Colorado Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez unexpectedly announced earlier today (Wednesday, August 24th 2011) that he intends to resign his seat on the state’s highest court in order to take a job with the City of Denver as Manager of Safety.

Justice Martinez, who was retained in office November 2010 with the lowest percentage of “retain” votes for an incumbent state supreme court justice in Colorado history (59%, narrowly edging current Chief Justice Michael Bender’s 60% and Justice Nancy Rice’s 62% for “worst ever;” incumbent supreme court justices are typically retained with 75-80% of the vote) could have continued to hold office for another decade.

Clear The Bench Colorado considers it a win for Colorado - and the damaged reputation of the Colorado judiciary - that he will not.

At the risk of once again being called “the skunk at the garden party” by the Denver Post, we point out the “troubling legacy” of Justice Martinez’s tenure on the bench (much as the “troubling legacy” of resigning Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey was reviewed at the time of her resignation - by the Post).

Justice Martinez was in fact one of the most reliable members of the highly political “Mullarkey Majority”, joining in or writing all of the key decisions over the past decade that made a mockery of constitutional jurisprudence in Colorado:

• Joining in the 2003 Salazar v. Davidson majority, Martinez helped perpetrate a judicial power grab as the courts conducted Congressional redistricting despite clear constitutional language reserving that power to the ’General Assembly’ and defining the General Assembly as “consisting of a senate and house of representatives.”
• Justice Martinez authored the blatantly political decision to keep a citizen’s initiative to restrict taxpayer funding of services to illegals (Initiative 55) off the 2006 ballot based on an “elastic definition” of the single-subject rule.  Even the Denver Post (which vehemently opposed the initiative) decried the ruling.  Former Democrat Governor Dick Lamm panned the court as “Politicians in Black Robes“, saying “This is not justice; it is politics - of the worst kind.”
• Justice Martinez joined Justice Michael Bender’s politically-derived opinion allowing unions to skirt Colorado campaign finance laws in the 2008 CEA v. Rutt case, overturning the Colorado Court of Appeals which had held (correctly) that unions made illegal contributions when they coordinated their activities with a candidate’s campaign.
• Justice Martinez joined in Colorado’s version of the infamous Kelo eminent domain abuse case, the 2008 “Telluride Land Grab” (Telluride v. San Miguel), authorizing government taking of private property via eminent domain - despite contrary statutory language and despite the fact that the property taken was outside the jurisdiction of the seizing authority.
• Justice Martinez joined the majority in the Nov. 2008 Barber v. Ritter decision which declared that “fees are not taxes” as long as they are called “fees” - laying the groundwork for the notorious and regressive Colorado Car Tax (”FASTER”) tax (er, “fee”) increase.
• Justice Martinez joined the Mullarkey Majority on the infamous March 2009 “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” (Mesa County v. Colorado) ruling which deprived Coloradans of their constitutional right to vote on tax increases, and also eliminated constitutional protections for existing tax credits and exemptions (leading to the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases passed by the legislature the following year).
• In a case with significant and still unfolding implications for Colorado (Governor Hickenlooper recently described the potential consequences as “devastating”), Justice Martinez joined in overturning two lower courts holding (again, correctly) that educational funding policy was not a matter for the courts to decide in the 2009 Lobato v. Colorado case.
• Just days before the Nov. 2010 election, Justice Martinez joined “in one of those quirky rulings for which it is now notorious, reversed the conviction of a man who used another person’s Social Security number to obtain an auto loan.“
• After the election, it didn’t get any better, as Justice Martinez joined in creating a windfall for personal injury trial lawyers (the “ambulance-chaser” set) in the late-November (28th) 2010 Volunteers of America v. Gardenswartz case.  (That ruling was apparently the straw breaking the camel’s back for a national association evaluating state courts, which added Colorado to the list of jurisdictions nationally qualifying as a “judicial hellhole”).

Justice Martinez’s legacy on the Colorado Supreme Court is indeed “troubling” - as noted in the Evaluations of Judicial Performance published prior to the November 2010 election.

While we bear Justice Martinez no personal animosity (by all accounts, he’s a nice guy) and wish him the best in his future endeavors as Denver Manager of Safety, we greet his departure from the Colorado Supreme Court with favor and look forward with guarded optimism to welcoming a new Colorado Supreme Court justice dedicated to upholding the Colorado Constitution and restoring the rule of law.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The potentially budget-busting Lobato v. Colorado education-funding lawsuit - restored to life in October 2009 by the Colorado Supreme Court after having been rejected as non-justiciable by two lower courts - enters its second week of trial court hearings today.

Numerous analysts and commentators have noted that if the Lobato lawsuit succeeds, it will negatively impact Colorado’s schools and end up hurting - not helping - Colorado’s school-age children.  Shortly before the lawsuit went to trial last Monday, Colorado’s Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper and Republican Attorney General John Suthers took the unusual step of issuing a joint statement opposing the lawsuit, “arguing that it could cost the state billions of dollars if it loses in court.”

Over the weekend, Colorado’s leading newspapers weighed in further on the issue.

Sunday’s Denver Post (”Future uncertain if plaintiffs win education-funding Lobato case“) highlighted the uncertainty around just how deeply the lawsuit could affect Colorado’s budget if successful, calling it “uncharted territory.”  The Post article did note, however:

In other states where such school-funding “adequacy” suits have prevailed, court decisions have forced greater spending on schools. (Emphasis added)

The Pueblo Chieftain’s Sunday editorial, “Billions More,” was less timorous in its conclusions:

HERE WE are trying to dig ourselves out of the Great Recession, with Colorado’s state budget barely balanced with scads of gimmicks, and now a group is seeking a court order for the state to spend umpteen billions more on public schools.

The article further noted the dubious constitutional grounds for the lawsuit:

Attorney General John Suthers argues - correctly, we believe - that discretion in school funding constitutionally rests with voters and lawmakers, not the courts. He said a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could cost the state up to $4 billion annually.

Worse, the article notes, the plaintiffs have also asked for massive - and immediate - increases in school construction:

Moreover, because the lawsuit asks for massive new school construction, the suit could cost the state an additional $18 billion. (Emphasis added)

Bottom Line: the lawsuit seeks money the state simply does not have, based on extremely tenuous grounds (an expository phrase in the state Constitution calling for “thorough and uniform” education), and is improperly seeking to achieve these goals via the courts, not through the legislative branch where such issues are properly decided.

The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Days before a landmark school-funding lawsuit goes to trial, Gov. John Hickenlooper and Attorney General John Suthers on Thursday took a pre-emptive bipartisan stand against the legal challenge, arguing that it could cost the state billions of dollars if it loses in court. (Denver Post, “Colorado governor, attorney general stand against education-funding challenge“)

When Colorado’s Democrat Governor and Republican Attorney General agree that “education funding should be left to the legislature and voters” and not decided by the courts, it might be an indication of the return of some level of fiscal sanity to state government (or a sign of the impending apocalypse).

Unfortunately, the restoration of some level of sanity to Colorado’s judicial branch (which recently earned the state the title of “judicial hellhole“) may take a bit longer.

This educational-funding lawsuit (seeking to force even higher state educational spending by court order) represents yet another abuse of the courts for the pursuit of political ends - unfortunately aided and abetted by an all-too-complicit (and highly political) majority on the Colorado Supreme Court.

Current Chief Justice Michael Bender (together with disgraced then-Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, joined by justices Alex Martinez and Greg Hobbs) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, not to be decided by the courts).

Unfortunately - thanks to the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority injecting their personal sympathies ahead of the law - this lawsuit has already cost the state tens of thousands, and if upheld will likely lead to court-ordered increases in funding (and, inevitably, taxation) - a violation of separation of powers, and yet another unconstitutional tax increase facilitated by the Colorado Supreme Court.

One not need look very far (indeed, just across the border to Kansas) to see the potential for a fiscal and budgetary train wreck of epic proportions.  Indeed, as Governor Hickenlooper correctly points out, the consequences for Colorado would be “devastating.”

The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“No man’s life, liberty, property, or constitutional rights are safe while the Colorado Supreme Court is in session.”  (again, with apologies to Mark Twain)

Clear The Bench Colorado has publicized the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including an attempted exploitation of a court ruling to impose what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on gun sales and permits, the ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry by the CU Board of Regents and an abortive CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and developments in both cases).  After the CU Board of Regents voted to appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling which in April struck down the CU ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban), we warned Coloradans that another attack on our constitutional and statutory rights was coming.

The threat materialized in October 2010 when the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to hear) the CU Board of Regents appeal of last April’s Colorado Court of Appeals ruling (which upheld state law and the rights of Colorado citizens against CU’s assertion of a right to ban licensed concealed carry in any area “governed” by the Board, including areas open to the public).

On Wednesday (8 June 2011), the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments from attorneys representing CU (on one side) and various individual citizens and other interested parties on the other.  The arguments lasted for one hour, and can be heard in their entirety via this link (audio recording, Regents v. Concealed Carry 10SC344).

The attorney for the CU Board of Regents argued that the CU Board has “constitutional authority” to “enact legislation governing the campus” - essentially, putting the CU Board of Regents “above the law” of the state of Colorado.  The attorney cited some past rulings by the Colorado Supreme Court which had established some legal precedent for this view.

However, as the Colorado Court of Appeals had previously noted in its April 2010 ruling, the CU gun ban policy violates “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits:”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

The law - both constitutional and statutory - is clearly on the side of the plaintiffs, wishing to exercise their legal right to responsibly carry concealed weapons after undergoing an extensive background check, practical and legal training, and acquiring a permit for that purpose.  The Concealed Carry Act applies to “all areas of the state,” except as specifically limited by the Act. The Regents lobbied to be included in the list of exceptions, but the legislature refused. The CU Board is now asking the Colorado Supreme Court to re-write the law to include the exception the Regents sought, but didn’t receive, when the legislation was passed.

Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time that the Colorado Supreme Court has legislated from the bench.  The fact that the Colorado Supreme Court even agreed to hear the CU Regents appeal of a very clear and well-grounded ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals does not bode well for the preservation of another set of Coloradans’ constitutional rights.

There is a great deal more at stake than the relatively narrow issue of whether responsible adults can be denied the exercise of their rights (licensed concealed-carry pursuant to state law) - as if that wasn’t important enough.  In hearing the case, the Colorado Supreme Court will also rule on whether state law, as a matter of principle and precedent, can be ignored by certain quasi-governmental entities (such as the CU Board of Regents).  Most importantly, the Colorado Supreme Court will rule on the standard of review for laws regulating the right to bear arms (or any constitutional rights) in Colorado.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held (correctly, in my view and the view of most legal scholars) that the standard of review for assessing the law, and CU’s attempt to ignore state law via an illegal gun ban (and for reviewing any law regulating any constitutional right) is the ”reasonable exercise” standard (in other words, is the law a “reasonable exercise” of the government’s authority to restrict a constitutional right).  The CU Regents argue (and the Colorado Supreme Court’s Mullarkey Majority has in the past agreed, on other issues) that the standard for legal review should be the ”rational basis” standard of review (which gives virtually unlimited deference, and leeway, to the ability of government to pass laws restricting the individual exercise of fundamental constitutional rights).  Adoption of that standard in this case would set a very dangerous precedent, and would effectively nullify the Colorado Constitution’s recognition of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

This case - and so many others of this nature - isn’t about guns; it’s about freedoms.  Allowing the government to pass laws further restricting our rights (or allowing courts to unilaterally impose new laws or restrictions by re-writing or interpreting our rights out of existence) runs counter to the very foundations and ideals of this country.

Our Constitution is the Citizens’ rulebook for government - restricting the powers and authority of government to rule our lives.  It is what distinguishes us as Americans from the historical example of every other nation on earth: we are Citizens, not subjects.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Clear The Bench Colorado salutes those who have contributed most to establishing, and preserving, our freedoms as Americans: on this Memorial Day, we honor those who serve (or have served) in our nation’s armed forces, particularly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.  As a military veteran and proud “Citizen Soldier” I strongly believe in the importance of saluting the service of all who have honorably worn the uniform.

