*1 988 interpret Supreme to
We decline Confrontation Clause as harmless violations error, Court’s reference to the it would Confrontation be “difficult to conclude that procedural Clause in as a “bedrock rights the rule in fundamen- alters Crawford Crawford guarantee” Brown, designation process.” to be watershed tal due 381 at F.3d 42, Crawford, 541 124 status. U.S. at 1227. S.Ct. guarantee 1354. an Clause’s consistently This court has followed right accused’s to confront un- witnesses is Supreme lead the United States Court doubtedly trial, a fair fundamental to the rule determining when whether rule criminal set forth does not that create Crawford Timmons, procedure is retroactive. 690 Rather, by right. interpretation changing its Thus, Tenth, join P.2d at 215. Sec adequate of what constitutes an indicia of ond, Sixth, and Seventh circuits in determin reliability, the Court how redefines Crawford that is not watershed rule Crawford right implemented. confrontation is Brown, procedure. criminal at 381 F.3d contrast, the watershed rule announced 1227; Mungo, 336; Dorchy, 393 F.3d at that Gideon ensures will receive accused 788; Murillo, F.3d at F.3d at 790. We counsel; merely assistance of it not does hold that anot watershed rule of Crawford right define how that must be effected. procedure criminal therefore does Hence, we do not view rule Crawford apply retroactively involving post- cases that an opportu- accused must have had the proceedings conviction that concern convic nity to cross-examine an unavailable witness prior tions According finalized to Crawford. “insuring] rights fundamental human ly, uphold appeals’ the court of decision liberty” degree right
life and
that the
People v. Edwards.
343,
Gideon,
counsel does.
U.S.
Zerbst,
(quoting
S.Ct. 792
Johnson v.
IV. Conclusion
458, 462,
1019,
U.S.
58 S.Ct.
Edwards further that the fact that error under is harmless rather Crawford Justice RICE and Justice COATS do not preclude than structural does not a conclu- participate. sion that announces a watershed Crawford agree, rule. but We we note that the stan- assigned dard of review to Confrontation provides
Clause violations nonetheless some
guidance in navigating this issue.
Violations of the Confrontation are Clause Fry,
constitutional trial errors. 92 P.3d at
980. A
requires
constitutional
trial error
appellate
reversal
if an
court determines
Douglas BRUCE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
beyond
the error was not harmless
a reason-
v.
doubt,
is,
able
harmless error.
Id. Con-
structural,
stitutional errors can also be
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS and Ka
meaning they
thryn Young, City Clerk,
affect the framework of the
in her official
require
capacity
city,
entire
automatic reversal.
as election officer for the
Supreme
Id. The
Defendants-Appellants.
United States
Court has
labeled total
deprivation
counsel —a viola-
No. 05SA365.
right guaranteed by
tion of the
the water-
rule in
shed
Gideon —as structural error.
Supreme
Colorado,
Court of
States,
461,
v.
Johnson United
468-
U.S.
En Banc.
117 S.Ct.
shed the rank of *2 Bruce,
Douglas Springs, pro Colorado se. Kelly, City Attorney Patricia K. for Colo- White, Attorney, Springs, rado Shane Senior Defendants-Appel- Springs, Colorado lants. Geoffrey Municipal League, T.
Colorado Wilson, Denver, for Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League.
