stealth tax increase
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.
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.
Colorado Senate kills bill to repeal unconstitutional ‘Amazon Tax’ – one of ten “Dirty Dozen” tax increases held over from 2010
“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.
Another One Bites the Dust? Unpopular ‘Amazon Tax’ may be 3rd of the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases to be repealed this year
“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.
Friday Funnies: Colorado Supreme Court promotes lawlessness
A rash of recent thefts may have been inspired by a Colorado Supreme Court ruling…
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ‘Gang of Four’ under their ringleader Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who’s skipping town rather than face justice in November) have gotten away with a series of crimes against our Constitution over the last few years, including:
- ‘Mill Levy Tax Freeze‘ property tax increase (“Freeze!” Property tax, reach for the sky!)
- ‘Dirty Dozen‘ tax increases (2010) and the 2009 tobacco tax increase (“Hand over your Tax Credits & Exemptions“)
- ‘Colorado Car Tax’ (It ain’t a mugging – er, tax; it’s a “fee”)
- ‘Telluride Land Grab’ (What’s yours isn’t yours if WE say so)
- ‘Mary-Mandering’ legislative districts (grabbing redistricting power from the legislature, where it belongs)
The crime spree isn’t over yet; the ‘Gang of Four’ is targeting yet more tax increases and has gun rights in their sights, too.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s rampant lawlessness has apparently inspired other, more petty crimes. Recently, your uncaped crusader for justice was the victim of such a crime: my license plate was stolen (right off my car!)
How is this petty crime linked to the Colorado Supreme Court, you ask?
As I discovered this morning when at the DMV to obtain replacement plates, such thefts are far from rare; indeed, there has apparently been a rash of such thefts, since the Colorado Car Tax (er, vehicle registration “fee” increase – brought to you courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court) went into effect a year ago. Most of the thefts seem to be inspired by the desire to avoid the punitive “late fees” – an over $31.5 Million ‘Highway Robbery’ aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Unintended consequences?
Criminologists (and parents) know that if bad behavior goes unpunished, it will only get worse.
Colorado has seen an intensifying pattern of bad behavior by our state supreme court over the last ten years of the Mullarkey Majority’s reign. Colorado Citizens have the right – indeed, we have the duty – to hold those behaving badly accountable, at the ballot box.
Don’t let them get away with continued bad behavior – exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, now 3) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice; soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax (er, “fee”) increases, your right to defend your home and business from being taken away through abuse of eminent domain, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO“ vote against retaining these incumbent unjust justices in office for another 10 years!
Colorado Supreme Court prepares additional assault on taxpayer rights, hearing another stealth tax increase case
Colorado taxpayers have taken a real beating over the last several years, courtesy of several Colorado Supreme Court rulings which have set aside the clear language of the Colorado Constitution (Article X, Section 20 – the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) to enable a series of unconstitutional tax increases by other names; some of the most prominent examples:
- ‘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)
Another assault on taxpayer rights – and a potential blow to local governments, since the state government is proposing to take revenue away from localities – is brewing with the Colorado Supreme Court’s announcement Monday that it will review (and potentially reverse) the finding of the Colorado Court of Appeals that a severance-tax increase violates the Colorado Constitution (Article X, Section 20 – the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights). As announced on the Law Week Colorado website yesterday (Monday) (“Colorado Supreme Court Will Hear Coal-Severance Tax Case“),
The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will review the Court of Appeals’ February decision that the state’s coal-severance tax violates the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR. The case was a rare win in the appellate courts for TABOR.
It would be an even rarer win for Colorado taxpayers (in fact, it would be unprecedented – since the current Mullarkey Majority has NEVER found in favor of taxpayer’s rights despite the clear language of the Colorado Constitution (Article X, Section 20 – the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) in over a dozen major cases) if the Colorado Supreme Court does not overturn the lower court.
It would continue a pattern of politicized rulings by the incumbent majority on the Colorado Supreme Court overturning lower courts who faithfully apply the law and support the Constitution, as written. The lower court (Colorado Court of Appeals) got it right; outgoing Judge Sean Connelly (a recent – 2008 – Ritter appointee who is returning to private practice, one of several well-qualified, non-political judicial appointments the governor has made, to his credit) issued a superbly clear and concise opinion (which, as the Law Week article pointed out, could be essentially reduced to a few simple sentences):
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 simple, even a caveman could understand it.
