Colorado Amendment 71, 55% Vote Requirement and Signature Distribution Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure (2016)

Colorado Amendment 71
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Direct democracy measures and Supermajority requirements
Status Approved
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Colorado Amendment 71 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Colorado on November 8, 2016. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to: create a signature distribution requirement for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, requiring signatures to be collected from each of the state's 35 Senate districts, and require a 55% vote for voters to approve constitutional amendments.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thus continuing to: allow campaigns for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to collect the required number of signatures without a distribution requirement and requiring a simple majority vote for voters to approve constitutional amendments.

Aftermath

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Constitutionality; whether Amendment 71 violates the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process) of the U.S. Constitution.
Court: U.S. District Court; appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning the distribution requirement provisions of Amendment 71 as unconstitutional. On April 12, 2018, the ruling was stayed, allowing enforcement of the distribution requirement in 2018. On August 20, 2019, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of defendants, finding Amendment 71 to be constitutional
Plaintiff(s): ColoradoCareYes, the Coalition for Colorado Universal Health Care, and Co-operate Colorado	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Wayne Williams in his official capacity
Plaintiff argument: Amendment 71 gives more power to the voters in smaller districts since voters in one district can prevent an initiative from qualifying for the ballot even if enough voters in the other districts sign a petition, which gives greater weight to rural voters than to urban voters.	Defendant argument: Other court rulings have upheld geographical distribution requirements if the populations of the geographical regions are roughly similar; the Supreme Court has upheld basing the division of voting districts on total population rather than on the number of registered voters; and the state has a compelling interest in upholding the distribution requirement because it ensures statewide support for a proposed initiated constitutional amendment

  Source: The Colorado Statesman and The Denver Post

ColoradoCareYes and the Coalition for Colorado Universal Health Care, proponents of the defeated Amendment 69 of 2016, filed litigation against Amendment 71 in U.S. District Court on April 24, 2017. Secretary of State Wayne Williams (R) was named as the defendant.

Plaintiffs stated that Amendment 71 violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit stated, "Voters in one district can thwart the will of a far greater number of voters in another, and prevent a popular initiative that might win majority support in the general election from appearing on the ballot." Specifically, plaintiffs state that Amendment 71 gives greater weight to rural voters than urban voters and therefore violates the principle of majority rule.

The Independence Institute and 350Colorado.org supported the lawsuit.

The state argued that (a) other court rulings have upheld geographical distribution requirements if the populations of the geographical regions are roughly similar, (b) the Supreme Court has upheld the practice of basing the division of voting districts on total population rather than on the number of registered voters and the same arguments can be applied to signature petition drives, and (c) the state has a compelling interest in upholding the distribution requirement because it ensures statewide support for a proposed initiated constitutional amendment.

Ruling

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

On February 14, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martinez denied a request to dismiss the case and stated his intention to rule that the distribution requirement based on state Senate districts violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because, according to Martinez, it violated the principle of one person one vote unless the state could provide more evidence. Martinez agreed with plaintiffs who argued that, since districts varied with regard to the numbers of registered voters they contained, Amendment 71 gave more power to voters in smaller districts than to those in districts with more registered voters. The lawsuit pointed to the example of Senate District 23 and Senate District 21. District 23 had 51,723 more registered voters (60 percent) than District 21 at the beginning of 2017. This made the minimum signature requirement in District 23 larger than the minimum signature requirement in District 21, according to Amendment 71. The lawsuit argued that this gave District 21 voters more power during signature gathering efforts than the voters in District 23. Martinez's ruling was a temporary injunction, giving state officials until March 9, 2018, to provide more evidence showing why a permanent injunction against the distribution requirement should not be granted. Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert said that her office would continue to defend the distribution requirement and would decide between compiling data and arguing the case to Martinez before March 9, 2018, or letting the March 9 deadline pass and appealing the permanent ruling once it is made.

On March 27, 2018, Martinez provided overturned the distribution requirement provisions of Amendment 71. The office of Secretary of State Wayne Williams said that it would appeal the ruling.

Martinez responded to arguments made by the state concerning previous court cases by saying that, in previous court rulings, the argument based on numbers of registered voters rather than population had not been made in the same way that plaintiffs in this case had made it.

