Why the Phillips
County Proposal is Flawed
In the past few weeks since the Weld County Commissioners
proposed the formation of a new state, several ideas have been suggested by
others. The two alternatives that have
risen to the top are the Phillips County proposal and requesting annexation
into Wyoming.
Investigation as to the Wyoming annexation idea is under
way. There are pros and cons to this
proposal versus the creation of the 51st State. For now, we’ll set aside the discussion of
those pros and cons because we want to discuss the pros and cons of the
Phillips County proposal.
Their proposal is – rather than starting a new state - to
amend the State Constitution to change the representation model in one of the
two chambers – presumably the State Senate.
The change would be to have representation determined by location rather
than by population similar to the model of the U.S Senate. The idea would be to have each County have
its own Senator regardless of population.
This would increase the number of Senators from 35 to 64 and would
increase the significantly influence the voice of rural Colorado when compared
to the current model.
There are three issues we see with the Phillips
proposal.
First, the first hurdle would be to amend the state
Constitution. With the legislature being
controlled by larger metro areas (Denver / Boulder / Colorado Springs / Fort
Collins / Pueblo), the likelihood of the legislature referring it to the ballot
is low. This would leave the rural areas
with collecting signatures as a citizen’s initiative to refer it to the
ballot. The same challenge exists with a
statewide ballot. Would those that have
control at the state level agree to dilute their control of the state
legislature? Again, unlikely…
Second, let’s assume we can get it approved on a statewide
ballot. There is already a 1964 Supreme
Court case Reynolds vs Sims which ruled that states can’t apportion
representation in a manner other than by population (one man, one vote). In other words, states can’t have representation
apportioned the same as the U.S. Senate.
Our next challenge would be to fight a Supreme Court case that has
existed for nearly 50 years. We would
need a Governor and Attorney General willing to take this case to the Supreme
Count – a multi-year battle. Think about
what happened in California related to Proposition 8. Even if the voices of the people speak on an
issue, there has to be willingness of the State government to defend that
vote. As this battle continues… do you
think we’ll have a Governor and Attorney General that are willing to fight for
the voice of rural Colorado. The longer
this goes, the more the urban population grows.
Third, even if we clear both of these two hurdles and win
better representation, what we are left with?
We will have the ability to block future legislation that is harmful to
the rural communities, but with the House still controlled by population, we’ll
never be able to overturn the damage that had been done. We know what damage has been done most
recently as part of the 2013 legislative cycle.
Who knows what will happen in the 2014 legislative session that will
damage it even further? Look at the
‘education’ tax initiatives likely to be on this fall’s ballot – a 27% increase
on individuals (including those that file LLC schedule C returns) and S Corps –
this being on income over $75K; and the marijuana tax. Is Phillips County (and other rural Counties)
likely to receive their proportionate share of that which is being taken from
their County. Or, will it end up being
spent on Denver / Boulder on their pet projects? I think we know the answer to that question.
Both the statehood idea and annexing with WY would allow us
to live under a government that much better reflects and respects our
values. The Phillips County proposal, at
best, stems the tide, but it does not allow the damage to be undone.
Find out more about the 51st State Initiative at www.51stState.org and www.facebook.com/The51stStateInitiative
