In re: Lindi DWYER and Paul Dwyer, as individuals and parents of Jayda Dwyer, Joslyn Dwyer, Janesha Dwyer, and Jentri Dwyer; Terri Siewiyumptewa, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of Shane Siewiyumptewa and Kristen Johnson; Tracey Weeks and Monty Weeks, as individuals and as parents of Jared Weeks and Jordyn Weeks; Terri Piland and Jeffrey Piland, as individuals and as parents of Joseph Piland and George Piland; Colorado Rural Schools Caucus a/k/a Rural Alliance; East Central Board of Cooperative Educational Services; Colorado PTA; Boulder Valley School District; Colorado Springs School District No. 11; Mancos School District; Holyoke School District; and Plateau Valley School District 50, Plaintiffs, v. The STATE of Colorado; Robert Hammond, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education of the State of Colorado; and John Hickenlooper, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado, Defendants.
Supreme Court Case No. 15SA22
Supreme Court of Colorado
September 21, 2015
2015 CO 58
IV. Conclusion
¶ 23 In sum, while eminent domain valua-tion commissions are free to rule on evi-dentiary issues if the supervising judge has not yet addressed those issues, judicial evi-dentiary rulings control. Hence, the com-mission erred in overturning Judge Frick‘s order in limine regarding the Serenyi Evi-dence, and Judge Frick acted properly in instructing the commission to disregard the Willow Street Evidence, which the commis-sion had previously admitted. We there-fore reverse the portion of the court of ap-peals opinion approving of the commission‘s unilateral evidentiary ruling excluding the Serenyi Evidence, affirm the portion of that opinion approving of Judge Frick‘s instruc-tion to disregard the Willow Street Evi-dence, and remand to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Attorneys for Defendants: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General, Michelle Merz-Hutchinson, First Assistant Attorney Gener-al, Antony B. Dyl, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General, Jon-athan P. Fero, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General, Wil-liam V. Allen, Senior Assistant Attorney Gen-eral, Davin Dahl, Assistant Attorney General, Kathryn Starnella, Assistant Attorney Gen-eral, Denver, Colorado.
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Colorado Asso-ciation of School Boards, Colorado Associa-tion of School Executives, and Colorado BOCES Association: Colorado Association of School Boards, Kathleen A. Sullivan, Denver, Colorado.
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Colorado Con-cern, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce,
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Ed-ucation Association: Colorado Education As-sociation, Kris Gomez, Denver, Colorado, Na-tional Education Association, Alice O‘Brien, Eric Harrington, Kristen Hollar, Washing-ton, DC.
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Fis-cal Institute: Heizer Paul LLP, Edward T. Ramey, Denver, Colorado.
Attorney for Amicus Curiae The Colorado Hispanic Bar Association: Daniel Spivey, Denver, Colorado.
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Department of Business Officials of the Colorado Associa-tion of School Executives: Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Terry R. Miller, Kenzo Kawan-abe, Anna-Liisa Mullis, Emily Wasserman, Denver, Colorado.
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Great Edu-cation Colorado, Education Foundation of Eagle County, Grassroots St. Vrain, and Col-orado Latino Forum‘s Denver Metro Chap-ter: Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David W. Stark, Jennifer K. Harrison, Denver, Colora-do.
CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 In this original proceeding, we consider the legality of the “negative factor,” a legisla-tive enactment that operates to reduce edu-cation funding across all Colorado school dis-tricts. Plaintiffs below sued the State of Colorado, the Commissioner of Education, and the Governor (collectively, “the State“), arguing that the negative factor is unconsti-tutional because it violates Amendment 23, a constitutional provision requiring annual in-creases to “statewide base per pupil fund-1ing.” After the trial court denied the State‘s motion to dismiss, we issued a rule to show cause why the motion should not be granted. We now conclude that Plaintiffs’ complaint misconstrues the relationship between the negative factor and Amendment 23. By its plain language, Amendment 23 only requires increases to statewide base per pupil funding, not to total per pupil funding. We therefore hold that the negative factor does not violate Amendment 23. Accordingly, we make the rule absolute, and we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss Plain-tiffs’ complaint.
