Both sides in the ugly battle under the Gold Dome over Amendment 41 have announced a truce.

Legislative leaders in the two parties Wednesday said they have reached a compromise on implementing the ethics measure that voters approved last fall.

The deal calls for supporting Senate Bill 210, which puts into place an ethics commission created under Amendment 41.

The agreement also calls for asking the Colorado Supreme Court to offer direction to the commission.

And the compromise includes working with the backers of Amendment 41 to put the issue on the 2008 ballot to clear up confusion over the measure.

"The voters said we want higher ethics in government. We agree, and we're ready to move forward," said House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver.

Lawmakers have been at odds over who Amendment 41 affects and how to fix it. Even the chief backer, millionaire Jared Polis, conceded it was poorly written.

The constitutional amendment bans gifts of $50 or more to elected officials, government workers, government contractors and their families. One interpretation was that injured firefighters could no longer receive donations, and the children of government works were ineligible for scholarships.

The compromise was announced just hours after supporters of Amendment 41 said if lawmakers couldn't agree on a House bill that clarified terms in the ballot measure, they would put a citizens initiative on the ballot this November that provided the definitions.

Because odd-year elections must involve revenue, their proposal included taxing lobbyists to pay for the ethics commission.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, called the tax "goofy."

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Groff, D-Denver, said it was outrageous to tax lobbyists who advocate for the disabled, seniors, children and other groups at the Capitol.

The legislative compromise means that House Bill 1304 will be killed, legislative leaders said. That measure had passed the House but was expected to die in the Senate.

The bill defined terms in Amendment 41, such as gifts for "special occasions." It also included a provision that allowed voters to decide in 2008 whether the interpretation lawmakers made in defining the terms was what they intended when they passed the ballot measure in 2006.

A companion resolution asked the Colorado Supreme Court to answer whether key provisions of the interpretations, such as exempting scholarships for government workers' children, were constitutional.

That resolution will be killed.

Mark Grueskin, the attorney who helped write 1304, said he was fine with the compromise.

bartels@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5327