In honor of “Band of Brothers” Dick Winters - who died this year, 2 January 2011 at age 92 - and of Airborne Soldiers past and present - CBTC shares the above video tribute.

What does all of this have to do with holding our Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the rule of law and the Colorado Constitution?  Quite a lot, actually…

As a proud veteran of the U.S. military (including service in the Colorado Army National Guard), I take my oath of enlistment - “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado [emphasis added] against all enemies, foreign and domestic”  - seriously; very seriously.

Many of our elected (and unelected) officials seem to have a much more cavalier attitude towards their own oath of office.

Our Colorado Supreme Court justices also swear an oath on taking office, which begins:  “I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado.” Note that the oath of office does not state that ”I will support only those parts of the Constitution I like or with which I personally agree or empathize.”

Unfortunately, the Colorado Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) in every case it has heard - despite the clear intent and letter of the law that “[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.” Several of the current justices are oathbreakers - and dishonor the service of the men and women of the United States military and law enforcement agencies who put their lives on the line to support and defend our Constitution.  They have proven themselves unworthy of the high office they occupy…

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Surely make you lose your mind…

The Colorado Car Tax (er, “fee”) increase - ironically dubbed ‘FASTER’ - passed in the 2009 legislative session made another lap in media coverage this past week with a broadcast on the ‘Devil’s Advocate‘ television program and publication of a pair of “Issue Backgrounder” papers.

The “Issue Backgrounder” papers each address a specific aspect of the FASTER legislation, focusing in on the “Bridge Enterprise” (a ‘government-owned business’ within the Colorado Department of Transportation, or CDOT).  One paper addresses how the “Bridge Enterprise” has raised $300M in debt without (constitutionally-required) voter approval (and the long-term implications for Colorado’s fiscal stability); the other more generally addresses how the Colorado Bridge Enterprise contravenes the Colorado Constitution.

Both papers are well worth reading, and provide additional detail on just how bad even this single aspect of the FASTER Colorado Car Tax (er, “fee”) is for Colorado citizens.

However, both papers together only tell half of the story (almost literally).  The ‘Colorado Bridge Enterprise’ is only one of two new ‘government-owed businesses’ established by the FASTER legislation (the other being the ‘Colorado Transportation Enterprise’ charged with collecting and spending the ‘road safety surcharge’ tax - er, “fee”) .  Both “enterprises” are overseen by an 11-member appointed (ergo, unaccountable to the public) board (coincidentally, the same 11 people who make up the Colorado Transportation Commission).  Significantly (although unfortunately unremarked in both papers), both ‘enterprises’ are also authorized to use eminent domain to seize private property.

The television broadcast is informative and entertaining as well, but unfortunately also misses significant parts of the story.

The Colorado Car Tax - It’s Worse Than You Think

Also unremarked in both papers - and on the television broadcast as well - is the fact that FASTER actually comprises multiple tax increases (er, “fees”) in a single piece of legislation, blatantly violating the constitutional requirements to “receive voter approval in advance” for “any new tax, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.” (Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 - the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’).  The “bridge fund fee” and the “road safety surcharge fee” increase each year for three years (yep, that’s 3 tax increases in one!), in addition to imposing an entirely separate “fee” on car rentals as well.  Oh, and don’t forget the “late fees” too…

But all of this is necessary “to preserve our crumbling transportation infrastructure,” right?  That was the justification for passing the bill - along with claims that any and all “fees” collected “shall be used exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of the public highways of the state.”   Says so right in the legislative language (43-4-810), so it must be true, correct?

Not so much.  The dirty little secret of the FASTER bill is that many of the taxes (er, “fees”) collected don’t go towards the construction or maintenance of roads or bridges at all, but for “multi-modal and demand-side transportation solutions” - such as the desire of certain state Senators for streetcars in Denver - justified by other language in a following section (43-4-812):

43-4-812. Use of user fees for transit - legislative declaration.
(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT THE FUNDING OF TRANSIT-RELATED PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION CONSTITUTES MAINTENANCE AND SUPERVISION OF STATE HIGHWAYS BECAUSE IT WILL HELP TO REDUCE TRAFFIC ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND THEREBY REDUCE WEAR AND TEAR ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES AND INCREASE THEIR RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE.