I. Facts and Procedural History
¶ 2 In 2000, Colorado voters passed Amendment 23, which requires annual in-creases to “statewide base per pupil funding” for public education. See
¶ 3 Plaintiffs sued the State for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the nega-tive factor violates Amendment 23 and is thus unconstitutional. The trial court denied the State‘s motion to dismiss, finding that “Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts.” The State petitioned us to exercise our original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21. We issued a rule to show cause why the motion to dismiss should not be granted.
II. Original Jurisdiction
¶ 4 “Original relief pursuant to C.A.R. 21 is an extraordinary remedy that is limited both in purpose and availability.” People v. Kailey, 2014 CO 50, ¶ 9, 333 P.3d 89, 92. Despite this, we “generally elect to
III. Standard of Review
¶ 5 The constitutionality of the nega-tive factor is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Kailey, ¶ 12, 333 P.3d at 93. We presume that the negative factor is constitutional, and we will only void it if we deem it to be unconstitutional beyond a rea-sonable doubt. See Justus v. State, 2014 CO 75, ¶ 17, 336 P.3d 202, 208.
IV. Analysis
¶ 6 To resolve the constitutionality of the negative factor, we begin by charting the recent history of education funding in Colora-do, examining Amendment 23, the negative factor, and their respective impacts on the State‘s school funding formula. We then consider whether the negative factor violates Amendment 23‘s constitutional mandate. We conclude that, because Amendment 23 only requires increases to base per pupil funding, the negative factor does not violate the amendment.
A. Education Funding in Colorado
¶ 7 Colorado awards education funding to individual school districts pursuant to the Public School Finance Act of 1994 (“the Act“). See
((Statewide base per pupil funding x Dis-trict personnel costs factor x District cost of living factor) + (Statewide base per pupil funding x District nonpersonnel costs factor x District size factor.
§ 22-54-104(3), C.R.S. (2000) ).
¶ 8 In addition to calculating per pupil funding, the Act determined each district‘s “at-risk funding,” a computation involving a fifth factor, dubbed the “at-risk factor.” See
¶ 9 In 2000, voters passed Amendment 23. Although the amendment mandated changes to education funding, it did not alter the Act‘s formula. Rather, it required regular increas-es to one of the variables within that formula: statewide base per pupil funding. In partic-ular, Amendment 23 provided that from 2001-02 through 2010–11, “the statewide base per pupil funding, as defined by the [Act] on the effective date of this section, for public education from preschool through the twelfth grade . . . shall grow annually at least by the rate of inflation plus an additional one per-centage point” (emphasis added). The amendment further provided that for 2011-12 “and each fiscal year thereafter, the state-wide base per pupil funding for public edu-cation” shall grow by at least the rate of inflation (thereby eliminating the “additional
¶ 10 In 2010, however, the General Assem-bly “determine[d] that stabilization of the state budget requires a reduction in the amount of the annual appropriation to fund the state‘s share of [education] funding for all districts.”
