Activist calls crowd to streets. (Boven)

While the majority of the crowd respected the work of police officers to facilitate the march,  24 protesters were arrested for staging a non-violent protest after being ordered to take down tents they had illegally erected in Civic Center Park. Others, sitting and blocking Broadway, were arrested after they refused to move from the street.

Attorney Rob Corry said he was in the Denver Courthouse Sunday morning meeting with protestors in jail jumpsuits. Corry said he was helping as many of those jailed as he could.

“This is a fluid situation,” Corry said. ”This protest is still going on. I think it is going to get bigger. I think that the government is pouring gasoline on the fire. They are fanning the flames as it were.”

Police told the Colorado Independent that they had advised protesters that they were not allowed to raise a tent on City property, but had said at the time they were unsure of what the repercussions would be if the tents were not removed. While officers were taunted by a small number of protesters, others said that compliance to the law was imperative to the movement.

Law Johnston, a marshal for Occupy Denver’s march, tried to dissuade protestors from participating in acts that could cause tensions to rise between Denver police officers and a few hundred protestors who remained after the march.

Man screams for economic justice at Occupy Denver march. (Boven)

“We are a peaceful movement and we are trying to operate within the bounds of the law,” Johnston told the Occupy Denver crowd. “Once again, I would like to say that we need to stay within the law. And that is definitely my decision. And I think that we should take down the tents.”

Many agreed with Johnston and began to leave. A small faction of protesters raised the concern that civil disobedience was needed, and they proceeded to act on that commitment.

Crowd marches down 17th in Denver. (Boven)

“They do not pay attention to us,” said one man who advocated against complying with police orders. “Non-violent civil disobedience. That means we need to keep the tents up.”

A hundred protestors stayed in support of the “Thunder Dome” — a dispensary for food donated by marchers – with a few dozen sitting in a line across 15th and Broadway, stopping traffic.

“Across the street we had a tent, what we call the Thunder Dome where we were handing out free food to people,” Charles, a protester blocking Broadway traffic, told the Colorado Independent. “… Now they are trying to make us tear it down again, and this time we are saying no. We are being peaceful about it. We will not use any violence. They will though.”

Protestors sit in a line on Broadway.

According to the Denver Post, police moved on Lincoln Park, clearing the area first and then marched on protestors blocking Broadway. By 6:20 police were beginning to make arrests and many of those still remaining on the street linked arms as they were taken into custody and cuffed by police.

According to 9 News and the Denver Post, protestors moved to the 16th Street Mall around 8 p.m. where they caused RTD to shut down bus service.

The Post reported that Denver Police officers used pepper spray in one confirmed case, but protestors said other cases occurred.

“The vast majority of Occupy Denver protesters today exercised their free speech rights peacefully and within the bounds of the law,” Mayor Michael Hancock said in a release. ”Unfortunately, some did not, and Denver police officers and State troopers were forced to take action and make multiple arrests.

“As I’ve stated all week, Denver will continue balancing First Amendment rights with concerns for public health and safety, ensuring the law is uniformly and consistently enforced.”

Corry said that he believed there would be a collection taken up to help bond people out of jail. After the first batch of arrests Friday, protesters quickly raised enough money to bond anyone out who didn’t have prior charges.

Most of those incarcerated were charged with obstructing roadways and unlawful acts on public property, according to Corry. There are also a few accused of resisting arrest and in one case groping a photographer.

Corry said that the arrests were minor enough that he felt protestors were likely to take their cases to court under freedom of speech protections.

“We have plenty of arguments to marshal such as immunity under the First Amendment, exercising their constitutional rights as a defense,” Corry said. “Ironically, the government is helping [the protesters] get their message out by arresting them and using the resources of the court system. So, I think that some of them will take the cases all the way to jury trials.”  

Earlier in the day, protesters began arriving just before noon in costumes that ranged from Guy Fawkes to the Hamburgler and with equally varied signs.

From Ron Paul supporters to Barack Obama fanatics and anarchists, protesters all appeared to agree on one thing–the poor are getting poorer and something has to change.

Still, though there was considerable disagreement on how to bring change about, most at the march agreed on the need to end loose banking regulations that, in part, encouraged predatory lending practices and helped to inflate and burst the housing bubble.  Further, the majority of protesters admonished corporate personhood, called for substantive changes to taxation codes and changes to the Federal Reserve.

Arguments at times broke out amongst protesters on topics such as whether the government was over spending and whether to work within the current political system or to simply start over with a people’s movement.

Others walking the march path, shut to traffic by police and RTD officials, were simply hoping for a better future for their children.

“My future is gone, but we still have a chance,” Sarah Isfahani said. “Just do it for the kids and try to change this country.”

Another protester, Dan Shoen, explained that he wasn’t as concerned about the Fed as other regulations that could be put in place on banking practices to stop further corruption. He also advocated for forgiveness of student loans to spur the economy.

“…We come from a lot of different places,” Shoen said. ”Some of us are in the one percent down here. Some of us 90 percent, and some of us don’t have a percent to piss in.”   

Denver police officer T.J. Sherwood, said earlier in the day that the police planned to shut down numerous streets in order to help facilitate and lead the march.

“We are just here to help,” Sherwood said. “That’s what we do every week.”

Calling themselves “giant killers” the Colorado Progressive Coalition (CPC) announced a campaign of “organized chaos” against Wells Fargo Thursday morning for what the group said were the bank’s predatory practices and illegal foreclosures.

The campaign is one of many the group said it plans to tackle over the next 12 months, including a payday lending initiative, foreclosure legislation and an effort to fight the reinstatement of some Denver police officers.

Jason McKain, CPC’s co-executive director, said the group was planning a number of protests against the mortgage giant that would include acts of civil disobedience they hope will bring media attention and reforms. With plans of starting their campaign later this month, he said it was his hope that if arrests were made against protesters that the Bank’s executives would be placed in the same cell as him so they can work out the terms of an agreement.

“I can tell you that we can understand that Americans and our customers demand more from us in these difficult times,” said Cristie Drumm, Wells Fargo’s Colorado spokesperson.

“We are committed to helping people who are in financial distress, and we always welcome the chance for dialogue with customers and the public. We want to hear from people.”

She said no one from the Colorado Progressive Coalition had contacted her, but she didn’t know if they had talked to other people at the company.

McKain spoke at an annual Colorado Progressive Coalition fundraiser attended by over 300 progressive advocates and state legislators, issuing policy challenges to Colorado and the country. In addition to banking reforms, the group called for the dismissal of recently reinstated police officers Devin Sparks and Randy Murr who were captured on video beating Michael DeHerrera and Shawn Johnson. The organization has called for the adherence to former Denver Manager of Safety Charles Garcia’s dismissal of the officers. The city is currently appealing the reinstatement of both officers.

The CPC also told donors that in light of payday lending industry attempts last year to roll back legislative reforms, they would likely be working on an initiative that would take payday lending regulations out of the hands of legislators and put them into the hands of voters in a 2012 ballot initiative.

Corrine Fowler, the economic justice director for the Colorado Progressive Coalition, told the Colorado Independent that a poll conducted two years ago in Colorado saw a similar initiative earning a 68 percent voter approval rating.