MARTINEZ, Justice. case, summary judg- review the invalidating court ment of the district order approval of measure to extend the voters’ “Trails, existing and use tax for sales Open Space, April and Parks” in the municipal election. The Springs Colorado court found that Issue lA’s substantially comply with the did X, 20 of the requirements of article section VII, or Article section Colorado Constitution City of Colorado 90 of the Charter l”).1 (collectively Springs “Amendment Const, provisions with re- for both herein is the same relevant of Colo. VII, equivalent 20(3)(b)-(c) spect is the to whether a tax extension sections Article 90(c)(3) refer to City a tax increase. hereinafter of Colorado of the Charter of virtually analysis 1” both. "Amendment Springs are identical. The sought damages, declaratory judg- held trial court first the tax extension Bruce equivalent void, proclaiming illegal in Issue 1A was the of a “tax ment 1A Issue injunction purposes preventing increase” for Amendment 1. Al- and an from 1A, though weight counting revealing factors before the trial ballots on.Issue count, suggested spending that Issue 1A was sub- results of the *3 1, 1A, money on compliance conducting any stantial with Amendment Issue fur- the proceedings regard trial court found that because Issue 1A failed ther with to 1A. Issue alleged meet on part to the additional Amendment election Bruce also bad faith the of Defendants, City Clerk, requirements pertaining City notice to tax in- the the and creases, proved Kathryn Young. defect sought this fatal to the validi- He court order to prevent any of ty April the further election notice. involvement the 1, by Young election and the substitu- accordingly The of resolution this issue County tion of the El Paso Clerk Re- and upon rests the of whether determination place purpose per- corder her for the of within tax extension is tax increase the forming her election duties. meaning of l’s Amendment election notice provisions. We hold that a tax extension is City The to all moved dismiss of Brace’s a tax not therefore the election and or, alternative, summary claims the for requirements do for increases not judgment. disputed As were there no issues to 1A. apply judgment Issue reverse fact, of the trial court treated re- Brace’s of the trial court below. sponse as a summary judg- cross-motion for
ment. Proceedings I. Facts Below order, In a written the trial granted court dispute challenge This from a arises to summary Bruce’s cross-motion for judgment City 1A in an held Issue election of on his claim that the 1A Issue election notice (the “City”) 1, Springs April Colorado 1. Following violated Amendment review 1A to 2003. Issue extend the exist- alleged Amendment infirmities in the “Trails, Open 0.1% sales and tax for use notice, election the trial court determined Space, expiration and Parks” its from slated key resolving issue in whether Issue lA’s 2009, 31, April to December 2025. The election compliance notice was substantial ballot title Issue 1A for states: with Amendment was whether the ballot taxes, raising Without shall the requirements title for “tax increases” in sec- (one-tenth cent) existing City (3) 0.1% tion applied Amendment 1 to 1A. Issue Trails, sales use tax Open Space for (3) require- Section forth a sets number of (TOPS) and Parks be extended from its ments for the form and content of a ballot expiration April current title. requirements apply Additional title through December 2025 ... as a voter- when the ballot issue a tax involves or debt approved change, revenue the above con- (3) silent, however, increase. Section with stituting changes program except no respect to tax Accordingly, extensions. allowing no more than 6% be used for attempted court to resolve whether a stewardship and maintenance of TOPS- “tax extension” is a “tax increase” in the trails, open space parks funded and no (3). context of section The court “tax read more than 3% program be used for man- broadly increase” include extension” agement? thereby found that the additional ballot approved by 1A Issue was voters of the. requirements title for tax applied increases Springs. Colorado to the election notice of Issue 1A. court The Plaintiff, Bruce, Douglas initially recognized chal- pivotal determination lenged the contending it violated whether the election notice was otherwise in challenged Amendment 1. He also the factual compliance substantial with 1. Amendment summary alleged footnote, violations of the Fan- court noted that if it had (FCPA), Campaign Practices Act 1- sections determined requirements the election notice (2003). -118, 1A, 45-101 to C.R.S. for tax increases did not it Issue compliance with the [Amendment 1] found de- submission have substantial “would comments.” infirmities.” [Amendment 1] the other spite City appeals now decision Bruce’s remain- trial court dismissed summary granting judgment trial court City. Bruce’s in favor direct