Martinez wrote the following:

“

Or, from a somewhat different perspective, one could characterize subsection 2.5 [the distribution requirement provisions of the initiative] as granting to each legislative district one 'vote' in favor of or against placing a proposed initiative on the ballot. That vote is 'yea' if 2% or more of the district’s registered voters sign the petition, and otherwise “nay.” District 21 needs only 1,610 signatures to cast a 'yea' vote, whereas district 23 needs 2,644 signatures—yet each district casts, or may withhold, one equally weighted vote. In sum, to the extent that the registered voter population varies significantly within Colorado’s senate districts, subsection 2.5 creates a classic vote-dilution problem, demanding strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

”

Kate Roberts, campaign manager for the Amendment 71 campaign, responded to the March 2018 ruling of Martinez: "On one side of the argument, you have some of the finest legal minds in Colorado who drafted Amendment 71, reams of federal case law supporting signature-gathering requirements based on legislative districts, a massive coalition led by all five of the state's living governors and a vast majority of Colorado voters in more than 60 counties. On the other side, you have a lone federal judge deploying what can only be described as tortured logic in questioning the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment that requires those trying to amend the Constitution to collect signatures in places other than Denver and Boulder."

On April 12, 2018, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the ruling and stated that the requirement that proponents of citizen-initiated constitutional amendments must gather signatures from all 35 Colorado Senate districts was to be left in effect during appeals, even though U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez overturned the distribution requirement provisions of Amendment 71 on March 27, 2018.

10th Circuit Court of Appeals

On August 20, 2019, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to reverse the U.S. District Court's ruling and ruled in favor of the defendants. The majority wrote that "[n]o equal protection problem exists if votes are cast in state legislative districts that were drawn based on Census population data." The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling can be read here. The majority based its decision on U.S. Supreme Court Case Evenwel v. Abbott in which justices ruled unanimously that a state or local government could draw legislative districts based on population.

Election results

Colorado Amendment 71
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,476,948	55.69%
No		1,175,324	44.31%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Status of initiated constitutional amendments in Colorado

In 2016, proponents of a constitutional amendment would qualify their proposal for the ballot by collecting signatures from registered voters equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado Secretary of State in the preceding general election—amounting to between 75,000 and 100,000 since 2009. Once on the ballot, amendments would be approved by a "yes" vote from a simple majority of voters casting a ballot. The initiative petition signatures would be collected from anywhere in the state.

Voters rejected a measure in 1996 to increase the vote needed to pass constitutional amendments and a referral in 2008 requiring a distribution requirement for petition signatures.

Initiative design

This measure required that any petition for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment be signed by at least 2 percent of the registered electors who reside in each of the state's 35 senate districts for a proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot. This sort of law is known as a distribution requirement. Moreover, the amendment required a 55 percent supermajority vote for approval of any proposed amendment except one designed only to repeal language from the constitution.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

Supporters, organized as Raise the Bar Colorado, raised $5.75 million as of December 13, 2016. Opponents organized as four committees and raised $2 million. The top donor to the "Yes" campaign was Protecting Colorado's Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence, a committee promoting oil and gas development, which provided $2.99 million. The top donor to the "No" campaign was the National Education Association, which donated $1.12 million. Polls indicated that around 50 percent of voters supported the amendment prior to the election.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution making it more difficult to amend the Colorado constitution by requiring that any petition for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment be signed by at least 2 percent of the registered electors who reside in each state senate district for the amendment to be placed on the ballot and increasing the percentage of votes needed to pass any proposed constitutional amendment from a majority to at least fifty-five percent of the votes cast, unless the proposed constitutional amendment only repeals, in whole or in part, any provision of the constitution?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

Background. In Colorado, citizens have the power to propose changes to the state constitution and statutes through the citizen-initiative process. Under this process, proponents must collect a certain number of signatures to place an initiative on the ballot. The state legislature may refer constitutional changes to the voters with a two-thirds vote of both houses. State statutes can be changed by the legislature without a vote of the people, but amending the constitution, whether by citizen initiative or legislative referendum, requires a majority of the votes cast in an election. In order to place a citizen initiative on the ballot to change the constitution or state statutes, proponents must collect enough signatures to equal at least 5 percent of the votes cast in the most recent election for Secretary of State. In 2016, this requirement is 98,492 signatures. Proponents have up to six months to gather and submit signatures to the Secretary of State's Office for verification. Changes under Amendment 71. Amendment 71 adds a requirement that signatures be collected statewide for the citizen-initiative process and increases the percentage of votes required to adopt changes to the constitution in most situations. Amendment 71 does not alter the process or requirements for citizen initiatives that propose changes to state statutes. Signature requirements. Amendment 71 creates an additional signature-gathering requirement to place a constitutional initiative on the ballot. Of the total required signatures, some must be collected from each of the state's 35 senate districts in an amount of at least 2 percent of the registered voters in each district. Table 1 shows a sample of state senate districts and the minimum number of signatures that would be needed to place a measure on the ballot under Amendment 71, based on the 2 percent requirement and the number of registered voters in these districts. Percent of vote required to adopt changes to the constitution. Under current law, changes to the constitution require a simple majority of all votes cast, or 50 percent plus one vote. Amendment 71 changes this requirement to 55 percent of all votes cast, except when a proposed amendment repeals rather than changes part of the constitution, in which case a simple majority of votes is required.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article V and Article XIX of the Colorado Constitution