She said this year the group would also be working with lawmakers to pass legislation that protects homeowners from unwarranted foreclosures.

Rep. Mark Ferrandino, who was in attendance at the breakfast and has worked with the CPC in developing payday lending reform, told the Colorado Independent he was glad to see such a large turnout for the event and said the organization had been a boon for Colorado’s rarely heard voices.

“I think it is great to see this many people come out to help support the work this organization does. Fighting down at the Capitol to help prevent foreclosure, the organizing in the streets, making sure that the people’s voices that are not always heard are heard both at the Capitol and the streets,” Ferrandino said.

Asked about a possible payday lending initiative, Ferrandino said it was unlikely stronger legislation could get through the Legislature, but he said he believed an initiative would have the support of the people.

“I think we got a fair bill. Would I like to have seen it go further? Of course” Ferrandino said. “I don’t think that we could get anything stronger through the Legislature but I do think that if the coalition wants to [run an initiative]…I think that there is the support of the people and we will see what [the coalition] wants to do.”

Sustainability activist from Food and Water Watch joins with local activists to enjoy an organic feast. (Boven)

Sen. Michael Bennet urged Pres. Barack Obama late last week to finalize and implement rules to even the playing field for small ranchers and chicken farmers in competition with corporate giants in the industry. Sustainable food advocates, who have been traveling the country asking legislators to sign on to similar letters, claimed the senator’s move as a minor victory in what they see as a battle between David and Goliath.

Bennet renewed his support for the speedy implementation of the amended Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, a rule that has long been difficult for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) to implement, in a letter signed by the senator.

“I write to underscore the value of a fair and transparent market in which all livestock and poultry producers compete on a level playing field,” Bennet said in the letter. “For these reasons, I strongly oppose efforts to stop the USDA from implementing the rule and urge you to prioritize the rule’s finalization.”

Bennet said that while the new rules were not perfect, the new Farm Bill, which is currently being targeted by legislators for budget cuts, would serve to allow lawmakers to make any necessary changes.

Bennet sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

The Packers and Stockyards Act was passed by Congress in 1921 as a series of anti-trust laws on the meat and poultry industry. However, rules that defined “undue or unreasonable preferences” in the act were never created by the USDA causing it to lose much of its strength. Small farmers and sustainability advocates say corporate interests caused the law to simply sit on the books unenforced for years.

The new rules, drafted to bring the 1921 laws up to date with modern times, are a response to provisions in the 2008 Food Conservation and Energy Act that called for the establishment of criteria for the USDA’s GIPSA to determine if unreasonable preferences are being used in the industry.

However, the comment period on the rules was extended to November of 2010 amid considerable controversy. According to Food and Water Watch, since 2010, Washington has been slow to finalize the rules due to industry lobbying efforts.

The National Pork Producers Council has said that there will be “a chilling effect on innovation and flexibility” if the new rules are implemented. According to the industry group there will no longer be a method for packers to justify tiered rates on hogs, which they say could ultimately lead to higher vertical integration in the industry.

Small farmers and food advocates disagree. They say the industry has been forcing small livestock producers into poverty for years by causing many producers to enter into contracts instead of delivering competitive prices through bidding, while offering competitive forward contracts only to larger producers.  While some say the move has stabilized the market, others explain that it has lowered the price of meat to the point where many small producers simply can no longer compete.

The new rules would work to stop price premiums and prevent preferential contracts from being given to large factory farms, prevent a single buyer from representing multiple meat packers at an auction and provide protections for poultry producers.

Food and Water Watch, the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union and others said their coalition had put together a petition with over 3,000 signatures urging Bennet to request the rules be implemented.

While their letter also called for his pledge to defend many programs that help family owned farms, sustainability projects, and nutritional subsidy programs for the poor, Sam Schabacker, Mountain West regional director, Food & Water Watch, said they were ecstatic that he had at least committed so far to the new GIPSA rules.

“It is not everyday that a group of people can get a senator to do something that could directly influence the president,” Schabacker said. He said that the Obama administration, which first pushed for the rules, has been going “really slow” and responding to companies such as Monsanto in the finalization of the new anti-trust legislation.  But he said that in this case the voice of Colorado residents have been heard.

He said that his organization along with a host of others hoped to bring more members of the Agricultural Committee on board.

Still, Schabacker told a small gathering of food sustainability advocates attending a potluck in Longmont on Friday that they would continue to fight for programs they see as helping both the poor and small food producers.

“This fight is not over, there are so

Activists listen to Farm Bill discussion. (Boven)

many other important programs that we want to make sure and defend in the farm bill,”  Schabacker said.

He listed a number of bills he expected to see cuts to. Some of those have been targeted in the President’s 2012 proposed budget while others have found there way in to House proposals including direct farm ownership loans that primarily benefit beginning and minority farmers, Rural Business Enterprise Grants, Farmers Market Nutrition Program, Community Food Project grants, and expected cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program among numerous others.

While Bennet has been in the Middle East, his office responded to questions concerning the Senator’s response to possible cuts by providing this quote from a speech earlier this year.

“We are going to have to ask hard questions and figure out how to do more with less,” Bennet said. “This will mean having discussions about whether to continue to provide farmers with a little bit of help every single year or to provide more substantial assistance when it is needed most. We will also have to identify gaps and overlaps in the different programs that comprise the farm safety net and better integrate these programs while making them more user-friendly.”

Despite the acknowledgment that the country remains in uncertain economic times, advocates were less than enthusiastic about cutting programs to help small farms.

“It is hogwash,” Amy Fontenot, a resident of Longmont who attended the potluck, said concerning possible cuts to sustainability programs.

“It is the issue that spans across the board,” Fontenot continued. “It means taking the power away from a few corporations and giving it to a few farmers who are sustainable and are going to connect people back to the earth with our food.

Delegates setting the resolutions for the Knights of Columbus (K of C) again voted to defend traditional marriage and the “sacredness of human life” at the group’s 129th Supreme Convention held in Denver this week. With both controversial issues seen as the most important topics to many of the delegates, some secular and Catholic groups are concerned their agenda is a step in the wrong direction for civil rights.

“As faithful Catholics and Knights of Columbus, we know that among the most important tasks ahead of us is the need to shape our culture according to Gospel values and to bring the Christian message of hope to all,” said Carl A. Anderson, supreme knight and chairman of the board of Knights of Columbus, in his annual report. “I don’t have to tell you that in many ways, society has lost track of the things that are most important: the sacredness of human life, and the right of every child, not only to be born, but to be raised by a mother and a father.”

At this year’s international summit, dubbed “So That the World May Know New Hope,” 2,000 Knights and their families were charged with helping to renew Christian morals in society. The largest Catholic organization outside of the church, the fraternity is known for its philanthropic deeds but has recently sparked controversy for giving millions of dollars to groups supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and embryonic protections. This year, the group affirmed that it plans to continue these efforts.

“One [resolution] defending human life for the unborn against such attacks as abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, taking embryos and using them for resource killing, that is probably of greatest importance,” conference attendee Bruce Desautels told the Colorado Independent. “Under that I would put protection of the defense of marriage. That it is between the union of one man and one woman first for the procreation of life and secondly for the well being of the spouses.”

