Category Archives: Colorado Legislature

Nov 09

Colorado Residents Looking at Pot Tax Rebate

Posted on by

Colorado-Residents-Looking-at-Pot-Tax-Rebate-650x434Last Monday, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper unveiled the state’s $26.8 billion proposed budget for next fiscal year. The budget includes $167.2 million in tax rebates for Colorado taxpayers, including $30.5 million in rebates due to total state revenue that was higher than predicted. Under the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) the state must either refund the excess amount above the estimate,or add a measure to a future ballot asking the voters to let the state keep and spend the surplus.

The rebates are mandated by TABOR, because the revenue from marijuana sales is different than projections included in the election book for the 2013 Proposition AA. Under TABOR, since the estimate was off, the state has to either refund the excess cash or go to voters to ask if the state can keep it.

The budget proposal was announced one day before the Nov. 4 election that gave Hickenlooper another term. The spending plan includes a 7 percent increase from the current year’s budget, representing $1.7 billion in new spending of state and federal money. $908 million in state spending includes $107 million in additional funds for higher education, $103 million for road projects and a 2 percent pay hike for many state employees.

Colorado’s economy is improving, but much of the new money is due to tax collections exceeding the state’s revenue cap, triggering rebates under TABOR for the first time in 15 years. The provision requires refunds if the revenue is greater than the rate of population growth and inflation. Unless, that is, the voters decide to return the money.

Hickenlooper’s budget directs $167.2 million of the TABOR rebate for fiscal year 2015-16 toward a tax credit for low income workers, along with sales tax refunds. He did not address exactly how to rebate the $30.5 million portion for recreational pot taxes, that decision being left to state lawmakers.

The rebate issue became a campaign issue last month when the governor was noncommittal on whether he would endorse a tax rebate, or if he would ask voters for permission to spend it. At a gubernatorial debate Oct. 24 he did commit to a rebate.

Vice Chairman of the Joint Budget Committee Sen. Pat Steadman said the overage is not happening because the taxes are exceeding the estimates, but rather because the economy is growing. Hickenlooper stated that “Colorado’s economic activity continues to outperform the national expansion,” and said looking ahead, the most likely scenario is for that momentum to continue.

Lawmakers have the option to lower excise and sales tax rates on recreational pot to bring the revenue in line with projections, but that would most likely impact $40 in annual excise tax revenue that has been allocated to school construction. Rep. Cheri Gerou, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said lowering the sales tax rate would mean the state could not take care of K-12 education under BEST, the Building Excellent Schools Today program.

So much of the marijuana revenue is allocated for school construction and reimbursing counties for regulation expenses that it is possible that the cannabis refund would have to come out of the state’s general fund. It is uncertain how the pot tax rebate will be handled, whether it will go to all Colorado taxpayers or only to those who bought recreational marijuana. Gerou said that despite the higher-than-projected revenue, legalized recreational marijuana could actually cost the state money in this first year.

By Beth A. Balen
Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/colorado-residents-looking-at-pot-tax-rebate/#fgIF8cuuEo3AYXHk.99

 

Nov 03

Hickenlooper’s budget plan endorses tax rebates, new state spending

Posted on by

 

Gov. John Hickenlooper
Gov. John Hickenlooper (Craig F. Walker, Denver Post file photo)

A day before voters decide whether to give him another term, Gov. John Hickenlooper on Monday unveiled a $26.8 billion state budget proposal for the next fiscal year that includes about $200 million in rebates to taxpayers.

The Democrat’s spending plan represents $1.7 billion in new spending in federal and state money, a 7 percent increase from the current fiscal year budget.

The $908 million in new state spending includes $103 million for road projects, $107 million in additional funds for higher education and a 2 percent pay hike for most state employees.

The new money available reflects Colorado’s improving economy but tax collections also exceeded the state’s revenue cap under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights — triggering rebates for the first time in 15 years.

Hickenlooper’s budget puts aside $167.2 million for a TABOR rebate in the fiscal year 2015-16 budget, which state law directs toward a tax credit for low-income workers and sales tax refunds.

The constitutional provision mandates refunds when revenue exceeds the rate of inflation and population growth, unless voters decide to return the money.

Hickenlooper sidestepped the question about how to rebate another $30.5 million in excess recreational marijuana taxes, leaving it to state lawmakers to decide the appropriate method.

The TABOR rebate issue became a campaign touch-point a month ago when Hickenlooper wavered on whether he would endorse a tax rebate or ask voters for permission to spend it, but eventually committed to a rebate at an Oct. 24 debate.

The governor’s aides briefed reporters on the budget proposal Monday afternoon while Hickenlooper worked the campaign trail.

