On the October 22 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio, host and former Republican state senate president John Andrews allowed state Rep. Debbie Stafford (R-Aurora) to make false claims about two measures appearing on Colorado's November ballot. Unchallenged by Andrews, Stafford falsely claimed that Referendum I, which would allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners, would amend the state constitution. Stafford also touted Amendment 40, which would create judicial term limits, by falsely claiming that Colorado's judicial branch “has complete protection for life.”

Discussing the domestic partnership proposal, Stafford falsely claimed that “Referendum I is a redefinition of marriage being put in the state constitution as the union between two same-sex partners.” Andrews responded that the domestic partnership would be "[q]uite similar to marriage except it just doesn't call itself marriage." Referendum I explicitly states that “a domestic partnership is not a marriage, which consists of the union of one man and one woman.”

Moreover, Referendum I does not seek to amend the state constitution, as Stafford asserted. If passed, it would add an “amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes” to extend rights to same-sex couples under the Colorado Revised Statutes, not the state constitution.

While Andrews accurately opened the discussion on Referendum I by noting that it is “not a constitutional amendment, but a referred law” he subsequently allowed Stafford to falsely claim that the measure is a “redefinition of marriage being put in the state constitution” and later that “things that go into our state constitution need to be very carefully thought out, and that's why I will be a 'no' on Referendum I.” Rather than correct Stafford, Andrews remarked: “I haven't heard it put any more effectively, factually.”

Stafford then stated: “I love people and a lot of people that are my friends have chosen the same-sex lifestyle, so it's not a personal issue.”

Immediately after discussing Referendum I, Andrews and Stafford addressed Amendment 40, which, unlike Referendum I, would amend the state constitution if passed. The measure seeks to impose term limits on Colorado's appellate court judges and Supreme Court justices. Andrews is chairman of Limit the Judges, the organization supporting Amendment 40. After Andrews asked, “Yes on Amendment 40, limit the judges, why does that make sense to you?”, Stafford falsely asserted that, whereas the state's executive and legislative branches “have accountability with term limits,” Colorado's judicial branch “has complete protection for life.”

In fact, Colorado judges and justices are subject to mandatory retirement at age 72. Moreover, while they are not currently subject to term limits, appellate court judges and Supreme Court justices serve initial two-year provisional terms, after which they face retention elections. If they are retained, appellate court judges serve eight-year terms followed by another retention election, and Supreme Court justices serve 10-year terms followed by another retention election. As clearly stated in the summary of Amendment 40 produced by the Colorado Legislative Council staff, requiring judges to stand for retention under current law “gives voters the option of either keeping or removing the member from the bench.”

From the October 22 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio:

ANDREWS: We're talking with state Representative Debbie Stafford, Republican of Aurora seeking her fourth term, and that would be the term limit -- eight years -- if the voters see fit to return her. And I just got a hunch that they will because of the great work that Debbie Stafford does for her constituents and for our state, particularly as the ranking minority member on the health and human service committee in the state House of Representatives. Let's turn to ballot issues. Debbie, you're, I know -- having been in Christian ministry yourself, having been a wife and mom, and as you told us in the previous segment, lived through some real adversity in your role as a single mom at one time -- marriage is important to you, Amendment 43 is important to you. Tell us why.

STAFFORD: Well it is really important. I believe that the definition of marriage is the union between one man and one woman. And I believe it's very important for voters to get out and support Amendment 43 and vote “yes.” I believe this needs to be defined in the state constitution.

ANDREWS: Now as a member of the state House of Representatives, you were involved in the debate this past spring about a referred measure, not a constitutional amendment, but a referred law, which is called Referendum I, that is being marketed under the heading of fairness to two men or two women who want to make legal arrangements because of this strong bond that has developed between them personally, which all sounds harmless enough. What's wrong with Referendum I in your opinion?

STAFFORD: Well several things. First of all, Referendum I is a redefinition of marriage being put in the state constitution as the union between two same-sex partners. I don't have any personal bias; if people make that --

ANDREWS: Quite similar to marriage except it just doesn't call itself marriage.

STAFFORD: Very similar, that would be correct. I don't have a bias against any lifestyle that people opt to live in. But what I don't like is the way it's being marketed. It's being marketed that you could not make funeral arrangements or arrangements around death, or that you could not give healthcare directives without this passing. Well we already have legal agreements -- you can certainly dictate your -- in your will or your last wishes -- you can have medical power of attorney.

ANDREWS: They can contract to provide whatever reciprocal sharing they wish to, right?

STAFFORD: Absolutely, we already have those provisions. But the other provisions -- there are 27 provisions of marriage that are identified in Referendum I -- one is also the adoption of children. And I believe that children need to be raised by a mother and a father. And I really believe that the way this has been marketed, the whole story is not being presented. And so while we can respect all of our mankind that we live with, the things that go into our state constitution need to be very carefully thought out, and that's why I will be a “no” on Referendum I.

ANDREWS: No on I, yes on 43, is that where you come down?

STAFFORD: That would be correct, that's where I come.

ANDREWS: And I am in agreement; I haven't heard it put any more effectively, factually, and you kept the emotional content off to one side, which is really the only way to make sound public policy.

STAFFORD: Well I love people and a lot of people that are my friends have chosen the same-sex lifestyle, so it's not a personal issue. It's just the fact that how they present the legal argument; those legal contracts are already available. That's why voting no on Referendum I in my mind is a responsible decision.

ANDREWS: I've appreciated the fact that you became one of our legislative co-chairs along with your House colleague Ted Harvey, Senate colleagues Tom Wiens, Shawn Mitchell, Greg Brophy, for the proposal to apply the same -- or similar term limits -- to our appellate courts, supreme court and state court of appeals that we already have for legislatures like you are, or like I was, or like Governor Owens in the executive branch. Yes on Amendment 40, limit the judges, why does that make sense to you?

STAFFORD: Well it does make sense. We have three branches of government; we have the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Two of those three branches have accountability with term limits; the third branch has complete protection for life. And I think what we are seeing is activist judges who are now creating law from the bench. That's the job of the legislature; it is not the job of the courts. And I think it's responsible that all three facets of government have accountability. I think term limits being equal, are fair. And, quite frankly, we are giving 10 years in referendum 40.

ANDREWS: A little longer because there is a concern that the courts ought not to be susceptible to the political winds that come and go, and I think Amendment 40 strikes that balance quite well. Our polling for Amendment 40 says that Coloradans are concerned that the courts need to be more accountable. They're also concerned about the independence of the judiciary, which is an important cornerstone of our system. But I think that accountability and independence for the judiciary are better balanced if we pass that 10-year term limit under Amendment 40. Debbie Stafford, when you were in ministry before politics did you preach some times?

STAFFORD: I did.