Mullarkey Court
The Colorado Car Tax – er, ‘FASTER’ “vehicle registration fee” increase – challenged in court as violation of state Constitution
The Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase passed in 2009 (SB108, the so-called “FASTER” bill) is quite possibly THE most unpopular tax increase in Colorado history – made all the more repugnant by how it became law (exploiting a 2008 Colorado Supreme Court ruling which declared that “fees” don’t count as “taxes” to circumvent the constitutional requirement (under Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, a.k.a. TABOR) to receive prior voter approval for any ‘policy change resulting in net revenue gain’ to the state).
After two years of legislative inaction failed to repeal or roll back the unconstitutional and unpopular tax increase, the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax is being challenged in court as a violation of the Colorado state Constitution (specifically, Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR).
Despite being a central issue in the 2010 elections (Democrat Governor Bill Ritter chose not to seek re-election in large part because of the tax increase’s unpopularity; Senate sponsor Dan Gibbs also chose not to seek re-election; and House Sponsor Joe Rice was defeated by now-Representative Kathleen Conti largely on the strength of her campaigning on the Car Tax issue), the legislature has failed to overturn the clearly unconstitutional tax (or address other unconstitutional aspects of the legislation, including establishment of unaccountable “government-owned enterprises” to administer the tax – er, “fee” – collections and revenues).
It has long been clear that the proper venue for overturning this highly unpopular, regressive, and unconstitutional tax increase is NOT via the legislature (which is unwilling or unable to act) but via a court challenge. Unfortunately, as long as the actively anti-TABOR “Mullarkey Majority” (and its successors) ruled the Colorado Supreme Court, prospects for a reasonable hearing on the merits (and interpretation actually based on the Colorado Constitution, as written) have been bleak.
However, due to recent changes in the composition of the state’s highest court (blatantly partisan and anti-TABOR Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey quit rather than face voters in 2010 and Mullarkey ally Justice Alex Martinez quit the court to take a Denver city job last Fall), along with the impending retirement of Mullarkey’s heir as Chief Justice (Michael Bender), a lawsuit challenging the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase might now have a chance.
Apparently judging the time to be ripe, the TABOR Foundation – represented by the Mountain States Legal Foundation – filed suit today (21 May 2012) challenging the constitutionality of the 2009 ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax. From the organization’s press release:
“In clear violation of TABOR, the General Assembly enacted and CDOT implemented a scheme to levy taxes and raise revenues without a vote of the people of Colorado,” William Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, said in a statement.
The lawsuit targets not only the over $100 Million in (unconstitutionally-imposed) new taxes levied, but also the $300 million in new government bonds imposed by the Colorado Bridge Enterprise (one of the constitutionally dubious quasi-government “enterprises” established under the ‘FASTER’ law).
The Foundation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an order requiring refund of all revenues collected, along with the payment of interest, as required by TABOR.
The TABOR Foundation’s lawsuit highlights the fact that legislative action alone is frequently inadequate in preserving rights and freedoms – bad laws can (and should) be struck down by citizens (working alone or in groups) defending their rights in court. The fact that it took years before the conditions were conducive to a court challenge also highlights the fact that elections to legislative or executive office are not the only votes that matter – underlining the critical importance of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded beginning in 2009 by Clear The Bench Colorado.
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.
Colorado Supreme Court approves 40% tax increase
Although Colorado voters decisively repudiated a recent attempt to raise taxes at the ballot box this week (the “Proposition 103″ tax increase initiative, which at least did seek “voter approval in advance” as required by the Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 – the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’), on the day before votes were tallied, the Colorado Supreme Court approved what may have been the largest (percentage) tax increase in the history of Colorado – increasing a severance tax (on energy production) by over 40%.
