Category Archives: Legal Issues

Oct 15

Mike Rosen: NO on Proposition CC, YES on Proposition DD

Posted on by

Mike Rosen: NO on Proposition CC, YES on Proposition DD

 By Mike Rosen

Proposition CC – Retaining State Government revenue. VOTE NO.

A “yes” vote would allow the state to retain any surplus of revenues in excess of spending not only in fiscal year 2018-2019 but in all years to come. A “no” vote requires the state to refund budget surpluses to taxpayers as now required under current law.

In the Colorado Constitution, The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) limits state government spending and taxation through a formula tied to population growth and inflation. Direct voter approval is required to change the limit. Article X, Section 20 (7) (d) reads: “If revenue from sources not excluded from fiscal year spending exceeds these limits in dollars for that fiscal year, the excess shall be refunded in the next fiscal year unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset.”

Through that last clause, Prop CC is asking voters to give up their prospective TABOR refunds permanently. It would spend those budget surpluses in equal shares on K-12 education, higher education and transportation without specifying how the money will be spent within those categories, leaving that to legislative whims now and in the future. Look at it this way: state government spending on K-12 in FY 2018-2019 exceeded $7 billion. Eliminating taxpayer refunds would direct an additional $103 million to K-12 education starting in FY 2020-2021. Seven billion is seven thousand million. One hundred million is a comparative drop in the bucket.

To read the rest of this story, please click (HERE):

Oct 13

Proposition CC explained: What it means to end the spending caps in TABOR and the money at stake

Posted on by

Proposition CC explained: What it means to end the spending caps in TABOR and the money at stake

The debate for Prop. CC involves whether to keep TABOR refunds, or send the tax dollars to three key areas: education, colleges and transportation.

POLITICS AND GOVERNMENTPRIMARY CATEGORY IN WHICH BLOG POST IS PUBLISHED

Brian Eason

Special to The Colorado Sun

In one of the most significant potential changes to state fiscal policy in decades, Colorado voters this November will be asked to permanently eliminate a revenue cap that has both restrained and reshaped state government since 1992.

The ask of voters is relatively modest: Forgo the occasional refund under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights — estimated at worth between $20 and a few hundred dollars for the typical household, according to the latest economic forecasts.

Nonetheless, the referendum known as Proposition CC backed by Gov. Jared Polis has the potential to be nothing short of a watershed moment in Colorado politics.

To supporters, it’s a long overdue change to TABOR that will allow the state to reinvest in essential public services that have atrophied over two recessions even as budget demands have grown. To opponents, it’s an unwelcome expansion of a state government that they view as too large already, thanks to an explosion of fees in the TABOR era.

And to both sides, it represents a critical battle in a broader ideological war over the proper size and scope of Colorado’s state government.

To read the rest of this story, please click (HERE):

 

Oct 08

How Colorado officials manipulate ballot language to get what they want: The case of JeffCo Issue 1A

Posted on by

How Colorado officials manipulate ballot language to get what they want: The case of JeffCo Issue 1A

Some people bemoan the lack of trust in government officials. Those people should read more. They could start by learning how many of Colorado’s officials ruthlessly manipulate ballot language to mislead voters and skew election results.

Jefferson County’s Ballot Issue 1A—up for a vote next month—is a case in point.

Issue 1A is a referendum under the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). TABOR requires officials to ask voter permission, via referendum, for several kinds of fiscal decisions. The most important are (1) raising taxes, (2) creating debt, and (3) waiving caps on government spending (which TABOR sometimes confusingly calls “revenue”).

Knowing that government officials sometimes try to manipulate elections, the TABOR drafters inserted rules governing how tax and debt issues appear on the ballot. But they omitted similar rules for elections to waive spending caps.

The reasons for the omission are not clear. Perhaps it was an oversight. Or perhaps the drafters thought rules were unnecessary, because waivers were to last a maximum of four years. If a waiver was abused, the abuse would soon be over and voters could hold the guilty officials accountable.

But in 2002, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a case seriously misinterpreting TABOR. The court ruled that once the voters in a particular locale approve a spending cap waiver, the waiver does not necessarily expire. The waiver may specify five years, or seven, or ten. If it does not contain an ending date, the waiver lasts forever. TABOR spending caps never apply in that locale again.

To read the rest of this story, please click (HERE):

Oct 08

“Better government for you: Not hiding elections!”

Posted on by

“Better government for you:  Not hiding elections!”

October 7, 2019

There is much to like in the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), and it’s good to remember that it includes good government provisions that improve election procedures.

None of us want to put up with elected officials holding a surprise election for voter approval of a government’s action.  Yet, there were times in the past in which the public was not adequately informed about an election.  The elected officials would list it in a newspaper’s Public Notices section, and of course had to put the ballot measure into the government’s official record.  But that was insufficient to let voters know what was going on, and by doing the minimum possible to notify voters, some governments were able to keep the elections low profile.  The intent of suppressing turnout was so that only those people heavily invested in passage would participate.  The normal citizen, the rank-and-file taxpayer, might miss a special election, allowing others to vote in, say, a new debt issue or increase a tax rate.

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights corrected that situation.  The constitutional measure pertains to all governments in Colorado, even small special districts that don’t command much attention.

