CPN Debate Heats Up

My previous post, "When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase?...Only in Castle Pines North" has generated a number of comments. One particularly pertinent exchange is reprinted here.

Anonymous said...
Too bad your interpretation does not agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, which is clear that Questions 2D and 2E are NOT tax increases. Doug Bruce tried to convince the Court of your interpretation and was told by that he was legally off base and wrong. After that he went on to kick reporters!

Jeffrey Huff said...
The Colorado Supreme Court has never rendered an opinion on 2D or 2E. The 2006 case you refer to, "Bruce v. Colorado Springs," dealt with a different set of facts. The court attempted to resolve whether a “tax extension” is a “tax increase” in the context of TABOR.

In that case the court found that the issue did not "substantively change the existing sales and use tax OR ITS PROPOSED USE OF THE REVENUE." While the extension lengthened the time period of the tax, it directed the tax revenue to the SAME EXPENDITURES approved by the voters in the original ballot proposal.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Coats noted, "I believe the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “tax increase,” in context, must include the “extension of an expiring tax,” and that the clear intent of TABOR is not only to require voter approval for such an extension but also to PROVIDE THE VOTERS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A RATIONAL CHOICE."

The tax measure proposed here in CPN anticipates a new tax levied by the City with a corresponding offset from an expiring tax from the Metro District. The ballot question in Colorado Springs clearly noted that the issue involved a "tax extension" while the CPN ballot language does not. I believe the Colorado Supreme Court could reach an entirtely different conclusion under these circumstances.

Anonymous said...
The logic you use to say this is a tax increase bases itself on whether there is a continuation of a tax. Sure seems like an extension to me. BTW dissenting opinions are not law. The majority of the court said that questions like 2D ad 2E are NOT tax increases. That is the law of the land. Is that not binding on this group?

Jeffrey Huff said...
Yes, dissenting opinions are not law. But they are the basis for measuring the commitment of a court's opinion to a particular view. The dissenting opinion may rise to majority status with the election of new judges or the application of the same principles to a new set of facts.

The majority of the Court in the Colorado Springs case ruled on the facts of that case alone. Certainly, you can argue that the same rational should be applied here in CPN. However, 2D and 2E present an entirely different set of facts and courts may interpret the constitutional requirements differently.

Finally, the law of the land applies to all who live under its jurisdiction. I write for myself and my readers, not a group. My opinions are mine alone, not those of any organization, PAC, or government entity. Ronald Reagan said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." Citizens of CPN should heed his advice.