The Colorado Independent » Amendment 31

Ethics Commission rules: No soup for you!

Wendy Norris — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:32:10 +0000

The first letter ruling issued by the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission Wednesday settled a matter of grave importance — whether lobbyists can override Amendment 41 and buy lunch for a public official at a members-only club.

State voters passed the lobbyist gift ban in 2006 while the Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay scandals raged nationally.

Though state lawmakers and public officials are not likely to be treated to all-expense-paid trips to St. Andrews or a suitcase full of cash, the draconian ban has evoked some fairly ridiculous scenarios by proponents and detractors alike.

A recent inquiry to the commission posed the following dilemma — can a lobbyist have lunch with a public official at a venue where a non-member is not allowed to pay for his or her own meal?

The requestor explained that the purpose of these lunches “is to educate legislators on issues that are of importance to the State and the business community, as well as to introduce legislators to statewide business leaders.” However laudable and valuable this purpose may be, it is irrelevant in light of the clear and absolute language in the Constitution.

The Commission, however, reiterates its belief that “lobbying as education and persuasion fulfills an important function in government, and that the free exchange of information and argument should be encouraged.” See Position Statement 09-01. There are many venues in which this activity may be accomplished. If membership-style dining rooms, such as the University Club, do not allow for non-members to pay for their own meals, then another type of restaurant may be chosen, or another type of venue where gift-giving, as contemplated by the Constitution, is not involved.

h/t Colorado Ethics Watch

Ward Connerly’s Anti-Affirmative Action Machine

Cara Degette — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:42:16 +0000

Just who is Ward Connerly and why does he want to change Colorado’s Constitution?Twelve years ago, Connerly was the public face of California’s Proposition 209, designed to ban affirmative action programs benefiting women and minorities. Californians passed it, and Connerly, who is conservative and black, subsequently formed a group called the American Civil Rights Institute and took his show on the road.

Two years later, voters in Washington state approved a similar measure, outlawing programs that benefit women and minorities in public education, health and public employment. Michigan voters adopted a similar Connerly law in 2006.

And this year, Connerly has high goals for repeats in what he is calling “Super Tuesday for Equal Rights” – campaign efforts in Colorado, as well as Missouri, Arizona, Nebraska and Oklahoma. In Colorado, as elsewhere, Connerly and his supporters are calling their effort a “civil rights initiative” to end “preferential treatment.” Always, they avoid the term “affirmative action” – much to the dismay of opponents, who warn that programs that benefit women and minorities would be gutted if the measure passes.

When he appeared at a kick-off for the Colorado campaign last year, Connerly was flanked by state Sen. Dave Schultheis and Rep. Kent Lambert, both conservative Republicans from Colorado Springs. During the press conference, Connerly announced that it is time to end what he called “double standards.”

“What we’re about to do — what we’re setting upon a course to do — is to bring a single standard to every government agency and every village and hamlet in this country,” Connerly told The Rocky Mountain News.

(Since that initial appearance, neither Lambert nor Schultheis, who are best known for their stances opposing illegal immigration in Colorado, have, not surprisingly, not resurfaced for public appearances promoting Connerly’s Colorado proposal, which will be Amendment 31 if enough signatures are collected to make the ballot. Schultheis in particular outraged many in Colorado when he sent a letter to a Greeley paper in October, 2006, wondering if the family of three children who had died in a car accident were in the state legally.)

But in the dozen years since Proposition 209 passed in California, investigative reports have revealed that Connerly likely has much more than altruism and racial double standards in mind: It’s called money. Lots and lots of money.

In its winter 2008 issue, Ms. magazine published an investigative package detailing the millions that Connerly has raked in over the past 12 years, engaging in what is described as a “good ole boys” cottage industry, whose main beneficiaries are largely lily-white, male members of the building and construction industry – in other words, his consulting company’s longtime clients.

“Connerly and his firm [Connerly & Associates] have long consulted and lobbied for trade associations comprised of some of the most powerful players in the housing, building and public works construction industries – many of which depend on state and local governments for lucrative contracts,” according to the Ms. article, written by Mary Moore and Jennifer Hahn.