¶ 11 Strictly speaking, the negative factor lowers neither base funding nor factor fund-ing. Instead, the negative factor operates in concert with a hard statutory cap on total education funding. The Act‘s formula to de-termine school funding for each district—again, a combination of uniform base funding and district-specific factor funding—remains intact. See
¶ 12 Because the negative factor‘s mechan-ics are so convoluted, we will clarify them through a hypothetical. Suppose that Colo-rado were composed of three school districts: A, B, and C. Suppose further that, prior to the negative factor, District A received $5 million in education funding, District B re-ceived $10 million, and District C received $15 million; this results in an initial state-wide total of $30 million. But now suppose that the Act provided for a statutory cap of $27 million for statewide education funding. To determine the negative factor, the De-partment of Education would subtract $27 million from $30 million, then divide the dif-ference ($3 million) by the initial statewide total ($30 million)—this yields a negative fac-
¶ 13 Now, to visualize the interplay be-tween the negative factor and Amendment 23, consider District A in the context of per pupil funding. Recall that District A, prior to the negative factor, received $5 million in total education funding. See supra ¶ 12. Now suppose that District A has 500 pupils. Therefore, prior to the negative factor, Dis-trict A‘s total per pupil funding would have been $10,000 ($5 million divided by 500 pu-pils). But because the ten-percent negative factor reduced District A‘s total funding from $5 million to $4.5 million, see supra ¶ 12, it commensurately reduced District A‘s per pu-pil funding from $10,000 to $9,000 ($4.5 mil-lion divided by 500 pupils). The question is whether this reduced level of per pupil fund-ing has dropped below Amendment 23‘s man-dated amount.
¶ 14 To answer this question, suppose we are in the 2015-16 budget year. In that year, Amendment 23 required a base per pupil funding amount of $6,292.39. See
¶ 15 This hypothetical illustrates the theo-ry behind the negative factor: how it reduces total education funding, but not so drastically as to drop any individual district‘s total per pupil funding below the required base. The question, of course, is whether the procedure demonstrated in this hypothetical is in fact constitutional. Having examined the rele-vant statutory framework, we now address whether the negative factor has unconstitu-tionally diminished statewide base per pupil funding below the levels required by Amend-ment 23.
B. The Negative Factor Has Not Violated Amendment 23
¶ 16 As we have demonstrated, the prac-tical operation of the negative factor is highly intricate. Legally speaking, however, Plain-tiffs’ challenge to the negative factor pres-ents a surprisingly straightforward question of constitutional interpretation. Quite sim-ply, this case is about one thing: the mean-ing of the term “base.”
¶ 17 The State essentially argues that “base” is synonymous with “floor.” It con-tends that Amendment 23 only requires in-cremental increases to the floor set by the Act‘s finance formula, and that the General Assembly retains discretion to adjust addi-tional funding as allocated by the factors. As such, the State distinguishes “base” from “total,” positing that while Amendment 23 mandates increases to base per pupil funding, it does not in the same breath prohibit de-creases to total per pupil funding.
¶ 18 Plaintiffs’ proffered definition of “base” is more creative. They contend that, in using the word “base,” Amendment 23
¶ 19 To resolve this dispute, we need only turn to our standard principles of constitutional interpretation. “When inter-preting a constitutional amendment adopted by citizen‘s initiative, we ‘give effect to the electorate‘s intent in enacting the amend-ment.‘” Colo. Ethics Watch v. Senate Ma-jority Fund, LLC, 2012 CO 12, ¶ 20, 269 P.3d 1248, 1253 (quoting Davidson v. Sandstrom, 83 P.3d 648, 654 (Colo. 2004)). To do so, we “give words their ordinary and popular meaning.” Id., 269 P.3d at 1253-54. Thus, we have recognized that “[i]f the language of an amendment is clear and unambiguous, then it must be enforced as written.” Id., 269 P.3d at 1254. Only where the amend-ment‘s language “is susceptible to multiple interpretations” do we look beyond it to as-certain the voters’ intent. See id.; see also Sandstrom, 83 P.3d at 654-55 (“If the intent of the voters cannot be discerned from the language . . . [c]ourts may determine [it] ‘by considering other relevant materials such as the ballot title and submission clause and the biennial “Bluebook,” which is the analysis of ballot proposals prepared by the legisla-ture.‘” (quoting In re Submission of Inter-rogatories on House Bill 99-1325, 979 P.2d 549, 554 (Colo. 1999))). Finally, we note that voters “must be presumed to know the exist-ing law at the time they amend or clarify 5 that law.” Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson, 995 P.2d 748, 754 (Colo. 2000).