In fact, the bill MANDATES state spending of $10 Million per year on “transit-related projects.”

It’s an outrageous semantic shell game - and a blatant violation of your constitutional rights.

To sum up: the “FASTER” car tax increase raised vehicle registration fees by $22.50-55 per vehicle, including a “road safety surcharge fee” of $16-$39 per vehicle, PLUS a “bridge fund fee” of $13-$32 per vehicle (phased in at 50%/75%/100% each of the first 3 years ).  Plus mandatory “late fees” of $25/month (capped at $100) - for all “vehicles” (including trailers barely even worth that much).

All while creating two new ‘government-owned’ bureaucracies with power to spend, borrow, & seize private property unconstrained by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and not accountable to the people.

Oh, and increasing mandatory spending by over $10 Million per year on purposes other than roads, bridges, or other transportation infrastructure used by those paying the “fees.”

Most of the politicians who did this to you - including Governor Bill Ritter, Senate sponsor Dan Gibbs, and House sponsor Joe Rice - have paid the political price, either quitting office or being defeated at the ballot box; however, the real culprits, without whom none of this would have been possible (thanks to a Nov. 2008 court ruling to allow “fees” to act like taxes, in violation of your constitutional rights) escaped justice (except for Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who quit rather than face the voters, the remaining members of the Colorado Supreme Court who aided and abetted FASTER were retained in office for another 10-year term).

Unfortunately, these politicians in black robes remain ‘at large’ and able to continue to assault your constitutional rights for years to come.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” - Mark Twain (1866)

Although the 2011 legislative session is now (happily) concluded and part of the history of Colorado Politics, the effects of the bills passed this session and last will continue to be felt for some time…

Case in point: the majority of the “Dirty Dozen” tax increase bills passed during the 2010 legislative session (which exploited a Colorado Supreme Court ruling to take more of your money without asking, as is required under the Colorado Constitution) remain in effect.  Although the new legislative majorities were able to repeal two of the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases this year - last month, the legislature made progress towards “Cleaning up the ‘Dirty Dozen’ tax increases” with repeal of last year’s Agriculture tax increase, HB10-1195, Suspend Ag Sales & Use Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath), and downloaded software tax increase, (HB 10-1192, Sales and Use Tax of Standardized Software (Pommer/Heath) - the remaining (unconstitutional) tax increase laws passed in 2010 (such as the “Candy Tax” and - my dog’s least favorite - the “Doggy Bag Tax”) remain on the books.

The “Dirty Dozen” was the name given to a package of twelve legislative bills which sought to increase tax revenues by eliminating existing tax credits or exemptions - an end-run around the constitutional requirement (in Article X, Section 20 - colloquially known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR) for “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Even going into the last days of the 2011 legislative session, it appeared that what may have been the least popular of last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases, the ‘Amazon Tax’ (HB 10-1193, Sales Tax Out of State Retailers (Pommer/Heath), was also likely to be another one to bite the dust.  Since the so-called ‘Amazon Tax’ was not only in violation of the Colorado Constitution, but also infringed upon the U.S. Constitution’s 4th Amendment protections against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’, it had been challenged (in Federal Court - in order to avoid the judicial hellhole of Colorado jurisprudence) and prevented from enforcement by court injunction, anyway.  Given that the tax isn’t being collected anyway, and continuing to defend the tax in court keeps racking up taxpayer dollars in legal expenses, repealing the bill would seem to be a no-brainer.

That proved to be true in the House, where a bill introduced to repeal and replace the tax (HB 11-1318, Notification of Use Taxes, Stephens/Schaffer) appeared to be on the fast track to passage; the ‘Amazon Tax’ repeal bill was swiftly and overwhelmingly approved (on a 58-6 bipartisan vote) in the House, but was prevented from coming to a vote (killing it via a procedural move without having to take a recorded position) by Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D-Longmont).