Desautels, a voting delegate and Deputy Grand Knight from the Stratton/Benkelman Council of Nebraska, added that “with the protection of unborn life, we are not just saying that we agree. There is more to it than that. Our organization is very active and we will pursue successes in those.”

Both the resolutions adhere to the church’s religious tenets. In defending traditional marriage, the organization resolved: “That we join with the Bishops of Canada, United States and throughout the world in their efforts to achieve legal and constitutional protection at the national, provincial and local levels for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” It was a hard-line theme that further resonated in the group’s concern for embryonic protections.

“[T]he Knights of Columbus has a deep and historic commitment to oppose any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other offenses against life and that we continue to speak out to our elected representatives about the need to enact legislation to oppose these practices and to protect human life in all its stages,” the resolution reads.

Like Desautels, other members of the Knights stood behind the measures when asked what the most important resolution topic was.

“There was one on there for right to life, and it is hitting home with everybody. Obviously, it is a number-one priority in my life as far as people go,” said Ed McCann, immediate past state deputy from New Hampshire.

However, numerous Catholic groups that support gay and lesbian marriage say that while the reaffirmation of the K of C’s longtime support for traditional marriage is disappointing, it was not unexpected.

“It is not surprising that this comes out of the convention. The Knights of Columbus have really been at the forefront of the attacks on marriage equality for a number of years now. They have provided millions of dollars to the U.S. Catholic Bishops for the anti-marriage equality work across the country,” said Marianne Duddy, executive director for Dignity USA who was representing a coalition of groups seeking the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. “The kinds of efforts that they have funded rely on a fear, and they portray gay and lesbian people as less than other people or other couples in some way, and that is so hurtful.”

Colorado  groups like Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and One Colorado said the efforts of the religious group were out of step with mainstream American views.

“It’s clear that the majority of Americans now support marriage for gay and lesbian couples,” said Brad Clark, executive director for One Colorado. “This resolution by the Knights of Columbus is out of touch with everyday people who know loving, committed gay and lesbian couples and realize that giving them the freedom to marry strengthens families and communities.”

Similarly, Monica McCafferty, marketing and communications director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, whose parent organization has been protested by local K of C chapters numerous times for their abortion services, said a pro-choice stance is important in protecting the freedoms of the woman to choose what is best for her body.

“Pro-choice to us is that we support a woman’s decision to be a parent, to adopt or to seek an abortion. Being pro-choice means bringing all choices,” McCafferty said. “While the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ have grayed, at the end of the day people say that even if that isn’t a choice that I can make for myself, I want to ensure that someone else has the ability to make that choice.”

Asked how the Knights would pursue the fight for the resolutions, Desautels said beyond lobbying efforts each Knight was resolved to do what they can do through the courts, through the power of numbers and persuasion. What about financial support?

“I guess that is up to every individual,” Desautels said.

The Iowa Independent reported last year that the Knights gave more than $1.4 million to the National Organization for Marriage, a group that is dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative process across the country, in 2009.

In 2010, the K of C charity report indicates that it provided more than $3 million to promote “family life” and a similar amount to promote its stance against abortion. Examples of its spending include $27,500 for a march for life in Canada, $100,000 for Life Athletes in Bend, Ind., $50,000 to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy, Washington, D.C., and $700,000 on an Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage.

In Colorado, individual chapters of the K of C have given to numerous programs over the past 20 years, according to the Secretary of State’s office, that would either discourage or end abortion rights in the state. While the sums have rarely been large, they show a dedication to the resolve of the Knights to uphold their positions. Last year, the Knights of Columbus St. Peter Church Council #11514  in Monument, Co., gave $250 to the Personhood Initiative, a push the Catholic Church decided not to endorse.

Asked what he thought about the concerns put forward by pro-choice advocates and DOMA detractors over the Knights’ agenda, McCann said simply that it was not his intention to change others’ beliefs, but it is important to look at the group’s other philanthropic efforts.

“I honestly honor anybody’s belief whatever their belief is. I am not going to try and turn anybody’s vote one way or the other, ” McCann said. “But I think one of the other most important things was the resolution on helping deal with the disaster in Haiti and a prosthesis program we have for children. I believe charity is the most important part of the Knights of Columbus, and secondly, unity as we grow together to become much stronger.”

Few question the resolve of the order to give or conduct charitable works across the country and world. In addition to some 70,000,000 volunteer hours, the K of C says it provided nearly $4.5 million in 2010 to community causes, including $1 million to help victims of the Haitian earthquake, $270,424 to the Special Olympics and $140,000 to the United Way.

The Knights of Columbus spent just over $1 million this year on its Food for Families program, which distributes funds across its chapters to provide food for local people in need.

Still, despite the organization’s generosity, many LGBT people with hopes of eventual marriage wish that same charity extended to them.

“I have been watching the convention on TV, and I felt my heart breaking for all of those Knights who have gay and lesbian people in their families and who are seeing this organization that does so much good be so wrong on this issue,” Dignity USA’s Duddy said.  She characterized the Knights as setting themselves up “to do a lot of damage to a lot of people and families across this country.”

She said her organization has not given up hope on changing the K of C’s resolve.

“We have actually spoken to a lot of Knights who don’t believe in what the leadership is doing and who are very clear with us that the money they raise goes to local charity events,” Duddy said. “But they really struggle with how to make an impact on what the leadership decides.”

Given the greetings from the Vatican to this year’s convention, it seems unlikely the leadership will be changing their views anytime soon. Here’s what Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State for the Vatican, wrote in greeting to the assembled group:

“Today, before the increasingly evident signs of a growing forgetfulness of God, a rejection of most basic principles of morality and a breakdown in the very foundations of social life, no committed follower of Christ can fail to heed this urgent summons to work for the rebuilding of our communities in accordance with the enduring values grounded in the natural law, confirmed by the Gospel and enshrined in the Christian vision of life’s true meaning, beauty and purpose.”

More than 142,000 signatures were turned in Monday for an initiative that is billed as a tourniquet to stop the yearly cuts to Colorado education. Primary petition sponsor Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, turned in his petition signatures to the secretary of state’s office for approval and, along with a coalition of organizations, he’s now planning to gear up a campaign to convince voters in November that a temporary tax hike is needed to stop further cuts to preschool through higher education.

The Bright Colorado campaign surpassed its goal of 125,000 signatures by nearly 20,000, a feat made more significant by the fact that it represented a significant grassroots effort by more than 650 volunteers, according to organizers.

“It was a grassroots effort in every sense of the word as people came together and said we can’t allow further cuts in education,” Heath said in an email to the Colorado Independent.

The initiative was introduced in response to recent budget cuts that have reduced education funding by hundreds of millions of dollars and have caused teacher layoffs, tuition hikes and the loss of school services. Over the last four years pre-school–12th grade education has been cut by $700 million, while higher education has been slashed by more than $200 million in the last two years, according to Bright Colorado, an umbrella organization for a coalition of more than 40 education, religious and progressive groups.

With a Colorado budget that has already scraped the bones, education has become one of the only places left to cut and will likely see further cuts in next year’s budget unless new dollars can be found. Bright Colorado believes part of that solution can be found in returning tax rates to 1990 levels.

