CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 17, 2012 02:17 AM UTC
37 Comments
Looks like Judge Martinez is giving this a good look which gives me a lot of hope
I know that Democrats go crying to the activist courts any time those pesky voters don’t grant them their every whim, but if the people don’t like the current state of affairs, they have a straightforward way to fix that.
If a political remedy exists, which it does in the form of the same election that approved TABOR, then there is no need for the courts to invalidate it.
I hope Andy Kerr enjoys the direct mail pieces!
= any court you disagree with.
The most activist court decision in history was Bush v. Gore, but I suppose that one was all right with you.
Thinking they should have the authority to do their job. The nerve!
It is very very hard to undo TABOR, because one of TABOR’s provisions is the single subject initiative provision – a provision which TABOR itself violates, and under which it is extremely hard to undo TABOR in the whole.
the single-subject amendment is not one of TABOR’s provisions, it was a separate amendment passed in 1994. Of course, it makes undoing TABOR in one fell swoop impossible.
is off like a prom dress.
Even if the single subject provision were not in place why do you think that voters would “undo TABOR in the whole”?
I think this is one of those areas where the beliefs of the majority of voters is with the rhetoric of TABOR. People like the idea of government being unable to raise taxes in the abstract even while recognizing problems with parts of TABOR that harm their interests or result in bad choices.
I think if TABOR were ever to be repealed through a vote it would have to be through successive amendments chipping away at problems one at a time rather than a swift cutting of the Gordian Knot.
But are the voters in agreement with the rhetoric of TABOR simply because they are too lazy to pay attention to what their elected officials are doing?
I’m much more in favor of having a super-majority requirement in order for the legislature to raise taxes, in addition to allowing voter initiatives to also raise taxes with a simple majority vote by the public.
I think that California’s experience with the requirement that spending be approved by a super-majority is suggestive of what the result of such a rule would be. I think a minority who, for cynical gain or honest ideology, would oppose raising taxes for any purpose whatsoever.
I think there needs to be an out for a simple majority of the legislature to raise taxes rather than always requiring a super-majority.
One idea would be to allow a simple majority to pass a tax after a two year waiting period so that a election that could be a referendum on the legislators could occur.
Another idea would be to limit total revenue collected by the state to a percentage of gross state product (the state equivalent of GDP). Require a super-majority to raise the limit, but allow the legislature to change taxes and fees under the limit.
Or to only require a simple majority to raise taxes if revenue drops off or to undo a tax/fee cut enacted within a time limit.
There are probably even better ideas out there as a replacements for TABOR since these are just ideas that I have come up with rather than researching. And all of this is just idle speculation unless someone brave actually sets about a campaign to reform/replace TABOR with something better.
Did a majority oppose the Civil Rights movement? If they had, would it have made their opposition legitimate?
The problem is that TABOR doesn’t do what voters think it does. So they favor what they mistakenly think it is for what they think it mistakenly does.
But when you don’t call it TABOR and instead describe its actual impact, voters want it gone. How many municipalities and other subdivisions of gov’t have “de-TABOR’d”? Most.
Do you know the definition of Representative Democracy?
Purse Dogs for “I am better looking than Ryan Call” ArapaGOP:
https://www.google.com/search?…
ArapaGOP, would those be the same activist courts that the GOP went running to when they didn’t like how political district lines were drawn?
very good points but I wouldn’t get my hopes up even though the judge’s reasoning strikes me as perfect.
Mark Sagoff, in a piece about cost benefit analysis, wrote about acting as consumers or acting as citizens. I think it applies here in that by passing TABOR, some people in this state said we should always be consumers, always keep our taxes low, especially if we think it’s not going to help us out directly. But by doing this, they made it so that we can’t elect representatives to serve in our best interest as citizens and make decisions based on the welfare of the entire state. Unfortunately when it comes to directly taxing themselves, a majority think that rational decisions are only as consumers and only short term. Death to TABOR!
I guess abolishing government is the next logical anti-tax, anti-government, Bruce loving step. And I guess only an “activist” judge would stand in the way?
A real TABOR foe would propose that amendment right away, and see how far it got through the process, just to demonstrate that it’s a distinction without a difference to abolish the legislature or gut its ability to raise revenue.
would silently applaud the demise of TABOR while damning the “activist judge”. It’s been a pain in the ass since the day it passed and they know it – particularly those that have served on the JBC.
And there, of course, is the problem–silence.
a cult might show to its beliefs and to its leader. And now that the leader is headed to jail – kinda like Warren Jeffs went to jail – what will his cult followers do? Will they finally open their eyes to the stupidity of TABOR’s stranglehold, or will they continue to worship TABOR and its founder even as the state teeters on the edge of a cliff.
and 1960’s Leave it to Beaver reruns.
