Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill 91S-1005

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 11, 1991No. 91SA225Published

1DissentJustice Quinn

If a well-intentioned motive to foster economic development in the state were the controlling constitutional standard for evaluating House Bills 1005 and 1009, I would have little hesitation in concluding that both bills pass constitutional muster. The well-intentioned motive of lawmakers, however, is not a surrogate for objective constitutional norms applicable to legislative enactments. While there is a presumption of constitutionality attaching to a statute, I am satisfied that the statutory scheme under consideration violates the constitutional proscription against special legislation in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Darrow v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1885
  2. People ex rel. Johnson v. EarlSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
  3. Americans United for Separation of Church & State Fund, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
  4. City of Denver v. BachSupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
  5. Coulter v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1886

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API