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

"It's about Colorado leading the way, leading the nation."

Me and about 3,000 of my closest friends watched Bill Ritter take the oath of office shortly before noon. His speech opened with praise for everyone from Bill Owens and Robert F. Kennedy to Ritter's extensive family. And he repeated the themes that carried him to victory in November - renewable energy, education and healthcare reform.

I stood in a receiving line for nearly an hour to congratulate Ritter, along with Barbara O'Brien, John Suthers and Cary Kennedy. It's a little strange getting a 20 second audience with the Governor. I said, "Congratulations, good luck and nice weather we're having," or something similarly inane. Ritter smiled back like I was making sense.

It was even odder shaking hands with Suthers. The attorney general has a disturbing affinity for the Trailhead Group, but has recently attempted to create bipartisan legislation.

There's more coverage of the day here, here, here and here. This diary was cross-posted at SquareState.

Illegal immigration laws costly to enforce

I missed this story from December 30 of last year. Illegal immigration laws are costing taxpayers more than they're saving. The Rocky Mountain News reports:

The state will find it extremely difficult to recover the millions it spends to enforce illegal-immigration laws without congressional action...

And now the GOP is agreeing with Governor-elect Bill Ritter's long-time assertion that illegal immigration is predominantly a federal problem. The Rocky quotes Republican attorney general John Suthers:

"The best solution to the problem caused by illegal immigration is for the federal government to enforce existing immigration laws, pass stronger immigration laws and to reduce the number of illegal immigrants allowed to enter and stay in the United States," Suthers said in the report.