ing claims favor of Bruce on the basis that the election the ballot title was challenge to the form of notice of 1A was not in substantial Issue the trial found dismissed because compliance Amendment Bruce with does procedural comply failed to Bruce any of the cross-appeal other issues. challenging elec- Thus, the trial court’s deci- address Code, Election pursuant to the Uniform tion grant summary judgment sion to in favor of 1-11-203.5(2), This C.R.S. Specifi- Bruce on election notice issue. requires challenges title provision cally, we at whether l’s look *4 brought days setting five of the within be requirements election notice for tax increases City’s the Bruce not contest title. did ballot extensions, is, apply to that a whether challenge brought that the was not averment appropriately a extension” is termed Consequently, five-day period. within the the con- “tax increase.” Because trial court’s City the the trial court found for barred equivalent clusion that a tax extension is the title ballot claim.2 Bruce’s implications of a tax has for the increase beyond the form content election notice The trial court also dismissed Bruce’s title, ruling the a on title of ballot the ballot the FCPA in alleging claims violations of the provisions not alone would resolve whether summary had factual on the basis Bruce Issue the election notice of 1A was sub- already the exclusive reme- availed himself of 1. compliance stantial with Amendment found that under dy for his claim. The court Therefore, meaning we examine the of “tax FCPA, remedy contesting the for the the respect increase” to the title re- with ballot summary issue is a factual of a ballot to file quirements appears and as it in the other Secretary of complaint the Colorado with provisions. election notice procedures. appropriate and follow the State We conclude a tax extension is not a procedures, lost his Bruce followed those meaning increase within the of Amendment following hearing a adminis- claim before provisions. Accordingly, l’s election notice judge, appeal. trative law and did not requirements tax in- the election notice for Last, the trial court found no bad faith on apply creases do not to Issue 1A. The trial Clerk, Kathryn Young. part City of the the law court a matter of when it deter- erred as initially position taking After the that no preliminary mined as matter that the elec- received, City would the re- for requirements comments tion tax increases notice and, position appeared consequently, versed its after Bruce tax extensions City notice was not in substantial day Clerk’s on the final the of election the office Thus, compliance re- with Amendment 1. insisted comment submission3 and that the summary judgment trial verse the accept City comments. Clerk’s office his The court. propo- from a Clerk then solicited comments shortly p.m. of 1A the
nent Issue before 5:00 II. Jurisdiction City The court found deadline. trial the (cid:127) faith, actions not in bad but that Upon appeals, Clerk’s were the court request of City public “any accepted did not the rea- this ease section the afford transfer of under (2005).4 4—110(l)(a), court of opportunity purposes to further the sonable C.R.S. 13— challenges 2.Although statutory issue or the court dismissed Bruce's to the substance ballot challenge pursuant question). title five- ballot the ballot 1-11-203.5(2), day imposed by limit section court nonetheless considered in its ballot title Const, 20(3)(b)(v) requires section 3. Colo. analysis of whether the infirmities notice be filed written comments to with the compli- election for Issue 1A was in substantial days officer 45 before election. 1, citing Cacioppo Eagle with ance Amendment v. RE-50J, County School Dist. 92 P.3d 463 4—110(l)(a)provides: Section (statute 13— (Colo.2004) does not bar constitutional jurisdiction Here, appeals original appeals has acknowledged the trial court concerning proceed- the district court applied accordingly. from Bickel factors and them X, except ings initiated under article for sum- The court found the election did proceedings. 13-4-102(l)(g), substantially comply § mary C.R.S. be- (2005);5 Golden, defects, City including see Busse v. 73 P.3d cause of number of (Colo.2003). jurisdic- satisfy require- failure to all of the exercise ballot title subject tion here because the matter of this ments of the omission financial estimates,- significant apparent good case concerns state constitution- lack City question impression. comply of first faith al with Amendment underlying because title er- rors. Analysis III. indicated, however, The court that its deci- brought Claims enforce Amend upon hinged sion applicability of the elec- l’s election measured ment are tion notice for tax increases. compliance” standard. Bickel “substantial that, finding found but for (Colo. Boulder, v. P.2d 1A violated requirements, Issue these Issue 1994). Elections will be set where aside compli- 1A would have been in substantial id.; grounds for clear such action exist. See notwithstanding ance with Amendment 1 County F.T. Havens v. see also Bd. of directly other defects. The outcome turned *5 (Colo.1996). Comm’rs, 517, 924 P.2d 524 In upon preliminary legal question the of wheth-
Bickel,
of
we set forth
number
factors to
er a “tax extension”
“tax in-
constitutes a
determining
when
consider
whether a mea
(3)
crease” under section
of Amendment 1.
