On Wednesday, August 21st, the Colorado Secretary of State's Elections Division will convene its Title Board to set a title for initiative #45, a constitutional amendment to create a publicly owned state bank.
In the two prior years of our campaign, the title board has played a critical in thwarting this amendment from getting on the ballot: in 2012, by allowing the banks to manipulate the rules to force a session in which only one of the two signatories to the amendment could be present (scheduling the hearing to coincide with the first Public Banking in America conference), thereby breaching their own rules; and in 2013, by claiming that the amendment violated the single subject rule.
In response to this strategy on the part of the Secretary of State's office and to our ineffectiveness in dealing with these tactics, we have made adjustments in the amendment and in the composition of our team. Here are some of the key points that we expect to make at this hearing. We also expect that if the title board approves a title for this initiative, it will be appealed by the Colorado Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers of Colorado, first to the title board and then to the state supreme court, if necessary, just as they have the past two years.
What the law says:
In the constitution of the state of Colorado, it states, in Article V, § 1 (1):
"... the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly."
Commentary: The state constitution did not intend for executive (the title board) or legislative (the legislative council) or judicial (the supreme court) branches to suppress initiatives, year after year, solely because the banks find that the initiatives are antithetical to their criminal activities (which we have detailed in previous blogs, here [at #3] and here).
Single subject
Later, in Article V, § 1 (5.5) a provision was added to limit the scope of initiatives:
"No measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title ..."
Commentary: Given the way this subsection has been wielded by the title board and the state supreme court, it is clear that the intent of this measure is not strictly to make clearer and more effective laws, but, contrary to Article V, § 1 (1), to limit the power of the people. To interpret this subsection in this manner also violates the state supreme court's own ruling:
In setting titles for initiatives, the Board is directed to "apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills," and is advised to "follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills." § 1–40–106.5(3). ... The General Assembly has directed that the single subject and title requirements for initiatives be liberally construed, "so as to avert the practices against which they are aimed and, at the same time, to preserve and protect the right of initiative and referendum." § 1–40–106.5(2). [Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary with Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to Constitution of State of Colo. Adding Subsection (10) to Sec. 20 of Art. X (Amend Tabor 25), 900 P.2d 121, 124-25 (Colo. 1995)]
In our previous attempt to get this initiative on the ballot, the title board chose to ignore this interpretation from the state supreme court by: (1) attempting to multiply the purposes of the initiative in the title; and then (2) analyzing the initiative as if it were both inside and outside the body of law into which it was designed to operate, when it was convenient to do so, based on their argument of the moment.
For example: first, as if the publicly owned state bank were in place and functional, which would allow it, in the opinion of one title board member--flying in the face of the "sound banking provision" in the initiative--to issue bonds to cover deficit spending on the part of the state; and, second, as if the publicly owned state bank would somehow operate separately from the constitution, in order to interpret the means by which the initiative deals with constitutional conflicts, so that, by such sophistry, the initiative would be in violation of multiple constitutional provisions, thus making the initiative seem as if it deals with more than a single subject.
In fact, the single subject of this initiative is "To create an effective publicly owned state bank." All provisions of the initiative support this single purpose. Therefore, we will ask the title board to change it's approach to the title and make it clear that the various provisions of the initiatives are all in support of a single purpose. The board has been, wittingly or unwittingly, confusing the purpose and the various means to that purpose.
It's also worth noting that the state supreme court has ruled:
Furthermore, a proposed initiative contains multiple subjects not only when it proposes new provisions constituting multiple subjects, but also when it proposes to repeal multiple subjects. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 # 64, 960 P.2d at 1196; In re Proposed Initiative "1996-4," 916 P.2d 528, 533 (Colo.1996). [In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 104, 987 P.2d 249, 254 (Colo. 1999)]
Commentary: In addition to what we have stated above, regarding the difference between the sole subject of the initiative and the means by which that is implemented in the initiative, we would note that this initiative does not repeal any constitutional or statutory provisions; rather, it states that in the event of any conflicts, such provisions do not apply to the publicly owned state bank; that is, this initiative creates exceptions, but does not repeal.
Taking these issues into consideration, our suggested rendering of the title would then read:
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing a publicly owned state bank and to effectively implement such: authorize the bank to make loans deemed in the public interest; issue bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the State, for the sole and one-time purpose of initially capitalizing the bank; transfer surplus funds generated by non-tax revenues to the state general fund; exempt all bank revenues, expenditures, and transfers to the state general fund from any conflicting constitutional or statutory laws; elect a board of directors to govern the bank; require independent annual auditing of the bank's finances; and require all revenues of the state and all financial assets of the state to be held by the state bank?
Comparing the above title to the one proposed (below) by the title board, it's obvious that their version is likely to have a more negative impact on the electorate, or raise more questions therefrom:
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the establishment of a publicly owned state bank, and, in connection therewith, authorizing the bank to lend money at interest or at no interest to promote the general welfare of Colorado's citizens; backing the bank's debts and obligations with the full faith and credit of the state of Colorado; creating a five-member elected board of directors, representing five districts of the state drawn by the general assembly, to manage the bank; creating a nine-member advisory board, appointed by the governor, to assist the board of directors in managing the bank; requiring annual audits of the bank's finances by an independent accounting firm; allowing the state bank to issue bonds to capitalize the bank; directing that all assets of the state held by other financial institutions be transferred to the state bank when it commences operation; and allowing transfers of funds from the state bank to the general fund of the state?
The integrity of the initiative process
As we can see, the current initiative system is a far cry from that which was envisioned when the state was founded. Back then, those that were willing to leave their homes and emigrate west were naturally suspicious of representative bodies that were easily manipulated by powerful monied interests. Thirty-seven years after Colorado statehood, a few U.S. and European families were unconstitutionally given control over the nation's currency and money supply, essentially giving them a blank check to control the governing bodies of the nation, states, counties, and cities (as per a previous post).
This is why the integrity of the initiative process is so important today. Without it (and verifiable voting and decentralized media, as per a previous post), Colorado is a vassal of the banks and their corporations.
We'll let you know how the title board responds to our suggestions.
Copyright 2013, Robert Bows
[We are pleased to announce that our book, 7 Steps to Global Economic and Spiritual Transformation, is now available online at Amazon and at Barnes and Noble.]
No comments:
Post a Comment