In his 28-page letter to lawmakers outlining his plan, Hickenlooper touted the state’s economy. “Colorado’s economic activity continues to outperform the national expansion,” he said.

Republican challenger Bob Beauprez saw the governor’s budget as an opportunity to poke at Hickenlooper about the TABOR rebates, which he firmly supported in the campaign.

“We’re pleased that, thanks to Bob Beauprez’s leadership, John Hickenlooper has suddenly discovered it’s the taxpayers’ money, not his,” campaign spokesman Allen Fuller said in a statement. “Even this election eve 180-degree flip is not enough to erase over a decade of pushing for billions in tax increases.”

The timing of the governor’s budget release only added to the political context, but the date is prescribed in state law. The Joint Budget Committee — a panel of three House and three Senate lawmakers — will meet Nov. 12 to hear Hickenlooper’s plan and begin deliberations.

Other key provisions in the governor’s plan include:

• A total $480 million more for education, including a one-time $200 million infusion from state coffers, to increase per pupil funding to $7,496, a $475 increase.

• Another $155 million to cover an expected 218,000 new Medicaid patients whose cost is not entirely paid by the federal government under the program’s expansion

• More than $8 million for counties to hire 130 new child welfare employees meant to reduce onerous case loads.

• An additional $282 million to finish state constructions projects underway, including money to reduce wait times by upgrading the state’s driver’s license system.

Senate President Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, said she supports Hickenlooper’s spending priorities. “We are at a turning point with the economic recovery, and we have a lot at stake with this next budget,” she said in a statement.

What happens Election Day will influence the budget plan’s direction. Democrats now control both chambers and hold a 4-to-2 advantage on the budget committee.

The state House is likely to remain in Democratic hands, but Republicans are vying for control of the state Senate. If Republicans win the Senate majority, the budget committee will split the political parties 3 to 3.

If Beauprez wins, he will get the opportunity to submit his own budget proposal early next year.

John Frank: 303-954-2409, jfrank@denverpost.com or twitter.com/ByJohnFrank

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26856988/hickenloopers-budget-plan-endorses-tax-rebates-new-state

Oct 28

Colorado Goes to the Supreme Court to Defend TABOR

Posted on by

Three years ago, a group of primarily government plaintiffs sued in federal district court to void Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). TABOR allows the people, not just the legislature, to vote on most tax increases, most debt increases, and some spending hikes.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/10/colorado-goes-to-the-supreme-court-to-defend-tabor/

Oct 08

Sen. Mark Udall says TABOR should be left alone

Posted on by

By

Udall made his position known Tuesday night in The Denver Post Senate debate where he and Republican Congressman Cory Gardner squared off.

One of the yes/no questions the pair was asked was about the 1992 voter-approved ballot measure that controls taxation and spending in Colorado. Should it be changed or altered?

Gardner said “no,” a stance adopted by many conservative Republicans over the years. Udall also said “no.”

“You’re kidding,” said former lawmaker Norma Anderson, a Lakewood Republican who is part of a bipartisan group of current and former state legislators and local officials challenging the constitutionality of TABOR in federal court.

“I’ll be damned.”

The suit alleges that TABOR, which prohibits the legislature from raising taxes without a vote of the people, limits the General Assembly’s power in violation of the U.S. Constitution guarantee that states have a “republican” government, in which the authority to govern is given to elected officials. The plaintiffs argue in court filings that TABOR has caused “a slow, inexorable slide into fiscal dysfunction” in Colorado.

Gardner called out Udall on his TABOR answer.

“I find it curious that Sen. Udall supports TABOR when he actually has supported tax increase after tax increase at the state level,” he said, during the debate.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Udall and his challenger, Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, at The Denver Post debate Oct. 7 (Photo By Brent Lewis/The Denver Post

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/10/07/mark-udall-tabor-gardner-taxpayers-bill-of-rights/113647/

Sep 29

CO Revenue Forecast Shows Continued Growth

Posted on by

state of colorado logo

The latest revenue forecast shows continued growth with the state’s General Fund revenue expected to grow 7.4 percent in FY 2014-15 and 6.4 percent in FY 2015-16.

Projections show an increase of $80.9 million in FY 2014-15, or 0.8 percent higher than compared to the June 2014 forecast. Projections for FY 2015-16 are 1.3 percent, or $131 million higher.

“Colorado’s economy continues to expand at a pace that is among the best in the nation,” the Office of State Planning and Budget reported today. “The state’s concentration of individuals and businesses focused on products that are in high demand in today’s economy continues to feed economic growth.  Colorado also benefits from a high degree of business dynamism, as well as a growing culture for innovation and collaboration among individuals and firms. However, not all parts of the state are experiencing the same degree of economic strength.”

