballot and we will keep faith with them until all of our legal options are exhausted."

The court said the proposal dealt with at least two distinct subjects: decreasing public spending for the welfare of illegal immigrants in Colorado and restricting access to administrative services such as recording real estate transactions.

Activist Manolo Gonzalez-Estay challenged the measure in court after the state Title Board, which approves the wording of ballot issues, rejected his request to reconsider its approval of the initiative's language.

"Immigration should be discussed at all tables, but now we can have a rational and reasonable discussion at all levels," he said.

The measure would not stop the state from paying for federally mandated services such as public education or emergency medical care. But supporters said it would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving welfare and in-state college tuition.

They have declined to list all the services that would be affected, saying government is so intertwined into daily life that the list would be "almost endless." The proposal called on the Legislature to describe the affected services.

Former Denver Mayor Federico Pena, who joined a group to oppose the proposal, said the measure could cost state, county and city government millions of dollars because they would have to train employees to identify illegal immigrants and to know which services should be denied.

He also said it could deny people immunizations, prenatal care, access to public libraries or recreation centers and basic services such as trash collection.

"We will be spared a costly and dangerous proposal which would have caused health and safety problems for Coloradans," Pena said. "The ultimate cost to each of us as taxpayers would have far outweighed any perceived savings resulting from denial of so-called nonemergency services."

Proponents, who include former Democratic Gov. Dick Lamm, said the ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions by the court.

"This is outrageous judicial activism, Exhibit A in how courts disregard precedent to reach a political result," Lamm said in a statement. "This isn't law, it is raw, naked politics."

The Supreme Court had approved a similar proposal for the 2004 ballot, rejecting arguments that it was misleading. Proponents were unable to gather enough signatures and it did not get on the ballot.

This year, proponents had argued that the court could not reverse its decision from 2004. The court disagreed, saying the measure had been challenged on different grounds this time, and that state law requires the justices to review any challenges.

In a dissent, Justices Nathan Coats and Nancy Rice expressed concern that the decision was influenced by the motives of the measure's proponents and by its potential effects. They said the court has inconsistently applied the single-subject requirement, giving justices "unfettered discretion to either approve or disapprove virtually any popularly initiated ballot measure at will."

Justice Allison Eid did not participate in the ruling because she was a member of the Title Board when it approved the initiative's language.