House Finance advances resolution asking courts to decide TABOR’s constitutionality after hours of testimony

The House Finance Committee voted to advance House Joint Resolution 10-23 to Committee on Appropriations after an extensive, contentious hearing featuring dozens of witnesses on both sides. The resolution directs the General Assembly to authorize the Committee on Legal Services to retain counsel and file suit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, known as TABOR).

Sponsors Representative Javier Camacho and Representative Rob Garcia framed the measure as a narrow legal question: whether TABOR’s limits on legislative taxing and spending authority effectively deny the state a republican form of government as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. “This resolution does not repeal TABOR. It does not raise taxes,” Representative Camacho told the committee. “It asks only for a court to answer a constitutional question that has been avoided by the courts for decades.”

Proponents included school districts, counties, public-health and nonprofit coalitions, child-care and housing advocates, and many legal scholars who argued that TABOR has forced Colorado into an unusual, rigid fiscal structure that diverts decision-making from elected representatives to ballot campaigns, sometimes producing conflicting or siloed fiscal measures. “TABOR is not just a budget problem; it is a democracy problem,” Representative Garcia told the committee in opening remarks.

Opponents — including a large group of taxpayers, small-business and taxpayer advocacy groups, and several local government officials — said the proposal is an unnecessary attack on a voter-approved constitutional limitation on government power. “This isn’t just a policy fight. It’s a battle for the soul of Colorado’s democracy,” said Michael Vance of the Libertarian Party of Colorado. Other opponents warned that the litigation would be costly, would create legal uncertainty, and would attempt to overturn the will of voters who have repeatedly rejected TABOR repeal measures at the ballot box.

Legal experts familiar with the prior federal litigation in Kerr v. Hickenlooper explained that the prior long-running federal case ended on procedural grounds related to standing and did not reach the merits. Supporters argued that a state court case brought in the name of the General Assembly could give the courts a direct opportunity to reach the merits.

Testimony lasted for hours; witnesses included former members of Congress and the state legislature, county commissioners, educators, legal scholars, business groups, and many individual Coloradans. After lengthy debate on policy and constitutionality, the committee voted 9-4 to send the resolution on to the appropriations committee, allowing legal counsel and possible litigation planning to proceed.

What the resolution does not do: it does not change policy, levy taxes, or remove any provision of TABOR. It instructs the General Assembly’s legal service committee to consider suit; any litigation would proceed in state court and be subject to normal judicial review.

Vote: House Finance advanced HJR 10-23 to Appropriations by 9-4.

Speakers: Representative Javier Camacho (sponsor), Representative Rob Garcia (co-prime), David Skaggs (former member of Congress, 1 of the attorneys formerly involved in Kerr litigation), Kathy White (Colorado Fiscal Institute), Kevin Vick (Colorado Education Association), dozens of local advocates and private citizens.

Authorities: The resolution asks courts to analyze Article IV Section 4 (republican form of government) in relation to Article X Section 20 (TABOR). No statutory or policy change occurs as a result of the committee action.

Actions: Committee motion: Move HJR 10-23 as amended to the committee on appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Mover: Representative Javier Camacho. Second: Representative Stewart. Tally: 9 yes, 4 no. Outcome: Approved and referred to Appropriations.

Ending: The resolution creates a procedural path for the General Assembly to seek judicial clarification; any wider policy change would require future legislative action or a citizen ballot measure.