< PREVIOUS ] [ 1987 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Despite the years of intense study I have devoted to Colorado politics and government, no one has asked for my suggestions when they talk about overhauling our antiquated state constitution. But I'm not going to let that stop me.
Our new constitution should admit that we need two new classes of laws.
A constitution ought to be a broad and general outline; our current version is spotted with detailed and specific amendments -- one prohibits spending state funds for the 1976 Winter Olympics, hardly a possibility now, and another specifies eight-hour days in mines and smelters, most of which now provide zero-hour days.
Such matters ought to be handled by statute, not by constitutional amendments. How did they get into our constitution?
By public vote through the referendum process. Public votes could have made them mere state laws, instead of iron-clad constitutional provisions. But state laws, even if adopted by public initiative, can be changed by the state legislature. Changing a constitutional amendment requires a public vote.
Obviously, we don't trust our legislature to abide by the expressed will of the public. When we express our will, we often do it in such a way that the legislature can't alter our work.
That's understandable, but it leads to a cumbersome constitution. A new constitution should allow temporary amendments.
These Sunset Amendments
would be in effect for
only 10 years after adoption. After that, if it were still
necessary to prohibit spending for the 1976 Winter
Olympics,the issue could come up again. But in the interim,
the legislature could not trifle with a short-term
amendment, which would have full constitutional force while
it lasted.
Thus the public would remain in control without making
our constitution into a hodge-podge of outdated issues. The
second class of law might best be called a Social
Law.
There are acts which many people disapprove of.
But it is impossible to enforce laws against those acts,
and most such laws run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
By passing Social Disapproval Laws,
though, our
legislature could say, in effect, We don't condone
gambling (or abortion, adultery, marijuana, prostitution,
midwifery, pornography, etc.).
But that's all it would
be -- an official statement of disapproval. No
constitutional challenges, no nuisance laws, and the
do-gooders would be placated.
A new constitution also ought to change the method of selecting the General Assembly.
Our House of Representatives is hardly representative -- it comprises only people who have the time and money to campaign. It has no poor people and few blue-collar members. We could change that if we chose its members with a random drawing.
If your name was drawn, a State Trooper would appear on your doorstep. You'd have a week to get your affairs in order, and then you'd be hauled off to serve your two years.
The odds against being selected again would be astronomical. Free of the temptation to make a career out of politics, you'd tend to business, hoping to get out as quickly as possible so that you could resume your normal life. Your fellow representatives -- a broad assortment of executives, truck drivers, mechanics, teachers, panhandlers, etc. -- would be of like mind. Not only would our legislature be representative, it would be efficient.
For insider information about our senate, I rely on the Colorado Statesman, the political weekly. A recent issue presented interviews with lobbyists, who talked about bills they initiated, their success in lining up votes and committees, etc.
Since corporate lobbyists exercise so much power, make it official. Choose our senators by open bid at an auction every four years. Most lobbyists are former legislators, so we'd have experienced people under the dome. The proceeds from the auction would ease the state government's financial pinch.
There's one more possibility. Two years ago, I spent several days in Nebraska. The roads were well maintained. They had clean visitors' centers. There were excellent state recreation areas and much other evidence that the state government was concerned with the welfare of the citizenry.
Nebraska's legislature has only one branch; ours has two. If you get that much improvement by eliminating one branch of the state legislature, think how well we might do by getting rid of both.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1987 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >