CANDIDATES UNDERMINE RIGHTS

I continue to contemplate which candidate for governor I'm going to
vote against. Ritter doesn't support a woman's right to an abortion.
When Ritter was Denver's district attorney, his office approved a
misguided search warrant against a bookstore (as I discussed
previously). He has indicated that he'd try to further politicize
medicine and restrict the right to bear arms. While Ritter has
admitted to using marijuana, he favors keeping legal penalties for
possession of under an ounce of the plant by adults over 21.

Ritter has been unfriendly toward the First, Second and Fourth
Amendments, and he has also scorned the Fifth Amendment's due-process
clause and the Sixth Amendment's jury protections. In 2002,
then-District Attorney Ritter fought against reforming the state's
asset forfeiture laws to require a criminal conviction (with a few
exceptions) and higher standards of proof before police can keep a
suspect's property.

Ritter argued against the reform because sometimes there is a "person
on the jury who frustrates our attempts to get a conviction." Damn
those juries, anyway. What are they thinking, not rubber-stamping the
prosecutor's case? Ritter said, "We lose drug cases we should not,
cases that are fairly solid cases."

Due process? Prosecutor Gus Sandstrom argued that even if you're
found "not guilty" by a jury, that still "does not mean you're
innocent of criminal activity." Prosecutor Bob Grant complained that,
under the requirements of the reform, "The burden of proof is shifted
to us." I always thought that was the idea. Ritter added that, if
people are carrying more cash than the police think they should have,
they should be able to demonstrate "evidence of legitimacy." That's
the presumption of guilt.

If Ritter becomes the next governor of Colorado, he must stop looking
at the world through the eyes of a prosecutor. Prosecutors tend to
think that the cops are always right, the accused are always wrong,
and more power in the hands of government is always an improvement.
That's somewhat understandable, because prosecutors see the nastiest
side of humanity on a daily basis. Prosecutors have a tough job and
generally do it well.

But sometimes prosecutors forget that criminality is the exception,
not the rule, in human society. Reducing crime is crucial, but
protecting individual rights is the higher principle. Without
safeguards, the power of police and prosecutors can imperil justice
rather than serve it. To protect individual rights, the powers of
government must be strictly limited.

Thankfully, Republican Shawn Mitchell and Democrat Bill Thiebaut
shepherded the reform bill through the legislature.

Then-Sen. Thiebaut argued, "It is inappropriate for law enforcement
to seize and liquidate people's property before they are convicted of
a crime. If you're an innocent person, you shouldn't have your
property taken away, and if it is taken away, you should have due
process, even if you're guilty."

The House passed the reform measure 51-11, the Senate passed it
23-10, and Gov. Bill Owens signed it.

A major reason to vote against Republican Bob Beauprez is that he
injects religion into politics.

As I discussed in this column on Oct. 21, 2004, I decided to vote for
John Kerry over George Bush because of the same issue. My comments
also apply to this race: "the Republican Party has decided to pander
to the religious right and snub the secularists who champion
liberty." Beauprez is considerably worse than Ritter about pushing
religion into politics, though he's not as bad as Bush.

While Ritter has downplayed his opposition to abortion, Beauprez has
made it a campaign theme, pointing out that he wants even more
restrictions than Ritter does. The idea that the state should outlaw
the abortion even of a few undifferentiated cells obviously comes
from a religious view of God's role in conception.

An Aug. 16 story in the Rocky Mountain News discussed the answers of
Janet Rowland, Beauprez's running mate, for a 2004 questionnaire from
Western Colorado's Christian Chronicles. Her answers were appalling.

"What is your position regarding President Bush's 'faith-based
initiatives?'" Rowland answered, "I fully support it. I introduced
faith-based programs into the Department of Human Services."
Funneling our tax dollars to religious organizations is an affront to
our rights to control our own income and decide which, if any,
religion to support. (According to a Sept. 26 story in the Rocky,
Owens also praised Bush's faith-based tax programs.)

"Do you believe that creationism should be taught in our schools
along with the theory of evolution or just one?" Rowland answered,
"Either both or neither. All religions are welcomed in the schools
except Christianity. This is wrong." So Rowland demands that schools
either stop teaching science or start teaching mythology as science,
again on the taxpayer's dime.

"How do you feel about the issue of 'separation of church and
state'?" Rowland answered, "It's not in the Constitution. We should
have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." We
shouldn't have freedom from religion? That's theocracy. We certainly
do have freedom from religion, if we have any rights at all.

Yet Beauprez selected Rowland to become his successor, should he
remain in office. Apparently, to maintain our right to remain free
from religion, we have to vote to remain free from the Republican Party