The initiative amended Section 1 of Article V and Section 2 of Article XIX of the Colorado Constitution. The following underlined text was added: Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

Article V Section 1. General assembly - initiative and referendum. (2.5) In order to make it more difficult to amend this constitution, a petition for an initiated constitutional amendment shall be signed by registered electors who reside in each state senate district in Colorado in an amount equal to at least two percent of the total registered electors in the senate district provided that the total number of signatures of registered electors on the petition shall at least equal the number of signatures required by subsection (2) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (2.5), the number and boundaries of the senate districts and the number of registered electors in the senate districts shall be those in effect at the time the form of the petition has been approved for circulation as provided by law. (4) (a) The veto power of the governor shall not extend to measures initiated by or referred to the people. All elections on measures initiated by or referred to the people of the state shall be held at the biennial regular general election, and all such measures shall become the law or a part of the constitution, when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon or, if applicable the number of votes required pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (4), and not otherwise, and shall take effect from and after the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the governor, but not later than thirty days after the vote has been canvassed. This section shall not be construed to deprive the general assembly of the power to enact any measure. (b) In order to make it more difficult to amend this constitution, an initiated constitutional amendment shall not become part of this constitution unless the amendment is approved by at least fifty-five percent of the votes cast thereon; except that this paragraph (b) shall not apply to an initiated constitutional amendment that is limited to repealing, in whole or in part, any provision of this constitution. … Article XIX Section 2. Amendments to constitution - how adopted. (1) (a) Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the general assembly, and, if the same shall be voted for by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, such proposed amendment or amendments, together with the ayes and noes of each house thereon, shall be entered in full on their respective journals. The proposed amendment or amendments shall be published with the laws of that session of the general assembly. At the next general election for members of the general assembly, the said amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the registered electors of the state for their approval or rejection, and such as are approved by a majority of those voting thereon or, if applicable the number of votes required pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (1), shall become part of this constitution. (b) In order to make it more difficult to amend this constitution, a constitutional amendment shall not become part of this constitution unless the amendment is approved by at least fifty-five percent of the votes cast thereon; except that this paragraph (b) shall not apply to a constitutional amendment that is limited to repealing, in whole or in part, any provision of this constitution.

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

State government spending. Amendment 71 will increase costs for the Secretary of State's Office to implement the changes.

”

Support

Raise the Bar Colorado led the campaign in support of Amendment 71.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. John Hickenlooper (D)

Former officials

• Gov. Bill Ritter (D)
• Gov. Bill Owens (R)
• Gov. Roy Romer (D)
• Gov. Dick Lamm (D)