substantially complies with
sure
Amendment
analysis
our
We focus
narrow issue.
1:
(1)
noncompli-
of the
the extent
district’s
A.
respect
challenged
with
to the
ballot
ance
The “[[Interpretation of a constitu
issue,
is,
distinguish
court should
provision
question
tional
is a
of law that we
examples
isolated
of district
between
over-
novo.” Rocky
review de
Mtn. Animal
v.
and
sight
properly
what is more
viewed as
Def.
508,
Wildlife,
Colo. Div.
100 P.3d
513
systemic disregard of
1
of
re-
exist,
(Colo.App.2004).
ambiguities
Where
(2)
purpose
the
of
quirements,
provi-
the
interpret
provisions
we
constitutional
as a
purpose
violated and
sion
whether that
is
attempt
whole and
all of
harmonize
the
substantially
despite
achieved
the district’s
provisions.
contained
(citing
Id. at 513-14
(3)
noncompliance, and
it can
whether
rea-
City Brighton,
280,
Zaner v.
917 P.2d
283
sonably be inferred that the district made
of
(Colo.1996));
Bickel,
see
tal of district fiscal tially problem that Amendment confront the year past four current and each of provide a definition for either 1 does not years, percentage and dol- and the overall (2) of or “extension.” “increase” Section change. lar prelimi forth a number of sets (iii) year of each For the first full fiscal including “enterprise,” “fis nary definitions increase, district esti- proposed district tax year “inflation.” Colo. spending,” cal and Const, 20(2). maximum dollar amount of However, mates of the X, term § art. year (2), of district fiscal each increase and in is not defined section “tax increase” spending without the increase. (3), provision of Amend or other section Likewise, lacks (iv) debt, “tax extension” also its ment l.6 proposed For district bonded 1, and an any clarification in Amendment maximum annual and principal amount and Const, X, 20(2) provides provisions. Neither of those sections and Art. 6. Both Colo. art. section however, here, VII, 90(b) guidance as the definitions of the Charter of the section "tax are not in- "tax increase” and extension” Springs for a num- Colorado set forth definitions section. respective cluded within either contained within their ber of terms (2) (3). (4)(a) appears only expiring “extension of an tax” tions Section sets forth (4)(a) require ap in l.7 which elections advance voter section of Amendment proval. It does not concern either term defi turning plain language of Before requirements nitions or the election notice statutory Bruce’s section we first discuss (2) (3) respectively. sections The elec argument including construction in favor of requirements tion notice are related meaning “tax extension” within the of “tax approval requirements the advance in argues the increase.” Bruce inclusion underlying pur sofar as both serve the same (4)(a) tax extension in section should be the pose accurately informing the electorate of expansive reading for an of “tax in- basis Otherwise, they measures. have (3). in Specifically, crease” section Bruce distinct and rather narrow functions. The (4)(a) contends section illustrates the forms a (3) portions relevant of section set forth re may thereby tax increase take and acts as a notice, quirements for a valid election includ provision definitional for “tax increase.” language requirements detailed for a val (4) part: Section states relevant title, id election notice title and valid ballot ... approval districts must have voter (4)(a) whereas section determines which (a) (1) (6) applies advance or Unless for: types ap of elections demand advance voter [annual district revenue is less than annual 20(3)(b), proval. §§ art. Colo. Const. bonds, payments general obligation 20(4)(a). 20(3)(c), plain language pensions, judgments, and final or purposes compel of these offer no tax, emergency], any case of new tax rate ling reason to extend the reach of the items levy prior mill above that for the (4)(a) (3). enumerated section to section year, valuation for assessment ratio in- Third, the inclusion of “an extension anof class, property crease for a or extension of expiring tax” in section omission tax, expiring policy change or a tax (3) any reference to tax extensions in section directly causing gain a net tax revenue significant. comparing provi- the two any district. sions, we note that tax extensions were clear- 20(4) added). X, § (emphasis Colo. Const. art. ly