Unfortunately, the Mullarkey Majority on the Colorado Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated a more sophisticated view of the Colorado Constitution – redefining clear language and twisting logic to reach a pre-determined outcome in pursuit of a personal, political agenda. The incumbent majority has demonstrated time and again that it is less interested in upholding the law (acting as fair and impartial referees, the proper role of a judge) than in advancing an agenda (as players, supporting their ‘team’).
Ironically (or perhaps not so ironically, given the role on the Supreme Court Nominating Commission played by retiring Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November), the lead attorney in advocating for the violation of taxpayer’s rights in this case is none other than:
Deputy Attorney General Monica Marquez, one of three finalists for the upcoming vacancy on the state Supreme Court, [who] handled Court of Appeals briefing and oral arguments for the state.
Marquez has actively advocated on several occasions against Colorado taxpayers; in addition to this case, she also argued that “fees” are not taxes in the Barber v. Ritter case, advocated in favor of the 2003 judicial takeover of legislative redistricting authority in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case, and has sought to restrict the 1st Amendment rights of citizens seeking to address ballot issues in recent and ongoing cases. If appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court, she would likely have to spend a considerable portion of her first term (the ‘probationary’ initial 2-year term for any new judge) recusing herself from many cases coming before the court (or be guilty of massive conflict of interest).
We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected and appointed – accountable. Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice – soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
No More Secrecy in Colorado Supreme Court judicial hiring
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…”
We find ourselves in rare agreement with the Denver Post’s editorial board, as they seek greater transparency in the hiring process for government officials, calling for “No More Secrecy in Aurora hiring.”
But if “closed-door meetings to interview city manager candidates” is “disheartening” to the Denver Post editorial board, what of the similarly closed-door process for evaluating potential nominees to the Colorado Supreme Court, who will exert exponentially greater power over ALL of Colorado citizens, not just the residents of a single city?
A common critique of Colorado’s system of “merit selection & retention” for judges is the lack of transparency in commission deliberations (both during front-end judicial selection, and in back-end judicial performance review and retention) and lack of meaningful opportunity for public participation and comment. This lack of transparency leads to a lack of public confidence in our judiciary and ultimately to a lack of accountability for the increasingly active and powerful Third Branch of our government.
Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.
In sports, referees who violate the rules and demonstrate a consistent bias for one team lose their jobs.
In government, because Colorado Supreme Court justices wield so much power, the stakes are much more important than an athletic contest – or the hiring of a city manager for Aurora.
Of course, the biggest political “players” (especially in the ‘legal establishment’) are well aware of this – they naturally prefer the closed-door, non-transparent, unaccountable, political insider-dominated process that allows them enormous influence behind the scenes.
We call upon the Denver Post editorial board to demonstrate some integrity and consistency in their position, and join Clear The Bench Colorado in requesting that the state Supreme Court Nominating Commission (meeting Monday and Tuesday behind closed doors, with NO opportunity for public review or input) release the names and relevant background of the 31 applicants to replace outgoing Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who opted to retire rather than face the voters in the upcoming November elections to fight for another 10-year term in office).
We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected and appointed – accountable. Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice – soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Statewide Survey Results Show Overwhelming Discontent With Incumbent Colorado Supreme Court Justices
The results are in from the first scientific, statewide survey on the Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the November ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice).
Survey Results Show Overwhelming Discontent With Incumbent Colorado Supreme Court Justices
ALL THREE JUSTICES REJECTED BY 78% OR BETTER
Made aware of the anti-taxpayer decisions of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the November ballot, an overwhelming majority of the state’s likely voters say they will opt against retaining the justices for another 10-year term.
A survey conducted this week by Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies statistically validates the huge impact and overwhelming resonance of the Clear the Bench Colorado message of judicial accountability with the voters of this state.
The Colorado Supreme Court justices up for voter retention are Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice.”
The following are the topline results of an autodial survey of 874 likely general election voters in the state of Colorado, conducted the evening of 16 August 2010. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.31% at the 95 percent confidence interval, and was weighted based upon voter turnout demographics from the 2008, 2006, 2004 and 2002 general election cycles.
When asked, “Did you know that Colorado voters have the right to vote “NO” on retaining incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices in office?” voters answered 68% YES.
When asked, “Did you know that three Colorado Supreme Court justices, Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice, are seeking another 10-year term in office in the November election?” voters answered 65% NO.
When asked, “If you were to cast your ballot today, would you vote to retain incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice Michael Bender in office for another 10-year term?” voters answered 79% NO.
