Attorney General John Suthers and former Congressman David Skaggs. (Provided by C.L. Harmer)

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and former Congressman David Skaggs tonight will discuss the TABOR lawsuit, aimed at upending the constitutional amendment that strictly controls spending and taxation.

Suthers, a Republican, and Skaggs, a Democrat, are scheduled to appear on Rocky Mountain Public Broadcasting System’s Colorado Quarterly program hosted by RMPBS President Doug Price. It airs at 7:30 p.m.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 against Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, in his capacity as governor, challenging the constitutionality of the 1992 voter-approved Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Plaintiffs said TABOR, put on the ballot by anti-tax advocate Douglas Bruce, takes power away from state and local elected officials. Skaggs is one of the attorneys representing the nearly 35 plaintiffs, comprised mostly of Democrats but including former state Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, and former state Rep. Bob Briggs, R-Westminster.

Suthers’ office, which defends the governor’s office, argued that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue, saying a federal court “is not a forum for rehashing political arguments” but the U.S. District Court in August 2012 allowed the lawsuit to move forward. Suthers appealed that decision, which was heard last month by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. No decision has been made yet.

By Lynn Bartels

The Denver Post

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/10/18/tabor-suthers-skagg/101780/

A court is weighing whether Colorado lawmakers should have more power to raise taxes.

A challenge to Colorado’s constitutional limits on spending and taxation was in federal court this week, with plaintiffs arguing the “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” encroaches on the legislature’s ability to raise taxes on its own.

The lawsuit, filed in 2011, pits a host of former state lawmakers and high-profile attorneys against a 1992 amendment to the state constitution which limits spending — even requiring refunds to taxpayers in cases of surplus — and also requires public votes on tax increases. It’s the latter requirement that has some lawmakers crying foul that TABOR “arrogates” their power to tax.

While some lawsuits argue nuanced legal theories, TABOR foes go for the constitutional jugular: the U.S. Constitution guarantees states a “republican” form of government, and TABOR’s referendum requirement tips the scale too far toward direct democracy.

“Frustration with the work of legislatures, whether federal or state, may indicate a need for representative institutions to be more effective, but that frustration does not justify or permit resorting to direct democracy,” reads the lawsuit. Continue reading →

Route 66 is a famous highway; Amendment 66 is a fiscal dead end, taking over a billion dollars yearly in new state taxes. Here are three strikes against 66 almost no one knows:

The first is their bogus ballot title. TABOR (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) requires a tax increase ballot title begin, “Shall state taxes be increased ($x) annually…?” When the state title board first met, the fiscal estimate was just under $1.5 billion yearly.

A cost 50 percent above their failed 2011 tax hike would be fatal, so the teachers union sought a rehearing. The state agreed to lower the tax estimate one-third, to just below $1 billion. It declared that reduction corrected an innocent ($500 million) mistake.

Would a private analyst making such a “mistake” keep his job? No. Should those who deceive voters get huge pay raises? No. Are they morally fit to teach your children? No.

The second scam is the ballot title omission. State law requires ballot titles list major features fairly. Tax payers love TABOR; tax spenders despise it. So state employees hid the fact that 66 repeals TABOR’s constitutional guarantee of a uniform income tax (equal protection, the same for everyone). Today’s rate is 4.63 percent of federal taxable income. 66 establishes two tax rates. Continue reading →

This week the lawsuit brought by the TABOR Foundation was heard in Denver District Court.  Judge Michael Martinez heard the testimony.  Attorney Jim Manley from Mountain States Legal Foundation was the principal representative for the Plaintiffs.  The Defendants were the Fund itself and the Colorado Transportation Commission.  The Attorney General’s office is responsible for defending the state government’s scheme, but contracted with attorney Mark Grueskin to handle the defense.

 The lawsuit asks the Colorado court to rule the issuance of debt without prior voter approval unconstitutional, under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).  As part of new vehicle charges approved during the Ritter administration, a “bridge safety surcharge” was designated as a fee, not a tax, and never offered as required for voter approval.  The Bridge Enterprise was established as a separate government business to repair bridges.  The scheme declares that because you might  drive over certain bridges you must pay a yearly toll, which is collected when you register your vehicle.  The “tolls” received as income allowed the Bridge Enterprise Fund to issue $300 million in bonds without prior voter approval, also required under TABOR.  Total debt may eventually be over $1 billion. For more information, see http://tax.i2i.org/files/2013/05/Bridge_Enterprise_Fund.pdf from A Citizen’s Budget for 2013 published by the Independence Institute.

 “The critical issue is whether this government can break trust with the citizens of Colorado,” said TABOR Foundation chairman Penn R. Pfiffner.  “Bridges need to be built and maintained, but elected and appointed officials can’t ignore the constitution as they pursue those goals.  Do it the right way.”

 Five witnesses; two heroes.

Two Plaintiff witnesses were Ms. Chris Sammons and Willie Wharton, who both explained that they had to register vehicles and therefore pay the bridge surcharge “fee,” although those specifically identified vehicles never cross a single Bridge Enterprise bridge.  Continue reading →