contemplated at the time Amendment 1 find drafted, several flaws with Bruce’s in- was as evidenced the inclusion of (4)(a). terpretation First, (4)(a). section extensions a tax already Amendment 1 contains a appears (4)(a), defini- extension in section it does provision precedes tional the election appear in section Because we find section. See Colo. no indication in language either the Const, 20(2). X, § suggest When viewed as a structure Amendment 1 to *7 whole, logical approach deliberate, interpreting to this omission was not we decline (2) (4)(a) interpret expansively Amendment 1 is to look to section to section where definitions, opportunity dispersed and not to to extend the election notice sections having purposes quite to include tax apart provid- from extensions was plainly available. practical term definitions. The means to define “tax increase” enu- items reasons, (4)(a) For these we find section (4)(a) in merated section would have been guide understanding does not our of the term incorporate said definition into section appears increase” as it in section not, suggests, imply as Bruce a subsequent statutory provi- definition via a 2. sion. then, Turning, language of section Second, above, (3), itself, as noted a plain has meaning we assess the of “tax separate purpose and limited from both sec- appears increase” as it in that section. extensions, language year, exemption 7. The in Section 90 of the Charter of tax or tax termi- City Springs nation, largely any Colorado mirrors this change City policy or in tax section. It states: directly provides gain a net or enter- prise following require tax approval revenue above the level that would in advance: tax, (1) (f), Except provided by new tax otherwise exist. added). levy prior 7-90(d)(emphasis § rate mill above that of the
995 ordinary meaning of the appears as it examining “tax increase” appear to “tax increase” does not en- term look to the intent Amendment we However, compass a “tax extension.” be- provi- it an initiated constitutional voter as close, appears we also con- cause the issue Relating to Interrogatories In re sion. See Fund, purposes of the election notice sider the Trust Colo. the Great Outdoors (“[A] deciding 1 in (Colo.1996) provisions of Amendment duty in court’s P.2d expanded meaning accept whether to amendment is to interpreting a constitutional plain and ordi- “tax increase” in lieu of its people adopt- to the will of the give effect amendment.”). nary meaning. also consider ing such interpret “tax typical voter would how the increase,” how concern here is because our a notice affects vot-
the form of the election generally Ambiguities in Amendment are understanding measure. er’s l’s resolved to effectuate Amendment prac- Accordingly, consider whether the reasonably restraining the purpose stated syn- tical, everyday meaning of “increase” is growth government. See Colo. Const. onymous with “extension.” 20(1); Highway § v. Pub. Nicholl E-470 (Colo.1995); Bickel, Auth., 896 P.2d suggests the continua- A “extension” However, recognize P.2d at 229. we also tax, tax “increase” a whereas a tion of addi provisions that the election notice serve taxed. greater a amount will be suggests account purposes tional for which we must a tax Accordingly, proposal a to “extend” Namely, interpreting provisions. those when rate of the amount nor implies that neither primary purpose of the election rate. change will from its current the tax provide is “to the electorate Likewise, indicates that a tax “increase” necessary an intelli the information to make by an individual tax- tax burden borne involving debt gent decision on ballot issues greater present than its payer will be Bickel, 885 P.2d at tax increases.” and/or indicates a continua- amount. The former 236;- Legislative of the Colo see also Council latter quo, whereas the tion of the status Assembly, Analysis An rado General change impose will suggests (1992). Accordingly, Proposals 10 Ballot taxpayer. greater cost on the ambiguities light pur of this also resolve interpret provided there are no overt conflicts pose, us to “tax increase”
Bruce asks
purpose of rea
suggesting that all
l’s broader
broadly,
more
in effect
with Amendment
essentially
restraining
growth
govern
sonably
are
of revenue increases
forms
is both inaccu-
increases. This definition
ment.