Sadly, this latest ruling only continues a pattern of judicial assault on the rights of Colorado taxpayers that is both politically motivated (the court’s majority has frequently expressed antipathy towards the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 – the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’ – despite their oath to support and uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like) and entirely predictable. (Indeed, Clear The Bench Colorado forecast the court’s decision over a year ago in this article):
Colorado Supreme Court prepares additional assault on taxpayer rights, hearing another stealth tax increase case (31 August 2010)
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ‘Mullarkey Majority’ has now gone 0-16 in upholding TABOR, a “perfect season” establishing them as the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence
(Mullarkey’s replacement, Monica Marquez, recused herself from the decision due to her role as a former Deputy Attorney General arguing the case for violating taxpayer’s rights before the Court of Appeals)
Some of the most prominent examples of the court’s “perfect” record:
- ‘Mill Levy Tax Freeze‘ property tax increase (calling the tax increase a “rate freeze”)
- ‘Dirty Dozen‘ tax increases (2010) and the 2009 tobacco tax increase (calling tax increases “elimination of Tax Credits & Exemptions“)
- ‘Colorado Car Tax’ (enabling tax increases by calling them “fees” instead of taxes)
Following the pattern of earlier anti-TABOR decisions, the majority opinion tortures statutory language to extract a tenuous justification for a constitutional end-run in favor of tax increases, overturning a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that was a model of clarity and conciseness in legal language:
so simple, even a caveman could understand it:
We hold that TABOR precludes the challenged coal severance tax adjustments. Our holding is based on a simple syllogism:
(1) TABOR prohibits increasing tax rates without voter approval. Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a); Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway Auth., 896 P.2d 859, 867 (Colo. 1995).
(2) Applying the statutory formula increased the coal severance tax rate (initially from $0.54 to $0.76 per ton) without voter approval.
(3) Therefore, TABOR was violated.
So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get around this clear, concise language?
The ruling majority declared that the tax increase was merely an “adjustment” to the “tax rate formula” that the statutory language “required” the Department of Revenue to increase – a “non-discretionary” mechanism (despite the undisputed fact that the Department of Revenue did exercise discretion – and complied with the Constitution by not raising the rate – for 15 years previously). The majority likewise ignored the well-established legal principle that constitutional language trumps statutory language, as Justice Coats pointed out in his dissent:
Not only is TABOR a constitutional provision to which legislative acts are subservient, rather than merely another statute itself, but its intent to limit the legislative taxing power by subjecting it directly to popular approval, see Bickel v. City of Boulder,885 P.2d 215, 226 (Colo. 1994), and to ‘s upersede” all conflicting state statutes could not be more clear, see Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20 (1) (“All provisions are self-executing and severable and supersede conflicting state constitutional, state statutory, charter, or other state or local provisions.”). Starting November 4, 1992, the state is expressly required to have voter approval in advance for any tax rate increase that does not fall within a TABOR exception.
Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20(4)(a). The language of TABOR simply does not admit of any construction permitting future tax rate increases without the constitutionally required voter approval, whether or not they were mandated by statutes enacted before the constitutional amendment, and this court has never suggested otherwise.
Despite the clearly-expressed intent of the voters, both in decisively repudiating a tax increase at the polls (in 2011) and in establishing constraints of the power of government to arbitrarily and without asking raise taxes (or “increase revenue” by any “tax policy changes”) by adopting a constitutional amendment (the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” in 1992), the Colorado Supreme Court continues its unbroken streak of raising taxes by judicial decree, usurping the power and authority both of the legislature and of “We The People” – the ultimate sovereigns.
As Justice Coats made clear in his dissent:
It simply strains credulity beyond the breaking point to assert, as does the majority, that raising the tax on every ton of extracted coal from fifty-four to seventy-six cents is not a tax rate increase.
A tax increase by any other name (be it “elimination of existing exemption“, “fee“, or now “adjustment“) still smells as foul.
A violation of your right to have a say before having your money taken from you is just as bad (arguably, much worse) coming from the courts as coming from the executive or legislative branches - your wallet can’t tell the difference.
Know your rights – as a Citizen – and defend them.
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.
Defending the Constitution – Why 9/11 still matters today (10 years later)
“It is Tuesday morning, the 11th of September… and you will not forget this date.”
(TV reporter, unknown, reporting from NYC as events unfolded on the morning of 9/11…)
10 years ago today, the most horrific attack ever carried out on American soil claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, making clear that “there’ll be no shelter here – front lines are everywhere.”
Looking back, it occurred to me that I’ve since spent most anniversaries of that fateful Tuesday morning – forever burned into the American psyche as, simply, 9/11 – on duty away from home.
2002: Afghanistan; 2003: Fort Benning, Georgia; 2005: Operation Katrina (hurricane disaster relief/recovery operations); 2006: Fort Bragg, North Carolina; 2009: Camp Williams, Utah; and now this year, 2011: Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania.
My experience in this regard is hardly unique – indeed, I’ve spent less time on duty away from home than many others who proudly wear the uniform – a mere token of service willingly rendered in defense of our nation, and the Constitution we are sworn to support and defend.