In the years since Prop 209 passed, Connerly has been “handsomely compensated,” the article notes. According to Internal Revenue Service filings, between 1998 and 2006 Connerly and his company have raked in a total of $8.3 million from his nonprofit American Civil Rights Institute, and another called the American Civil Rights Coalition.

“In addition to salary and benefits, Connerly receives expense accounts and fees for speaking, media interviews and consulting,” the article notes.
In 2006, Connerly’s compensation from his nonprofits totaled $1.6 million – which has drawn notice from members of Congress, who have called for an investigation into whether Connerly has excessively benefited from his nonprofits (Connerly has been reluctant to disclose the donors who are financing his anti-affirmative action efforts; a California lawsuit revealed that media mogul Rupert Murdoch and a handful of other wealthy conservatives largely financed the measure there).
That 2006 salary of $1.6 million is up – way up – from the $230,000 Connerly collected from his nonprofits in 1998. Since that year, his annual earnings have been steadily rising.

A June 23, 2003, investigative piece in The Sacramento Bee revealed that, the year before, Connerly pulled in more than $700,000 – including $314,079 in salaries from his nonprofits, $407,009 in speaking and consulting fees and $15,000 in fringe benefits. He was also reimbursed $174,353 for travel and other expenses.

The irony was not lost on critical California Assemblyman Fabian Nunez, a Democrat from Los Angeles.

“Clearly the objective here isn’t to create a colorblind society but to promote Mr. Connerly,” Nunez was quoted as saying.

For his part, in an interview with Ms. magazine, Connerly dismissed any claims that he is overpaid, claiming that he made $2 million a year when he was running Connerly & Associates full-time, which his wife now runs. He also rejected the notion that people working for nonprofits should “not make more than a certain amount.”

“That doesn’t take into account who the person is,” Connerly said. “I’m not your typical executive.”

The Ms. package, published in January, also includes a piece, written by Columbia and UCLA Law School professor Kimberle Crenshaw, examining the deceptive campaign tactics that were used in Connerly’s successful past campaigns in Michigan, California and Washington state. Those same tactics, as detailed last week by Colorado Confidential, are being replicated this year in Colorado.

For example, proponents of all the measures have purposely avoided the term “affirmative action” – describing their efforts as “promoting equality in the workplace,” and “ending preferential treatment.”

Crenshaw describes the deception as “the most audacious dimension of Connerly’s masquerade.”

“By selectively sampling from its martyr, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Connerly has appropriated the terminology, symbolism and moral authority of the civil rights movement to undo some of its most important victories,” Crenshaw writes. “The millions of U.S. Citizens((did she really capitalize this?)) who are primed to affirm any proposal framed as advancing civil rights are precisely those most at risk of being tricked into voting against their own interests.
“Women and black people were denied the vote in the past; today, they are deceived out of their votes.”

In Colorado, paid petition-circulators are currently working to collect the 76,047 valid signatures to qualify Connerly’s Amendment 31 for the November ballot.

This is the fourth in a multi-part series. Click here to read the first installment, which provides an overview of Ward Connerly’s Colorado operation and the proposed Amendment 31.

Click here for details about opponents’ plan to introduce another Colorado amendment that would freeze programs that benefit women and minorities in place.

Click here for a story of a young black woman who reported being misled — and a warning to read before you sign petitions that was issued by a state lawmaker.

And click here for an additional tale of warning from a Denver woman who has filed a complaint with the Secretary of State’s office after she was twice misled by petitioners in Colorado.

Cara DeGette is a senior fellow at Colorado Confidential and a columnist and contributing editor at The Colorado Springs Independent. E-mail her at cdegette@coloradoconfidential.com

Amendment 31: Fighting Misleading Petitioners Isn’t Easy

Cara Degette — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:14:02 +0000

Tracy Sear’s interactions with two Amendment 31 petition circulators occurred on Feb. 8 and Feb. 9. “The first time I was coming out of the Target store in Glendale. There was a young man with clipboard and I overheard him tell someone, ‘This petition would end preferential treatment in the workplace.’ I thought, hmmm, we already have affirmative action and the EEOC. So I asked him, What is this petition for?”