Local governments

• Town of Mead
• Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District

Organizations

AARP Action 22 Adams County Economic Development American Council of Engineering Companies of Colorado Associated Builders & Contractors, Rocky Mountain Chapter Aurora Chamber of Commerce Aurora EDC Boulder Chamber of Commerce Building Jobs 4 Colorado Castle Rock Chamber of Commerce Club 20 Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry Colorado Association of Conservation Districts Colorado Association of Home Builders Colorado Association of Libraries Colorado Association of Mechanical and Plumbing Contractors Colorado Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Colorado Association of Realtors Colorado Association of School Boards Colorado Association of Ski Towns Colorado Association of Wheat Growers Colorado Bankers Association Colorado Bar Association Colorado Business Roundtable Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust Colorado Cattlemen's Association Colorado Competitive Council Colorado Concern Colorado Contractors Association Colorado Dairy Farmers Colorado Egg Producers Colorado Farm Bureau Colorado Health Care Association Colorado Hospital Association Colorado Judicial Institution Colorado Livestock Association Colorado Oil and Gas Association Colorado Pork Producers Council Colorado Restaurant Association Colorado Ski Country USA Colorado Springs Regional Business Alliance Colorado State Grange Colorado Telecommunications Association Common Sense Policy Roundtable Craig Chamber of Commerce Delta Chamber of Commerce Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce Denver South Economic Development Partnership Douglas County Business Alliance Downtown Denver Partnership Durango Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Council of Colorado Fruita Chamber of Commerce Garfield County GOP George K. Baum & Company Glenwood Springs Chamber of Commerce Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce Grand Junction Economic Partnership Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Denver Independent Bankers of Colorado Jefferson County EDC Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce Mechanical Contractors Association of Colorado Mechanical Service Contractors Association of Colorado Metro Denver EDC Metro Mayors Caucus Metro North Chamber of Commerce National Certified Pipe Welding Bureau, Colorado Chapter Northwest Chamber Alliance Palisade Chamber of Commerce Park County GOP Pikes Peak Women Progressive 15 Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association Rocky Mountain Farmers Union Pueblo Chamber of Commerce South Metro Chamber of Commerce Special District Association of Colorado Summit County Chamber of Commerce Vail Valley Partnership Visit Denver

Arguments

Raise the Bar Colorado presented the following three reasons for why the citizen initiative process needed to change:

“

1. Confusion of Purposes – Statutes vs. the Constitution Constitutions are meant to protect fundamental rights and outline the framework of government. Statutes, on the contrary, are intended to address specific issues with how government functions and how citizens interact with that framework. Over time, laws more appropriately classified as statutes have been tagged on to the end of an ever-growing Constitution. One of the primary reasons for this trend is the relative ease of amending the Constitution. 2. Confusing and Unsustainable Policies At times, narrowly focused amendments have created conflicting and unsustainable policies embedded in the Colorado Constitution. Under current law, there is no incentive to make a statutory change as opposed to a Constitutional amendment. Once a proposal has collected the requisite signatures, why not attempt to embed that policy in the Constitution when the requirements are no different than passing a statute? This fact has made the Colorado Constitution a special interest playground over time. 3. Special Interests Entering Colorado Because of the ease of amending the Constitution and subsequently embedding those “amendments” in state law, many special interest groups (often from out of state) abuse the process. According to the Initiative & Referendum Institute, Colorado has seen more citizen initiatives than all but California and Oregon.

”

Official arguments

The arguments in favor of Amendment 71 appearing in the Colorado voter guide were as follows:

“

1) It should be difficult to change the constitution because it is a foundational document for the state. Because the current requirements for proposing and adopting constitutional and statutory amendments are the same, the constitution has seen the addition of detailed provisions that cannot be changed without an election. Amendment 71 is expected to encourage citizen-initiated changes to law in statute by making it harder to amend the constitution. Statutory changes allow the legislature to react when laws require clarification or when problems or unforeseen circumstances arise. 2) Requiring that signatures for constitutional initiatives be gathered from each state senate district ensures that citizens from across the state have a say in which measures are placed on the ballot. Due to the relative ease of collecting signatures in heavily populated urban areas compared to sparsely populated rural areas, rural citizens currently have a limited voice in determining which issues appear on the ballot.

”

Opposition

No on 71 led the campaign in opposition to Amendment 71.

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-2)
• Sen. Lucia Guzman (D-34)
• Sen. Matt Jones (D-17)
• Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-15)
• Sen. John Kefalas (D-14)
• Sen. Kent Lambert (R-9)
• Sen. John Cooke (R-13)
• Sen. Irene Aguilar (D-32)
• Sen. Michael Merrifield (D-11)
• Rep. Kim Ransom (R-44)
• Rep. Joe Salazar (D-31)
• Rep. Jonathan Singer (D-11)
• Rep. Jessie Ulibarri (D-21)
• Rep. Faith Winter (D-35)
• Rep. Mike Foote (D-12)
• Rep. Justin Everett (R-22)
• Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-28)
• Rep. Steve Lebsock (D-34)
• Mayor Suzanne Jones, Boulder
• Commissioner Elise Jones, Boulder County
• Commissioner Cindy Domenico, Boulder County
• Commissioner Deb Gardner, Boulder County
• Commissioner Joan May, San Miguel County
• Councilmember Joan Peck, Longmont

Former officials

• Senate President John Andrews (R)