Sadly, many of the men and women in uniform serving on that day and since – military, NYC Police & Port Authority, and FDNY - are not “invited” to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero ’due to “lack of room”. Funny – they weren’t “invited” on that fateful day in 2001 either – they just “showed up” and did what needed to be done.
However, America isn’t about the politicians, officials, and various muckety-mucks who’ll be pontificating at that “official” event and others.
America is about the brave people – often bearing only the proud title of “Citizen” – who just “show up” to do what needs doing.
Defending the Constitution – Why 9/11 still matters today (10 years later)
Clear The Bench Colorado joins millions of Americans across the country in somber remembrance of the 9/11 attacks on our nation.
What does 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.
Colorado Supreme Court justices also swear a similar 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 judicial oath of office does not state “I will support only those parts of the Constitution that I like or with which I personally agree or empathize.”
Yet the Mullarkey 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.”
The Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) 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.
Another important lesson of 9/11 is that individuals matter – and fighting to defend your rights, and your lives, is the only way to preserve your rights (and your life, in extremis) when under attack. The true heroes of that day were not only the firefighters but also the ordinary citizens who acted to save lives – and the brave passengers on Flight 93 who fought back against the hijackers on the 4th plane and died not as victims, but as American heroes.
We can no longer be under any illusion – as the passengers on Flight 93 discovered – that our rights and lives are NOT under attack; we are threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. The nature of the threat (and appropriate response) is different, but the need to take action, to defend your rights – remains the same.
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.
Life in the FASTER lane – updates on the Colorado Car Tax
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.
Cleaning up the “Dirty Dozen” – Agriculture Tax repeal moves forward in state House
“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.
Movie Ticket Tax (er, “fee”) coming soon to a theater near you?
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.
The ‘Dirty Dozen’ Tax Increases: How the 2010 Colorado Legislature exploited a Colorado Supreme Court ruling to (unconstitutionally) take more of your money without asking
The following article was written for, and originally appears in, The Constitutionalist Today (February edition).
“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” – Mark Twain (1866)
As another legislative session begins, the Colorado General Assembly once again faces a hefty budget shortfall; the projected gap between expected revenue and planned spending is $1.2B (yes, that’s $1,200,000,000) this fiscal year. Last year at this time, the projected revenue shortfall was a mere $660M (about half of this year’s shortfall) which the legislature “fixed” with a combination of one-time subsidies, funds transfers and raids, other budgetary gimmicks – and the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases.
The “Dirty Dozen” was the name given to a package of twelve legislative bills which sought to increase tax revenues collected 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) requiring “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 Colorado General Assembly) were emboldened in their assault on the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens (and the grab into their wallets) 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, it’s worth re-visiting the “Dirty Dozen” tax laws to provide an overview of what’s at stake.
Originally, twelve bills were introduced to repeal a total of thirteen existing tax credits or exemptions; one of the bills was not passed, resulting in eleven bills increasing twelve taxes (either way, the term “Dirty Dozen” remains an appropriate and accurate description).
In order of introduction, the bills were:
HB10-1189, Eliminate Sales Tax Exemption for Direct Mail (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. This bill increased the sales tax on direct mail advertising, impacting both the actual advertising companies and the predominantly small-business market (especially local small businesses) that rely on direct-mail advertising as a cost-effective and less expensive alternative to radio/TV ads. This tax increase was projected to raise $1.5M, but has actually generated less revenue.
HB10-1190, Suspend Industrial Fuel Sales & Use Tax Exemption (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Also known as the “Energy Tax”, this bill effectively raised the cost of every product and service produced in Colorado (since every business using energy – i.e. all businesses – now must pay a higher price for energy, directly or indirectly, sometimes both – used ‘on the job.’) This new tax hits manufacturing industries, already pinched by increasing fuel prices, especially hard; the state’s largest manufacturing industry (Pueblo’s Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel) expected to pay $2M/yr in additional costs. Projected state revenue gains of $48M have not been realized.
HB10-1191, Eliminate Candy & Soda Sales Tax Exemption (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. The notoriously capricious Candy Tax not only angered Colorado kids, it also burdened stores with checking ingredients for each item to see if it was subject to taxation. (Ironically, some “energy bars” are considered “candy” while “Twix” or “KitKat” bars are not, based on the ingredient list). Again, small businesses were disproportionately impacted and, predictably, revenue projections of $17.9M have not been achieved.
