Injunction filed to halt 41 enforcement

(CoCo, Pols, Rocky)

UPDATE: Compromise reached.

UPDATE: Press release from the House Democrats:

The House of Representatives agreed today on House Bill 1304, a plan to implement Amendment 41. By passing the bill on an initial voice vote, the House sent a strong message that they respect the will of the voters in implementing Amendment 41.

Representative Rosemary Marshall (D-Denver), the sponsor of House Bill 1304 said, "This common sense approach brings clarity to Amendment 41's ambiguities. With the help of the Colorado Supreme Court, this bill will clarify and enact Amendment 41 in the quickest way possible."

A bi-partisan amendment to provide voters the opportunity to ratify the implementation of Amendment 41 was supported by a voice vote.

House Bill 1304 implements Amendment 41 by defining key terms and establishing an ethics commission to review violations of public trust by government officials and employees. House Joint Resolution 1019, which works in conjunction with HB 1304, is sponsored by Speaker Romanoff and sends an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court to ask to what extent the legislature has the authority to clarify Amendment 41. HJR 1019 will be heard by the House at the same time as the final vote on HB 1304.

Live online Q&A with Katy Atkinson

Starts in five minutes.

Ritter, Suthers send letter on 41: Analysis

The two biggest debates of the 2007 legislative session have been trumped-up, partisan, finger-pointing fests.

Bill Ritter and John Suthers' letter spoke of "very little guidance regarding the meaning of certain provisions of Amendment 41." But the amendment was ambiguous by design. Morgan Carroll's eloquent pre-election endorsement of 41 stated:

Amendment 41 will have "enacting legislation" to nail down precise definitions and address any potential ambiguities before taking effect. The public can and will have a say in that process as well. The measure was written to put some flexibility to shape the implementation of Amendment 41 to make sure that while we implement this that we can be fairly surgical in clarify that it reaches only those we intend to.

Colorado Confidential wrote that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed a willingness to write enacting legislation - at least in the case of Amendment 27, which contained similar language.

And a few days ago The Rocky Mountain News reported that this process was already underway:

Children of government employees could accept scholarships and lobbyists could socialize with public officials under a bill that seeks to clarify the controversial gift-ban law known as Amendment 41.

The proposal, expected to be introduced early next week, is designed to prevent a host of unintended consequences of the law approved by voters in November.

It does so by listing a handful of exemptions, including allowing CU professors to take Nobel Prize money and spouses of slain police officers to accept donations.

It also inserts language that more closely ties a gift to its intended effect.

So for the second time in just a few days, Ritter has had to go to extraordinary lengths to quiet a controversy that shouldn't have been.

(More: Sentinel, Post, SquareState)

Ritter, Suthers send letter on 41: Text

This afternoon, Governor Bill Ritter and attorney general John Suthers sent a letter to all state employees, clarifying the government's interpretation of Amendment 41.

Here's the complete text of the letter. I'll follow up with my analysis.

In the weeks since Amendment 41 took effect, there has been a growing concern among government employees at all levels over the effect that the Amendment will have on the ability of employees' children to apply for and accept educational scholarships. We understand and share these concerns.

We are troubled by the recent reports of government employees leaving or contemplating leaving government service due to concerns over Amendment 41 and the restrictions that they fear it will impose on their children's opportunity to apply and be considered for scholarships. We ask for your patience and understanding while work continues to clarify the meaning of Amendment 41.

The atmosphere of anxiety is stoked by the fact that we currently have very little guidance regarding the meaning of certain provisions of Amendment 41. We are, however, convinced that when the voters approved Amendment 41 it was not their intent to limit the opportunities of the children of government employees to compete for scholarships on equal footing with the children of non-government employees. We are also confident that most scholarships that contain significant ongoing performance requirements are not prohibited by the plain language of the Amendment.

Indeed, over the last two weeks, three lawsuits have been filed. In these suits, litigants are either seeking clarification of the meaning of Amendment 41 or asking the courts to strike down some of the provisions of the Amendment. These lawsuits will help us achieve much needed clarity regarding the Amendment.

One of the lawsuits regarding Amendment 41 and its impact on scholarship eligibility was settled late last week. The suit was brought against the Governor by the Boettcher Foundation and three current Boettcher scholars. In the suit, the parties sought clarification that Amendment 41 does not prohibit the children of government employees from receiving the Boettcher scholarship. We worked with the plaintiffs to reach a favorable settlement. Specifically, when approving the parties' settlement, the Denver District Court found that the requirements imposed by the Boettcher Foundation upon its scholarship recipients - attendance at a Colorado college or university and maintenance of a minimum grade point average and course load - constitutes adequate consideration under Amendment 41.

While the settlement in the Boettcher Foundation case does not resolve all of the outstanding questions regarding the impact that Amendment 41 could have on students and their families, it is an important first step. As we did in the Boettcher Foundation case, we will continue to work towards achieving clarity for government employees.

In the meantime, we urge you not to allow uncertainty over Amendment 41 to lead to hasty decisions regarding your employment with the State of Colorado or local governments, and ask for your patience while we continue to address the many lingering questions regarding its implementation. If you have specific questions about accepting a scholarship, we encourage you to speak with a supervisor or manager in your department or agency. While they may not be able to provide an immediate answer to every question, we are confident that at the end of the day, the majority of scholarships for the children of government employees will be acceptable under Amendment 41.

Sincerely,
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
John W. Suthers
Attorney General

Norma Anderson, nonprofits sue Bill Ritter

The Denver Post:

A group of Colorado citizens and nonprofit corporations filed a lawsuit today against Gov. Bill Ritter, claiming Amendment 41 is violating their First Amendment rights... Among the plaintiffs in today's lawsuit is former lawmaker Norma Anderson, who says she can no longer spend more than $50 on her grandchildren because Anderson's daughter is the clerk and recorder for Jefferson County.