Colorado

AMENDMENT LANGUAGE

State Constitutional Provisions

Colo. Const. art. 9, § 7: "Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose."

Colo. Const. art. 5, § 34: "No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association."

Colo. Const. art. 2, § 4: "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship."

RELEVANT CASES

State Courts

In Re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1996) (opponents of proposed constitutional amendment sought review of action of Title Setting Board in fixing title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary for amendment which would recognize inalienable right of parents to control upbringing of their children. The Supreme Court held that: (1) initiative embraced only a single subject; (2) title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary were adequate; and (3) fiscal impact statement was adequate).

In Re Title and Submission Clause Pertaining to Proposed Initiative on School Pilot Program, 874 P.2d 1066 (Colo. 1994) (Registered elector filed challenge to title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary prepared by the Initiative Title Setting Board for proposed initiated amendment to the State Constitution requiring General Assembly to establish one or more pilot programs to demonstrate viability of parental choice in education by providing grants of aid to children through their parents. The Supreme Court held that: (1) title and ballot title and submission clause were not unfairly misleading by not containing reference to subsection of proposed amendment precluding purchase of services from institution discriminating on certain grounds, despite contention that this implicitly authorized use of state funds to purchase educational services that discriminated on other grounds; (2) title and ballot title and submission clause were not unfair and misleading in failing to state that neither review nor repeal of pilot programs could occur prior to year 2001, where that contention turned on petitioner's proposed construction of the amendment; (3) summary was not misleading in stating that fiscal impact of proposed amendment was indeterminate; and (4) failure of Board to explain why fiscal impact was indeterminate substantially complied with statutory responsibilities).

Americans United for Separation of Church and State Fund, Inc. v. State, 648 P.2d 1072 (1982) (governmental aid to an institution of higher education will not be considered to have a primary effect of advancing religion in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment unless the institution is so pervasively sectarian that a substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious mission or when the aid funds a specifically religious activity in an otherwise substantially secular setting; The Colorado Student Incentive Grant Program did not violate provision of the Colorado Constitution prohibiting governmental appropriations to private and sectarian schools in light of facts that aid under the program was designed to assist the student and not the institution, financial assistance was available only to students attending institutions of higher education, aid was available to students attending both public and private institutions and statutory criteria militated against type of ideological control over secular education function addressed by the constitutional provision).

Conrad v. City and County of Denver, 656 P.2d 662 (1982) (combined injuries alleged by plaintiffs to two of their legally protected interests, their intangible interest in a government that did not prefer or support the Christian religion over all others, including their own, and their economic interest in having their tax dollars spent in a constitutional manner, was sufficient to meet the injury in fact requirement for making a challenge under the State Constitution to the display of a nativity scene on the steps of the city and county building).

Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289 (1980) (unincorporated association lacked standing to seek injunction prohibiting inclusion of nativity scene in Christmas display at city and county building where there was no showing that the scene would in any wise impair the functions and activities of the association or cause it any economic loss or other injury, and where record did not identify any member of the association, so that there was no showing that the members had the necessary "personal stake" required for demonstration of injury in fact).

School Dist. No. 97 in Weld County v. Schmidt, 263 P.2d 581, 128 Colo. 495 (1953) (loan of services of school district's custodian to church under exchange agreement whereby custodian's regularly assigned tasks were to be performed by others while he assisted the church was not payment from any public funds or moneys in "aid of church" within constitutional provision prohibiting aid by school district to church).

People ex rel. Vollmar v. Stanley, 255 P. 610, 81 Colo. 276 (1927) (constitutional provisions on aid to sectarian education must be construed separately, controlling matters covered; reading Bible in public schools held not expenditure of public funds to sustain school controlled by sectarian denomination).

SECONDARY MATERIALS

State Attorney General Opinions and Briefs

Attorney General Brief in Colorado Congress of Parents, Teachers and Students v. Owens, Case No. CV 3734 (Colo. Dist. Ct.) filed Nov. 10, 2003 (Arguing that vouchers for use by students to attend the school of their choice, regardless of religious affiliation, does not violate Colorado's Blaine Amendments because they have been interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court as being co-extensive with the Federal Establishment Clause.)

AG File No. DHR/AGCAW/KL (1978) (The aid prohibited by § 7 of Article IX is also direct aid, and the incidental benefits which may be derived by religiously affiliated and not pervasively sectarian institutions attended by students receiving grants under S.B. 398 [§ 23-3.5-101 et seq.] are not of sufficient dimension to violate the provisions of said section).

Books and Articles

Jeremy Rabkin, Partisan in the Culture Wars, 30 MCGEORGE L. REV. 105 (1998).

REPEAL EFFORTS

The Greater Educational Opportunities Foundation is one of the more prominent organizations in Colorado interested in repealing the state's Blaine Amendment. See also the Education Policy Center of the Independence Institute.

See the Heritage Foundation website for a list of other state contacts.