overbroad.
rate and
outset,
a tax extension
we note that
At the
specter of unchecked
not evoke the
does
in a tax’s duration does not
An increase
contemplated Amend-
government growth
merely
necessarily imply an “increase”
be-
increase leads
ment 1.
a tax
debt
gain. For
in a net revenue
cause both result
and, in all
taxpayers
greater
burden
tax-
example, an increase in the number of
likelihood,
spending, a
government
greater
given
tax—
any change
payers —without
*8
present
merely maintains the
tax extension
in
to an increase
net revenue.
would lead
government.
size of
taxpayer burden and
However,
few would consider this to be
is neither
government
Where the size
everyday
according to
“tax increase”
its
un-
contracting, the concerns
expanding nor
upon
meaning.
an individual
burden
largely peripher-
derlying
1 are
changed,
tax has
taxpayer has not
and the
al.
any meaningful sense.
increased in
contrast,
underlying the
principle
Thus,
may
in a
In
although a tax increase
result
i.e.,
the electorate
provisions,
contig-
election
the two are neither
revenue
informa-
provided with sufficient
should be
scope
synonymous.
general-
See
uous
nor
Hence,
intelligent
on ballot
Acosta,
make
decisions
tion to
ly
disparages the COATS, J., dissents. taxpayer-appellee by erecting knocking having down various straw men little relation COATS, dissenting. Justice objections. Finally, it to his actual concludes interpretation sup- by suggesting that its govern- majority a local Today the excuses ported the fact that the electorate would provide the no- calculated refusal ment’s merely have been confused notification proposed tax increases required for tice subjecting a future that itself to 0.1% sales Bill of adopted Taxpayer’s popularly actually approv- amount to and use tax would holding the term “tax increase” Rights, ing a tax increase. imposition to include the never intended was tax, clearly requiring vot- despite of a future taxpayer’s regard to the assertion With long as it does not exceed approval, er as (4)(a) the extension that subsection identifies for the previous of a tax earmarked amount expiring particular tax kind of tax of an as majority’s I purposes. consider same majority implausible finds it (as “tax increase” interpretation of the term could that the term “tax increase” be intend- “plain understanding of the words well as its extensions, largely ed to include tax because meaning”) as ordinary to be so strained provision of TABOR contains the definitional I expression opposition. some to demand increase,” specific definition of “tax ex- no respectfully dissent. therefore extensions, maj. including op. see pressly tax explicit no reference to and because (somewhat) majority’s condescending appears along with the term “tax extensions reading on its rejection any other rests (3), separately trig- increase” subsection erroneous) (and clearly my mind unstated requirements for the gering the same notice term “tax increase” is assumption that maj. op. at expiring taxes. See extension in the tax burden under limited to increases course, tax measures none of the 994. Of taxpayers at the time voter which the labor (4)(a) ap- for voter singled out subsection sought for additional tax reve- approval is individually in subsection proval appear majority “pres- speaks nues. When repeating allowing the natural inference “existing” use tax levels and sales and ent” by name would be redundant them each taxes, maj. op. at it refers to levels (3)’s light subsection blanket reference election, than preceding the rather taxation any “tax increase.” taxpayers sub- to which will be the burden Instead, expiring ap- tax” “extension of ject, barring approval greater their one of a amount, pears in subsection period. applicable in the requiring ap- of tax measures ordinary meaning of the term “tax number plain and tax,” any any “tax rate increase,” however, proval, including “new much would seem to be increase,” any levy “mill that for the any above encompass tax for cramped and less year,” any for assessment required. prior “valuation the voters is approval which class,” any property ratio increase for a language, in the if this constitutional Even directly causing a net tax policy change abstract, reasonably to fu- could be limited district,” Const. gain to Colo. exceeding tax- revenue those