Municipalities

• Boulder City Council

Organizations

ACLU of Colorado America Votes Arapahoe Tea Party The Bell Policy Center Be the Change - USA Boulder City Council Boulder County Commissioners Boulder County Republicans Citizens for Huerfano County Citizens in Charge Citizens Project Clean Energy Action CLLARO Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development Colorado Center on Law and Policy Colorado AFL-CIO Colorado Campaign for Life Colorado Common Cause Colorado Community Rights Network Colorado Education Association Colorado Firearms Coalition Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition Colorado People's Alliance Colorado Right To Life Colorado Rising Colorado State Shooting Association Colorado Tea Party Patriots Colorado Term Limits Coalition Colorado Union of Taxpayers Colorado Voters for Animals Conservation Colorado CoPIRG Eagle County GOP Earthworks Food and Water Watch Fort Collins Sustainability Group Steering Committee FRESC The Colorado Firearms Coalition Colorado Fiscal Institute The Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado Right To Life Colorado Union of Taxpayers Democratic Party of Denver Denver Republican Party Divestment Student Network Families Against Court Embezzlement Unethical Standards Food and Water Watch Frack Free Colorado Fractivist.org Generation Latino Green Cities Coalition of the Pikes Peak Region Greenpeace USA Humane Society of the United States Independence Institute Jefferson County Republican Party The Judicial Integrity Project Lakewood Fractivists Metro Denver Community Rights Mi Familia Vota NAACP NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado New Era Colorado North Metro Neighbors for Safe Energy Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont Padres & Jóvenes Unidos Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains ProgressNow Colorado The Question Alliance Servicios de La Raza SEIU Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter South Park Coalition TABOR Committee Transparent Courts Wall of Women Colorado Weld Air and Water What the Frack?! Arapahoe 350 Colorado 350 Central Colorado

Arguments

IITV "Initiative and Referendum in Colorado"

U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-2) called Amendment 71 a "power grab by the political and corporate elites... almost entirely funded by the oil and gas industry." He argued:

“

Amendment 71 would erode Coloradans’ right to petition their government for change, as well as access to direct democracy through the ballot initiative process. ... Amendment 71 changes the signature requirements for initiatives so that one state senate district can veto the rest of the state’s wishes. ... Let’s be clear: Amendment 71 dictates who is allowed to change the state constitution and who is not. Amendment 71 ensures that only corporations and the ultra wealthy will have the ability to change the laws, and it shuts the door on citizens and grassroots movements from doing the same. In an era where we already have a dangerous level of concentrated power with the elites and special interests, Amendment 71 would be the nail in the coffin for grassroots social change in Colorado through initiatives.

”

Kaye Fissinger, President of Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont, wrote an editorial in the Daily Camera, saying:

“

The requirement of 2 percent from each state senate district effectively hands veto power to any Colorado senate district. That would be incredibly easy to accomplish, particularly where the oil and gas industry is concerned. Additionally, this amendment requires 2 percent of 'registered' voters. Currently the number of signatures is based on the number of voters from the previous general election 'vote total.' Given Colorado's voter turnout history, the registered voter hurdle is even more grotesque. ... Raise the Bar has fallaciously and intentionally attempted to equate their initiative to the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. It's quite convenient of them to ignore that U.S. Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the U.S. Constitution in ways that essentially have amended our Constitution. ... We actually saw this happen in the Colorado Supreme Court ruling against Longmont's fracking ban. The justices elevated a state statute above existing constitutional rights. In fact, the en banc panel was cavalier about it. Raise the Bar's faux concern over 'out-of-state special interests' would be hilarious if it weren't Orwellian. Has it paid any attention to the out-of-state and multinational entities that have fought local control of fracking?! Any citizen group not having the benefit of unlimited cash will tell you that the number of signatures now required poses a huge hurdle. State ballot initiatives require paid petitioners to reach the state goal to qualify for the ballot. [Amendment 71] will pose no limitation to an issue committee that is funded by Big Money. It will, however, burden grass-roots activity. And that precisely is the point of [Amendment 71].

”

Other arguments against the measure included:

• Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute, said, "And it’s obvious that they want the power structure to be through them, not through the people. If 71 passes, only very, very wealthy interests will ever be able to get something on the ballot again."
• Micah Parkin of 350 Colorado stated, "Raise the Bar would make it nearly impossible for ordinary Colorado people to participate in one of the last vestiges of direct democracy: the ballot initiative process."

