Gustavo Petro seeks to impose referendum by decree in Colombia
SANTIAGO, Chile, June 5 (UPI) -- Colombia is at a democratic crossroads as President Gustavo Petro clashes with Congress and civil society over political disputes, legislative gridlock and stalled reforms.
At the center of the dispute is Petro's announcement that he intends to call a national referendum by executive decree to revive parts of his agenda -- particularly a labor reform bill recently rejected by the Senate.
For weeks, Petro's proposal to call a national referendum has polarized the political climate.
His administration says the referendum would allow voters to weigh in on key issues, including healthcare and pension reforms, public debt restructuring and the potential formation of a constituent assembly.
The opposition and several legal experts have called the measure unconstitutional and an overreach of presidential powers.
Colombia's Constitution outlines specific requirements for calling a national referendum, including congressional approval.
Petro's opponents warn that bypassing this step would set a dangerous precedent, weakening democratic institutions and the separation of powers.
The possibility that Petro could issue a decree to call a national referendum without congressional approval may lead to a legal challenge before Colombia's Constitutional Court. The court's final ruling on the legality of such a decree will be critical in determining the future of the initiative and the balance of power among government institutions.
In addition to the referendum controversy, Petro's labor reform proposal suffered a major defeat in the Senate, where it was rejected and shelved. The bill, one of the administration's flagship initiatives to "dignify labor and improve working conditions," failed to secure enough votes to move forward in the legislative process.
The government's proposed labor reform included cutting the standard daytime work shift to eight hours, doubling pay for work on Sundays and holidays, formalizing employment for digital platform workers, extending paternity leave to 12 weeks and ensuring equal pay for men and women.
Business groups, such as the National Business Association of Colombia and the National Federation of Merchants have been outspoken in opposing the bill. They argue the reform would have negative economic consequences, including job losses, reduced investment and a rise in unregulated employment.
Despite the government's efforts and intense debate, the bill failed to win over enough senators, many of whom also raised concerns about the reform's potential impact on job creation and business competitiveness.
Attention now turns to the Constitutional Court, whose decision will be pivotal for the future of the referendum proposal and the broader institutional balance in Colombia.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Petition to make city attorney an elected position fails in Grover Beach
A petition to make the role of city attorney an elected position in Grover Beach came up short on Wednesday when the petitioners failed to submit any signatures by the deadline. In August, citizens grassroots group GroverH2O filed a notice of intent to circulate a petition to make the role of city attorney elected, with a 180-day window to collect enough valid signatures by June 4 kicking off on Dec. 7. The petition sought to put the issue of an elected city attorney on the November 2026 ballot, and would have required valid signatures from 10% of the city's registered voters — or a minimum of 811 people — by the June 4 deadline. But as of Wednesday, the city had not received any signature submissions from the proponents, bringing the issue to a close for the time being, according to city manager Matt Bronson. The Tribune reached out to GroverH2O for comment but did not receive a reply as of Friday afternoon. In the past year, GroverH2O has succeeded in gathering enough signatures to get an initiative asking voters if the role of city clerk should be elected rather than appointed, with the issue set to appear on the November 2026 ballot. Grover H2O was also successful in raising enough signatures to get a recall campaign on the November 2024 ballot against District 2 Councilmember Dan Rushing for his vote to raise water and wastewater rates to pay for Grover Beach's share of the now-defunct Central Coast Blue water recycling project. During the recall petition process, city clerk Wendi Sims initially denied Grover H2O's recall petition, contesting the factual accuracy of several of the group's stated reasons to start the petition. The dispute over the recall petition's content led to Grover H2O's lawsuit against the city, which was represented by Lozano Smith attorney Robert Lomeli. In April, attorney Stew Jenkins, speaking on behalf of Grover H2O, said that the efforts to make both the city attorney and city clerk elected are a response to the city's handling of Grover H2O's petitions. 'The appointed Grover Beach city attorney firm has violated the public interest by impairing access to city records, authorizing closed City Council meetings, been complicit in impairing voters' right to circulate and file petitions for recall in violation of California's Constitution and election law, filed appeal of a Superior Court ruling ordering certification of recall without prior City Council approval, has contracts with cities and districts all over California, and charges the City of Grover Beach for part-time civil work more than the state of California pays the attorney general for full-time representation in civil and criminal matters,' GroverH2O's notice of intent said. 'The voters find that the office of appointed city attorney shall be immediately terminated for cause, as against the public interest.' In their statement of reasons to launch the petition included in the initial notice of intent, petitioners argued that the city's current legal representation from firm Lozano Smith also risks a potential conflict of interest becuase they represent multiple government municipalities, though assistant city manager Kristin Eriksson said the firm's other government contracts are all outside of San Luis Obispo County. In California, only around 11 of 482 municipalities have elected city attorneys, with most serving larger cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego due to their population size, according to a 2013 League of California Cities guidebook for new city attorneys. In an email, Eriksson said the city doesn't know how many valid signatures were collected by GroverH2O in the 180-day window because no petition was submitted. Eriksson said the city has not received any further communications with the group on further attempts to make the city attorney an elected position. 'Because they did not submit the requisite signatures on the initial petition, they would have to start the process over by first submitting a new Notice of Intent,' Eriksson said.
Hamilton Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Politico
35 minutes ago
- Politico
Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates
Two House Republicans drew firm red lines Friday on changes to the House GOP megabill, threatening to vote 'no' if the Senate made any changes whatsoever to key provisions. Rep. Nick LaLota of New York warned GOP senators against lowering the House's $40,000 cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction, while Rep. Chip Roy of Texas vowed to oppose any attempt to delay or otherwise water down the phaseout of clean-energy tax credits provided for in the House-passed megabill. 'If the Senate waters it down by a dollar, I'm a no,' LaLota posted on X, arguing that the SALT cap as it stands is 'unfair' to his constituents. Roy was equally strict about GOP senators' hesitations on quickly phasing out clean-energy tax credits signed into law under former President Joe Biden — even calling out skeptical Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) by name in a floor speech Friday. Tillis has been critical of the phaseouts, saying the House bill is 'void of any understanding of just how these supply chains work.' 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Roy said. 'Because those god-forsaken subsidies are killing our energy, killing our grid, making us weaker, destroying our landscape, undermining our freedom. I'm not going to have it.'
