Posted on 06/12/2006 1:32:35 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Court: Measure can't be on Colo. ballot
By JON SARCHE, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a proposal to deny most state services to illegal immigrants cannot appear on the November ballot.
The proposed constitutional amendment, promoted by Defend Colorado Now, violated a state constitutional requirement that initiatives deal with only one subject, the court said in a 5-2 opinion.
According to the ruling, Defend Colorado Now touted the possibility of reducing taxpayer expenditures by restricting illegal immigrants' access to services, as well as the goal of restricting access to services.
Proponents, including former Democratic Gov. Dick Lamm, already had begun gathering petition signatures to get the measure on the ballot, and the state Title Board approved the measure's language this spring. But Monday's ruling may mean the issue is dead for this year because a key deadline for the November ballot has passed.
"This is outrageous judicial activism, Exhibit A in how courts disregard precedent to reach a political result," Lamm said in a statement. "This isn't law, it is raw, naked politics."
Activist Manolo Gonzalez-Estay had challenged the measure in court after the Title Board rejected his request to reconsider its approval of the initiative's language.
Fred Elbel, director of Defend Colorado Now, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.
The measure would not stop the state from paying for federally mandated services such as public education or emergency medical care. But Elbel has said it would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving welfare and in-state college tuition.
In a dissent, Justices Nathan Coats and Nancy Rice expressed concern that the court's majority decision was influenced by the motives of the measure's proponents and by its potential effects.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"According to the ruling, Defend Colorado Now touted the possibility of reducing taxpayer expenditures by restricting illegal immigrants' access to services, as well as the goal of restricting access to services."
Seems like a fairly Orwellian rationale for the Court's decision.
Why bother with the pretense of elections? Especially when the courts' respect for the "civil rights" of illegals will prevent any id checks that will keep them from voting?
What this shows it that you can't legislate with Constitutional amendments. What you need to do is throw out the bastards.
When does the revolution begin? It's way overdue.
What part of ILLEGAL do they not understand?
Anybody know how many of these justices were appointed by Lamm? Nothing new about the liberal Colorado Supreme Court making bad decisions.
Remember Certs? Two - two - two mints in one? The Colorado Supremes have exceeded even that ad for mindlessness.
"What you need to do is throw out the bastards."
The judges or the illegals? (I vote for both.)
YA THINK!!!
Sounds much like the rag tags on the 9th circuit in CA that with all possible means available to them, to circumvent the will of the people.
Without a doubt, the must blatant and underhand BS public move to instill the oligarchy's hellbent on promotion of taxation without representation to pay for "The Socialist Union of North American Provinces".
If the government thinks that the cours are being activist then the government should ignore the court and put it on the ballot anyway. Then start impeaching state judges.
Only a pack of liberal judicial activist scumbags could have come up with that lame rationale for denying the voters an opportunity to democratically express their will. Five scumbag judges on the Colorado Supreme Court need to be impeached. Let's see if any legislators have the guts to take action.
Whoa. Back it up. The CoSC said that this was proposing two separate issues and thus couldn't be on the ballot?!?!?!
Seriously, what the heck is wrong with judges. That's like saying that such a law proposed by an anti-gun group would be illegal:
"According to the ruling, Handgun Control Inc. touted the possibility of reducing murder by restricting criminal's access to guns, as well as the goal of restricting access to guns."
How do you think liberals would react to that specious logic?
It wouldn't matter at all if it were on the ballot because even if it passed with 90% of the vote, some activist judge would just throw it out anyway.
Again liberal POS judges deny the ability of the people to express their will.
This ain't over 'til its over/
If the legislature or the people don't take serious action and show their outrage, this kind of stuff will constitutional abuse again and again. If the people ignore the bad decisions of the courts then the courts will realize that they have jeopardized their power and will get back to their constitutional role as judges rather than legislatures.
They tried this same crap in Arizona with Proposition 200. The Court did NOT keep it off the ballot, and found that it DID comply with the constitutional requirement that that a proposition deal with only one issue.
And then we passed that bad boy.
What needs to be said would end up getting pulled, so I'll just say, I can't wait til the day that citizens become so fed up that they __________.
It wouldn't matter at all if it were on the ballot because even if it passed with 90% of the vote, some activist judge would just throw it out anyway.
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.