“He quickly read the language of the petition off to me,” Sear continues. “I’m also familiar enough, having a labor law background, and a couple of key phrases caught my attention. I asked him specifically if this would eliminate affirmative action, and he said it would reduce affirmative action, I said, ‘Some of them or all of them?’ And he finally said, ‘OK, all of them.’ I had to really press him to admit it would eliminate affirmative action.
“The next day I was at the King Soopers [in southeast Denver] and there was a woman, blond, probably in her 40s, and she was petitioning. I heard her say to someone, ‘This would promote equality in the workplace.’ I thought, OK, I’ll do my shopping and when I came out I approached her and I said, ‘Is this petition designed to eliminate affirmative action?’
“She said pretty much the same thing the young man had said – first she said it would reduce affirmative action. I had to press her and get her to admit it would eliminate affirmative action.
“Then she said, ‘We don’t need affirmative action anyway.’ “

Both of the petitioners were wearing small round campaign-like buttons that identified them as “Paid Petition Circulator.” Sear, who is 59 and owns a small business in Denver, said she saw no use getting into an argument with the woman.
She reports that she did, however, feel compelled to ask another woman, who was signing the petition, if she realized that her signature was potentially pushing an effort to eliminate programs that assist women and minorities in Colorado.
“The lady looked at me and her jaw dropped,” Sear says. “I was really angry because I felt I was deliberately misled.”
Sear is not the only resident who has reported feeling misled, and flat-out lied to, by Amendment 31 petitioners. Opponents say they have heard a multitude of stories from people who have lodged informal complaints, including being told that the measure is a “civil rights initiative” and that it is needed to install equal rights for women “because the Equal Rights Amendment didn’t pass in Colorado.”
After her encounter, Sear was inspired to investigate further. Until then she wasn’t even aware that Amendment 31 was being proposed. Ultimately she sent a letter of protest to the Secretary of State’s office.
Colorado statute specifies that, “If a circulator is found to … have made false or misleading statements relating to his or her section of the petition, such section of the petition shall be deemed void.”
However — and here is the rub — the wording of the Amendment 31′s approved title claims the measure would eliminate discrimination:
“The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”
There is no reference to affirmative action, though opponents maintain that if passed, those programs in place that are designed to help level the playing field for women and minorities, particularly in education, health care and business, would face elimination. And the wording is exactly the same as a measure that passed in Michigan two years ago — amid many of the same complaints by voters who complained they were being misled by petition circulators making the same claims of “equality” and “banning discrimination” and eliminating “preferential treatment.”
In Colorado four years ago, then-state Sen. Ed Jones, a conservative black Republican from Colorado Springs, introduced an anti-affirmative bill — which is exactly what Ward Connerly is currently trying to do via constitutional amendments in Colorado, as well as in Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
The wording of the Jones bill specified that it would, indeed, eliminate affirmative action, and it died in the Senate. At the time, he came under intense fire from African-American leaders, including in Colorado Springs.

“I can’t understand for the life of me where Ed Jones is coming from on this,” Benjamin Reynolds, then the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church and president of the Pikes Peak Chapter of the NAACP, told the Colorado Springs Gazette.
“I just have no idea how he comes to the conclusion that affirmative action has done its work, and we don’t need it any more,” Reynolds said. “It is the most confusing thing I’ve faced in recent years.”

At the time, Jones countered that, “Forty years of affirmative action has not helped racism. Blacks are made to feel like they are inferior.” Two years ago, Jones was defeated in his re-election bid.
This week Sear, who is white, provided a different take.

“I don’t think much has changed by way of opportunities for people [of color and women]. I have worked in the public sector, and I know that opportunities for education and nutrition and in other areas, a lot of inequalities exist that existed 30 years ago.
“If affirmative action were eliminated, you would see a lot of opportunities taken away from people that [are] deserving. Until we can truly say there is not racism or sexism and truly look at each other as human beings and go beyond race and gender, we can’t say we don’t need affirmative action.
“I don’t think we’re there yet.”