If approved by voters, Initiative 25 hopes to stop the bleeding by raising roughly $536 million per year over five years for Colorado preschools, K–12 and higher education programs by raising the state income tax from 4.63 percent to 5 percent and the sales tax from 2.9 percent to 3 percent. It is expected to raise close to $3 billion in total.

While some groups have raised concerns that the tax increase, though based on a graduated federal tax system, is not itself progressive and could dissuade citizens from voting for long-term solutions to Colorado’s fiscal crisis, supporters of the initiative said further cuts to Colorado’s education system must be stopped in the short term while systemic fixes can be found. Supporters said they are making it very clear that the initiative is a temporary but necessary band-aid to a problem that will need future care.

“Now the question for Colorado voters is ‘What kind of Colorado do we want?’ Do we want a state that reinvests in its future by educating our kids and our workforce, or a state that funds education at close to the lowest level in our country?” Heath said.

Though the initiative only needs 86,105 signatures to be placed on the November ballot, organizers of the campaign said that bad signatures or challenges meant that it was always best to shoot for more. They feel that by surpassing their goals they are well on the way to seeing their initiative on the ballot.  The secretary of states office is now reviewing the signatures.

“By voting yes, Colorado will establish itself as a national leader by reinvesting in our future, our kids, jobs and our economy,” Heath said. “It will state loud and clear that we are open for business. That’s the best economic development message we can send.”

Many Democrats are standing behind concerns raised by former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb last week after Webb said that Republican members of the Colorado Reapportionment Commission were playing it fast and loose with constitutional requirements when redrawing the state legislative boundaries.

Pointing to what he saw as the Republican misuse of competitive districts, minority apportionment, and the Hobbs decision only in the cases where partisan gains could be made, Webb said violence had been done to communities. Republican members of the commission said the fears are mere myth but that ultimately it would be the Colorado Supreme Court that decides whether the plan is acceptable or not.

“It is evident that the most partisan Republicans apply the criteria when it is politically convenient. I would ask that they back away from that stance,” Webb said in a statement urging the Commission to apply all constitutional criteria for reapportionment as it sees fit in its final vote. He said that should be done in a responsible way.

Reapportionment has so far proved less than kind to House Democrats who under the preliminary district map could see formerly safe Democratic incumbents losing their districts including those of HD 3, HD 11, HD 26, and 50 as Republican voter registration increased dramatically in those districts under the newly drawn boundaries.

Webb said the Commission’s splitting of Gunnison County, the Denver-metro area, and Grand Junction by Republican maps showed little concern for the populations that live there but instead appeared to be moves to create a Republican super majority in the House.

Still, Democrats faced with a possible Republican super majority in a state that is roughly split three ways between Republican, Democrats and unaffiliated voters, say they are less concerned about their ability to win a race and more concerned about the fracturing of community voice.

The 11 person Colorado Reapportionment Commission, made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and an unaffiliated commissioner, is charged with redrawing state House and Senate districts every ten years so that each district has roughly the same number of people. In creating the districts commissioners are required to keep districts as compact as possible, keep districts whole within counties unless crossing county lines is necessary to create equal populations between districts, ensure that as few cities need to be split between districts as possible, and to ensure “communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible.”

In the Denver metro area, Webb said that Aurora in Adams and Arapahoe counties had faced the greatest disservice by the commission. He explained the minority communities of African Americans had asked to be split amongst Arapahoe County districts in order to maximize minority influence but were ultimately denied.

“Ignoring the reality of the minority population on the ground was consistent in the adopted House maps in the metro area,” Webb said.

Webb further questioned the massive shifting of districts in the city of Aurora and asked why a city of roughly 325,000 people should contain only one whole district. Webb said that one of the rationales for splitting Aurora’s current districts, many considered Democratic strongholds, was to artificially create competitive districts by drastically increasing Republican voters.

“The Republicans on the commission are pushing for competitive districts only in Democratic strongholds like Aurora … appealing to a sense of fairness. The result of creating competitive districts is a move away from constitutional criteria and the creation of Republican strongholds where none existed before,” Webb said.

While Democratic incumbents overwhelmingly said they had not looked at the voter registration counts, they said their communities were being greatly affected.

“No doubt, my district will expand toward the east and south to accommodate the new residents there,” Rep. Su Ryden, D-Aurora told the Colorado Independent. “However, I am concerned about the way the districts in Aurora have been drawn.  I support a map that will reflect Aurora’s growth over time, and that will respect our longtime communities which are very important to the people of Aurora.”

While Ryden stands to see her safe seat in District 36 become competitive as Republican voter counts rise from 24.4 percent to 45.61 percent, her position was more reserved than other Democratic legislators. They pointed out that if the new districts are created, many of Aurora’s residents will be faced with completely new representation, while historical communities of interest are sliced apart — changes that are supposed to be avoided when possible during redistricting.

“What remains is that most people in Aurora will wake up represented by completely different people than who they actually voted for,” Sen. Morgan Carrol, D-Aurora told the Aurora Sentinel.

Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Greenwood Village, also criticized the Aurora districts.

Though Kagan will soon represent a community with a 5 percent registered Republican lead over Democrats after District 3 is moved south due to Denver’s losing a House seat, he said he was content with the lines drawn for his district. However, he said it was clear that voters in Aurora were “treated shoddily” by the commission.

Farther away from Aurora, both Reps. Deb Gardner, D-Longmont and Roger Wilson, D-Glenwood Springs, said their districts had been drawn out of step with their constituencies’ interests as well.

Wilson, who represents Gunnison County and HD 61, said Gunnison County should not be split. However, he expressed that if it was to be split the lines should be along topographic and transportation routes not along census blocs as it is currently drawn. He explained that Crested Butte would become isolated during the winter from the rest of the District and that many of the towns that consider themselves part of the same community due to transportation corridors would be negatively affected by the split as it is currently drawn.

“It would make better sense if you could set up a topography which I think has more to do with compactness in districts. Compactness makes more sense when you look at transportation routes in mountain topography versus physical distance. It makes more sense to the people who live there and think of themselves as a unit.”

The voter registration numbers showed that in 2010, Republican registration in District 61, which encompasses Gunnison County, was 25.8 percent compared to 31.1 percent of the population that registered as Democrats and the 42.2 of unaffiliated voters. The district’s registration advantage would slim under the new district population where 32.07 percent of voters would be registered as Democrats and 29.83 percent registered as Republicans. Unaffiliated voters would continue to make up the plurality of the district with 36.99 percent.

Webb said a Democratic map had had the same number of count splits but had not isolated representatives from portions of their districts. He said he could “only surmise that the map was crafted for partisan advantage instead of out of respect for the community that lives and votes in Gunnison County.”

Rep. Deb Gardner, like Wilson, said she had not looked at the registration numbers. However, she said she had always felt that removing Boulder from District 11 made sense, but that giving the heart of Longmont to Lafayette and Louisville failed to pass constitutional muster.

“The preliminary map cuts out the heart of Longmont, where we shop downtown, gather for events, our library, our civic center, our future FasTracks station and puts it in House District 12,” Gardner said. “This map puts the minimum number of people from Longmont in a house district that will be dominated by the citizens of Lafayette and Louisville.  This effectively disenfranchises Longmont citizens and is clearly a contradiction to the court’s opinion in 2002. Longmont should be divided between HD 11 and 12 in equal proportions.”