to which ture levels 20(4)(a) added), all of (emphasis § subjected, a Art. such payers previously had been techniques for in- clearly designate squared the which not be construction could they beyond what would be creasing taxes or its clear remaining provisions of TABOR *10 n without term, Finally, comply such action. The broader “tax the failure to with TA- increase,” (3), requirements notice only in BOR’s this instance appears subsection omission, simply was not a technical belated- particular require- notice which sets out the ly by taxpayers asserted as a means of nulli- ments for ballot issues that would increase fying they election results with which were clearly former cor- either taxes or debt —the displeased. The matter was raised well be- responding to the measures described election, municipality fore the and the con- (4)(a) corresponding the latter to those sciously give identify chose not to notice or (4)(b). Presumably majority described in the the measure as increase. On any “new tax” or “tax does not intend contrary, the the ballot title for this tax rubric rate increase” be excluded from the expressly approving measure indicated that increase,” of an ex- like “extension taxes, the would not measure raise additional tax,” piring merely terms are because these statement, deceptive only accurate repeated also not subsection majority narrow sense validated to- Contrary majority’s characterization day. By failing to treat this “extension of an “plain language or structure” of sub- expiring tax” as a tax the munici- maj. togeth- op. sections 3 and read pality was able to raise additional tax reve- nues, requiring approval, er these two evidence an unmis- voter without ever precisely informing the attempt takable to foreclose electorate its estimate of the maximum subterfuge majori- ap- dollar amount to be raised kind of sanctioned proving the measure or its estimate of fiscal ty today. Ironically, majority relies on year spending without that amount. See fully repeat, TABOR’s failure to in subsec- 20(3)(b)(iii). X, § (4)(a)’s Colo. Const. Art. (3), explicit tion subsection identifica- ways characterizing tion of various or Surely reading a fair Taxpayers’ Bill structuring tax support increases as for its Rights inexorably leads to the conclusion (4)(a) assertion that subsection was never example is an precisely what the specific intended as an enumeration of exam- designed prohibit. amendment was Nor ples of tax at all. increases Whether or not “plain do I meaning” believe the doctrine of majority’s logically rationale dictates that provides majority any refuge. Particu- the other tax measures enumerated in larly, context, sub- majori- in this I fear that the exempt ty’s also be from the plain meaning explanation “tax in- —that only of subsection it does make crease” can mean an increase in the understanding taxpayers clear Taxpayer’s paying its that The taxes have been rather than an Rights they Bill of increase the taxes approval mandates voter would be measures, required pay without an despite certain tax extension— their failure to sugges- sounds so farfetched as to evoke qualify as either tax or increases increases in legal tion of artifice and undermine confi- public debt. protestations dence in merely our that we majority taxpayer also criticizes the of, acknowledge only meaning reasonable seeking overly expansive broad or in, and therefore the voters’ intent embodied increase,” definition of “tax to include “all language the constitutional itself. forms of revenue increases.” Whether this is ordinary Because I believe the not, description hardly an accurate it is meaning increase,” of the term “tax in con- relevant to today, the matter before the court text, expir- must include the “extension of an approval which is the of a tax that could not tax,” and that the clear intent of TABOR majority’s hypo- otherwise exist. Unlike the require approval is not for such gain” thetical of “a net revenue without provide an extension but also to the voters changing taxpay- tax burdens for individual sufficient information to make a rationale ers, maj. op. at of an “extension choice, respectfully I dissent. tax,” here, expiring clearly at issue increases beyond the tax burden that under which taxpayers
individual would have labored
without the extension.