Income taxes from wage withholdings and sales tax collections continue to grow at a solid pace due to Colorado’s economic expansion.

The state’s General Fund reserve now is projected to be $232.6 million above its required amount for FY 2014-15.

The state is projected to end FY 2013-14 with $235.8 million above its required amount based on preliminary information from the State Controller.  All but $25 million of this money, which remains in the General Fund, is allocated to various cash funds, including $135.3 million to the Capital Construction Fund.   Several higher education capital construction projects will proceed as a result.

TABOR revenue is forecast to be $48 million, or just 0.4 percent, below the Referendum C cap in the current fiscal year, which is within the normal range of possible forecast adjustments.  TABOR revenue is forecast to exceed the cap by $133.1 million in FY 2015-16 and $239.4 million in FY 2016-17, meaning that a refund to taxpayers is required under this forecast, unless voters allow the State to retain the revenue.

Though a TABOR refund is projected, the money forecast to be available in the FY 2015-16 General Fund would allow for a 10.5 percent increase in appropriations.  Meanwhile, under current law, as a result of the TABOR refunds in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, SB 09-228 transfers will be reduced by half.

Under this forecast, in FY 2015-16, revenue above the Referendum C cap would be refunded through the State Earned Income Tax Credit to qualified taxpayers and the sales tax refund to all taxpayers.  In FY 2016-17, revenue above the Referendum C cap would be refunded through a temporary income tax rate reduction and the sales tax refund.

Many indicators point to a continued economic expansion. A special set of unique circumstances, however, could result in an economic slowdown.  One risk is less accommodative monetary policy.  Also, current weaker global economic conditions, as well as continued geopolitical tensions, are concerns.  Unexpected events surrounding these issues could have negative implications for the economy and result in revenue collections that are substantially different from this forecast.  It is also important to note that even relatively small changes in the projected growth rate of revenue can materially impact the budget outlook.

http://theprowersjournal.com/2014/09/co-revenue-forecast-shows-continued-growth/

Sep 22

School Finance Legislation and Consequences, with TABOR

Posted on by

TABOR-required refunds would be $125M in ’16-17 and $392M in ’17-18, Colorado legislative economists project. Need for refunds would require legislature to set aside $$ in prior years, likely affecting such things as cuts in K12…
http://www.coloradofiscal.org/info-graphic-a-history-of-school-finance-in-colorado/

shrinking funding for Colorado Schools

Jul 24

Penn’s take on Kerr order denying rehearing en banc

Posted on by

TABOR Directors and friends,

We will not see a review by (appeal to) the entire US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) in the federal case to overturn the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

The next logical step is for the Defendant to ask the US Supreme Court to hear an appeal that the case should not proceed to the trial phase because the substance of the case does not fall within the judicial branch to decide.  The Solicitor General’s office this morning confirmed in a telephone call with me that such a filing is contemplated.

Luke Wake and his team at NFIB are ready to help out once again.  See his message below.

The dissents from the 10th Circuit Court are telling and a very important development in proceeding to the next step.  They follow the very brief ruling in the attachment.

Our TABOR Foundation is committed to seeing this through as far as we need to, and Board approval is already in place.  I’ll keep you informed as I learn more.