Change scares the shit of these people.
An affordable housing group I was part of was trying to figure out how to work around TABOR. I suggested going after TABOR itself. They looked at me like I was crazy, which I wasn’t then but have gotten there since. Anyway, huge kudos to the people who have brought this suit to the courts. Patriots!
If TABOR was so fundamentally wrong, its opponents would be gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment to repeal it. Instead, five sitting members of the state legislature — all Democrats — are pushing the state courts to overturn a measure that has been in place since 1993. (The former GOP elected officials are just window dressing.)
This has to be the Colorado Republicans’ dream come true. Trust me, the public is not clambering to have their right to approve tax increases pried from their hands, so assorted legislative bodies (not just the General Assembly) can raise their taxes. Without TABOR, city councils, county commissioners, school boards, and a slew of special district boards can raise taxes for pet projects merely by a vote of their own membership.
Prop 103, which went down in flames by a 2 to 1 margin in 2011, could have passed instead by a vote of state legislature and the governor’s signature. Forget how the people felt about it!
There is no way this effort is not going to appear to be highly partisan and Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue. If TABOR gets overturned by Judge William Martinez, it won’t be hard for voters to see Dems as “tax and spend” politicians.
Voters love TABOR and won’t treat those who sought to remove it kindly. They will not accept the paternalist attitude of “we legislators know what’s best for you.” Whether people are employed, underemployed, or unemployed, they simply do not have the money for new taxes to pay for whatever new program politicians can come up with.
Overturning TABOR will have a huge impact on the make up of the General Assembly. It won’t be difficult for voters to see that their best alternative — if TABOR is overturned — is to elect Republican candidates to offices throughout the state.
A repeal would be too complex to fall under the single subject amendment.
Aside from that, the wonder of representative government is that if a legislative version of Prop 103 had passed and the voters disagreed, then they would be able to vote out those legislators within two years, and it could be repealed and wouldn’t happen again.
This is what happened to Republicans in state government over the past decades – they couldn’t get past the whole illegal lesbian immigrants crossing the border to kidnap people to give them forced abortions while helpless citizens were denied the right to own guns to protect their family thing. (Add to that now that they voted while here illegally…)
“Repeal Article X Section 20 (TABOR)” is a single subject.
Look at th epast 10 + years of “single subject” rulings.
There is dicta in Amend Tabor 25 to the effect that TABOR contains multiple subjects. But it’s only dicta…
You assert the voters will turn their backs on the Democrats for supporting this lawsuit and you may be correct, but isn’t that exactly why we should have a legislature with the authority to raise or decrease taxes. If a given legislature raises taxes then it is the responsibility of the voters who disagree to hold those members who voted for a tax increase accountable at the next election. We elect members of the state legislature to enact budgets and other policies to operate the state of Colorado. Why shouldn’t each legislature have the responsibility and accountability to the voters to do exactly that? Why tie their hands and then blame them for failing to fullfill their responsibilities? The power and authority to either raise or decrease taxes has been a traditional power of the legislative branch of government ever since republican forms of government were established. TABOR is an outlier that was never justified either from the perspective of a republican form of government or from the practical side of present day policy challenges or historical actions by the General Assembly.
Maybe just a squirrel.
They won’t listen. They don’t really care about a republican form of gov’t. They want oligarchy, or autocracy.
but I agree with you they don’t support or want a Republican (no pun intended) form of government.
They want what they think used to exist …OUAT…somewhere. Which never did. Even the Cleavers only had two kids.
They want wealth and security with no risk.
A lot of voters in this state want to be asked to raise taxes. Probably a majority in any election on the issue (due to the way the ads would run). But at present it’s incredibly restrictive.
What if instead the state could have total receipts equal to X% of the state GDP averaged over the previous 3 years. The legislature sets the various taxes and fees but is limited to the total.
And to raise the total, that requires a vote of the people.
says Martinez still is interested in the notion of standing which is no surprise. But, in the case of TABOR I think any citizen could claim injury since we all have something not funded properly
If it takes two years to raise taxes above some threshold and the need is more urgent (say, Federal tax policy that would allow the state to take advantage of something in less than a year, but is a short-term boost), then we’re still screwed.
I’d be more in favor of a negative feedback provision allowing the citizens to override a tax hike (and prevent the legislature from simply passing a replacement after the rejection…).
PS – A lot of voters in this state also would rather have a pony, and would like to not pay any taxes at all. That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing for the state.
n/t