When asked, “If you were to cast your ballot today, would you vote to retain incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice Alex Martinez in office for another 10-year term?” voters answered 78% NO.
When asked, “If you were to cast your ballot today, would you vote to retain incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justice Nancy Rice in office for another 10-year term?” voters answered 78% NO.
Colorado voters of all ages, ethnicities, gender, and party affiliation in all regions of the state (complete demographic breakdown and crosstabs of survey results available as a separate file) reject these three particular Colorado Supreme Court justices due to a consistent pattern of ruling against what the Colorado Constitution provides. Thanks to the increased attention focused on the way that these ‘unjust justices’ have violated the public trust and enabled the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens to be set aside, the electorate is waking up to their right to vote “NO” on retaining these incumbents in office for another 10-year term.
Clear The Bench, Colorado!
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org
Survey Methodology
This survey was conducted using automated telephone touch tone technology. The sample was randomly drawn from a Colorado voter file among households with a representative mix of demographics (Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Political Affiliation) statewide. The sample included 894 respondents, distributed as follows:
- Gender: 53% Female, 47% Male
- Age: 18-34 (12%), 35-44 (16%), 45-54 (23%), 55-64 (24%), 65+ (25%
- Ethnicity: White (83%), Hispanic/Latino (11%), Black/African American (4%), Other (2%)
- Party Affiliation: Republican (39%), Democrat (34%), Unaffiliated/Other (27%)
(Full crosstabs available as a separate attachment)
About Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies
Magellan CEO David Flaherty has extensive experience in survey research, and applying political data and technology to political campaign decision-making gained throughouthis18yearcareerat the Republican National Committee, the U.S. House of Representatives, and public affairs firms specializing in influencing public opinion. The Magellan team has extensive knowledge constructing and building voter registration databases, performing data analysis, applying GIS mapping technology, conducting quantitative live and automated survey research, predictive modeling analysis, and redistricting technology. Visit MagellanStrategies.com for more information.
Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who’s retiring rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!
Colorado Supreme Court building demolished to “make room” for brand-new $258M judicial complex (the “Mullarkey Monument”?)
“Out with the old, in with the new” - or perhaps more appropriately in this case, “The Queen is dead – Long Live the Queen!”
Sunday’s demolition of the Colorado Supreme Court building to “make room” for a vast, sprawling new “judicial complex” of truly palatial proportions was heralded on the front page of Monday’s Denver Post under the headline “Make Room For Justice!”
Aside from the (admittedly spectacular) pictures accompanying the front-page headline, the Denver Post also ran a story inside (“Denver & The West” section – Colorado judicial building puts on show, disappears). Interestingly enough, although the Post article mentioned the cost of the demolition ($850,000) it completely failed to mention the cost of the replacement “judicial complex” (possibly out of concern for the sensibilities of the Post’s largest paying tenant – the Colorado Supreme Court is paying the Denver Newspaper Agency $1.6 Million per year over the next three years for their temporary ‘digs’ while the new complex is constructed).
Fortunately, other media sources DID mention the cost of the new complex (in fact, EVERY other media source surveyed at least mentioned the cost of the new complex). From the media websites:
KWGN/KDVR (Denver 2, 31): (Former Colorado Judicial building imploded, new judicial complex planned)
The space makes way for the $258 million, 600,000-sq-ft. Ralph L. Carr Judicial Complex.
CBS (Denver Channel 4): (“Crowds Gather To Say Goodbye To Landmark“)
The new building will cost $258 million.
NBC (9News.com): (“Parents take children to marvel at Colorado Judicial Building demolition“)
Construction for the new $258 million judicial complex has already started at 14th Avenue and Broadway. It is going to be 600,000 square feet, and will house the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, along with a number of other agencies.
Seems like the amount of money being ponied up by Colorado citizens might be a relevant datum, wouldn’t you think?
“Make Room for Justice” or “Justice Held For Ransom?”
Unfortunately, NONE of the news coverage provided any information on just where all of this money to fund this massive new “judicial complex” is coming from (ultimately, of course, from your pockets – but the details are interesting).
