Colorado Can Fix School Funding Fiasco

Direct democracy can be a powerful force - maybe too powerful. Take Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights and the subsequent Amendment 23. Both measures were amendments to the state constitution approved by a majority of Colorado voters. The first put strict limits on new taxes unless approved by further state amendments. The second created a constitutionally guaranteed level of state funding dedicated to education.

A third measure, Amendment 59, would untie the bind created by the competing measures. Though I generally think constitutional amendments should be safe, legal and rare, the only way to undo the voters' previous mistakes is to pass another constitutional amendment.

Like many amendments, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights wrote major flaws into what was generally a good plan. The other states considering a similar measure to Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights need to learn from our mistakes. The biggest is referred to as the ratcheting effect.

TABOR dictates that state tax revenues cannot increase without a vote of the people, even if revenues drop. Say You is a really small Colorado city and You collected $100 in tax revenue in 2001. When the economy went south, You only collected $80 in 2002. In 2003, some more folks moved to town and you collected $110. You can't keep the extra $30. It has to go back to taxpayers, and You don't have the money to pay for services for these new residents.

Then add the real wrench in the works. Amendment 23 was approved in 2000. It required a defined percentage of funding to be dedicated to education, with required annual increases. Voters saw the increased education funding and said, "How can I vote against kids? Bring it on." Great idea, except the requirements remained in place after state revenues dropped.

So, in the example above, You City paid maybe $20 for the school (it's a small school) in 2001, then had to paying $22 in 2002 even though the budget was leaner. This cut into all Your other services.

So what's the fix? According to the state treasurer and the Democratic speaker of the house, it's essentially a repeal of Amendment 23 and an end to important provisions of TABOR. This two-step plan is Amendment 59.

Amendment 23's forced increases would end after Amendment 59 passes, but TABOR's automatic refunds of government surpluses would also get the ax. That means a little less for taxpayers, but it's worth it to get rid of the punishing ratchet effect.

I understand the inclination to vote against all these confusing ballot measures. This year's ballot is just too long. I am inclined to vote down most of these measures, including Amendment 48. A permanent proposed change to the state constitution is guilty until proven innocent in my book. However, this is one that passes the stringent test of a worthy amendment. So does Amendment 58, by the way.