This is the fourth in a multi-part series. Click here to read the first installment, which provides an overview of Ward Connerly’s group and his proposed Amendment 31.
Click here for details about opponents’ plan to introduce another amendment that would freeze programs that benefit women and minorities in place.
And click here for the story of another woman who reports being misled — and a warning to read before you sign petitions that was issued by a state lawmaker.
Up next: Just who is Ward Connerly and why does he want to change Colorado’s Constitution?
Cara DeGette is a senior fellow at Colorado Confidential and a columnist and contributing editor at The Colorado Springs Independent. E-mail her at cdegette@coloradoconfidential.com

‘Basically, They Lied To Me’

Cara Degette — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:38:26 +0000

Every day at the light rail stop at Auraria campus in downtown Denver, Chloe Johnson encounters a handful of petitioners gathering signatures. “Would you like to end all discrimination in Colorado?” she is asked. She certainly does. A month ago she signed the petition, and subsequently was shocked to learn that the measure is designed to obliterate all affirmative action programs in the state.Johnson, 18, is a political science major at the University of Colorado at Denver. She is also interning with state Rep. Morgan Carroll, a Democrat from Aurora. When Johnson discovered the petition that she signed is not what she was sold, she decided to petition the Secretary of State to have her name removed from the petition pushing the proposed Amendment 31. In addition to being misled, Johnson maintains she was flat-out lied to by the petitioner.

“I asked him, `Don’t we already have federal laws that ban discrimination?’ Johnson recalls. “[The petition gatherer] said, `Yes, but it will end in July.’ “

Johnson is not the only person claiming she has been misled by activists who are trying to secure 76,047 signatures from registered Colorado voters for Amendment 31. If it makes the November ballot and is passed by the voters, the constitutional amendment would eliminate all programs that benefit minorities and women, including those in education, health care and business. The proposal is being pushed by the California-based American Civil Rights Institute, which is headed by Ward Connerly, a conservative black man who has successfully passed similar laws in California, Washington state and Michigan.

“Basically they lied to me,” says Johnson. “It’s really misleading.
“I’m against the anti-affirmative-action bill, but I’m more upset with being misled. I mean, you can totally be for that if you want, but don’t BS me.
“I just want to get my name taken off the petition.”

But doing that may not be so easy. Johnson says she has contacted the Secretary of State’s office and has been told that a hearing will be set to determine what should be done. State statute specifies it is illegal for petition gatherers to make “false or misleading” statements; however, the statute does not specifically address complaints made by citizens. Further, though Amendment 31 would ban affirmative action programs in Colorado, the wording of the ballot title itself suggests just the opposite.
This is the 37-word title, which was approved last year: “The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”
The wording has frustrated opponents of the anti-affirmative-action measure, who are now seeking to place a second measure – Amendment 61 – on the ballot to freeze in place those programs that benefit women and minorities in Colorado.
Meanwhile, Johnson’s experience has prompted Carroll to issue an alert, advising the public to “Be Careful! and “Decline to Sign!” petitions unless the voter is completely sure what the proposal is designed to do.

“There is a provision in Colorado law that prohibits misleading or misrepresentation statements, and this is a pretty freaky thing that is going on,” Carroll told Colorado Confidential.
“There’s also this whole culture of `Whats the harm? I’ll sign the petition because I believe in the democratic process and we should let the voters decide.’
“But people need to know how to navigate through it, and they should understand that they need to know what it is they’re really signing up for.”