House District 11 would swing from having  37.3 percent of the voters registered as Democrats compared to 25.9 percent Republicans to a near even split between Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters.

Commissioner Mario Nicolais, a lawyer working with the Hackstaff law-firm who has served on numerous Republican campaigns, was singled out by Webb for using Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs’ 2002 majority opinion to try and manipulate the maps for partisan gain.

The decision found that counties should remain whole except in extreme cases when a district needs more population.

Nicolais, however, told the Colorado Independent that he disagreed with assertions that he was acting in a partisan fashion and stated the Hobbs’ decision was indeed one that would be the standard by which any reapportionment map would have to be judged before becoming the new political landscape. He argued that while Democrats complained about the House map, Republicans were complaining about the Senate map.

“It is my opinion…that the [approved preliminary] Senate map wouldn’t meet the constitutional criteria,” Nicolais said.

He said that the Senate map brought forward by Democrats failed to give Arapahoe County three whole districts and said Democrats themselves should be viewed as politically manipulating the board.

Webb countered that public testimony had moved the Democratic maps.

Nicolais also pointed to SD 19 where he saw partisan moves.

“Senate District 19 extends over into Adams and grabs portions of very heavily concentrated Democratic districts from Adams County. So rather than make a competitive seat, it makes it Democrat leaning. I asked in three public communications last week for someone to please explain why that was done and not a single map sponsor answered me,” Nicolais said. “To be fair, I realized that my own map didn’t pass the criteria and I couldn’t have supported my own version. So I went back and redrew it so that Jefferson County had three full seats.”

Webb said the Democratic map had fewer city splits with the same number of county splits making it preferable.

Despite their disagreements, Nicolais said he planned on working with Webb to address his issues surrounding minority representation.

“I know that he has some very strong beliefs on minority populations and I’m glad to address those. I know he made some references about creating a super majority; I think that that is an inaccurate representation but he is entitled to his beliefs,” Nicolais said.

Commissioner Matt Jones told the Colorado Independent that there was a fiction out there that the commission had not found consensus. He disagreed, and pointed to the votes on the Senate map as largely having bipartisan support in their passage and further noted a number of House maps had received similar support.

“There is a fiction out there that we haven’t found consensus,” Jones said. “Republicans moved the Western Slope Senate map. They moved and voted for the staff map. They said they haven’t gotten a single map. Well, they moved the map.”

Jones said that the preliminary map was designed to create public feedback and was in no way final and likely would see changes.

The preliminary map is now scheduled for hearings across the state to take public testimony.

The absence of a progressive income tax structure in Initiative 25 has stopped some progressive organizations from getting on board with State Sen. Rollie Heath’s attempt to stem what has become a yearly bleeding of dollars from public education. While Heath and others agree a graduated tax structure would have been the preferred path, they said the initiative remains education’s best tourniquet while long-term solutions are worked on.

Colorado Progressive Coalition economic justice director Corrine Fowler told The Colorado Independent that her organization couldn’t get behind a policy that would tax the poor disproportionately from the rich. She said while they had been on board with initiatives introduced earlier in the year that had a graduated tax structure, the final version of the bill runs contrary to their mission.

“From CPC’s mission statement standpoint, we can’t support an increase of the flat tax because it is totally inequitable. It creates more regressivity in the tax structure than what already exists,” Fowler said. “We think it is bad policy to raise the flat tax when a graduated income tax would raise twice as much money as a flat tax, would only raise taxes on a small portion of the population and would more evenly distribute the tax responsibility.”

The initiative, crafted by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute (CFPI) and others, would raise roughly $536 million per year over 5 years for the state’s preschools, k-12 and higher education systems by raising the state income tax from 4.63 percent to 5 percent and the sales tax from 2.9 percent to 3 percent. It is expected to raise $3 billion over the period. The initiative was introduced in response to three years of successive cuts to education that have caused layoffs, tuition hikes and loss of school services.

Few supporters of the initiative contacted by the Colorado Independent disagreed with Fowler’s assessment that a graduated tax structure would be more equitable and the better overall plan. However, they said a graduated or progressive tax structure that would tax individuals proportionally to their income was not favored by some business groups and others whom they discussed the initiative with. That, they said, would have resulted in considerable push back had they tried and run an initiative that include those measures.

While the income tax is not designed as a graduated model, it would in effect be marginally progressive because it is based on the Federal income tax system, according to supporters.

Carol Hedges, director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, addressed some of those concerns, explaining that they fully planned to continue work on long-term solutions that included a more progressive tax structure.

“We will continue to work with a broad coalition of folks to address real reform but for now, this proposal offers the only option to avoid further cuts in essential services in our communities,” Hedges said. “This proposal also slightly improves the progressivity of our tax system as would a graduated income tax.”

Terry Scanlon, fiscal policy analyst for the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, said that as a leader in pushing for a progressive income tax in the state, his organization had fought earlier in the year to create a coalition to pass just such a model. He said that in conversations with labor, progressive organizations, and business it was made clear that a progressive tax system would face significant opposition. The fear of that opposition was enough for them to pull, in March, six progressive income tax initiatives they had filed with the secretary of state and team up with Heath.

“There were a lot of meetings and in private and public conversations we became confident that we would have significant opposition to a graduated income tax. That opposition would make it much more difficult [to pass the measure],” Scanlon said.

Scanlon said that given the option of either doing nothing or doing something to help Colorado education, the choice was clear for his organization.

“We have two choices we can continue to allow cuts in services or we can invest in our state’s education. This is the best policy that is achievable,” Scanlon said.

Scott Wasserman, political director for Colorado WINS, an employee partnership that represents many of the state’s civil servants, said his organization had not taken an official position on the initiative, however, the absence of graduated income tax appears to have caused them to play a watch and wait game as it moves forward.

While he said that they would take another look at the initiative once it reaches the ballot, he explained that the organization represents many middle-class individuals who are already struggling with pay cuts and that a flat tax would disproportionately hurt them.

“One of the challenges of the proposal is that it doesn’t have a progressive tax structure,” Wasserman said. “We represent folks from the lower-middle to the upper-lower class of this country. So to say to them you need to pay more when you are already being hit hard by pay cuts–that is tough. Our preference would be that we ask corporations and the wealthy Coloradans to pay more. That said, a progressive income tax makes a lot of very powerful people very angry.”

Heath said he had initially favored a graduated tax structure for his initiative, but, after discussions with the Institute and others, he dropped the idea concerned that it might hamper his desire to bring more funding into state sponsored education.

Another supporter of the initiative, Great Education Colorado, said they were also disappointed that the bill did not include graduated income tax language, but they saw future cuts to education as unacceptable.

“This isn’t the initiative that we would have chosen or written, but … instead of comparing Initiative 25 to what could be, we need to compare it to what will be if it doesn’t pass,” Lisa Weil, director of policy and communications for Great Education Colorado, said. “For us, we just decided that it is like a tourniquet and we have to stop the bleeding. This will be the fourth year of actual cuts to per pupil funding. We just decided for ourselves that we couldn’t stand by and watch that happen.”

Weil said that cuts to education often struck the poorest in society the hardest and said the income tax was linked to the federal tax structure which is progressive, though she acknowledged it was by no means the ideal. She said a more direct graduated tax would have been the superior plan and said they would be willing to support future initiatives that included that tax model.

