This guest commentary of mine was published in the Denver Post this past Friday the 13th:
Why did we sue the state over Gov. Bill Ritter’s property tax increase? Well, it’s not because of the cash. It’s the Constitution.
Colorado’s constitution guarantees that before government raises taxes or changes tax policy to bring in more money, it must do one simple thing first: let the people vote on it.
Even those in the government- spending coalition who despise TABOR claim they support the provision requiring voter approval for tax increases. That includes The Denver Post’s editorial page.
It will be hard to believe them when they say it again in the future.
Last year, on the west steps of the State Capitol, with children surrounding him as theatrical props, Ritter signed Senate Bill 199, which included what he euphemistically called the “Children’s Amendment.” In classic political bait-and-switch, “Children’s Amendment” does not guarantee a single penny to education or to children.
SB 199 — the “for the kids” property mill levy freeze, which lets the state legislature spend almost $4 billion more in its first decade alone — has no requirement that any of the money be spent on children. Although a fraction of its first year’s haul of nearly $118 million was put toward pre-kindergarten kids, there is no guarantee that future legislatures will give kids even that much.
Again, politicians used children as human shields in the public relations war to increase their tax take. But this time, the court rightly declared their act unconstitutional.
Simply put, the mill levy freeze stopped many school districts from lowering mill levies to compensate for rising property values. For example, property assessments in Mesa County shot up over 30 percent, but their school district mill levy couldn’t go down to balance it. The result: a massive tax increase.
You might think those increases meant more money to school districts. Nope. The extra cash a school district gets from local property owners only means the state government has to “back fill” less money to that school district. And that’s why the state legislature got $118 million more to spend this year — by not having to give that money to school districts. The school districts were no richer. Property owners just got poorer.
We at the Independence Institute wouldn’t have led the class-action lawsuit against the state over SB 199 if it were just another tax increase. We sued because it was a clear violation of the Constitution since there was no voter approval.
One of the witnesses, Grand Junction school board member Marcia Neal, testified that she urged her family, friends, church members and community to vote in favor of a district “de-Brucing” nearly a decade ago. Why? So the school district could keep extra grant money, bake sale revenue and sports ticket money and the like. Because she was told so by the district and the official campaign bluebook, she assured her community that it would not raise property taxes. It would just let the district keep the extra cash they collected. How could she know that a decade later the state legislature and Gov. Ritter would turn her into a liar?
In court, the state argued that voters in those school districts that have de-Bruced just didn’t understand the fine print. They should have known that saying yes to keeping bake sale money would also mean saying yes to massive tax increases forced by a change to state law a decade later.
Gov. Ritter, going against the advice of the state’s attorney general, was so confident that this fine-print loophole was solid his spokesman claimed our lawsuit was a “tasteless stunt.” SB 199 has been declared unconstitutional, and now the governor is equally confident that the Colorado Supreme Court will reverse that ruling: He said he plans to act and budget as if he already won the appeal.
While the Colorado Promise apparently doesn’t mean asking before raising taxes, the constitution does.