As Carroll notes, in addition to the proposed Amendment 31, some 26 other ballot titles have already been filed with the Secretary of State’s office this year – and once something is in Colorado’s Constitution, it is extremely difficult to undo. Here is Carroll’s warning:

Decline to Sign! BE CAREFUL!
Every year the number of initiatives on the ballot grows. This year some 27 different titles have already been filed. They require a threshold number of signatures to make it on the ballot.
Some factors to consider before deciding to sign:

31 Versus 61: Flip Sides Of The Discrimination Coin

Cara Degette — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:29:40 +0000

Amendment 31, meet Amendment 61 – otherwise known as Colorado civil rights activists’ answer to California millionaire Ward Connerly’s efforts to outlaw affirmative action programs in Colorado.It appears to be a twist on the old classic: if you think you might not beat them, join them.
Last year opponents of Connerly’s proposed anti-affirmative action amendment in Colorado battled vociferously to keep the measure off the 2008 ballot (among other arguments, opposition attorney Ed Ramey claimed the ballot wording violated the state’s single subject rule). Score so far: Connerly 1, Colorado Civil Rights Activists 0.
This year, many of these same activists who warn that eliminating programs that benefit minorities and women in education, health care and business plan to try to throw a wrench into Connerly’s well-funded machine with an amendment of their own.
Amendment 61, which is being heard by Colorado’s title board this week, would keep various programs currently in place in Colorado that enhance equal opportunities for minorities and women – potentially canceling out Amendment 31, should it pass.
The titles – as they currently are written – further prove an exercise in brain-straining semantics:
Amendment 31: Prohibition on Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Colorado Government
Amendment 61: Federal Standards for Discrimination/Preferential Treatment by Colorado Governments
Mary Phillips, a retired Denver attorney who is listed as one of three sponsors of Amendment 61, explains the idea behind it this way:

“Our proposition (61) will outlaw preferences and discrimination and it will allow equal opportunities like tutoring and recruitment [for minorities and women].
“We are hoping to preserve those programs in Colorado that are alright under the Constitution for equal opportunity programs and recruitment.”

Quotas, along with many affirmative action programs, have already been eliminated and rendered unconstitutional by courts in Colorado and elsewhere. Amendment 61 would essentially preserve those programs that are left — like recruitment efforts to increase minority enrollment at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and training and summer job programs that are designed to promote diversity in the workforce.
If Connerly’s anti-affirmative-action Amendment 31 makes the ballot and is approved by voters, those programs, which benefit minorities and women, would be eliminated. (Click here to read more about Connerly’s Sacramento-based group, and his efforts in Colorado).
And further clouding the debate is the lack of a hard-and-fast list of targeted programs. Amendment 31 proponents have never produced a list detailing exactly what in Colorado would be eliminated, should their amendment pass. In a recent interview, Amendment 31 sponsor Valery Pech Orr generically described the programs on the chopping block as anything having to do with “public education, public employment and public contracting.”
Amendment 61 proponents are likewise coy.

“We can talk generally about programs that are at risk, but we are not going to flag specific programs,” said Roberto Corrada, a law professor at Denver University who is promoting Amendment 61.
Why, Corrada wonders, should his group help Connerly’s group by identifying specific programs that currently benefit minorities and women, and potentially lay them open to be targeted for elimination?
“What’s interesting about Ward Connerly is, usually when you want to change the status quo, it’s up to you to show what’s broken,” Corrada said. “And Connerly doesn’t know, so suddenly the burden is on the status quo.
“Why shouldn’t he be the one to show what’s wrong in Colorado?”

Corrada freely notes that the tactic is a test run for other states that might next be targeted by Connerly and his group, called the American Civil Rights Institute.
Since 1996, voters in three states have approved similar Connerly-sponsored amendments, including in California, Washington state and Michigan. He has targeted five more, including Colorado, with anti-affirmative-action initiatives this year.
To be sure, both groups have plenty of work ahead in Colorado. Amendment 31 has already been approved for the ballot, and petitioners are currently collecting signatures.
Proponents of 61 are distinctly trailing. Should their measure be approved for the Colorado ballot, they, like Amendment 31 proponents, would need to collect 76,047 valid signatures from registered voters in Colorado to make the ballot.
It is unclear what would happen if both measures ultimately are passed by voters.
This is the second in a multi-part series on Amendment 31, affirmative action in Colorado and Ward Connerly’s efforts. Additional segments will appear all this week. Click here to read the first installment, which provides an overview of Connerly’s group and his proposed Amendment 31.
Cara DeGette is a senior fellow at Colorado Confidential and a columnist and contributing editor at The Colorado Springs Independent. E-mail her at cdegette@coloradoconfidential.com

Amendment 31: Civil Rights Or Civil Wrongs?

