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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

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.

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.

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.

“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 4^th 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).

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.

(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.