Sometimes, it would appear, legislative action is not sufficient to succeed in undoing previous acts of the same legislature putting one’s life, liberty, or property at risk…

NONE of the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills would have seen the light of day if not for last year’s legislature’s exploitation of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling to bypass the Colorado Constitution’s requirement to receive “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” - Mark Twain (1866)

Occasionally, however, the legislature can succeed in undoing previous acts putting one’s life, liberty, or property at risk…

State legislators made some progress this week towards repealing another one of last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases (which exploited a Colorado Supreme Court ruling to take more of your money without asking, as is required under the Colorado Constitution).  Last month, the legislature made progress towards “Cleaning up the ‘Dirty Dozen’ tax increases” with repeal of last year’s Ag tax increase, HB10-1195, Suspend Ag Sales & Use Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath), and downloaded software tax increase, (HB 10-1192, Sales and Use Tax of Standardized Software (Pommer/Heath)).

The “Dirty Dozen” was the name given to a package of twelve legislative bills which sought to increase tax revenues by eliminating existing tax credits or exemptions - an end-run around the constitutional requirement (in Article X, Section 20 - colloquially known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR) for “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Last year’s legislative majorities (Democrats dominated both chambers of the state General Assembly) were emboldened in their assault on the constitutional rights (and wallets) of Colorado citizens by an interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in the notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case (another unconstitutional tax increase, sanctioned by the court under the pretense that a rate “freeze” which collects more revenue doesn’t count as a tax increase for triggering that pesky constitutional requirement to receive “voter approval in advance”).  Solid legislative majorities, a compliant governor, and a complicit supreme court allowed them to take a bigger bite of your money without first (or ever) asking for permission.

Since the 2010 elections resulted in a shift of control of one legislative chamber (the state House of Representatives) and many members of the new majority campaigned on a promise to seek the repeal of these unconstitutional tax increases, progress towards the elimination of any one of these unconstitutional (and economy-killing) tax increases is welcome news.

The bill to repeal the ‘Amazon Tax’ (HB 11-1318, Notification of Use Taxes) co-sponsored by Reps. Amy Stephens (R-Monument) and  Sue Schaffer (D-Wheat Ridge) repeals last year’s HB 10-1193, Sales Tax Out of State Retailers (Pommer/Heath), particularly the onerous, intrusive, and unconstitutional requirement for out-of-state retailers to divulge customer information to the state, while maintaining a requirement for out-of-state retailers to notify Colorado customers of their ‘obligation’ to pay state use taxes.

While enforcement of this requirement may prove difficult from a practical standpoint (the authority of the Colorado legislature to regulate businesses from out of state may rest on rather tenuous legal grounds), it does at least remove the requirement that retailers rat your out - which gave rise to the predicted (inevitable, really) court challenge to the law.

The ‘Amazon Tax’ repeal bill was swiftly and overwhelmingly approved in the House (on a 58-6 bipartisan vote) and is scheduled to be voted on in the Senate this week, where it is likely to pass (albeit less overwhelmingly) since the ‘Amazon Tax’ law has been blocked in Federal court since January.

NONE of the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills would have seen the light of day if not for last year’s legislature’s exploitation of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling to bypass the Colorado Constitution’s requirement to receive “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Still, it’s good to see “another one bite the dust.”

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” - Mark Twain (1866)

Occasionally, however, the legislature can succeed in undoing previous acts putting one’s life, liberty, or property at risk…

State legislators made some progress this week towards repealing one of last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases (which exploited a Colorado Supreme Court ruling to take more of your money without asking, as is required under the Colorado Constitution).

