Dwyer v. State, 2015 CO 58

In 2000 Colorado voters adopted Amendment 23, requiring annual increases to "statewide base per pupil funding" (and to total funding for categorical programs) as defined in the Public School Finance Act of 1994.
The 1994 Act set a formula for each district's total program funding: a uniform statewide base per pupil funding multiplied by district-specific enrollment factors, plus at-risk and other adjustments, times funded pupil count.
In 2010–11 the General Assembly created the "negative factor": a statutory cap on total statewide funding that produces a single percentage reduction applied uniformly to every district's initially calculated total program funding.
Plaintiffs sued, alleging the negative factor effectively nullifies Amendment 23's required increases to base per pupil funding and thus is unconstitutional; the trial court denied the State's motion to dismiss.
The Colorado Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 to decide whether the negative factor violates Amendment 23 and reviewed the issue de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the negative factor violates Amendment 23 by nullifying required increases to "statewide base per pupil funding"	The negative factor, combined with the statutory cap, cancels out the base in the funding formula so annual base increases become meaningless and do not increase total per-pupil funding	Amendment 23 requires increases only to the single statutory variable "statewide base per pupil funding" (the base), not to total per-pupil funding; the legislature may reduce total funding by adjusting other elements (via the negative factor) so long as the defined base number is increased	The negative factor does not violate Amendment 23: the amendment mandates increases to the defined base variable only, and the State has increased that base; therefore Plaintiffs failed to state a claim

People v. Kailey, 333 P.3d 89 (Colo. 2014) (original relief via C.A.R. 21 is extraordinary; de novo review for questions of law)
Justus v. State, 336 P.3d 202 (Colo. 2014) (presumption of constitutionality; statutes voided only if unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt)
Colo. Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, 269 P.3d 1248 (Colo. 2012) (when interpreting an initiated constitutional amendment, give words their ordinary meaning; enforce clear language as written)
Davidson v. Sandstrom, 83 P.3d 648 (Colo. 2004) (if amendment language is ambiguous, courts may consult ballot materials and the Blue Book to ascertain voters' intent)
Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson, 995 P.2d 748 (Colo. 2000) (voters are presumed to know existing law when they adopt amendments)