TABOR--Rhymes With Shaffer!

18 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

The Colorado Republican House Majority and Senate Minority have sent a joint letter to Senate President Brandon Shaffer, asking him to convene a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council in response to the lawsuit recently filed attacking the constitutionality of the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR):

The letter that Shaffer, who chairs the Executive Committee of Legislative Council, received from Speaker of the House Frank McNulty, House Majority Leader Amy Stephens and Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, states:

“The proponents of the lawsuit claim that requiring prior voter approval of any tax increase violates the core principles of representative government and is therefore unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. We believe that the right of Colorado voters to approve or reject any tax increase is clearly appropriate.”

McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, said, “Legislative leaders need an open discussion to decide whether we are going to defend the will of Colorado’s voters, or take away the important taxpayer protections in our state Constitution.”

“Elected officials should be fighting for working families and small businesses, not looking for new ways to raid their pocket books,” said Stephens of Monument…

First of all, there’s very little question that Shaffer will convene this meeting as requested by the Republicans–we haven’t heard yet, but it’s entirely likely he already has and they’re just working out the schedules. It will of course be an opportunity to get prospective congressional candidate Shaffer on the record regarding the TABOR lawsuit, beyond which it’s not really clear what the legislature can do about the case other than grouse for or against. Hopefully they’ll stick to the subject instead of devolving into more proxy running of interference for Cory Gardner.

Which reminds us, are we the only ones who have noticed how many press releases about Shaffer the state-funded House and Senate GOP press offices are churning out these days? A little of that is expected, but it’s getting a bit thick. Can somebody consult the rules about this?

In any event, the lawsuit against TABOR now underway does make a rather fundamental assertion about the role of direct democracy under the Constitution, and as intended by the Founders. The question for the court to decide is not whether citizens have the right to an initiative process where state constitutions provide for it, but whether certain laws passed under that right–in this case, TABOR in Colorado–have so far restricted the ability of their representative government to function that it amounts to an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority. And by extension, representative government itself.

As Exhibit A, the powerlessness of the state to meet basic mandated needs like education, transportation, and health care in the slightest economic downturn. Why was it necessary for the legislature to hunt down so many favored small-fry tax exemptions for business, or abrogate another constitutional provision, Amendment 23, or any of the one-time “gimmicks” and other forms of balance-sheet “trickery” Republicans bemoan year after year? Why does this state consistently rank near the very bottom for funding of so many core functions of government?

Answer: in 1992, the voters of Colorado, rightly or perhaps wrongly, decided that from then on, our elected leaders should not have the authority to solve these problems. And while that may make Frank McNulty’s job nice and easy as a legislator, we’ll be very interested to see if a court finds that the Founding Fathers…expected a little more of him.

18 thoughts on “TABOR–Rhymes With Shaffer!”

ArapaGOP says:

June 3, 2011 at 2:29 am

Good stenography of the proponents weird and authoritarian case, but there is absolutely nothing about TABOR that prevents the legislature from doing its job. Why were there no referred tax hikes to the ballot?

Because those legislators know how their constituents feel about higher taxes. And they want to keep their jobs.

In my opinion, TABOR is one of the most ideologically American laws ever written. If you want more of my money, please ask first. I might even say yes.

Log in to Reply
1. thiokuutoo says:
  
  June 3, 2011 at 2:57 am
  
  Let’s see, the legislature cannot raise or lower taxes to meet state needs. The job of the elected representatives is to run the state – that includes making fiscal decisions. TABOR removed each of those from the legislature.
  
  Do you have any more silly and out of reality questions?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. ArapaGOP says:
    
    June 3, 2011 at 3:43 am
    
    I do believe they can lower taxes all they want.
    
    Why is it so hard to ask the voters to raise them?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Ralphie says:
      
      June 3, 2011 at 4:07 am
      
      The State budget needs to balance.
      
      But if you know this little about Colorado civics, maybe you went to school here during the Owens or post-Owens eras.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. MADCO says:
  
  June 3, 2011 at 6:27 pm
  
  1-3: no answers
  
  #4
  
  Log in to Reply
Mark G. says:

June 3, 2011 at 4:02 am

Why is the outcome of direct vote different than that of a representative vote?

I thought they were representatives?

I think what happens is as follows,

Lobbyist rule the day!

Log in to Reply
1. droll says:
  
  June 3, 2011 at 4:18 am
  
  That very good, a great description of the issue. We vote for representatives who make decisions for us. If we don’t like their decisions, be they about gay marriage, school assessments, or tax increases, we simply vote the bums out of office. That’s how a representative democracy works.
  
  It’s actually our representatives who represent us. Let’s let them do their jobs. Glad you agree.
  
