Tabor Found., Non-Profit Corp. v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 2018 CO 29

Colorado enacted H.B. 13-1272 to align sales-tax exemptions of the Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) with the State to simplify administration and reduce vendor burden.
The Bill both added and removed specific exemptions (e.g., removed exemptions for cigarettes, candy, soft drinks; added exemptions for certain machinery and low-emitting vehicles), producing a projected net revenue increase of 0.6% for the Districts.
After the law took effect, the Districts began collecting under the new exemptions without voter approval.
The TABOR Foundation sued, arguing the changes constituted a "new tax" or a "tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain" under Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a), requiring prior voter approval.
The trial court entered summary judgment for the Districts on stipulated facts; the court of appeals affirmed; the Foundation appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether H.B. 13-1272 is a "new tax" under TABOR	Any statutory change that increases tax revenue is a new tax and needs voter approval	The bill merely adjusts exemptions administratively and does not create a new tax	Not a "new tax": legislation that causes only incidental and de minimis revenue increase is not a new tax
Whether H.B. 13-1272 effects a "tax policy change" directly causing net tax revenue gain	Removal of exemptions that increases revenue is a tax policy change	The bill's purpose and effect are administrative simplification; revenue increase is incidental and de minimis	Not a "tax policy change": TABOR excludes changes yielding only incidental and de minimis revenue increases
Standard of proof for TABOR challenges	Foundation urged abandoning beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in favor of a lower "plain showing" standard	Defendants supported retaining the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard	Court declined to revisit the standard but found Foundation failed under either standard

Mesa County Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. State, 203 P.3d 519 (Colo. 2009) (legislative changes with only de minimis revenue impact should not trigger TABOR voting requirements)
Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2008) (distinguishing taxes from fees and noting incidental revenue effects do not convert fees into taxes)
Campaign Integrity Watchdog v. All. for a Safe & Indep. Woodmen Hills, 409 P.3d 357 (Colo. 2018) (principles for construing statutes and initiatives; give words plain meaning)
Dean v. People, 366 P.3d 593 (Colo. 2016) (presumption of constitutionality and burden on challengers in constitutional attacks)
In re Great Outdoors Colo. Tr. Fund, 913 P.2d 533 (Colo. 1996) (avoid constructions that render constitutional words superfluous)
City of Florence v. Pepper, 145 P.3d 654 (Colo. 2006) (prefer non-constitutional grounds when sufficient to resolve a dispute)