The grand compromise struck at the Capitol Tuesday to fix Amendment 41 by statute is wrong-headed and would set a troubling precedent that could lead to further mischief.

Lawmakers should reject this convoluted scheme and instead mend 41 the right way, by referring a constitutional amendment to the November 2008 ballot.

Instead, lawmakers have chosen a stealthy way to circumvent an actual amendment. If passed, House Joint Resolution 1019 would ask the Supreme Court if 41 can be defined by statute in ways that amount to amending important parts of it. Should the court say yes - and heaven help the rule of law if it does - House Bill 1304 would then spell out the changes as well as ask voters to OK those fixes with a separate ballot measure in November 2008.

The critical flaw: That ballot measure would not be a constitutional amendment.

Why the chicanery? Why not simply refer an amendment to the November 2008 ballot?

Perhaps lawmakers fear they can't get the necessary two-thirds votes there to refer a measure to voters. But speed is also clearly a motive. HB 1304 would let lawmakers remove the harshest provisions from Amendment 41 immediately, without having to wait 18 months.

If the Supreme Court lets HB 1304 stand, it would take effect right away. The children of public employees could again receive scholarships that aren't merit-based, among other things.

Deserving residents would not have to wait until November 2008 for a constitutional amendment that modifies 41. Instead, the ballot measure would only ask voters to ratify a law already in place.

We have consistently opposed Amendment 41 because, among other things, it taints a host of healthy political activities and acts of generosity, friendship or good will with the stain of corruption. But those consequences should have been obvious to anyone who read the amendment and the Blue Book sent to voters (not to mention regular readers of this page). Lawmakers cannot amend the constitution by statute, even if they get voters' OK after the fact.

The biggest danger is that the Supreme Court will ratify this attempt to rewrite portions of a badly written constitutional amendment that voters recklessly passed. Were they to do so, it would entice future legislatures to circumvent the constitution in this high-handed way (goodbye, TABOR?).

We'd like to believe the court would reject out of hand the legislature's foray into rewriting the constitution. But it would be better for all concerned if the process didn't get to that point. There's plenty of time to kill both measures. In the meantime, shame on those who are playing such a dangerous game with the rule of law in Colorado.