“The sales tax exempts food and prescription drugs so that will have less impact on low income and our flat tax is based on a progressive income tax federally, so it has some progressive components as it is. It is based on a progressive income tax,” Weil said.

“We acknowledge that k-12 education has taken the brunt of the budget cuts,” Fowler said. “That’s why we understand why groups like Great Education Colorado are supporting it, because, of course, k-12 has seen cuts and there are imminent cuts on the way. We understand that. [B]ut for us it is not just about raising revenue, it is about reforming our tax system. We believe that we need real comprehensive reform and this also creates a situation if it passes where the voters of Colorado are going to believe that we have solved that issue. So it creates barriers for us for future solutions. That is really worrisome.”

Heath said that the 5-year plan was designed to ensure that voters knew it was only a band-aid for a wound that needs intensive care. “I had, in fact, favored an indefinite initiative… ,” Heath said.

“Of course, this is a band-aid as I say in all of my presentations. We need a structural fix and this is designed to buy us the time to get this done. I believe this will accomplish just that,” Heath said.

Great Education Colorado like other members of the coalition supporting the statutory change, say they are being very clear that this is not a solution but simply a way to stop education cuts while long term solutions are conceived.

“It is only a 5-year fix, this is not the end of the conversation, it is the beginning of the conversation. But it is the tourniquet that keeps the patient alive until we can come up with a long-term solution,” Weil said.

Wasserman, however, urged some caution. He said any attempt to put initiative 25 on the ballot and into law needs to happen in a way that allows it to serve as a focal point for constructive discussion on future fiscal fixes even if it is defeated.

“I think the general fear is if it gets to the ballot it is important that if it dies it dies a noble death, because the worst thing that could happen is this thing gets on the ballot and it just gets crushed and opponents of taxes say, “What part of no don’t you get” [in future initiative campaign attempts].

Asked why they didn’t decide to protect the revenue from possible legislative action by asking voters to place the language in the Colorado constitution, Scanlon said the coalition behind the initiative simply had no desire to add to the nearly unchangeable and convoluted budget structure that has given legislators and policy makers headaches over the past decade. However, he said he felt education dollars would remain safe.

Scanlon said that legislators would be taking a big risk if they chose to overturn the will of the people to fund education with the tax revenue.

“If they do that they will be reversing the will of the people. That is a pretty tall order for the legislature,” Scanlon said.

Mike Wetzel, Colorado Education Association’s public relations director, said his organization was not supporting or opposing the initiative, but encouraged members to collect signatures.

Asked why they chose to stay neutral on the initiative, Wetzel said, “Our leadership carefully examined the initiative and this is the decision they made.” He said he could offer no other information on the decision.

Scanlon said that the initiative will likely make it on the ballot.

With a needed 86,105 signatures to place the measure on the ballot, Scanlon said the campaign had already garnered 105,000. However, the campaign hopes to have 125,000 before turning them into the secretary of state’s office on Monday in case some of the signatures were found to be invalid.

Fowler said the Colorado Progressive Coalition plans to file a progressive income tax initiative in coming years and continue down the path already laid by the Fiscal Policy Institute and others.

“We are keeping that plan in place and looking at [20]12 or [20]13, though we have not committed to a year,” Fowler said.

It appears clear that many of those now supporting 25 will also be backing the Colorado Progressive Coalition’s plan in the future.

Word that a retreat hosted by conservative mega-donors Charles and David Koch is coming to Colorado has spurred activists across the state into action. Colorado Common Cause, ProgressNow, Moveon.org, and others plan to meet and protest in Beaver Creek, Sunday morning.

The news first broke Wednesday that the brothers would be hosting their twice-yearly event in the Vail area after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell released his schedule, which noted he would be attending the Koch seminar Sunday.

Upon hearing the news, progressive groups, environmental organizations and numerous other groups immediately began an effort to both mobilize their membership and determine the location of the secretive gathering.

The groups now believe the event, which has seen such politicos as Rush Limbaugh and even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, will be taking place at the Ritz Carlton Resort at Bachelor Gulch. The Colorado Independent could not confirm the location, though Colorado Pols reported they had similar information that came from a number of sources.

Jenny Flanagan, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, told the Colorado Independent that their event would be out in the open, unlike that of the Kochs’.

She said she and other activists planned to meet at a nearby park where they will speak to issues they feel are important–issues, which in many cases, the Koch brothers and the organizations they fund, such as the American Enterprise Institute, directly combat.

“They are going to be spending millions of dollars influencing the 2012 races and campaigns this weekend,” Flanagan said. “The attacks (will be) on the public worker, social security and environmental protections.”

She said while it was fitting that the brothers, who spend considerable amounts of money on hiding their political spending, should host an invitation only summit, their continual pushing against public disclosure of corporate campaign dollars, among other policies, make them a top concern for the organization.

“We are trying to bring together people who will stand up against this affront on our Democracy,” Flanagan said.

From the ProgressNow web site:

The Koch brothers are major funders of right-wing fringe groups who make up the so-called Tea Party, and wield tremendous influence in conservative politics. The Koch brothers have provided millions of dollars to fund recent attempts to privatize Medicare and Social Security. Previous Koch conferences have featured a virtual “who’s who” of right-wing politics, from Ann Coulter to Justice Clarence Thomas. And after the unexpected and lively protest of their last conference, you can understand why they tried very hard to keep the latest one quiet.

This Sunday through Tuesday near Vail, the Koch brothers will host an invitation-only discussion between wealthy funders and right-wing elected officials to develop their plans to spend tens of millions of dollars of corporate money on the 2012 elections. Many Colorado conservative officials and donors can be expected to attend. In the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, unprecedented amounts of corporate money is expected to be funneled into the political process next year.

Despite the Legislature’s failure to pass a bill this year to increase the percentage of votes needed to pass a voter initiated constitutional amendment, grassroots advocates recently voiced their opposition to the move they see as part of a trend by legislators to limit the power of the people.

Those advocates say that making it more difficult for the people to circumvent the Legislature by changing the constitution by direct vote only gives Capitol lobbyists more power to make laws and reduces the influence of the average citizen. Legislators and policy makers in favor of the bill said special interests have already taken over much of the ballot initiative system and making it more difficult to change the constitution will help the state as lawmakers try to work through the layers of incongruous amendments already put in place that they say are challenging Colorado’s long-term fiscal integrity.

Colorado’s ballot initiative system currently allows voters to collect signatures to place either a statutory measure or constitutional amendment on an election ballot, which then takes a simple majority of voters to pass.

“There is widespread agreement from scholars, politically active people and even the broad citizenry that it is not necessarily good policy to allow easy amendments to the Colorado Constitution. I think you find wide support to not amend the Colorado Constitution because that becomes a straitjacket that is hard to change,” Professor Anthony Robinson, who teaches political science at the University of Denver, said. Robinson said people should use the statutory form of the initiative process, which he feels is a needed check on representative government created through the threat of citizen action.

However,others say that legislators are simply trying to take power away from the people.