Official arguments

The arguments against Amendment 71 appearing in the Colorado voter guide were as follows:

“

1) Amendment 71 makes it too difficult for citizens to exercise their right to initiate constitutional changes. Sometimes the will of the people or issues of broad public interest are not adequately addressed by the political process. While statutory changes may be amended or repealed without the approval of the voters, the power to amend the Colorado constitution lies solely with its citizens. It is critical to preserve the current process and to protect the rights of citizens to change the constitution. 2) Requiring proponents to collect signatures statewide for proposed constitutional changes makes the process of placing an amendment on the ballot even more difficult and costly. Amendment 71 unduly restricts ballot access for average Coloradans, leaving an important democratic tool accessible only to those able to bear the higher costs associated with a complicated signature-gathering process.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$5,752,335.50
Opposition:	$2,017,179.32

One campaign committee was registered in support of Amendment 71, while four were registered in opposition as of December 13, 2016. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of December 13, 2016.

Support

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Raise the Bar Colorado - Protect Our Constitution	$5,752,335.50	$5,607,827.27
Total	$5,739,825.50	$5,607,827.27

The largest donor to Raise the Bar Colorado was Protecting Colorado's Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence, a committee intended “to support state and local ballot initiatives promoting responsible oil and gas development… and oppose state and local ballot initiatives which limit or ban oil and gas development.” Some of the committee's largest donors in 2016 included Anadarko Petroleum Corp ($6,712,500), Noble Energy, Inc. ($5,627,500), PDC Energy ($2,225,500), Synergy Resources Corporation ($1,000,000), Whiting Oil & Gas Corporation ($550,000), and Bayswater Exploration & Production ($500,000). Vital for Colorado, the second largest contributor, was developed to "promote the benefits of energy production in Colorado."

The following were the top donors who contributed to Raise the Bar Colorado as of December 13, 2016:

Donor	Amount
Protecting Colorado's Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence	$2,994,990.00
Vital for Colorado	$600,000.00
Colorado Petroleum Council (American Petroleum Institute)	$300,000.00
Anadarko Petroleum	$250,00.00
Colorado Concern	$160,000.00

Opposition

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Raise the Rafters! Vote No on 71	$500.00	$499.01
Vote No on 71	$49,231.83	$600.00
Citizens for Integrity Issue Committee	$71,083.21	$0.00
Colorado League of Responsible Voters	$1,896,364.28	$1,853,006.59
Total	$2,017,179.32	$1,854,105.60

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees as of December 13, 2016:

Donor	Amount
National Education Association	$1,120,000.00
Conservation Colorado	$265,008.88
River Habitat Preservation Association	$100,000.00
Colorado Fund for Children and Public Education	$92,000.00
Voqal USA Philanthropy	$55,000.00

Media editorials

Support

• The Business Times said: "One of the attractions of the proposed measure is that it would make the initiative process more distributive in requiring a broader level of support from across the state, not just the more heavily populated Front Range. Voters in Western Colorado, for example, would have more say. Best of all, though, the proposed measure makes it at least a bit more difficult to amend the Colorado Constitution."

• Colorado Springs Gazette said: "Those who appreciate a more populist approach to lawmaking should not fear Amendment 71. While it would protect the constitution as an anchor of legal stability, the option to change Colorado's statutory laws with a simple majority vote would not change. That's as it should be. Statutory laws are inherently fluid, while constitutional laws are intended to be static. It's a form of checks and balances foundational to liberty, exploiting the benefits of reasonably restrained democracy."

• Colorado Springs Independent said: "If approving Amendment 71 means fewer constitutional issues on future ballots, that's a good thing."

• The Daily Sentinel said: "The bar to change the Constitution should be higher. What Building a Better Colorado is proposing only affects future amendments to the Colorado Constitution and not citizen-initiated statutory proposals or the Colorado General Assembly’s referred statute changes."

• Durango Herald said: "Colorado’s Constitution has become somewhat of a jumbled mess, thanks to the relative ease with which it can be amended. To prevent further mayhem, a tougher standard for changing the Constitution is a critical step. Requiring geographical diversity and a higher percentage of voter approval is an effective means of achieving that, while extending meaningful civic engagement opportunities across the state."

• Longmont Times-Call said: "However, the requirements for initiated statutes, such as Propositions 106-108, will stay the same. And indeed, many of the amendments this election (and in many others) would have been better served as statutes instead of cluttering the Constitution."

