Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts SB173 after heated floor fight over TABOR definitions
Summary
The Colorado House passed Senate Bill 173, which narrows and clarifies certain revenue exclusions from TABOR calculations. Supporters called it a technical clarification to preserve existing exemptions; opponents argued it dilutes the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and questioned a safety clause and timing.
The Colorado House voted to adopt Senate Bill 173 on April 25, 2025, after hours of floor debate over changes to how certain revenue categories are treated under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Sponsors said the measure clarifies statutory definitions for damage awards and property sales to ensure the state’s fiscal accounting matches constitutional intent. Opponents said the changes would reduce TABOR refunds and amount to a legislative circumvention of voter control.
Representative Zocai, the floor sponsor, said the bill "is addressing a section that is in TABOR that has certain exceptions" and that the clarifications are meant to prevent artificially inflating fiscal‑year spending with revenue that should be exempt. He asked the chamber to support the bill as a governance measure and for an "I" vote during committee signal votes (displayed earlier in debate).
Opponents repeatedly framed the bill as a threat to voter fiscal protections. Representative Brooks said the measure "essentially wishes to dilute the taxpayer bill of right refunds" and urged a no vote. Representative Richardson moved transparency‑focused amendments and said the people should know when the legislature moves revenues outside the TABOR cap. Representative Johnson warned the House that changes to TABOR definitions should be referred to voters because "the taxpayer bill of rights is in our state constitution."
Floor sponsors and defenders pointed to fiscal pressure and the state’s budget situation. Assistant majority leader Bacon said a safety clause was necessary because the state’s financial health presented an emergency and argued the bill was consistent with TABOR’s preexisting exceptions. Representative Marshall—who said he voted for the bill in committee—acknowledged concerns about exemptions for damages awards but accepted the broader bill as a fiscal tool for balancing the budget.
Multiple amendments were offered on the floor to add transparency requirements, require reports on revenues declared outside TABOR, and to restate respect for home‑rule authority; several of those amendments failed on recorded and division votes. After the final machine vote the clerk announced the result and the bill’s adoption.
What’s next: SB173 advances to the enrolled bill process; opponents signaled litigation and public concern and several members said they may press for future statutory or ballot remedies.