When bringing an issue before the voters, TABOR requires that “At least 30 days before a ballot issue election, districts shall mail …. a titled notice ….. addressed to ‘All Registered Voters’ at each address of one or more active registered electors.   …. Titles shall have this order of preference ‘NOTICE OF ELECTION TO INCREASE TAXES (or) TO INCREASE DEBT….’

The paragraph contains even more specifics, as it was carefully crafted to prevent elected officers from circumventing it.  This important constitutional provision improves the operations of all governments in our state and protects the taxpayer in ways beyond just voting on tax rates.

Sep 26

The Democratic agenda came with a big price tag. Now Colorado budget writers worry about paying the bill.

Posted on by

The Democratic agenda came with a big price tag. Now Colorado budget writers worry about paying the bill.

The rising costs of Gov. Jared Polis’ full-day kindergarten program is part of an estimated $100 million in additional costs lawmakers will need to cover

John Frank

The Colorado Sun — johnfrank@coloradosun.com

To pass their expansive legislative agenda, the new Democratic majority at the Colorado Capitol spent big this year. Real big. And now even Democratic budget writers are worried about how to make ends meet.

“There were a lot of bills passed last (session) that have continued spending … and some of those were very large,” said Rep. Daneya Esgar, D-Pueblo. “I don’t think we completely all truly understand what we have obligated ourselves to.”

The incoming chairwoman of the Joint Budget Committee issued the extraordinary warning about the forthcoming spending constraints Friday, two months before lawmakers will meet to craft the spending plan for the next fiscal year.

A preliminary estimate prepared for budget writers shows the legislation approved in the 2019 session will cost an additional $80 million to $100 million in the next budget. One factor is a low-ball estimate for the cost of full-day kindergarten, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis’ chief legislative priority in his first year.

The additional costs anticipated don’t include other major obligations that will come due, such as a projected $175 million to expand inpatient treatment for opioid and substance abuse under legislation approved in 2018 and another $30 million more for the state’s share in a federal children’s health insurance program.

Right now, projections show Colorado may not have the money to cover all the bills and continue spending at its current rate in other priority areas, such as education, transportation and health care.

To read the rest of this story, please click (HERE):

Sep 25

Griswold v. Nat’l Federation of Independent Business—Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights — Summary Judgement

Posted on by

“In November 2018, the TABOR Foundation joined the Colorado Union of Taxpayers and others in filing a “friend-of-the-court” brief.  The lawsuit was brought by the National Federation of Independent Business against the Colorado Secretary of State.  The issue was about whether the fees charged by that government department are excessive and used to cover government activities that should be funded by general fund taxes.

Jim Manley, the attorney who represented the TABOR Foundation et al, commented on the substance and importance of our brief:  “(On September 23) the Colorado Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling against NFIB in its TABOR challenge to the Secretary of State’s business licensing “fees.” The Court’s narrow ruling sidestepped the two issues we addressed in our amicus brief: (1) the proper standard of review for constitutional challenges and (2) the definition of fees vs. taxes. The Court ruled that the business licensing fees were authorized before TABOR’s enactment and—despite changes to the fees since TABOR—the fees were therefore not subject to TABOR’s prospective limits. The ruling reinstates the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of State and likely ends the case.”

The TABOR Foundation chairman observed, “This narrow ruling does little mischief to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” said Penn Pfiffner.  He continued, “The Court could have, and should have, used the opportunity to honor the TABOR mandate to rule such that the outcome ‘reasonably restrain(s) most the growth of government’.”

To read the Summary Judgement opinion, click (HERE):

To read the Amicus from the Colorado Supreme Court website, please click (HERE):

Sep 24

In its latest ruling, Colorado Supreme Court once again avoids question at heart of TABOR debate

Posted on by

In its latest ruling, Colorado Supreme Court once again avoids question at heart of TABOR debate

NFIB filed a lawsuit five years ago arguing that fees levied by the secretary of state’s office violated the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. The ruling left them unsatisfied.

The Colorado Sun — johnfrank@coloradosun.com

More than 25 years since the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights won voters approval in Colorado, one question continues to vex policymakers and judges: What qualifies as as tax?

The question sat at the center of a 5-year-old case before the Colorado Supreme Court challenging the fees the secretary of state’s office charges businesses. The 22-page ruling issued by the court Monday, however, once again avoids a direct answer.

What is clear in the decision: The fees the Department of State charges to businesses for registration, licenses and other purposes do not equate to a tax that needs approval for voters under the requirements of TABOR.

The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, filed a lawsuit in 2014 challenging this system as unconstitutional. The group argued that the charges to businesses were taxes — rather than fees — because the revenue paid for other unrelated agency services, such as overseeing elections. And if true, any increase in the charges or alteration in the policy would run afoul of TABOR, which mandates such moves need consent from voters.

The state Supreme Court’s decision rejecting the claim affirmed a lower court ruling that sided with the secretary of state and vacated a Court of Appeals determination that kept the case alive. The case started under Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler and continued under his GOP successor Wayne Williams. But in the end it carried the name of Secretary Jena Griswold, a Democrat, who applauded the decision.

To read the rest of this story, please click (HERE):

Sep 04

Why #TABOR Matters on September 4

Posted on by
Proposition CC, on the November ballot, will ask Coloradans to permanently give up our tax refunds. State budget experts have estimated that over the next three years that could amount to $1.3 billion tax increase.
 
#TABOR
#ThankGodForTABOR
#VoteNoOnPropCC
#DontGetFooledAgain
#ItsYourMoney
#WhyTABORMatters