• Loveland Reporter-Herald said: “And indeed, many of the amendments this election (and in many others) would have been better served as statutes instead of cluttering the Constitution. Amendment 71 deserves full support.”

• The Post Independent said: "Constitutions are meant to be guiding documents, not statute books full of narrow detail. ... Whether a proposal is generated from Colorado grassroots or from a rich national group, the Colorado Constitution is still too easy to junk up with things that don’t belong there."

• Steamboat Today said: "All too often, groups can get the signatures they need by canvassing the urban areas of the state, basically ignoring the interests of Colorado’s more rural areas that have smaller populations. Amendment 71 would ensure that all Coloradans, regardless of where they live, have a voice in whether or not an amendment that would change the state’s constitution makes the ballot."

Opposition

• The Aurora Sentinel said: "As it’s written, however, Amendment 71 would only undermine the critical power of untouchable legislation held by voters to protect themselves from partisan scams. This is no time to surrender that power. Vote no on Amendment 71."

• The Daily Camera said: "This is how we have addressed our state constitution for a century — allowing the people to change it by initiative, and to change it again later, if they choose. It is an imperfect system, but it’s better than handing over control of the constitution to the same interests that give government its marching orders now. We urge a “No” vote on Amendment 71."

• The Denver Post said: "While it seeks a laudable goal, the Raise the Bar effort to make it more difficult to amend Colorado’s constitution goes too far, and citizens liberal, moderate and conservative would soon come to hate its provisions."

• The Tribune said: "We’ll also note the backers of Amendment 71 haven’t applied these new, tougher standards to themselves. They could have easily written into the language of this measure that for it to take effect it would need at least 55 percent of the vote. They didn’t. Nor did they reach their own bar for signature gathering."

• Summit Daily said, "To be sure, bringing rural voices into the state’s political dialogue is something to strive for. However, voters throughout the state, in rural and in urban areas, already get a chance to have their say — when they vote. Colorado voters have batted down many wrongheaded amendments, and will continue to do so. ... Unfortunately, the totality of the amendment doesn’t serve the best interests of our state. Vote no on Amendment 71."

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• In late August 2016, Magellan Strategies found support for Amendment 71 around 47 percent and opposition around 38 percent. The demographic group most in favor of the measure was 45 to 54 year old respondents, with 55 in support and 35 against. Those most opposed to the measure were 18 to 34 year old respondents, with 40 percent in favor and 47 percent against.

• Colorado Mesa University, Rocky Mountain PBS', and Franklin & Marshal College surveyed 540 registered voters on Amendment 71 in September 2016. The poll found 52 percent of respondents in support of the initiative. Thirty-one percent of respondents were undecided.

• Magellan Strategies surveyed 500 likely voters on November 1 and November 2, 2016, and found 51 percent of respondents supporting Amendment 71.

Colorado Amendment 71 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Magellan Strategies 11/01/2016 - 11/02/2016	51.0%	41.0%	8.0%	+/-4.38	400
Colorado Mesa University, Rocky Mountain PBS, and Franklin & Marshal College 9/14/2016 - 9/18/2016	52.0%	17.0%	31.0%	+/-5.1	540
Magellan Strategies 8/29/2016 - 8/31/2016	47%	38%	15%	+/-4.38	500
AVERAGES	50%	32%	18%	+/-4.62	480
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Voting on Direct Democracy Measures
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Ballot Law Update

History of initiative requirements

See also: History of Initiative & Referendum in Colorado

In 1910, Colorado adopted the initiative and veto referendum via Referendum 3. The Colorado Legislature put the issue on the ballot following pressure from Dr. Persifor M. Cooke and constitutional lawyer J. Warner Mills of Denver and later Governor John F. Shafroth (D). Over three-quarters of voters approved the amendment. Coloradans took advantage of their new power in 1912, placing 20 initiatives on the ballot.

The legislature referred to the ballot an amendment in 1980 requiring voters to be registered to sign ballot initiative petitions. Voters approved the measure. In 1994, voters passed Referendum A, requiring that any measure proposed by initiative or legislative referral be confined to a single subject.

In 1996, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, titled Referendum A, requiring a 60 percent supermajority vote on constitutional amendments was put before voters. Coloradans defeated the measure, 59 to 41 percent.

Referendum O appeared on the ballot in 2008. It would have increased the number of signatures required for initiated constitutional amendments by more than 15,000 and required at least eight percent of petition signatures to be gathered in each congressional district. With 52 percent voting against it, the measure was defeated.

