President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 05, 2008 10:21 PM UTC
27 Comments
Call the legislature back into session and tell them since funding bill sneed to start in the legislature, for them to get to work.
Then have the Dems in the interest of bi-partisianship ask the Republicans to come up with their list so they can find the common ground.
in property taxes under Ritter’s freeze. 2008 taxes won’t be paid until 2009. If the high Court does uphold Habas, the question will be how to make up the shortfall in revenue. The immediate answer, almost certainly, would be to tap the Education Fund to provide the additional support the state would be required to send to local districts. The legislature, when it returns in January, can then decide how to replenish the education fund _ perhaps by transferring funds from Senate Bill 1, the supplemental highway fund (wouldn’t the Rs love that?.) The high court goes on recess at the end of the month and isn’t likely to address this case until it returns in September. A special session now would serve absolutely no purpose.
Except it would provide the honorable Doug Bruce more time in the big city spotlight to entertain us with his antics.
A special session may be just what the Governor needs. It would put him firmly in control of this debate and give him some downfield running room.
If he calls a special session, he gets to write the general terms of the call which allows him to set the agenda and the parameters of the debate.
He gets to keep his experienced legislative leadership of Romanoff, Jahn, Madden, Gordon and others rather than waiting for a new cadre of leadership in January.
He also clearly has the voting majority in both houses – even though it is highly likely that the Democrats will hold both houses after the November election – the electorate is really, really spooky. A special session avoids that outlier risk.
And, both the legislature and the Governor could ask the Supreme Court to consider interrogatories to settle the constitutional questions. If the Supreme Court took up interrogatories, it would clear the situation with the budget. If the Court upholds the trial court, the legislature and Governor can make budgetary adjustments and rely on supplemental appropriations and the next budget to smooth out the bumps. If the Court overturns the trial court, the legislature adjourns sine die and goes home.
If I were advising the Governor, I would have staff working diligently on a special session strategy.
you’re not advising the governor. You seem to want a special session even before the court takes up the case. Historically, by the way, they are loathe to answer interrogatories, prefering a real case–and they have exactly that on their plate.
I do not particularly want a special session. Neither do I want to have state government play brinksmanship with the lives of people who depend upon governmental services.
The state government has a problem and there are only 2 choices. Either wait until the Court gets around to ruling or step up to the plate and grown up policy makers and get to work.
Let us remember that this Supreme Court also punted on Amendment 41 issues.
And, with respect to giving the Governor advice, it appears that he does not listen to the Denver Post editorial board either.
Interesting theory. Good luck with that.
Now that was a little petulant, I was hoping that there would be more insightful comments about an issue that is serious. I noticed in the lead comments currently on Pols that the Governor had signed 475 bills this session – we can probably assume that at least one of them enacted a solution to a problem that might yet to materialize.
With a legislature that is bound to a 120 calendar day session, it is often prudent to enact laws precedent to a problem becoming apparent. Sometimes we legislate to shadows. I note that the lead comments in Pols reported that the Governor had signed 475 bills this session. We can assume that not every one of them addressed and resolved a problem that was clear and present.
I consider a ruling by a trial court a significant event that justifies policy makers considering the implications of that ruling and taking appropriate corrective action.
Of course the Supreme Court is loathe to accept interrogatories else governors and legislatures would inundate the court with pleas for validation of their policies. However, it is my understanding that in this case the appeal will be directly to the Supreme Court rather than progressing through the Court of Appeals. If the matter is serious enough to bypass the Court of Appeals, it is serious enough to be considered in a special session. A special session would allow the legal staffs of the Governor and the legislature to frame legislation to place the correct constitutional question before the Supreme Court through interrogatories.
Or a partisan catspaw, I don’t know which. And the interrogatory idea is just dumb. Let the courts do their job.
I am neither silly nor am I a partisan catspaw. I am an unaffiliated voter who does not think particularly well of either party.
And, I would suggest resorting to name calling and impugning the character of someone who has tried to articulate a point of view with some logic is contemptable.
I have done here what you get paid for – I have expressed an opinion. You can choose to agree with it or not, that is your right. However, I suggest that you do not have the prerogative of ridicule.
But, then again, that tactic seems to have worked for Rep. Douglas Bruce for a number of years.
but he clearly closely follows the advice here on ColoradoPols…
If I didn’t, Haners would be the only power broker left in the state.
Dan Haley?
Do you think this is an arrogant or shrewd move on the part of the GOP? I think it’s a little of both. They’re playing chicken with the budget, at the expense of public services (which they hate anyway), but the possibility of have a good political football.
After learning to deftly avoid columns of drivel like Ewgens, now I have to run into him here posting over and over?
Isn’t he the same nimrod that hammered the AG, calling him a political hack, for saying the Ritter legislation was unconstitutional? Where’s the column saying now that the judge is a political hack? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
How about eating a little crow and attacking posters a little less?
But if you read the Judge’s ruling, you’ll find she specifically rejected Suthers’ argument. It was Dick Westfall who carried the day for the Rs.
…you would realize the judge rejected only a small portion of the AG’s argument (Re: statewide vote). On the other hand, the judge did specifically reject your argument, if I may quote from your year-old column:
“Colorado has 178 school districts and in 175 of them, voters have voted to forgo further cuts in their property taxes as long as their mill levies aren’t actually raised.”
Ummm, wrong. Where’s your apology? And for that matter, Who Asked You, Bob Ewegen? Your vitriol on this subject has been laughable from the beginning.
Name is Bill, and I’m just a grumpy voter who thinks you are overpaid. Sorry to disappoint you on my name, and not the least bit surprised to see you are wrong again.
The mill levy freeze went into effect when the mill levies were set by school districts late last fall for the 2007 property tax year. Those are the property taxes we just paid in the last several months.
Taxosaurus brings up an excellent question. Of course, the state doesn’t get any of these “taxes” – this is the property tax collected by the locals which goes toward K-12 education. To the extent that locals can cover their share, the state doesn’t need to backfill from the general fund.
Again – none of these revenues from the property tax freeze are state revenues.
So, the great question is – do we base the property tax collections locally on what is collected for that tax year or the taxes collected in that tax year assessed in arrears?
No idea.
All this should make us ask why the School Finance Act has so little to do with education and so much to do with property tax equalization.
The two most important bills the legislature must pass every year are the long appropriations bill and the school finance bill.
Other than those 2 bills, they really do not need to do anything else.
the Long bill and the School Finance Act are two that must pass, but there are others too (the annual water projects bill and the species conservation bill and some others).
Plus, we have all the resolutions that must be passed so the legislators are able to say officially what they think about the pressing issues of the day!
those rates were not affected by the legislation which passed this year, since they had already been set. The issue now before the court is whether to reduce the levies for 2008 taxes due in 2009.
SB-199 passed last year (2007). School districts set their mill levies last fall in accordance with the “freeze”. As a result, the property taxes have already been collected, or will be soon. At issue is the state’s 2008/09 budget which has more revenue because of the increased property taxes. If the “freeze” has to be undone, the state’s budget this year will have to provide more backfill because the property tax collections will have to be reduced somehow.
…escrowed the revenue, without spending it, pending the outcome of the court case. Check with yours to see what it did.
The freeze legislation passed in 07 affected the levies set in Decemnber for 2007 taxes due this year. It’s just that the money hasn’t been spent yet and won’t start going out until July 1. The rest of the comment stands. Habas prescribed no remedy, lealving it to the Supreme Court, which in turn might direct the legislature to craft it.