Posted on 10/06/2004 8:32:36 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Colorado seems to have a knack for making the national news.
Since 1998 Colorado has played host to the 2002 wildfires, the Columbine massacre, Vail's Two Elk arson fires, the rise to fame of Ryan and Trista, and most recently the Kobe Bryant rape case.
But a new event looms on the horizon, one that is already focusing the eye of the world onto Colorado's election, and one that, experts say, could create shock waves as big, if not bigger, than the state has seen in recent memory.
Amendment 36, a proposal to change the way Colorado distributes its electoral votes, has earned headlines in newspapers and magazines from the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News to the New York Times, the Paris Le Monde, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Newsweek.
Newsweek columnist George F. Will even referred to the coming vote on Amendment 36 as, "November's most portentous vote."
There's only one group of people that don't seem to know what the controversy is all about: Coloradans themselves.
Amendment 36 is on this year's ballot, and it proposes to split the state's nine electoral votes proportionally among candidates based on the popular vote. For example: if Bush beats Kerry 52 percent to 48 percent in 2004, Bush would receive five electoral votes and Kerry would receive four. Amendment 36 would apply immediately to this year's election -- and it could be very significant. In 2000, for example, such an amendment would have made Al Gore the President of the United States.
But a recent Rocky Mountain News/News 4 poll found that more than half of respondents didn't feel strongly for or against the measure. The majority of people polled said they were in favor of Amendment 36: the results came in at 47 percent 'yes' to 35 percent 'no'. Eighteen percent were undecided.
"Under the current winner-take-all system, somebody who only gets 40 percent of the vote gets all our electoral votes," says Julie Brown, campaign director for Make Your Vote Count, which supports the measure. "The only argument opponents have is that they're against democracy -- and I don't imagine that polls very well."
Colorado is the right place to begin these kinds of reforms, Brown says. She points out that Colorado was the first state in the Union to allow women to vote (in 1893), was the first to enact sunset provisions, and was the first to enact term limits. The Electoral College, she said, has faced opposition ever since its inception in the 1830s.
The Colorado movement to reform the Electoral College was initiated by Democratic state senator Ron Tupa in 2001. He and other advocates say Amendment 36 will make Coloradans' votes count and elections more fair. It will reduce the chances, they say, of another election where a candidate wins the popular vote but fails to win the election.
Right now Colorado follows a "unit rule," which awards the winning candidate all nine of Colorado's electoral votes. Electoral votes are based on population -- or, more accurately, they are based on the number of representatives each state sends to the federal legislative branch. Colorado currently has two Senators and seven Representatives in the U.S. congress.
Nebraska and Maine are the exceptions to the rule: they employ a "proportional" method of distributing their electoral votes. Colorado is looking to establish a similar method -- and the effects could be decisive in the upcoming election.
In 2000, for example, Colorado had eight Senators and Representatives, and George W. Bush won the votes from Colorado by a slim margin: 883,748 votes to Al Gore's 738,227. With all eight of Colorado's votes in his pocket, Bush could concentrate on winning Florida, which eventually required a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Amendment 36 passes, current polling numbers show that four, or conceivably five, of Colorado's electoral votes could go to John Kerry.
But Amendment 36 will have to do much more than pass -- it will have to withstand an intense amount of legal scrutiny from legal teams from both sides of the aisle -- and Colorado, not Florida, would become the central battleground state in the 2004 presidential election.
"It would make the Kobe Bryant case look tiny in terms of media attention and stories and all the rest," said University of Colorado professor of political science Kenneth Bickers. "But two things would have to happen: the election would have to be close and (Amendment 36) would have to pass."
And from there, says Bickers, things get even more complicated.
Amendment 36 will, no doubt, suffer legal scrutiny if it passes. But if the election is close, and Colorado's electoral votes prove decisive, then the legal battle will have to be settled in a very short time: Electors have to cast their votes by Dec. 13 -- which means Colorado (and ultimately, the nation) would be in limbo until the dispute were resolved.
Like many court battles, this one would converge around the definition of one word: "legislature."
Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" for president.
It's no mistake that Colorado was chosen as the state to wage this legal battle, advocates say. In Colorado there is prior case law which supports the idea of "the people" acting in the manner of a "legislature", meaning that Colorado voters would not be violating the U.S. Constitution by voting to split their delegates.