HB10-1192, Sales & Use Tax of Standardized Software (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Software downloads – particularly upgrades or updates to previously purchased programs such as antivirus or antispam software – were most impacted; previously, direct online purchases were not taxed. Projected revenue gains of $15M have not been realized.
HB10-1193, Sales Tax Out-of-State Retailers (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Also known as the Amazon Tax, this tax increase prompted Amazon.com to terminate its local affiliate program (reducing income for some 5,000 Coloradans) and led to a (predicted) court challenge, since the bill sought to collect personal purchase data from online retailers (violating the 4th Amendment). Taxpayers are funding the state’s defense (filed in Federal court, due to lack of confidence in Colorado courts) and needless to say, the projected $5M revenue has not been achieved.
HB10-1194, Eliminate Nonessential Articles Sales Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Otherwise known as the Doggy Bag Tax – since legislators consider take-home food containers “non-essential” items for restaurants and thus subject to higher taxes (raising the cost of dining out, since the restaurants have to factor the increased cost into their prices).
HB10-1195, Suspend Ag Sales & Use Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Increasing taxes on a wide range of agricultural products (including animal feed, vaccines, drugs, pesticides, etc.) has indirectly raised the price of all food grown, raised, or otherwise produced in Colorado. Notice your grocery bill creeping up? This tax increase might be to blame; projected revenue gains of $1.5M have not been realized (and higher costs are shifted to consumers).
HB10-1196, Eliminate Certain Cars Qualified for Tax Credits (Ferrandino/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Removed several vehicles previously qualifying for tax credits from the list.
HB10-1197, Reduce Conservation Easement Cap Amount (Ferrandino/Heath), signed 4/29/10. Reduced the maximum state income tax credit allowed for conservation tax easements (expect Governor Hickenlooper to be willing to sign off on repeal, for obvious personal tax reasons).
HB10-1198, Suspend Credit Alternative Minimum Tax (Ferrandino/Heath), postponed.
HB10-1199, Net Operation Loss Deduction Temp Limit (Ferrandino/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Reducing the ability of businesses to write off losses just when they might be recovering delays their ability to invest, create jobs and generate revenue. Penny wise, pound foolish?
HB10-1200, Enterprise Zone Investment Tax Credit Deferral (Hullinghorst/Heath), 5/7/2010. Deferring income tax credits on enterprise zone investments has, unsurprisingly, reduced the willingness of potential investors to… well, invest – further slowing economic recovery.
The preceding list was a short summary of the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills; space precludes more detail, but interested readers can learn more at http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/ (search on keywords “Dirty Dozen”, “Amazon Tax”, “Candy Tax”, “Doggy Bag Tax” and others).
Matt Arnold is currently the executive director and primary spokesman for the grassroots effort to restore accountability to Colorado’s judiciary, Clear The Bench Colorado. Matt launched the effort following the Colorado Supreme Court’s violation of the Colorado Constitution, citizen’s rights under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), and their duty to uphold the rule of law in the infamous “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case. Since April 2009, Matt has tirelessly sought to educate Colorado voters of their right to demand accountability of our Supreme Court justices in the November 2010 retention elections, which (although falling short of removing the three anti-constitutional incumbents on the ballot, achieved the highest percentage of “NO” votes for sitting “Supremes” in the history of the state- on a shoestring budget and no organized support).
Clear The Bench Colorado wins opening rounds in legal battle over “Know Your Judge” campaign finance law violations
As reported in Friday’s Face The State (“Judge clears the way for Clear the Bench“),
plaintiff Clear the Bench Colorado (CTBC) has won some key battles in its effort to prove that a consortium of groups behind the Know Your Judge website constituted a political committee that failed to comply with laws governing spending and electioneering.
Last week, an administrative law judge denied a motion by Know Your Judge to quash CTBC’s subpoenas and another motion seeking a protective order limiting the amount of discovery in the case.
The victory is all the more remarkable because the case against the “Know Your Judge” consortium is being argued by a non-attorney: CTBC’s citizen-soldier Director Matt Arnold. Despite a litany of legal maneuvering and a barrage of legal briefs filed by the high-powered (and highly-paid) attorneys representing the legal-establishment special-interest groups making up the “Know Your Judge” Campaign, it was CTBC’s clear, concise reasoning that won the day:
Know Your Judge, which is represented by a team of lawyers – including former Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll – said in its motion to quash that the subpoenas were irrelevant, unreasonable and overly broad.
