Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/406

This page needs to be proofread.


The Recall in Colorado laws submitted, as herein provided, when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, at such election, shall be and become the law of this state . . . to take effect after the date of the declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the Governor not less than thirty days after the vote has been cast," it does not provide that, after the expiration of sixty days, without the referendum of the decision, the decisions or opinion of the Court shall become the law, not to be thereafter disturbed. There is nothing to relieve us from an appeal from the Supreme Court to the people, in a subsequent case involving the same state, in which the Supreme Court or even the nisi prius courts, upon the doctrine of stare decisis, should hold it to be unconsti tutional. The amendment further provides: "If such a decision concerns a charter, or amendment thereto, of a city, or city and county, acting under Article 20 of this constitution, it shall not be binding until sixty days after it has been filed in the office of the Clerk of said Court. Within said sixty days, a referendum petition signed by not less than five per centum of the qualified electors of any such city, or city and county, addressed to and filed with the legislature of said city, or city and county, may request that said charter, or amendment thereto, be submitted to the people of such city, etc., for their adoption or rejection." It then remains that the people of the city or other municipality whose rights are thus involved may approve or reject the decision of the Supreme Court upon the validity of any provision of its charter or law. But the application of this portion of the constitution may have this strange effect: Two or more cities of our state may have exactly the same ordinance, verbatim et literatim,

381

all acting under a charter adopted under Article 20 of our constitution. Let us say that the ordinance becomes involved in litigation arising in city "A," goes to the Supreme Court, and is held in valid. It is referred to the people of city "A," who reverse the decision of the Supreme Court, and for that city the ordinance is held valid. The same ordi nance is involved in city "B," goes to the Supreme Court, who may follow its former opinion or follow the opinion of the more erudite electorate of city "A," and hold it valid. It is referred to the voters of city "B," who hold it invalid and so ad infinitum may pile up contrariety of municipal laws, or confusion therein, throughout our state, under the arbitrary power reserved in the various communities by this amend ment. And when we refer to the initiated amendment of Section 6, Article 20, of our constitution, under the title "Home Rule for Cities and Towns of Two Thou sand Population," we find a provision which may lead to even a greater medley and more astounding conflict in laws. The amendment in question, after ex tending to all cities and towns of more than two thousand population the power to adopt a charter form of government, provides: "Such charter, and ordinances made pursuant thereto, in such matters, shall supersede, within the territorial limits of said city or town, any law of the state in conflict therewith." Think what a blessing these two constitutional provisions taken together may consti tute to some enterprising and extraliberal minded community on the opera tion of our sumptuary laws. We have statutes in the state of Colorado regu lating the liquor traffic, providing that all saloons shall be closed at midnight and on Sundays, also statutes pro hibiting gambling in any form through