Proponents seek constitutional cap to keep Colorado income tax at 4.4%

Proponents of proposed initiative measure 20252026, number 214, told legislative review staff that the measurewould limit Coloradoindividual and corporate income tax rates to 4.4%. Elizabeth Ramey of the Legislative Council Staff opened the review and invited the Office of Legislative Legal Services and the proponents to clarify the measureproposal's scope and timing.

"The major purpose of the proposed amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes appears to be the limit the state's income tax rate for individuals and corporations to 4.4%," said Jed Franklin of the Office of Legislative Legal Services. Proponents Suzanne Taheri (proponent) and Michael Fields (proponent) confirmed that description and said they would consider adding language to clarify effective dates and tax-year applicability.

Why it matters: under current statute citations discussed at the hearing (as cited by staff), the rate is set at 4.4% but the transcript and staff flagged ambiguity about whether a successful initiative should specify which tax year the cap first applies to and how it interacts with any later ballot measure that would raise rates. Staff advised adding an applicability clause if the proponents intend the cap to apply beginning with a particular tax year rather than immediately upon the governor's proclamation.

Staff asked a series of technical and substantive questions: whether the initiative satisfies the Colorado Constitution's single-subject requirement; whether the proponents want the governor's proclamation date to be the default effective date or to specify a tax year; and how the initiative would interact with other measures on the same ballot. Proponents said they intend the cap to apply and to preserve any parts of other measures that lower rates for some taxpayers where those parts do not conflict with the cap.

On conflict resolution, proponents acknowledged that if two measures conflict there are multiple mechanisms that can determine which provision controls, including timing, statutory conflict rules, and court resolution. They said they would consult staff about inserting language that clarifies intent and potentially about what statutory updates the General Assembly might need to make if voters adopt a cap.

Next steps: staff provided technical drafting comments and recommended the proponents amend language to: state a clear effective/applicability date or tax year; address cross-references to relevant tax statutes; and explicitly state how the provision should operate if another initiative on the same ballot would raise the rate. The review and comment hearing for initiative 214 concluded with proponents agreeing to consider those clarifications.