But that definition is up in the air, and it would have to be settled in a timely manner if the Presidential election hangs in the balance. The media attention and legal wrangling that plagued Florida in 2000 would essentially be repeated: this time in Colorado.
Governor Bill Owens (R), among others, hopes it doesn't come to that.
The power of nine
"The fact is that if Amendment 36 passed, it would forever make it easy for presidential candidates to ignore Colorado," Owens wrote in a Sept. 19 guest column in USA Today. He and others are against the measure, saying that the Amendment would dilute Colorado's electoral power.
"Colorado is a state with a slight Republican majority, but which, nevertheless, has a longstanding tradition of electing Democrats to statewide and national office," Owens wrote. "If Colorado split its electoral votes, leaving just one or two electoral votes in play, future presidential candidates -- and presidents -- would ignore Colorado and its interests in favor of states with more electoral clout. They would skip over us and move on to more fertile ground."
The measure is seen by opponents as a method to give John Kerry a boost into office -- and then leave Colorado impotent when it comes to attracting federal dollars. Politicians from both sides of the aisle are coming out against the measure, encouraging Coloradans to quell their populist streak in favor of sticking with the status quo.
"I oppose Amendment 36," says Jay Fetcher, a Democratic candidate for Colorado's District 8 senate seat (which includes Eagle County). "I believe the original concept of the Electoral College is valid. And we will continue to draw national attention with the winner-take-all system."
The measure is being financially supported by a wealthy, out-of-state advocate named Jorge Klor de Alva, a man who has yet to comment in any media about the motivations behind his support of the Amendment. His primary residence is in California, but opponents say there is a good reason he didn't tackle the electoral issue in his home state. California does have a similar "ballot initiative" rule in place, they say, which would give a electoral distribution amendment at least a fighting chance if passed there. But California also has 55 electoral votes. If an amendment were to split electorates there, critics say, George W. Bush could gain 25 to 30 of those votes, putting him over the top in terms of electoral votes.
Owens calls this a "transparently partisan movement," with the goal of giving "John Kerry a four-vote Electoral College boost," in his USA Today column.
"We'd truly be the least significant state in the union," says Katy Atkinson of Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea, the bluntly-named group rallying to defeat Amendment 36. "It sounds awfully appealing at first, but under this proposal none of our votes will count ? we'd be looking at a 5-4 split for the rest of this decade."
Brown, of Make Your Vote Count, says Atkinson and Owens are wrong when they say presidents will ignore Colorado if delegates are split.
"Maine's (electoral votes) are split, and while they've never actually split they may split this year," she says. "George W. Bush has gone to Maine 12 times for one electoral vote. I totally reject that argument."
The national movement
Brown says Colorado could be the first state among many to pass a similar Amendment, leading the charge in the effort to reform the Electoral College.
"We would hope that this would be copied in every state in the Union," Make Your Vote Count's Brown says. "But regardless, it's good for Colorado."
Changing the Electoral College state-by-state isn't likely to happen, says Bickers, the CU political science professor.
"This would be very difficult to get through very many states," he says. "Your best chance is states with ballot initiative and referendum, which is basically (27) Western states."
By way of example, Tupa's first effort to get the measure through Colorado's legislature was soundly defeated in 2001. The only way to make this a national movement, Bickers says, is to take it to the national level.
"It would be a solution if it were implemented nation-wide," he said. "You would no longer have a situation where the popular vote-winner would lose the election."
On Nov. 2, Coloradans will have the opportunity to vote on the way they'd like their votes to count -- but in the end, if the Amendment passes, it will most likely be judges who decide the final fate of Colorado's Electoral College. VT
Tom Boyd can be reached for comment at tboyd@vailtrail.com.
BOX 1:
Eye of the storm
What needs to happen for Colorado to be the center of another presidential election controversy?
1) Colorado voters would have to approve Amendment 36, which would split the state's nine electoral votes proportionally among candidates based on the popular vote. For example: if Bush beats Kerry 52 percent to 48 percent in 2004, Bush would receive five electoral votes and Kerry would receive four.
2) The presidential election results would have to be extremely close -- much like the 2000 election -- within three or four electoral votes.
