Update on petition rights & fights

There is a drive in Colorado to make constitutional amendment petitions far harder to do, leaving statutory petitions alone. The bill is SCR-3, linked here. It is through the Senate and needs only 4 of 25 Republicans joining Dems to clear the House before May 7 adjournment. I rate it as likely to go to the ballot. That's the first part of my answer after a national reporter saw the previous post and asked: "Are there any current attempts in Colorado to restrict the right of initiative? On the judicial term limits petition,did you have any problems with interference or 'blockers'?" I continued as follows:

Also of note this year is the Mark Hillman initiative proposal for a curb on trial lawyers, to which they seek massive retaliation. See details here.

As far as harassment of signature efforts, the barrage against Ward Connerly's civil rights effort here in Colorado is Michigan 2006 all over again. Jessica Corry explains here.

Finally, Jon Caldara has a potent measure on ethical standards for public payrolls (similiar but superior to paycheck protection) now gathering signatures. We also expect Armaggeddon on the ballot between Right to Work and Big Labor.

As for the failure of my judicial term limit petition, that simply reflects our big donors from last time having different priorities this year than in 2006. We didn't mount a serious enough effort to encounter the kind of interference from opponents that's occurred in other states.

DU students clueless on free speech

"How far do you think free speech should go?" was the question in DU's student paper, the Clarion, March 4 edition. I was stunned at what I read in the answers of five students. Not one of the responses printed, showed the slightest understanding of what free speech is or why it is important.

One by the name of Carolyn stated, for example: "When you start targeting and hurting specific groups, you're taking free speech too far and abusing the rights that have been given to us."

If I may use this as merely an example: When did you begin to believe that the Constitution guarantees your right not to be offended? When did you begin to believe that the government GIVES you rights at all? Our founders wrote the Constitution and our Bill of Rights to PROTECT the rights they believed were inalienable-that is, not bestowed by any government.

The growing confusion about the simple and clear definition of free speech itself is troubling and doesn't bode well for the education of college students, let alone K-12.

The First Amendment protects you from being punished by the government for what you say. It does not protect you from being criticized by your friends, those for whom you work, clients you serve, or even those who say stupid things. It doesn't even protect celebrities from those who refuse to watch their movies for something they've said.

It occurs to me that one of the reasons so many people have trouble with this, is because they think the government and all other private institutions are one in the same. That, to put it bluntly, is frightening.

When the private and public merge, the government can control everything you say or do. Think about it! Better yet, Carolyn, Laura, Dylan, Jessica and Riley, please pick up a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think you'll find it a fascinating reading.

Editor: This was published as a letter in the April 22 edition of the Clarion