The “Dirty Dozen” was the name given to a package of twelve legislative bills which sought to increase tax revenues by eliminating existing tax credits or exemptions - an end-run around the constitutional requirement (in Article X, Section 20 - colloquially known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR) for “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Last year’s legislative majorities (Democrats dominated both chambers of the state General Assembly) were emboldened in their assault on the constitutional rights (and wallets) of Colorado citizens by an interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in the notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case (another unconstitutional tax increase, sanctioned by the court under the pretense that a rate “freeze” which collects more revenue doesn’t count as a tax increase for triggering that pesky constitutional requirement to receive “voter approval in advance”).  Solid legislative majorities, a compliant governor, and a complicit supreme court allowed them to take a bigger bite of your money without first (or ever) asking for permission.

Since the 2010 elections resulted in a shift of control of one legislative chamber (the state House of Representatives) and many members of the new majority campaigned on a promise to seek the repeal of these unconstitutional tax increases, progress towards the elimination of any one of these unconstitutional (and economy-killing) tax increases is welcome news.  Last week, HB 11-1005, Reinstate Tax Exemption for Ag Products (Sonnenberg/Brophy), which would repeal the 2.9 percent state sales and use tax on agricultural compounds, bull semen and pesticides that was (unconstitutionally) imposed by last year’s HB10-1195, Suspend Ag Sales & Use Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath), passed the House with a bipartisan 48-17 vote and appears likely to pass the state Senate as well, according to this article (”Ag tax repeal passes state House“).

Repealing last year’s (unconstitutional) agricultural tax increase is a win both for the rule of law and Colorado consumers - since the tax indirectly raised the price of all food grown, raised, or otherwise produced in Colorado.  Noticed your grocery bill creeping up?  Last year’s tax increase is partially to blame; projected revenue gains of $1.5M have not been realized, while higher food costs are shifted to consumers.

Of course, had the Colorado Supreme Court stuck to its sworn duty to uphold the Colorado Constitution and the rule of law in the first place (instead of legislating from the bench), none of the “Dirty Dozen” would have been proposed, much less passed - and we wouldn’t need to pass more laws to repeal bad laws already enacted.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Apparently, some folks still haven’t gotten the memo…

As reported in the Denver Post (”Bill proposes 10-cent fee on movie tickets“) online Friday afternoon,

Two Republican lawmakers introduced a bill today that would impose a 10-cent fee on every movie ticket sold in the state, beginning July 1, to help fund an incentive program for promoting film production in Colorado.

The mania to circumvent the Colorado Constitution and avoid seeking voter approval of tax increases by calling them “fees” is apparently not an affliction restricted to the Democrat party alone.  Leaving aside the policy implications of picking industry favorites for government support and subsidies (”corporate welfare”) at taxpayer expense, the proposed new “fee” is clearly a tax - since those paying derive no benefit (receiving neither good nor service) from the payment - and therefore subject to prior approval by a vote of the people (Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 - the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights).

(For an in-depth discussion of the difference between fees and taxes, see When is a “fee” not a tax?)

It is not uncommon for lawmakers to propose measures involving fee increases in lieu of tax hikes, which require voter approval under provisions of TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

Legislators of both parties swear an oath to ’support and uphold’ the Constitution - which includes that pesky Article X, Section 20.  Like the executive and (especially) judicial branches, they don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to support or ignore without violating their oath of office.  Republicans should be especially sensitive of this oath - and of the constitutional requirements and restrictions imposed by TABOR - because they made constitutionality (or lack thereof) the centerpiece of their (principled) opposition to last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases (many of which they are now attempting to repeal).

To avoid the taint of hypocrisy, Republican party and legislative leaders should call on the bill’s sponsors to withdraw the proposed legislation.  Otherwise, the GOP may find itself on shaky moral ground when (justifiably) calling for the repeal of last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases - and set itself up for near-permanent minority status as the energized grassroots electorate turns away in disgust at the party’s perceived lack of principle.

“Supporting party above principle does a disservice to both”–El Presidente (Slapstick Politics blog)

The fight to reform Colorado’s corrupt legal/judicial complex continues.  Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the consortium of legal-establishment special-interest groups who attempted (and may have succeeded in) buying the election for their buddies on the bench accountable for violations of Colorado campaign finance law.  Longer term, Clear The Bench Colorado will work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public.  For both endeavors, we would appreciate your continued support - via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.