Penn Pfiffner

I’ve been in communication with each of you about the Kerr v. Hickenlooper case, wherein a handful of ideologically motivated litigants are challenging the constitutionality of the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). TABOR was an initiative approved by Colorado voters in the early 1990s, which gives the citizens a right to vote on new taxes. NFIB was very supportive of the reform then and the NFIB Legal Center is now leading its defense (along with TABOR Foundation).
>
> As you recall, I previously explained that the Tenth Circuit federal court of appeal recently decided to allow a “Guarantee Clause” challenge to proceed against TABOR. And I’ve said before, this would open Pandora’s box for challenges to any constitutional amendment restraining the legislature’s tax and spend powers, or potentially any amendment limiting the state’s police powers.  We were hopeful that the Tenth Circuit would review the decision because it is binding on all Tenth Circuit states, and because it provides persuasive authority that could be invoked by litigants challenging taxpayer protections in other states as well. Unfortunately the Tenth Circuit denied Governor Hickenlooper’s petition for en banc review; however, there were three very strong dissenting opinions (see attached). These dissents largely echoed the concerns we raised in our original amicus brief.
>
> Given the force of these three dissents, I should think the State is in as good a position as possible in pursuing a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. When considering whether to take a case the Supreme Court asks two questions: (1) Does this decision create a conflict between federal circuits, or does it expressly conflict with a previous Supreme Court decision? (2) Does the case raise an issue of national concern? Both can be answered in the affirmative.
>
> Early in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decided that a Guarantee Clause challenge to Oregon’s initiative process was precluded by the political questions doctrine. The Court has since repeatedly affirmed that Guarantee Clause cases are non-justiciable. In a 1992 opinion Justice Ginsberg held out the possibility that there may be some conceivable Guarantee Clause case that might be justiciable [we don’t necessarily disagree that there might be some case in the future], but no Court of Appeal has found one to date–except the Tenth Circuit in this case.
>
> The Tenth Circuit held that a Guarantee Clause challenge should be allowed to move forward despite the fact that the judges were not presently aware of any standard or principled rule for how the case might possibly be decided. This is highly problematic because it encourages litigation without principled rules.  And the case certainly raises an issue of national concern because–as discussed above–it invites challenges to potentially any state constitutional amendment, especially voter initiatives–and most especially taxpayer protections.
>
> We are now planning to file an amicus brief encouraging the Supreme Court to take the case. Each of you has indicated that your organization has tentatively agreed to join with us in this filing. Please let me know if you have any questions. My understanding is that the State will be filing its petition for certiorari sooner than later. So we may be filing as early as September. I will keep you all in the loop.
>
> Very best,
>
> -Luke

Jul 23

Colorado AG loses another round from Court of Appeals on TABOR lawsuit

Posted on by

By Lynn Bartels

The Denver Post

John Suthers
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (Kathryn Scott Osler, Denver Post file photo)

Attorney General John Suthers has lost his request to have the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rehear a decision by a court panel that ruled Coloradans have a right to challenge the constitutionality of the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

The 6-4 decision by the court marks another milestone in a legal fight over how Colorado conducts its most important functions. One of the court’s 11 judges recused himself.

Colorado voters in 1992 passed the TABOR amendment, which in part limits state spending and bars lawmakers from raising taxes without a vote of the people.

A lawsuit filed against Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2011 argues that by taking away lawmakers’ ability to tax, TABOR violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that every state have a republican form of government.

Suthers questioned whether the plaintiffs had the right to sue, but was rebuffed by a U.S. District Court judge. A panel of Court of Appeals judges in March concurred with the lower court.

In its 49-page decision, the 10th U.S. Circuit panel in March noted the Supreme Court has held that members of a state legislature may have standing to sue in order to vindicate the “plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes.”

It did not rule on the merits of the case.

Suthers then asked for the entire court to decide whether plaintiffs had standing and other issues.

The latest decision paves the way for a trial in U.S. District Court unless the attorney general successfully seeks review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We are of course gratified with this decision supporting the plaintiffs’ position that the case should be heard on its merits, and we look forward to that hearing in U. S. District Court,” one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Mike Feeley said, in a statement.

“Now, with the procedural objections resolved and three rulings all in the plaintiffs’ favor — one in U. S. District Court in 2012 and two this year by the 10th Circuit — we hope the case can proceed without delay and without an expensive additional appeal to the Supreme Court.”

David Blake, deputy attorney general for legal policy said, “We will be discussing the case with our client but we expect to seek Supreme Court review.”

The plaintiffs, who include some current state lawmakers such as Sen. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, and House Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Boulder, claims that TABOR deprives them of their ability to perform the “legislative core functions of taxation and appropriation.” Moreover, the plaintiffs say explicitly that TABOR prevents them from doing their jobs.

Lynn Bartels: 303-954-5327, lbartels@denverpost.com or twitter.com/lynn_bartels

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26196416/colorado-ag-loses-another-round-from-court-appeals

Jul 10

TABOR Committee & TABOR Foundation update

Posted on by

Friends of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,

Your TABOR Committee has a lot of irons in the fire, so I thought to take inventory:

The lawsuit alleging TABOR unconstitutional is Kerr vs. Hickenlooper.  You might recall that a 3-judge appellate panel of the federal 10th Circuit found the trial could proceed.  In a direct and forceful response, the Attorney General’s Office asked for an appellate review by the entire Court (“en banc”).  From the opening salvo:

This case involves questions of exceptional importance: whether three state legislatorsmay enlist the federal judiciary to take sides in their dispute with the state’s constitution, its governor, and its people over the proper role of direct democracy. A case involving more fundamental issues about the proper role of the federal courts in a system of horizontally and vertically divided power is hard to imagine. If the panel decision stands, this Circuit will be alone in giving federal judges the power to decide that some laws are unconstitutional because they are too democratic.

The panel reached two holdings, each of which is unique among the circuits and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent….. Continue reading →