Garrett Epps has an interesting column in The Atlantic about Colorado's TABOR battles and the legal effort to overturn it, specifically Kerr v. Hickenlooper. The issue is laid bare in the headline: "Does a State Have the Right to Self-Destruct?"
As public policy, TABOR is bad enough. The legislature, though, could always ask the people to repeal it. However, in 1994, another initiative limited future constitutional amendments to a "single subject." Since TABOR covers such a wide area of revenue policy, it thus can no longer be repealed except by a laborious string of statewide referenda. In other words, the controls are now smashed. Colorado's legislature can no longer effectively govern, and can't even effectively ask for authority to do so. This is the most radical limitation on state taxing authority anywhere in the country.
The plaintiffs in Kerr, a group of present and former legislators and officials, argue that this radical change violates the Guaranty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 4. The Clause requires the United States to "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." Whatever a "republic" is, the plaintiffs argue, it must have power to tax and spend funds for the public benefit. TABOR, in effect, takes Colorado out of its status as a state…
…Even if the state wins on standing, its argument ought to disquiet advocates of "state's rights" and an aggressive reading of the Tenth Amendment. If the Guaranty Clause is a promise to the federal government, then nothing would stop the Justice Department from bringing a suit to void all or part of a state's constitution as not "republican" — or, for that matter, stop a majority in Congress from repealing a state's constitution that displeased it. In our time, as in the years before the Civil War, we hear voices insisting that the "true" meaning of the Constitution involves state sovereignty and state dominance over federal power. It's a curious notion. What sort of "sovereign" can be overthrown at will by its "creature?" [Pols emphasis]
Such a "sovereign" isn't sovereign at all. And a "republic" that has no government isn't "republican." The control-mashing "friends" of state government are fighting for the states' "right" to commit suicide. It's a bleak quest, and one that bodes ill for the future of the country.
The ins and outs of TABOR are certainly difficult to understand, and some parts are worse than others, but it's hard to argue that TABOR has been a benefit to Colorado overall. That's what makes this legal case so fascinating, as Epps explains brilliantly. Whatever your opinion on TABOR, it's curious to consider whether the Founding Fathers would have wanted to a system of government that could essentially destroy itself.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
BY: Sparky
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: skeptical citizen
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: Early Worm
IN: Now Trump’s Selling For-Profit Bibles
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Wednesday (March 27)
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Excellent explanation of what Tabor has done and is doing to us and how it violates the whole idea of small "r" republican government. I certainly hope the Kerr suit succeeds. Tabor is completely incompatible with the concept of republic as our mandated form of government.
Funny how conservatives love to correct those who call this nation a Democracy by pointing out that it's a Republic, while taking the opposite tack when demanding direct democracy, the kind they never tire of reminding anyone who says "Democracy" that our founding father did not intend, through TABOR and similar bills of "taxpayer rights".
"fathers". I know there were more than one.
Epps does a good job explaining the structural problems with TABOR. The slippery slope concern about the nebulous concept of a “republican” form of government isn’t so slippery in this case. TABOR pretty explicitly removes one of the central powers of governance from the legislature and enacts a form of direct democracy for taxation and spending. Whether or not that’s good, it does violate the Constitutional guarantee of a representative form of government. The scope available for the feds to overturn state constitutions on that basis is really narrow, and if the challenge is successful would likely only apply to our uniquely straitjacketed circumstances.
Works for me. As long as it's just barely wide enough to get the hell out of it.
cue the TABOR apologists and defenders who do not understand it.
3…..2……1……
We have lots of cases of non-representation in our government. The federal reserve for one. I also would like to see TABOR overturned. But I think it needs to be done by the voters or a constitutional convention.
It would be nice, but I'm afraid the "republican form of government" tack is a non-starter. I've seen it tried many times in attempts to challenge all sorts of lunatic fringe laws. Does anyone remember the state constitutional amendment that called for a Constitutional Convention to institute Congressional term-limits? It compelled our delegation to call for and vote for a Constitutional Convention to insert term-limts and would have allowed a note on ballots next to an incumbent's name stating "disregarded voter instructions on term-limits" if they failed to do so.
One of the tactics the challengers tried was that it "Denied Coloradans a republican form of government." The judge wasn't having any of that point. he called that political, rather than a constitutional question.This is a bit long winded, I know, but my wife was in on that challenge. In fact, it's her name on the case.