From doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU Tue Jan 26 17:58:34 1993

The Denver Post
January 21, 1993

By Howard Pankratz, Legal Affairs Writer

Denver District Judge Jeff Bayless yesterday refused to back down from his 
ruling last week that blocked implementation of Amendment 2.

In a one-sentence reply, Balyess denied a motion by the state of Colorado to 
reconsider his decision.  He stated he had reviewed the state's request and 
would not change his poisition.

Late Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Paul Farley asked Bayless to reverse 
himself because of what Farley termed the "extraordinary step" the judge took 
in refusing to allow the voter-approved anendment to go into effect.

"Further, in light of the fact that this case is one of first impression not 
only in Colorado, but nationally, even if the court believes (the state has) no 
substantial likelihood of success on appeal, the magnitude of the question 
strongly supports the issuance of a stay (of the injunction) pending appellate 
review," Farley had said.

Lawyers for a colaition of cities and gays said earlier they would be surprised 
if Bayless, who stopped implementation of the measure Friday, changed his mind.

Yesterday's ruling was in response to one of two motions filed Tuesday by the 
state, which not only asked Bayless to reverse himself but also petitioned the 
Colorado Supreme Court to review the case immediately.

Amendment 2, now on hold because of Bayless' ruling, would nullify gay-rights 
laws in Denver, Boulder and Aspen and prohibit the state and local governments 
from enacting similar laws in the future.

In granting the preliminary inunction Friday to delay the measure's 
implementation, Bayless said it appeared the amendment violated basic civil 
rights of gays and lesbians and resulted in state-endorsed discrimination.  
Though he didn't decide the merits of the case, Bayless said that because he 
believed the plaintiffs have a "reasonable probability" of proving the 
amendment unconstitutional at trial, he would issue the injunction.

Lawyers connected with the Amendment 2 case say appellate courts prefer that a 
losing party ask the lower court judge to reconsider his opinion before 
appealing to them.

In their motion to the Supreme Court, state attorneys claim Bayless erred when 
he determined that the plaintiffs have a "substantial likelihood" of prevailing 
on the merits at trial.  They also challenged Bayless' contention that during 
the trial, over which Bayless will preside, the state must demonstrate that 
Amendment 2 is justified by a compelling state interest.

Lawyers for the state concede that is a difficult standard to meet.

In his decision Friday, Bayless said the citizens of Colorado are free to alter 
their state constitution.  But in doing so, he said, "even a majority vote of 
Colorado citizens cannot vioalte the constitutional rights of other Colorado 
citizens."