Flipping the script: Coloradans no longer run their government

We the people of Colorado no longer control our own state constitution. I found this out the hard way.In Colorado, a government for, by, and of the people is a fib.We lowly citizens no longer have much of a say in altering our own state constitution. Even though that seems to violate the whole meaning of our constitution in the first place.We the peopleLike the US Constitution, Colorado’s constitution contains a Bill of Rights making clear we are the ones who empower the state government, not the other way around.Check out the first two of these rights:First — All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people…Second — The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution…Did you catch that? We the people have the sole and exclusive right to alter our constitution. It used to be true, too.We used to alter our constitution through the initiative and referendum process.Without that process, we would not have limits on governmental power. Laws reining in the legislature could never pass a vote by those same politicians. They’d never vote for open meetings laws, term limits, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, ethics laws, and so much more.Recently, when the legislature arrogantly exempted themselves from open meetings laws, it started a chain reaction I’ve never witnessed in all my decades in politics.Independence Institute, which I run, helped bring together nearly 50 highly diverse organizations that are usually at each other’s throats. We all shared a common concern: government in Colorado is turning opaque.Open records are getting harder to access, open meetings are closing. The “people’s” work is being hidden from the people.And when I say organizations from all over the political spectrum worked together, I’m not exaggerating: Independence Institute, the ACLU, Heidi Ganahl’s conservative Rocky Mountain Voice, the progressive Colorado Times Recorder, Colorado Public Radio, League of Women Voters, Colorado Press Association, Colorado Broadcasters Association, Common Cause, Colorado Black Women for Action, and many, many more.‘Right to Know’ deniedOver a year-and-a-half of work we crafted a constitutional reform based on what many other states already have, called “Right to Know.” It’s simple: a fundamental right for the people to access public records and government deliberations, with reasonable exceptions.But you won’t see this proposed amendment on your fall ballot.The normally sober state Title Board voted 2–1 to block it. The appointees of Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Attorney General Phil Weiser voted against you being able to vote on governmental transparency.Were they ordered to do so? I’ll let others speculate.Their argument was that your “right to know” the affairs of government isn’t a single subject, and only “single subjects” may go to the ballot.Legislators’ bills must also have a single subject. The difference is they get to decide for themselveswhether a bill qualifies. By contrast, we “the people” must get permission from an unelected board. A set of rules for them; a different set for us.The powerful Title Board said our amendment was too broad.I countered that the state constitution is supposed to contain broad amendments. That didn’t matter.Our team pointed to existing rights guaranteed by Colorado’s constitution, like freedom of speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms. I asked if we were bringing one of those rights as a citizen initiative today, would it pass “single subject” muster as they now interpret it?They essentially said no.By their interpretation, such basic rights as freedom of speech or religion might be too broad and vague to be considered a single subject.We considered appealing the Title Board’s bizarre decision to the Colorado Supreme Court, but on the advice of lawyers from across the political spectrum, we decided not to.The high court has shown little interest in expanding