3) The Colorado and United States Supreme Courts would have to allow for Amendment 36 to apply retroactively, so that it could legally apply to the 2004 presidential election.
4) If all of the above happens, the U.S. Supreme Court would be called upon to settle a dispute over Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states that: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" for president.
BOX 2:
The Electoral College: The president of the United States is voted into office by the Electoral College, a designated group of assigned voters who cast their vote according to how many votes a candidate received in their state. Colorado, for example, now has nine electoral votes. If a candidate wins the popular majority in Colorado, nine delegates will cast their vote in favor of the winning candidate. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
Colorado voting quick facts
-- Colorado has nine electoral votes.
-- In 2000 Colorado had eight electoral votes.
-- In 1992, Bill Clinton won Colorado's eight electoral votes by winning the popular vote 629,681 to Bush's 562,850.
-- In 1996, Bob Dole won Colorado's eight electoral votes by winning the popular vote 691,848 to Bill Clinton's 671,152.
-- In 2000, George W. Bush won all 8 of Colorado's electoral votes by winning the popular election 883,748 votes to Al Gore's 738,227.
-- If Amendment 36 had been passed before the 2000 election, Al Gore would have been President of the United States.
-- Colorado is the only state with the opportunity to change the way it distributes its electoral votes this year.
Box 4: Winning Colorado
A look at who has won Colorado's electoral votes since 1900
Year Colorado winner Overall winner Electoral votes
1900 William Jennings Bryan (D) William McKinley (R) 4
1904 Theodore Roosevelt (R) Theodore Roosevelt (R) 5
1908 William Jennings Bryan (D) William Taft (R) 5
1912 Woodrow Wilson (D) Woodrow Wilson (D) 6
1916 Woodrow Wilson (D) Woodrow Wilson (D) 6
1920 Warren Harding (R) Warren Harding (R) 6
1924 Calvin Coolidge (R) Calvin Coolidge (R) 6
1928 Herbert Hoover (R) Herbert Hoover (R) 6
1932 Franklin Roosevelt (D) Franklin Roosevelt (D) 6
1936 Franklin Roosevelt (D) Franklin Roosevelt (D) 6
1940 Windell Wilkie (R) Franklin Roosevelt (D) 6
1944 Thomas Dewey (R) Franklin Roosevelt (D) 6
1948 Harry Truman (D) Harry Truman (D) 6
1952 Dwight Eisenhower (R) Dwight Eisenhower (R) 6
1956 Dwight Eisenhower (R) Dwight Eisenhower (R) 6
1960 Richard Nixon (R) John Kennedy (D) 6
1964 Lyndon Johnson (D) Barry Goldwater (R) 6
1968 Richard Nixon (R) Richard Nixon (R) 7
1972 Richard Nixon (R) Richard Nixon (R) 7
1976 Gerald Ford (R) Jimmy Carter (D) 7
1980 Ronald Reagan (R) Ronald Reagan (R) 7
1984 Ronald Reagan (R) Ronald Reagan (R) 8
1988 George Bush Sr. (R) George Bush Sr. (R) 8
1992 Bill Clinton (D) Bill Clinton (D) 8
1996 Bob Dole (R) Bill Clinton (D) 8
2000 George W. Bush (R) George W. Bush (R) 8
Total votes since 1900: 26
Total Democratic candidates elected: 9
Total Republican candidates elected: 17
Total number of times winner of Colorado has won nation: 18
-- source: University of Virginia
Box 5:
A look at Eagle County's registered voters
Republican: 9,348
Democrat: 6,975
Unaffiliated: 10,516
Libertarian: 44
Green Party: 57
Reform Party: 6
Source: Eagle County Clerk and Recorder as of Sept. 7, 2004
Well, yeah !!
The Constitution says that only the State Legislature can formulate the way Presidential electors are allocated or determined for that matter.
You're preaching to the choir.
Freepers in Colorado need to tell their friends to vote against the unconstitutional Amendment 36 that will be on the ballot. It would change the allocation of Electoral College votes from winner-take-all to propotional. The campaign is being funded by weathy interests in California. I wonder why they don't propose the same type of amendment to be passed by a state-wide referendum in California?