“The legislature, or people in power, tend to think that they are smarter than the people, and they resent people putting stuff on the ballot to get something done the way they didn’t want it to be done,” Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for Howard Dean’s presidential race, California Proposition 2 organizer, and political analyst, told the Colorado Independent. “That is the great thing about America–we are the people who should be deciding things.”

Trippi, who was in town to speak at a panel discussion in favor of protecting the initiative process hosted by Citizens in Charge Foundation, Colorado Common Cause, and the Independence Institute, said that he has been an advocate of grassroots participation throughout his career. He said he is concerned by any attempt by legislators to limit or direct citizen involvement.

The panel was hosted largely in response to SCR 1, also known as the “Son of Ref. O,” a legislative referendum to amend the initiative system this last legislative session and make it harder to change the Colorado Constitution.

SCR 1

SCR 1, the bipartisan referendum, was crafted in response to the University of Denver Economic Future Panel final report and a series of planning meetings conducted by Colorado’s Future, which hosted over a thousand civic leaders from all walks of life and political affiliations to determine the proper steps to create a more stable backdrop for Colorado’s growth.

The referendum, as adopted by the Senate, would have asked voters to decide whether to raise the number of votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment from a simple majority to a 60 percent threshold. In addition, it would have made it more difficult for legislators to change statutory measures passed by a citizen initiative and would have required initiative signatures to be garnered from each of the congressional districts before reaching the ballot.

Under a 60 percent threshold for voter initiated constitutional change, only four of the 19 amendments to the constitution since 1990 would have passed. Those four are: Standards of Conduct in Government, Tobacco Tax Increase for Health Purposes, Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits.

The bill ultimately died on the House calendar at the request of the sponsor who told the Colorado Independent she did not have the votes to pass the referendum.

‘If it was only an issue of policy,” House sponsor Lois Court, D-Denver, said, “we would have passed the bill.”

However, Court said that while legislators may be policy makers, they are also creatures of politics and it was politics that killed the bill.

One political observer said those politics include an initiative dressed in the same language as SCR 1, with one exception. The initiative has a provision that, if passed, would amend the constitution to ensure that all tax increases must pass by a 60 percent majority. Concerned that they would be unable to craft a message that both promoted SCR 1 and disparaged the tax-limiting measure, groups that saw a need for future tax increases called for SCR 1 to be benched.

While there remains clear interest by those stakeholders involved in SCR 1 to revive the referendum, many fear that their attempts will continue to be thwarted by what they see as Trojan horse initiatives, leaving in question a clear way forward.

Despite Trippi and other organizers concerns, advocates for the legislation say the changes are small but needed.

“It is a fine tuning [of the initiative process] to protect the constitution from frivolous initiatives so that if the people do have a really strong beef with their government they still have the opportunity to go to the ballot,” Republican Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock, said in defense of SCR 1.

Brenda Morrison, executive director of Colorado’s Future, said civic leaders agree with Murray. She said it was clear that the ballot initiative should remain and that the threshold should be increased to create better stability for Colorado citizens.

Pointing to the cost, she said that the $177 million that has gone into initiative campaigns since 2000 could have been used to help stimulate the economy.

“$177 million is a lot of money that could have gone to creating jobs,” Morrison, said.

Janice Sinden, executive director for the business advocacy organization Colorado Concern, agreed with Morrison and said business was looking for a more equitable and stable environment.

“We are not trying to take away people’s right to initiate. We are trying to set a higher threshold for changing the constitution. So go crazy statutorily, though we certainly want it to be thoughtful, but let’s stop putting things in the constitution, because we are building layer upon layer of conflicting measures. And now we have a structural deficit that we can not address [without changing the constitution],” Sinden said.

Initiatives: A tool for out-of-state activists and special interests

While activists argue that the ballot initiative system allows voters to circumvent a Legislature controlled by lobbyist interests, in 2009, The Colorado Independent reported that the National Conference of State Legislatures found that initiatives have increasingly become the handiwork of special interest groups outside of the state.

“Advocates of the initiative process will argue that the role of special interests is exaggerated. But that’s not what we found [on the NCSL task force]. On the left and the right, if you follow the money, you will see that a lot of the ideas originate outside the state,” Jennie Drage Bowser, an elections expert with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said at the time.

Today, with one of the nation’s lowest thresholds for ballot initiative signatures in the country, those conditions do not appear to be changing in Colorado.

“Often initiatives are something that represent legitimate organic felt need or movement in the community of Colorado.” Robinson said. “Undeniably it is also used by people who want to come to the state and use the initiative process. So, it is both. It is an open tool that can be used by anybody who chooses to pick it up.”

Justine Sarver, executive director of the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which tracks trends in initiative integrity and helps progressive causes develop more effective strategies for initiative defense and support, said that she was aware of a number of out-of-state interests that had targeted Colorado for testing ballot initiatives.

“The big picture on citizen initiatives is that they have become the tool of special interests but especially corporations or organizations that are seeking to make government smaller,” Sarver said. “Looking at Colorado as one of the biggest ballot initiative states, certainly there are national trends that are picked up and carried from state to state.”

Sarver pointed to initiative attempts such as one which would have made state-sanctioned affirmative action illegal and the personhood initiative as examples of campaigns fueled by out-of-state interests. She went on to say her own group was currently in discussions about how they could nationalize many progressive issues campaigns in much the same way as their opponents.

Colorado Political analyst Eric Sondermann, who worked as a consultant on Ref. O in 2008, agreed that special interests increasingly were playing a large part in the initiative system. But he said Colorado grown grassroots initiatives continued to thrive in the state despite the presence of outside interests.

Trippi, like Sarver, argued that a good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from.

“The fact still is that the people get to vote on that initiative … If they do agree with it, why does it matter how it got qualified?” Trippi asked.

Special interests and disclosure

Voter advocacy groups say how special interests might use the system matters a lot. They contend that voters are rarely able to do the deep research needed to make complicated and long-term policy decisions state legislators can make. Instead, they are forced to fall back on slogans from campaigns, headlines, or ballot titles that may provide a visceral social appeal but often hide the true nature of an initiative where even its funders remain hidden in a maze of campaign finance laws.

“One thing that we have learned is that when something is put into the constitution by way of ballot initiative that you get either more or less than you voted for,” Murray said.

Jenny Flanagan, executive director for Colorado Common Cause, who joined Trippi and others in their opposition to SCR 1, said voters should first and foremost be informed of which individuals and special interest groups are supporting a campaign. However, she said that protection is currently in flux.

Colorado currently requires disclosure of those contributing to an issues (initiative) campaign. Yet, those laws have recently been weakened after Secretary of State Scott Gessler said he was complying with a court ruling that found a small neighborhood association’s rights were suppressed by burdensome reporting requirements. Gessler changed the reporting requirement from a $200 threshold to a $5,000 threshold. While Colorado Common Cause has filed a complaint, Flanagan says the change removes yet another layer of citizen protections.

“We are not only limiting disclosure by raising these limits and the timeliness of disclosure, but we are hiding money from voters,” Flanagan said. “A key part of making a decision is understanding who is funding a message and is trying to influence your vote.”

Beyond campaign contribution thresholds, however, is a tortuous maze of 401c 4 and 527 groups that through incestuous contributions are able to mask donors.