Number and approval of amendments

See also: Constitutional amendments from 2006 through 2014

Among the 18 states with the initiative process, Colorado featured the most proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot between 2006 and 2014, with a total of 33. Of that total, Colorado voters approved 12, or about 36 percent of them. Between 2006 and 2014, the average number of amendments featured on the ballot in states with the initiative process was 18. The average approval rate of proposed amendments across all states with both initiated constitutional amendments and legislatively referred constitutional amendments was 57 percent.

Number of amendments and amendment approval rates, by state (2006-2014)
State	Proposed constitutional amendments	Approved	Percentage of approved
Alabama	35	27	77.14%
Alaska	1	0	0.00%
Arizona	30	16	53.33%
Arkansas	13	11	84.62%
California	30	14	46.67%
Colorado	33	12	36.36%
Connecticut	2	1	50.00%
Delaware	0	0	N/A
Florida	29	15	51.72%
Georgia	15	12	80.00%
Hawaii	15	9	60.00%
Idaho	9	8	88.89%
Illinois	4	3	75.00%
Indiana	1	1	100.00%
Iowa	2	2	100.00%
Kansas	4	4	100.00%
Kentucky	1	1	100.00%
Louisiana	73	55	75.34%
Maine	3	2	66.67%
Maryland	12	12	100.00%
Massachusetts	0	0	N/A
Michigan	10	5	50.00%
Minnesota	4	2	50.00%
Mississippi	4	3	75.00%
Missouri	22	16	72.73%
Montana	4	1	25.00%
Nebraska	20	8	40.00%
Nevada	15	7	46.67%
New Hampshire	4	2	50.00%
New Jersey	14	12	85.71%
New Mexico	24	20	83.33%
New York	12	11	91.67%
North Carolina	3	3	100.00%
North Dakota	19	11	57.89%
Ohio	16	11	68.75%
Oklahoma	27	25	92.59%
Oregon	26	18	69.23%
Pennsylvania	2	2	100.00%
Rhode Island	5	3	60.00%
South Carolina	17	15	88.24%
South Dakota	15	6	40.00%
Tennessee	7	7	100.00%
Texas	48	45	93.75%
Utah	15	13	86.67%
Vermont	1	1	100.00%
Virginia	9	9	100.00%
Washington	15	11	73.33%
West Virginia	2	1	50.00%
Wisconsin	3	3	100.00%
Wyoming	9	6	66.67%

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

• There were three versions of this potential measure: Initiative #95, which was withdrawn, and Initiatives #96 and #97, which were still eligible for the November 2016 ballot at the signature submission deadline.
• The initiative was filed with the Colorado secretary of state's office on February 19, 2016, and the petition format was approved on May 25, 2016.
• Amendment 71 proponents needed to collect 98,492 signatures by August 8, 2016, to land Amendment 71 on the ballot.
• Supporters submitted signatures for Initiative #96 by the submission deadline.
• The secretary of state's office certified Amendment 71 on August 16, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired 3.0, TPM LLC, Lincoln Strategy Group, and Blitz Canvassing LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $383,518.81 was spent to collect the 98,492 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.89.

State profile

Demographic data for Colorado
	Colorado	U.S.
Total population:	5,448,819	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	103,642	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	84.2%	73.6%
Black/African American:	4%	12.6%
Asian:	2.9%	5.1%
Native American:	0.9%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.1%	0.2%
Two or more:	3.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	21.1%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.7%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	38.1%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$60,629	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	13.5%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Colorado. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Colorado

Colorado voted for the Democratic candidate in four out of the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, four are located in Colorado, accounting for 1.94 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Colorado had three Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 1.66 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Colorado coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Colorado
• United States congressional delegations from Colorado
• Public policy in Colorado
• Influencers in Colorado
• Colorado fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Colorado 2016 Amendment 71 Initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Colorado Amendment 71, 55% Vote Requirement and Signature Distribution Requirement for Constitutional Amendments Measure (2016) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• Colorado 2016 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado
• Constitutional amendments from 2006 through 2014

External links

Basic information

• Amendment 71
• Colorado 2016 Ballot Information Book

Support

• Raise the Bar Colorado
• Raise the Bar Colorado Facebook
• Raise the Bar Colorado Twitter

Opposition

• No on 71
• No on 71 Facebook
• No on 71 Twitter