  Now, what lobbyists are ruling this particular day? Most lobbyists represent companies that don’t want to pay more in taxes. Could you clarify that statement for me, please?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Ralphie says:
    
    June 3, 2011 at 4:50 am
    
    So, No.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Tom says:
    
    June 3, 2011 at 1:52 pm
    
    maybe we’ll finally see the end of term limits. With a few exceptions, legislators come from the private sector without much knowledge of how government or governing works. That leaves the system open to manipulation by lobbyists and think tanks that have the longtime experience to steamroll the unfortunately naive lawmakers from both parties. At the very least, the permanent legislative staff will be due a funding increase as the entire question of revenue becomes something that legislators are expected to address on a regular basis.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. MADCO says:
      
      June 3, 2011 at 6:29 pm
      
      I should get to vote for whomever I want as often as I want.
      
      Log in to Reply
Phoenix Rising says:

June 3, 2011 at 5:44 am

We’ve been over the TABOR != republican form of government argument already, with a consensus (I think) that it was going to be a tough argument to make, in a court environment that seems predisposed to allowing the state governments themselves to determine what “republican” means. Can we pretty much leave it at that?

Log in to Reply
1. droll says:
  
  June 3, 2011 at 5:53 am
  
  The GOP wants to get Shaffer on the record as hating voters. Like repealing Obamacare, the voter will must be recognized! Not raided.
  
  Or something. Anyway, your view on the current court system need not apply to this discussion. Just answer the question, nasty liberal (regardless of what you actually think of the case, or its merit): Why do you hate Colorado voters? (Am I doing this right?)
  
  Log in to Reply
2. BlueCat says:
  
  June 3, 2011 at 6:12 pm
  
  Besides I have always strongly suspected that legislators, in the contemporary political atmosphere, love having as many tough decisions taken out of their hands as possible. The more they give up power as representatives on issues that threaten to alienate significant portions of their constituents to direct democracy, the greater their ability to escape responsibility and blame.
  
  Yes, TABOR has restricted their ability as our representatives in a representative government to perform their function and exercise the legislative authority we supposedly delegated to them by electing them. Yes this negates the core principle of representative government itself. But there is little will among the majority of our elected representatives to restore sanity because they know they will be made to pay with accusations of being enemies of the people and of democracy.
  
  Funny how, not so long ago, every single right wing talking head and columnist would correct anyone who called the US a democracy, pointing out how we are no such thing and how our founding fathers expressly opposed mob rule democracy in favor of a Republic.
  
  Would love to have a nickel for every one of the nearly countless times Mike Rosen corrected callers on this point back when I used to listen to him to keep abreast of conservative views. Don’t need to anymore since they all now stick to exactly the same talking points so we know what they think without the aggravation of listening. Don’t count on any of them to remember the disdain with which they used to view “democracy” now that its about TABOR.
  
  Log in to Reply
abraham says:

June 3, 2011 at 6:00 am

Nothing new in all this. Been talked about for more than 20 years – even predates TABOR when we had a series of unsuccessful ballot measures.

I doubt seriously whether the federal courts are going to trash TABOR over an esoteric argument of a republican form government. The power rests with the consent of the governed. The governed can use elected representatives or the ballot – it’s the call of the governed.

If the court has to look at the history of the state and local budgets under TABOR, it will also have to acknowledge that there were surpluses that were returned to the taxpayers in pre-recession years.

On the other hand, if the plaintiffs win the republican form of government argument, then the whole Obama Care law is in jeopardy because it will run smack against the federal system of a republican form of government that actually reserves a lot of autonomy to the states. Plaintiffs might not like how a favorable decision would play out in other venues.

Log in to Reply
ohwilleke says:

June 4, 2011 at 7:03 am

and I don’t think that it will prevail. I suspect that it will be dismissed on the pleadings and that an appeal of that ruling will not be successful either.

Sooner or later we are going to reach a point where the legislature is overconstrained and it is literally impossible to craft a constitutional budget. Then, TABOR may very well be suspended by the courts, at least until that conundrum ends.

Log in to Reply
1. JeffcoBlue says:
  
  June 5, 2011 at 11:52 pm
  
  Sooner or later we are going to reach a point where the legislature is overconstrained and it is literally impossible to craft a constitutional budget.
  
  This already happened, didn’t it?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. ohwilleke says:
    
    June 8, 2011 at 9:34 pm
    
    Log in to Reply
2. JeffcoBlue says:
  
  June 5, 2011 at 11:52 pm
  
  Sooner or later we are going to reach a point where the legislature is overconstrained and it is literally impossible to craft a constitutional budget.
  
  This already happened, didn’t it?
  
  Log in to Reply