Sinden, who said her own organization has not taken a position on disclosure, said donation masking makes it difficult to determine if out-of-state interests are funding a campaign. However, she said, if those donating to campaigns could not mask their identity many would choose to opt out of voicing their opinion through their wallets due to the fear of retaliation from either their employers or friends.

University of Colorado associate professor Michele Moses, who recently published a study looking at information distribution to voters concerning the 2008 anti-affirmative action initiative campaign, said knowing who is behind information does matter. She said that of those who voted to support Amendment 42 and eliminate affirmative action in Colorado, over 66 percent of voters actually meant to support affirmative action. Moses pointed to a number of causes for the confusion including the ballot amendment title and petitioner explanations.

Sondermann agreed that voters are often confused by exactly what is in the body of an initiative. He explained while it is hard to get them to vote to amend the constitution, those same voters more often than not are influenced by headlines that create a visceral appeal. In doing so, he said that many special interest groups have been able to pass initiatives without the public being fully aware of what they were voting on. He said the AmeriStar Casino-funded Amendment 50, which purported to increase funding for community colleges while actually increasing the bet limit at casinos, was just such an initiative.

Ameristar is now reaping the benefits of that initiative after seeing its taxes decreased and the funding to schools slashed.

“I don’t know that initiatives are a way to deal with complex public policy,” Sondermann said.

Trippi and Robinson disagreed with the notion that voters are ill informed.

“When you offer an initiative, people tend to pay attention to that issue, talk about it, it elevates the discourse of the citizenry in a broad way because they are forced to deal with it,” Robinson said. “I understand they don’t become deep experts, but there isn’t any evidence that the legislature’s deep expertise leads to better laws.”

Trippi had a similar analysis.

“Are you going to have bad laws? Of course you are going to have bad laws, but if it is a mistake at least it is a mistake that the people make. They engaged, they got involved, they had their day and it won or lost.”

Murray was of a different opinion. She said that while legislators can fix their mistakes through the legislative process, mistakes passed through a constitutional amendment are almost impossible to remove unless they find their way into a courtroom. She, like others, said her intentions with SCR 1 were to encourage voters to pass laws through the ballot initiative system, so that if they were later found to be unconstitutional or detrimental to Colorado they could be fixed before becoming law.

The rise of gay pride is a sign delivered by God that the end of the world will begin in just a few short days on May 21. At least that is the prophecy of former Coloradan Harold Camping, the 89-year-old founder, president, and general manager of the radio network Family Stations Inc., the network that launched the end-of-world-campaign.

Christian Gay and lesbian groups say they aren’t so sure, and a professor at Iliff School of Theology says the claim that the world will end as the result of God’s wrath on a particular group of people transforms the end of the world prediction from a humorous story to a very dangerous one.

“No sign is as dramatic and clear as the phenomenal world-wide success of the Gay Pride movement,” Camping states in his online essay Gay Pride: Planned by God as a Sign of the End.

Family Stations, Inc., which owns 66 stations across the U.S., launched its campaign posting billboards and sending fleets of trucks across the United States warning of the impending judgment day, May 21, and subsequent end of the world on Oct. 21, 2011.

It is a message that has caught the ear of local and national media organizations that have juiced the end-of-the-world advertising campaign, by bringing their message to the pages of TIME, The Washington Post and numerous other publications across the country.

While publications have reported on Camping’s second end-of-the-world prediction–the first being in 1994 when the sun rose and fell without sight of the Son of Man–most don’t note the underlying signs Camping says show the end is nigh, let alone his message that the rise of gay rights has heralded the oncoming destruction of the world.

“Thus we learn that God has planned today’s situation of Gay Pride and same-sex marriages to show the world that it is on the threshold of Judgment Day. He has shown us that an obviously parallel situation exists between Sodom, when it was on the threshold of destruction, and the world of our day, which is on the threshold of destruction,” Camping’s writings explain.

It is a message that meets with some skepticism within the gay community.

“We do not share this view of the rapture,” Karen Barr, moderator at the Christian organization Gay, Lesbian, & Affirming Disciples Alliance, Inc., said. “It is a modern invention that does not reflect the whole of the teaching of Jesus. We do believe that a world where people of all gender and sexual identities are welcomed, valued, and enjoy the same rights and responsibilities is a reflection of the values held in the heart of God as evidenced by the life and teachings of Jesus.”

Professor Miguel De La Torre, at the Iliff School of Theology, posted an online column discussing Camping’s prediction. He said anyone can go into the Bible and look at various predictions and construct a timeline based on particular quotations, but that they always prove to be wrong.

He writes:

“If I knew for certainty that I was going to die this weekend, then the mark of a good life is to live the last days of my life like I lived all the other days up to this point. My advice would be to ‘be at peace,’” added De La Torre. “No one knows when the world will end. It could end up May 21 this year, next year, or a hundred or a thousand years from now. We don’t know. What we do know is that people who have taken predictions of the last day of the earth and did all matters of things that could not be undone, that their lives were destroyed. One needs to be careful not to fall into that trap.”

When contacted by The Colorado Independent, De La Torre said his column didn’t address the homosexuality angle because he wasn’t aware of it.

“If that is the case, it changes from a humorous story to a much more dangerous story. To say that the world will end because of God’s wrath with a particular group of people is really a throwback to the darkest part of our culture.”

De La Torre is a professor of social ethics. “I do not see anything in the Bible that condemns loving relationships between same-gender adults. God is not displeased by any loving relationship between two adults. This seems to be based more on cultural biases than any Biblical text.”

Attempts to contact the radio network failed. However, the Family Radio website provides details of both the prediction and Camping’s connection with the station in a press packet.

Though Camping reports that he receives no compensation for his services, the preacher has used the platform to warn of signs he says are in the Bible. According to the packet, the board of directors for the non-commercial network, feeling that God has prepared Family Radio for “this important time in History,” voted unanimously to use all available funds to warn the world of the oncoming judgment day, when an earthquake will jettison the bodies of the wicked to the ground and the faithful into heaven, not to mention the subsequent destruction of the world.

They wrote that unlike Camping’s last prediction that he had said might happen, very salient guideposts put in place by God to warn all mankind of its waning time on earth have become evident. The board of directors are now certain of Christ’s return.

“Jesus warned of several spiritual signs, such as the complete degradation of the Christian church, the devastating moral breakdown of society, the re-establishment of National Israel in 1948, the emergence of the ‘Gay Pride Movement’, and the complete disregard of the Bible in all of society today as direct evidence of His return,” the press packet notes.

Camping used a form of hermeneutic interpretation of the Bible to determine his predicted end date. Noting that Christ’s death occurred on April 1, 33 ADD, Camping used the solar calendar to predict when the the rapture, or judgment day, will occur.

“This conclusion is not offered because it is the opinion of some Bible scholar. It is said because this is what God teaches in the Bible,” Camping wrote. “This dramatic sign which increasingly is in evidence all over the world fits perfectly with the solid Biblical teaching that May 21, 2011 will be the first day of the Day of Judgment.”

Oddly, while the group is promoting that judgment day is to come, along with massive earthquakes lasting till the October end date, Family Radio says it will continue to offer information packets surrounding its predictions through May 23, 2011.

The end of the world has been predicted numerous times over the years, and many are predicting this won’t be the last such prediction.