Lawmakers today debated and approved in committee a measure that would make it more difficult for citizens to amend the state constitution— but only if those same voters approve the measure in November.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, which has bipartisan sponsorship–Democratic Senator Abel Tapia of Pueblo and Republican Al White of Hayden, is being touted by Tapia as the “new and improved” Referendum O,  a previous ballot measure which failed by about two percent of the vote in 2008. Tapia said that SCR3 is much less complicated and was crafted with the added benefit of hindsight.

“The intent was to bring something very simple—something that people can understand, and get behind,” said Tapia as he presented the resolution to the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee.

Currently, for a citizen’s initiated measure amending either the constitution or state statutes, the law requires a certain number of signatures from registered voters–five percent of the total number of voters who voted in the most recent Secretary of State’s race.

Referendum O asked to raise the number of signatures required to eight percent, and required that those signatures come from each congressional district rather than from the state at-large.  The current proposal leaves the requirement at five percent, requires signatures from each congressional district, and adds a provision that if a measure asks to amend the constitution it must receive at least sixty percent of the vote in the election to pass.

Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, questioned whether or not the enhanced requirements would disenfranchise citizens from the initiative process who may not have financial resources that larger more prosperous individuals would have in order to overcome the additional hurdles.

“We don’t want to make this a rich person’s process,” said Schultheis. “I think everyone needs to have an equal opportunity.”

Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, agrees that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but maintains that the higher bar encourages citizens to look at amending laws before looking at the constitution.

“I think the constitution should have a higher standard than just statutes,” said Bacon.

Schultheis said that he could not support the resolution because he believes that the motivation behind the referendum is an attempt to prevent citizens from enacting measures such as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rghts (TABOR).

“I’m convinced in my own mind that this is an end-run to undo TABOR,“ Schultheis asserted.  “I don’t feel that it’s right to take away this right to tell people “yeah you have the right to petition the government but were going to make it so tough on you that you really don’t have the right.”

Fellow GOP committee member Bill Cadman of Colorado Springs also said he opposes the resolution arguing that it dilutes the right of the people to petition government when they disapprove of legislative action or lack of action.

“They’re more afraid of what we do to them than what they do to each other,”  said Cadman. “This is their power, their authority.”

Democratic Chairman Rollie Heath of Boulder couldn’t help but point out the irony that he found in the results of focus groups asked to express their opinion on making it more difficult to amend the constitution.

“When Eight-nine percent of Colorado Springs thinks we need to do this, and only seventy-nine percent of Boulder [thinks we should pass this], it’s an overwhelming statement,” said Heath.

The resolution passed in committee with a 3-2 vote—a simple majority vote—but it must receive a super majority vote of two-thirds in both the house and senate before it can be put on the ballot.  Concurrent resolutions are not sent to the governor for signature.

Tapia said he ultimately believes that the will of the people will not be thwarted because “the bottom line is the electors are going to have the final say on this bill,”