Part of the funding for the project (authorized back during the 2008 legislative session under SB08-206 State Justice Center) comes from an unprecedented expansion in use of “Certificates of Participation” (in the words of a state legislator who shall remain nameless, “debt pretending not to be debt”). In fact, the legislative language specifies that the debt is simply re-defined as ‘not-debt’ by declaring that
the obligations shall not be deemed or construed as creating an indebtedness of the state within the meaning of any provision of the state constitution or the laws of the state of Colorado concerning or limiting the creation of indebtedness by the state of Colorado and shall not constitute a multiple fiscal-year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of the state within the meaning of section 20 (4) of article X of the state constitution. [SB08-206, Section 2, (2) (b), page 5]
Last summer, Colorado Treasurer Cary Kennedy was so proud of the ‘not-debt’ incurred to finance the construction of the new judicial complex (and new state history museum) that she trumpeted the great ‘success’ in a press release:
The successful financing of over $338 million in Certificates of Participation earlier today to build the new Colorado History Center and the Ralph L. Carr Justice Complex completed one of the largest sales of Build America Bonds to date, announced State Treasurer Cary Kennedy
The extensive use of Certificates of Participation as a funding mechanism to finance construction of the Colorado Judicial Complex is even more interesting in the context of the state treasurer’s race and a ballot initiative to limit government borrowing both being on the ballot this year.
“Crazy on Court Fees”
However, by far the greatest proportion of funding for the new judicial complex comes in the form of increasing the cost of access to justice by Colorado citizens due to substantial increases (including the creation of an entirely new category – the “Justice Center Fund” fee) in court fees.
Want to file a case in civil court, defend yourself against a claim, petition to change your name, or request a civil protection order? It’ll cost you an extra $37 for the “Justice Center Fund” – per filing. Small claims court filings? An extra $11 for the “Justice Center Fund”, thank you.
Oh, and that’s just in your local county court – which may be hundreds of miles away from the yet-to-be-built “Mullarkey Monument” (actually, even the legislature reportedly balked at naming the center after Mullarkey when some legislators dug in their heels and insisted upon another name; honoring former Republican Governor Ralph L. Carr – truly, a principled politician – but naming the center after him is a rather ironic twist). Need access to justice at the District Court level or higher? Be prepared to cough up even more in “fees” for the ”Justice Center Fund” – most actions in District Court now cost an additional $68 for the fund, some as much as another $136 or even $204 each, at any of the various District Courts (22 in all) across Colorado, still miles from the as-yet unbuilt Colorado Judicial Complex.
Even “domestic relations” cases across the state are now more expensive thanks to the ”Justice Center Fund” fees – legal separation, annulment, divorce will each cost another $26; child custody registration or child support order, another $15 just for financing the construction of the massive new judicial complex.
Death in the family? That’ll cost you extra, too – another $15 ”Justice Center Fund” fee for probate filings, estate fees, conservatorship, etc. etc. Anywhere in the state – all of Colorado now enjoys the privilege of contributing to this marvelous new edifice.
Even an “insufficient funds” return check fee for court payments (already $40, which is double what any private entity is allowed to charge) gets another $10 fee tacked on for the ”Justice Center Fund” (truly adding insult to injury).
Need to fight a case up to a higher court? Pretty much ANY actions at the Colorado Court of Appeals now costs an additional $68 fee for that ”Justice Center Fund.” Water Court? Same story – almost every activity listed incurs an additional $68 for the ”Justice Center Fund” (some activities, such as applying for Change of Water Right or Plan for Augmentation, cost double – $136).
Ironically, the ONLY court where you WON’T have to pay an extra ”Justice Center Fund” fee to pursue justice? You guessed it – the Colorado Supreme Court, who’s “home” is being financed by all these “fees” in the first place.
(View the full list of Colorado Court Fees – featuring the ”Justice Center Fund” fee)
It has been said that “if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” Since “fees” are only supposed to be charged to offset the cost of providing or administering a voluntarily accessed good or service, the proliferation of new “fees” to finance the construction of palatial new digs for the Colorado Supreme Court – holding the administration of justice at county and District courts across the state hostage to this massive new monument to judicial supremacy – is questionable at best, particularly at a time when state resources are already strained and Colorado Citizens are being forced to cut back on personal spending. Aren’t we supposed to be asked before the government in Colorado can take more of our hard-earned dollars? Perhaps that’s why the Mullarkey Majority’s decision in the 2008 Barber v. Ritter “Fees aren’t really taxes” case – expanding the use of “fees” by government entities across the state as a means of evading constitutional protections against tax increases – has the taint of self-interest.
Don’t let Justice continue to be held for ransom – exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, now 3) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s incumbent “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice; soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who’s retiring rather than face the voters ) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax (er, “fee”) increases, your right to defend your home and business from seizure by governments abusing eminent domain, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with comments (Sound Off!), contributions, and spreading the word about your right to vote “NO” against retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10 years!