Marijuana legalized in Colorado

[desolated000]

I'll vote no on all amendments

By Greg Romberg
10/19/2006
Colorado has a progressive system for choosing, evaluating and retaining judges. Amendment 40 would turn that system on its head. It should be rejected.

Unlike other states where voters elect judges or where a Governor has unfettered discretion to appoint anyone he or she chooses, Colorado’s system is designed to ensure new judges are qualified and existing judges must do a good enough job that voters will keep them in office.

Under our system, judicial nominating commissions accept applications when a judicial vacancy occurs. Commissions then narrow the applicants to their top three choices and the Governor appoints from that list. After judges complete their terms, a review is completed and publicized and voters decide whether judges should be retained for an additional term or removed from office. While we may disagree with some court decisions, the process works incredibly well.

Despite the balanced approach and successful implementation of our current system, we are being asked to dismantle it. Amendment 40 would reduce the terms for judges who serve on the State Supreme Court and State Court of Appeals and then limit their service to no more than ten years. On top of this restriction, the term limits would be applied retroactively. If Amendment 40 passes, five of the current seven members of the Supreme Court will be replaced on January 13, 2009.

While term limits for judges are unnecessary in general, the chaos that would be created if the Colorado Supreme Court was composed of a vast majority of justices without Supreme Court experience is reason enough to reject Amendment 40.

***

In previous columns, I have explained my opposition to Amendments 38, 39 and 41. There are three additional amendments on this year’s ballots.

Amendment 42 would amend the constitution to raise the minimum wage in Colorado to $6.85 per hour and adjust it for inflation in the future. While I believe the minimum wage is too low, it should be raised nationally instead of state by state. In any event, putting the change into our constitution is the wrong place to address the issue. I’ll vote no on Amendment 42.

Amendment 43 is a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Colorado law contains similar language. This emotional issue has no place in our constitution. I’ll vote no on Amendment 43.

Amendment 44 would amend Colorado law to legalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for people who are at least 21 years old. To their credit, proponents of Amendment 44 aren’t trying to amend the constitution, but I will vote no.



Source: http://www.canyoncourier.com/story_display.php?sid=4129