¶ 20 These principles compel the conclu-sion that Amendment 23 only requires in-creases to statewide base per pupil funding, not total per pupil funding. We know that this is what Amendment 23 means, because this is exactly what Amendment 23 says. Once again, the amendment provides for an-nual increases to “statewide base per pupil funding, as defined by the [Act] on the effec-tive date of this section.” That “effective date” was the year 2000. The term “state-wide base per pupil funding” appeared a dozen times in the 2000 version of the Act, and each time, its meaning was clear: It was a single variable within the Act‘s larger per pupil funding formula. See
¶ 21 The additional language in Amend-ment 23 only buttresses our conclusion. To wit, in addition to requiring annual increases of “statewide base per pupil funding . . . for public education from preschool through the twelfth grade,” Amendment 23 further man-dates annual increases of “total state funding for all categorical programs” (emphasis add-ed). This discrepancy between “base” and “total” cannot be accidental. Rather, it is reflective of the voters’ intent to adjust school funding in two different ways: in-creasing base per pupil funding for standard public education, and augmenting total fund-ing for categorical programs. If voters had wished to increase “total” per pupil funding rather than “base” per pupil funding, they would have said so.
¶ 23 Of course, the negative factor calcula-tion does not hinge on the particular charac-teristics of a given district; rather, the nega-tive factor cuts every district‘s funding by the same percentage. See supra ¶ 11. Seiz-ing on this, Plaintiffs advance a complex sup-plemental argument. They contend that, be-cause the General Assembly is reducing total education funding without adjusting any of the district-specific factors, such cuts must stem from reductions to the other element in the funding formula, i.e., the base.
¶ 24 Plaintiffs miss the forest for the trees. The origin of the funding reduction is irrele-vant. The result of the reduction—that is, whether the State has reduced any district‘s per pupil funding below the base level set by Amendment 23—is all that matters. The State has not done so, and in fact, Plaintiffs do not allege otherwise. Instead, Plaintiffs 6 allege that the State has reduced statewide base per pupil funding below Plaintiffs’ pro-posed definition of the term. As we have established, this definition is incompatible with the plain language of Amendment 23. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ complaint stems from a faulty premise, and their mathematical argu-ment is thus a red herring.6 At the end of the day, the State has not reduced statewide base per pupil funding below its constitution-al minimum. That fact torpedoes Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
¶ 25 Finally, we reject Plaintiffs’ conten-tion that the Act‘s inclusion of a “savings clause” proves that the negative factor is unconstitutional. This savings clause pro-vides that a district‘s total funding “shall be the greater of” (a) the amount as calculated by the standard formula and the negative factor, or (b) the minimum level of base funding multiplied by the district‘s number of pupils. See
¶ 26 In sum, we conclude that “statewide base per pupil funding” as articulated in Amendment 23 refers only to that single variable within the Act‘s school finance for-mula, not to total per pupil funding. Be-cause we reach this conclusion from the
V. Conclusion
¶ 27 Plaintiffs allege that the State has improperly reduced statewide base per pupil funding in violation of Amendment 23. In so doing, they confuse “base” with “total.” In-terpreting the term “statewide base per pupil funding” according to its plain and statutorily defined meaning, we hold that the negative factor has not reduced the base below its constitutional minimum and thus does not violate Amendment 23. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief. Ac-cordingly, we make our rule absolute, and we remand this case to the trial court with in-structions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.
JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ dissents, and JUSTICE HOOD and JUSTICE GABRIEL join in the dissent.
JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, dissenting.
¶ 28 Plaintiffs allege that the “negative factor” created by the legislature in section
¶ 29 Amendment 23 requires annual in-creases in “statewide base per pupil funding, as defined by the Public School Finance Act of 1994 . . . on the effective date of this section.”
¶ 30 Under the school finance formula that existed “on the effective date” of Amendment 23, an increase to the “statewide base per pupil funding” necessarily generated an in-crease in a district‘s total per pupil funding. In other words, Colorado voters understood that, under the formula then in effect, in-creasing statewide base per pupil funding per Amendment 23 would yield an increase in total per pupil funding. The Blue Book1 confirmed this understanding of the opera-tion of Amendment 23: It described the ini-tiative to Colorado voters as a proposed con-stitutional amendment that would “increase[]
¶ 31 The Blue Book explained that, under Amendment 23, the state constitution would set minimum annual increases in funding, thus replacing legislative discretion to in-crease or decrease funding. Id. at 9. Follow-ing its passage, the Amendment operated as described in the Blue Book for several years. However, the General Assembly subsequent-ly enacted the “negative factor” and funda-mentally altered the school finance formula to calculate funding to conform to a legisla-tively predetermined spending cap. Hence, the legislature once again controls annual increases or decreases in school funding—just as it did before voters passed Amend-ment 23. In short, the funding that school districts actually receive now is no longer driven by the increases to the base under Amendment 23 in concert with the finance formula in effect at its enactment. Instead, the legislature chooses a spending cap and calculates a corresponding “negative factor” that is applied to reduce the funding that districts otherwise would receive under the formula. The negative factor operates spe-cifically to ensure that total spending does not exceed the legislature‘s predetermined cap.
¶ 32 The issue, then, is how the negative factor impacts the increases to statewide base per pupil funding required under Amendment 23. Plaintiffs allege that the negative factor, in concert with the statutory cap under the altered formula, effectively eliminates the increases to statewide base per pupil funding under Amendment 23 and renders the base component of the formula irrelevant. In my view, Plaintiffs’ Complaint 2 states a viable claim that the negative factor violates Amendment 23. Accordingly, I would discharge the rule and permit the Plaintiffs to prove their claims at trial.
I. Background
¶ 33 I begin by briefly describing the cir-cumstances that led to the voters’ enactment of Amendment 23. I then examine the Gen-eral Assembly‘s response to the fiscal exigen-cies of the last decade—the so-called “nega-tive factor“—which has worked significant cuts to education funding.
A. Amendment 23
¶ 34 Per pupil spending in Colorado was significantly below the national average in 2000. Br. of Colo. Educ. Ass‘n at 5. As a result, teacher pay lagged behind the nation-al average, and Colorado had higher student-to-teacher ratios than in other states. Id. at 5-6, 9. Thus, Colorado educators were re-quired to stretch limited resources further than their peers in other parts of the coun-try.
¶ 35 In 2000, the Colorado Education Net-work succeeded in placing on the ballot an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would “increase[] per pupil funding for pub-lic schools.” Blue Book at 9. The Blue Book explained that, “[u]nder [Amendment 23], the state constitution sets a minimum increase in funding“—in contrast to the discretion the legislature then had to determine any in-crease or decrease in funding. Id. In de-scribing the principal arguments in favor of the proposed amendment, the Blue Book ex-plained that Amendment 23 would reverse the “erosion” of funding to public schools and the negative effects such erosion had had on per pupil funding, teacher salaries, and class sizes. Id. at 11. In addition, by earmarking a portion of state revenue for public edu-cation, Amendment 23 would ensure that funding for public schools would not fall far-ther behind due to other constitutional
¶ 36 Amendment 23 received 53% of the vote in the 2000 general election. See Colo. Sec‘y of State, 2000 General Election Re-sults, available at http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/2000/2000GeneralElectionResults.pdf. Colorado voters thereby added to the constitution article IX, section 17, which states:
In state fiscal year 2001-2002 through state fiscal year 2010-2011, the statewide base per pupil funding, as defined by the Public School Finance Act of 1994, article 54 of title 22, Colorado Revised Statutes on the effective date of this section, for public education from preschool through the twelfth grade and total state funding for all categorical programs shall grow an-nually at least by the rate of inflation plus an additional one percentage point. In state fiscal year 2011-2012, and each fiscal year thereafter, the statewide base per pu-pil funding for public education from pre-school through the twelfth grade and total state funding for all categorical programs shall grow annually at a rate set by the general assembly that is at least equal to the rate of inflation. (Emphases added.)
¶ 37 It is undisputed that the plain lan-guage of Amendment 23 requires annual in-creases to the “statewide base per pupil funding” component of the school finance formula in the Public School Finance Act of 1994 as that term was used in the Act “on the effective date” of Amendment 23. As explained by the majority, base per pupil funding is a component of the school finance formula in the Act; the base component is uniform for all school districts. Maj. op. ¶ 7. Base funding is then adjusted under the formula to account for various district-specif-ic factors such as personnel costs, cost of living, non-personnel costs, and size. These factors appear as multipliers to determine an individual district‘s per pupil funding. See id. Following Amendment 23‘s approval, the General Assembly has increased the state-wide base per pupil funding amount by the rate of inflation plus one percentage point for budget years 2001-2002 to 2010-2011, and by at least the rate of inflation thereafter.
¶ 38 It is also undisputed that, under the statutory formula in effect when the voters approved Amendment 23, an increase in base per pupil funding generated an increase to a district‘s total per pupil funding, assuming that a district‘s factors remained otherwise constant. As the majority acknowledges, un-til the General Assembly enacted the nega-tive factor, the required annual increases to statewide base per pupil funding resulted in corresponding increases to total funding. Maj. op. ¶ 9.
B. The Negative Factor
¶ 39 Colorado later faced severe budget-ary constraints as a result of the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the recession that followed. As described by the majority, the General Assembly determined in 2010 that “stabilization of the state budget require[d] a reduction in the amount of the annual appro-priation to fund the state‘s share of total program funding.” Maj. op. ¶ 10 (quoting
¶ 40 Legislators did not make these cuts lightly. One of the bill‘s sponsors acknowl-edged that they were “very painful” but were “necessary given the economic times.” Sec-ond Reading of H.B. 10-1369 before the House, 77th Gen. Assemb., 2d Sess. (Mar. 19, 2010) (statement of Rep. Scanlan). Similar-ly, Senator Hudak explained:
This is a terrible circumstance for us to be in. And it‘s because the economy is so bad that we at this point don‘t appear to have any choice. . . . I just wanted to explain to you why I, somebody who was part of the group that put Amendment 23 on the bal-lot, could even consider voting in favor of the bill.
Second Reading of H.B. 10-1369 before the Senate, 77th Gen. Assemb., 2d Sess. (Mar. 31, 2010) (statement of Sen. Hudak). The legislature nevertheless proceeded with these cuts by enacting the stabilization factor in paragraph (g) of section 22-54-104(5). Ch. 246, sec. 3,
¶ 41 In enacting this legislation, the legis-lature fundamentally altered the school fi-nance formula in the Act. As described by the majority, the legislature now determines, at its discretion, a cap on total funding. Maj. op. ¶¶ 11, 14 n.4. This cap is subtracted from the initial statewide total (i.e., the total fund-ing amount that would be generated under the original school finance formula). The difference is divided by the initial statewide total to derive a reduction percentage called the “negative factor.” Id. at ¶ 11;
¶ 42 As the majority necessarily recog-nizes, the negative factor “operates to reduce education funding across all Colorado school districts.” Maj. op. ¶ 1. These funding re-ductions led Plaintiffs to file this lawsuit chal-lenging the constitutionality of the negative factor. Compl. ¶ 4. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that the funding cap and negative factor in section 22-54-104(5)(g) ne-gate the will of the electorate by rendering Amendment 23‘s required increases to the base component in the formula essentially 3meaningless. Id. at ¶¶ 36-39. Expressed mathematically, Plaintiffs assert that base per pupil funding is now used both as a numerator and a denominator in the formula, thus canceling out the effect of any increases to base per pupil funding. See Appendix A. According to Plaintiffs, by reducing the total per pupil funding that districts otherwise
would receive under the formula, the nega-tive factor operates to nullify the annual in-creases made to the base component, thus violating Amendment 23. Compl. ¶¶ 38, 44.