Cara Degette — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:16:57 +0000

The paid petition circulators are already out in force. Standing with their clipboards in front of King Soopers and Safeway and Target stores, they are asking people questions like, “Do you want to ban discrimination in Colorado?” and, “Do you favor equal rights for women?” Opponents of Colorado’s Amendment 31 decry such tactics as misleading at best; proponents say it’s time to eliminate “preferences.”Welcome to the complexities of Amendment 31. In a nutshell, if it makes the ballot and is passed by Colorado voters the measure would ban programs that are largely considered to be the remaining remnants of affirmative action – programs designed to help women and minorities in education, business and public health.
The 37-word ballot proposal appears fairly straightforward:

“The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”

But if voters pass Amendment 31 a laundry list of current programs would face obliteration in Colorado, including diversity and outreach programs in higher education, the recruitment of women and minorities in business and the elimination of K-12 programs that encourage girls’ and minorities’ interest in math, science and technology.
The effort is being organized not by a Colorado group but by Ward Connerly, the California millionaire who successfully promoted a similar anti-affirmative action measure there 12 years ago. He and his supporters have since gone on to other victories in Michigan and Washington state.
In addition to Colorado this year, Connerly and his Sacramento-based group, the American Civil Rights Institute is targeting four other states – Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Connerly, who is black, is calling this year’s push “Super Tuesday for Equal Rights” and has vowed that his efforts “will bring our nation one step closer to realizing the promise of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – color-blind government.”
Connerly is joined in his efforts by Linda Chavez, the conservative columnist who spends the bulk of her time in Washington, D.C., but reportedly owns a home in Colorado.
Chavez is officially listed as a co-sponsor of the Colorado amendment, along with Valery Pech Orr, the co-owner of the Colorado company Adarand Constructors, which won a U.S. Supreme Court case in the mid-1990s that overturned some affirmative action rules related to federal highway contracts.
The Amendment 31 campaign was first rolled out last May, at a press conference at the swanky Brown Palace Hotel in Denver – where a basic room currently rents for $254 a weeknight and the presidential suite rents for $1,249 a weeknight. Flanking Connerly at the campaign’s kick-off were state Sen. Dave Schultheis and Rep. Kent Lambert, both conservative Colorado Springs Republicans and longtime opponents of affirmative action.
“It’s racial discrimination to say a child should get a head start because of his or her race,” Schultheis announced when he was still in the state House in 2003. “We should be working toward a color-blind society. … Race should be a non-issue.”
Despite his high-profile initial involvement, Schultheis, who is white, has not emerged as the poster child for Amendment 31. The October before he joined Connerly onstage for the campaign kickoff, the lawmaker generated publicity and outrage when he sent a letter to the Greeley Tribune immediately after a horrific car accident claimed three children of a family with a Hispanic surname. In the letter, sent by e-mail the day the third child died, Schultheis wondered whether the family was in the United States legally.
Last week Orr, the amendment’s co-sponsor, described her position:

“The core of this issue is this is about fairness – what is fair in the eyes of the government,” she told Colorado Confidential.
“It’s not about affirmative action, it’s about the fact that racial preferences have become discriminatory. When you give preferences to one group, you will discriminate against another whole group.
“As I woman, I will not accept that I’m disadvantaged. I just want to compete equally in the eyes of my government.”

Amendment 31′s opponents, however, have a far different take – and a far different name for the Connerly plan. Rather than his “Super Tuesday for Civil Rights” marketing slogan, some have taken to calling the effort “Super Tuesday for Segregation.”
Organizers from Colorado Unity, which has organized to battle the amendment, have compiled a list of what they describe are “hard statistics” that show equality between men and women and people of color is still far from a reality.
Dismantling outreach programs, they say, would be devastating and would only serve to increase the multitude of disparities for minorities and women. Colorado Unity currently includes activists from the Colorado Progressive Coalition, the 9 to 5 National Association of Working Women and other longtime Colorado civil rights activists.
Among their statistics: