It's not easy to put a measure on the statewide ballot, let alone get most voters to agree with it. But when it comes to constitutional amendments, the task actually isn't hard enough.
The problem is that putting a measure on the ballot to change the Colorado Constitution is the same process as passing an initiated statute. And yet once language is in the constitution, it becomes very difficult to adjust if it doesn't work as planned or if new circumstances undermine its rationale.
On Monday, a committee sent a measure to the full House that would make it more difficult for citizens to put an amendment on the ballot than a proposed statute, and also make it more difficult to pass an amendment. We think House Concurrent Resolution 1002 should be sent to voters so they can rule on it.
However, we also should note that sponsors may have overplayed their hand — just as the authors of ballot measures sometimes do — and written a proposal that could be too strong for voters to accept. Indeed, voters have turned down milder proposals in the past — and as recently as 2008.
The sponsors propose not just boosting the number of signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot; they'd double the number. And then they'd require a certain percentage of signatures be gathered in each of the state's seven congressional districts.
Currently, sponsors of a constitutional amendment have to gather slightly more than 86,000 signatures — a number that is 5 percent of all votes cast for secretary of state at the last general election — from anywhere in the state. Gathering twice that number while distributing them geographically may well mean that only amendments with the backing of very deep pockets get on the ballot.
Still, it's ludicrous that Coloradans can change their constitution as easily as they pass a statute. So while HCR 1002 may be strong medicine, it addresses a very real problem that results in too many groups choosing an amendment when a statute would do.