It is unconstitutional, because it is a referendum. The constitution very specifically says that the state legislatures, and only the state legislatures have the authority to determine the method by which electors are chosen! The Colorado legislature very specifically rejected such a system.
As long as large states like California, New York and Texas do not change from a winner take all system, it is not in the interest of small states like Colorado to do so.
I also don't want to forgot to mention that it also violates the federal election code. The method by which the electors is selected must be in place before (as I recall at least six days prior to) the date the electors are chosen which is election day. Even if the a referendum were a valid mechanism of determining the method of allocating electors, this referendum is too late to affect the 2004 election. This referendum should be fought in court and removed from the ballot.
Article II.Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
I finally heard some radio ads against this ammendment. The ad was quite good actually, mentioning many CO papers, including Denver Post, Boulder Daily Camera, Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction), and the Pueblo paper all came out against it. So word is beginning to spread.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the election comes down to Colorado's electoral votes and the whole affair ends up in the Colorado Supreme Court.
I'll give you a hint. This referndum is being pushed by a wealthy DemocRAT activist from California. If it's such a great idea, why doesn't he push such a referendum in California? Perhaps you can also see why the founding fathers wanted gave the state legislatures the sole authority to determine the method by which a state's presidential electors are chosen. Referenda give outsiders a tremendous opportunities to meddle in the affairs of another state.
Exactly-- my guess is any Fed Court will toss the amendment.
Gee, Ms Brown, don’t you think the President’s visits to Maine might have something to do with the fact his parents live there? Either Julie Brown is a fool or she thinks her fellow Coloradoans are.
This measure will not pass.
No! I hope that if it passes, the electoral votes are irrelevant to who wins or loses the presidential election.
I went out to the Make Your Vote Count website. They are apparently aware of potential constitutional problems with this. It is quite obvious this referndum is intended to encourage litigation to create a test case. Considering that the Colorado legislature rejected legislation that would have split its Electoral Vote proportionally, I think they along with the governor should refuse to enforce this amendement if it passes and force the proponents to sue.
Even if it wins, the measure is certain to be challenged in the courts due to questions about its constitutionality.Article II of the Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."
The Colorado ballot measure is being voted on by the people directly, not by the state legislature. But Denver attorney Mark Grueskin, who drafted the measure, said there are Supreme Court precedents supporting the idea of the people being the ultimate authority in such electoral law cases.
Much of the funding of the effort to pass the ballot measure has come from Jorge Klor de Alva, a California resident and a business executive who heads a firm called Apollo International, which is linked to Apollo Group, parent company of the University of Phoenix.
The founder of the Apollo group is Dr. John Sperling, who has been a major Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars to candidates from John Kerry to Howard Dean. Klor de Alva has contributed to the campaigns of two Democratic congressional candidates.
That's true, but you're forgetting our activist Supreme Court whose motto is:
"The Constitution Is What We Say It Is"
Our Black Robed oligarchs have been unconstitutionally changing our Constitution incrementally for years.
No one can point to the words of the Constitution any longer and define its meaning while the spector of the High Court lingers waiting to change it yet again.
Yeah, but not this court.
Gee, Ms Brown, don?t you think the President?s visits to Maine might have something to do with the fact his parents live there?
Some of the polls indicate W is close to winning the Maine. If he won the state but split the districts, he would pick up a net of two electoral votes. Of course this is still a smaller net pickup than any other state or the District of Columbia. Nebraska which also theoretically splits its electoral votes by district not proportionally has also never actually had its congressional districts diverge from the state-wide vote. Why should larger states decrease their impact when small states are unlikely to split their votes?
What a lovely sight it would be to have the DNC lawyers trying to get their own Initiative struck down.
Or maybe excrementally.
Yeah, who would spend a nickle in Colorado when the political polarity is sort of a constant and when yo divide 8 electors, the difference between a win and a landslide wouldn't amount to on elector hardly. Therefore Colorado ends up with exactly ZERO clout.
Dr. Jorge Klor de Alva is/was CEO of the Apollo Group, Inc. about 2000. John Sperling was former chairman and CEO of the Apollo Group, and it is known that Sperling and Soros have worked together quite a bit.
From what I've read they're already preparing to do so. They could even challenge the retroactivity to the 2004 election without affecting the future elections.
Of course. This has the mark of Soros!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.