CTBC’s Response Brief demonstrated otherwise, laying out the grounds for requested discovery (getting the facts, which KYJ’s defense attorneys attempted to suppress) and the judge agreed:
Judge Judith Schulman was unconvinced by Know Your Judge’s motions, writing that “intent clearly is a relevant factor in establishing the elements of CTBC’s claim that Respondents constituted a political committee.” She also denied the defendants motion for a protective order, noting they’d failed to show that the records requested under subpoena contained any “privileged or private information that requires special protection.”
Although the legal game is far from over, at the end of the first period of play, so far it’s Underdog: 2, Big Bad Lawyers: 0
Score another one for the underdog!
As the Face The State article notes:
The matter is currently scheduled for a hearing Feb. 23. If the complaint is upheld, the defendants can be levied fines of $50 per day for late reporting, plus two to five times the amount of contributions. The latter fine would equal between $170,000 and $425,000.
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.
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold interviewed on Rob McNealy Show
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discussed the Colorado judicial accountability effort in 2010 (and beyond) on the Rob McNealy show, Thursday 13 January 2011.
(Listen to the podcast here – the segment starts at the 47:00 minute mark)
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.
Colorado State of the Judiciary: “lean and efficient” courts or “Judicial Hellhole?”
Newly appointed Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender (who was retained in office by the most narrow margin in Colorado history for an incumbent state supreme court justice along with his colleague, and ideological ally, Alex Martinez) delivered his first “State of the Judiciary” address before a joint session of the Colorado General Assembly on Friday, 11 January.
(Highlights and full text of the address were published Monday (14 January) by Law Week Colorado, “Colo. Judicial Branch Lean, Efficient Says Chief Justice In State Of Judiciary Address“)
Unsurprisingly, Chief Justice Bender painted a rosy (and self-serving) picture of the state of Colorado’s judicial branch, touting the successes of some specialty courts (a veterans’ court in El Paso County, and a truancy court in Pueblo County) along with some personnel and administrative efficiencies achieved statewide. Bender even went so far as to claim credit for the judiciary having “helped balance the state budget” through various cost-cutting measures, and went on to claim that Colorado “continues to lead the nation in court technology applications” such as a new “statewide e-filing system for all cases” designed to increase efficiency and “yield additional revenue.” (Since when is “yielding additional revenue” a function of the courts?) Oh, and speaking of revenue – he was able to get in a plug for the new $258M judicial complex financed by a combination of debt (er, “not-debt”) and new “fees.”
Although the listed accomplishments are laudable achievements, they amount to somewhat superficial marginalia – not quite as trivial as tinkering with the deck chairs on the Titanic, but rather missing the point on the primary function of the courts: upholding the rule of law.
A more accurate assessment of the actual state of Colorado’s judiciary in that regard was contained in the American Tort Reform Association’s annual “Judicial Hellholes” report for 2010, released just last month. The report lists Colorado as one of only three state supreme courts nationwide to qualify for the dubious “honor” of being declared a “judicial hellhole” (Colorado joins Michigan and perennial favorite West Virginia in being so recognized).
“Traditionally, Judicial Hellholes have been considered places where civil judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally against defendants in civil lawsuits,” explains ATRA general counsel Victor Schwartz. “The jurisdictions we name as Judicial Hellholes each year are not the only unfair courts in the nation, but they are among the most unfair, based on our survey of litigants and considerable independent research.”
Actions speak louder than words; and although Bender’s speech gives lip service to the primacy of the rule of law, his actions on the bench have demonstrated the opposite. Indeed, Bender has been one of the most egregious perpetrators of putting personal views (his own) above the letter of the law.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Justice Bender opened his remarks with reference to our 2nd President:
As John Adams, one of our founding fathers, said we are a government of laws, not men.
“. . . that a form of government which unites all virtue . . . in a reverence and obedience to the laws, is the only one in which liberty can be secure, and all orders and ranks compelled to prefer the public good before their own; that is the government for which we plead.”
Adams’ point rings true today — to have a government that secures liberty and freedom, all branches of the government must be obedient to the law.
Yes, Justice Bender; ALL branches of the government.
To paraphrase another great president, “I knew John Adams… John Adams is my great-great-great-something grandfather [Ed. on my mother's side; true fact] and you’re no John Adams.”
Have you no shame, sir?
Such contrast between rhetoric and reality; the true “State of the Judiciary” in Colorado.
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. (Perhaps not coincidentally, Justice Bender sits on the board of one of the defendant groups). 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 of those 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.