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review and Principles of Constitutional Construction
¶ 43 A motion to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim tests the formal sufficiency of a plaintiff‘s complaint. Qwest Corp. v. Colo. Div. of Prop. Taxation, 2013 CO 39, ¶ 12, 304 P.3d 217, 221. Such motions are disfavored and should not be granted if relief is available under any theory of law. Colo. Ethics Watch v. Senate Major-ity Fund, LLC, 2012 CO 12, ¶ 16, 269 P.3d 1248, 1253. In reviewing a trial court‘s rul-ing on a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion, we accept the material factual allegations in the com-plaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
¶ 44 Although we avoid constructions of constitutional amendments that would “hin-der basic government functions or cripple the government‘s ability to provide services,” Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 248 (Colo. 2008), we have also made clear that “courts should not engage in a narrow or technical construction of [an] amendment if doing so would contravene the intent of the elector-ate,” Davidson v. Sandstrom, 83 P.3d 648, 654 (Colo. 2004). Rather, courts must give words their ordinary and popular meaning to ascertain what the voters believed the amendment to mean when they adopted it. Id. Ultimately, our duty in construing a con-stitutional amendment is to give effect to the intent of the electorate in enacting the amendment. See Lobato v. State, 218 P.3d 358, 375 (Colo. 2009); Washington Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146, 150 (Colo. 2005).
B. Application
¶ 45 Plaintiffs’ complaint meets the C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) standard. Because the tri-al court properly concluded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim
¶ 46 The plain language of Amendment 23 requires annual increases to the “statewide base per pupil funding” component of the school finance formula. And it is undisputed that the General Assembly has, in fact, in-creased that dollar figure each year since the passage of Amendment 23. According to Plaintiffs, however, what has changed is that the negative factor, which is applied to re-duce the end product generated by the statu-tory formula, effectively wipes out those in-creases to statewide base per pupil funding. By focusing on the term “statewide base per pupil funding” in isolation, the majority ig-nores the Plaintiffs’ core allegation.
¶ 47 As the majority correctly observes, we presume that the voters are aware of existing law when they enact a constitutional amend-ment. See maj. op. ¶ 19 (citing Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson, 995 P.2d 748, 754 (Colo. 2000)); see also Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215, 229 (Colo. 1994). As described above, under the formula in effect when voters passed Amendment 23, increas-es to statewide base per pupil funding neces-sarily yielded increases to a district‘s total per pupil funding, assuming the district‘s fac-tors otherwise remained constant. The Blue Book informed voters that Amendment 23 would “increase[] per pupil funding for pub-lic schools” under the school finance formula then in effect and even provided a mathemat-ical example illustrating how increases to statewide base per pupil funding under that formula yielded increases to average (total) per pupil funding for school districts. Blue Book at 9-10.
¶ 48 Crucially, the formula that existed on the effective date of Amendment 23 con-tained nothing to counteract the effect of increases to base per pupil funding. That is, nothing in the law when Amendment 23 was enacted suggested to voters that increases to statewide base per pupil funding could be 4nullified by application of something like a negative factor.
¶ 49 Yet, according to Plaintiffs’ Com-plaint, the negative factor does exactly that by rendering increases to base per pupil funding meaningless. Compl. ¶ 38. As dem-onstrated in Appendix A, the negative factor actually cancels out base per pupil funding in the formula. Voters surely did not intend the annual increases to statewide base per pupil funding to be pointless—yet according to Plaintiffs’ allegations, the negative factor renders them so. The majority‘s view that nominal increases in base per pupil funding are all that is necessary to satisfy Amend-ment 23 ignores the Plaintiffs’ core claim. Maj. op. ¶¶ 1, 6, 20; cf. Davidson, 83 P.3d at 654 (“Courts should not engage in a narrow or technical construction of [an] amendment if doing so would contravene the intent of the electorate.“).4 Indeed, under the majority‘s view, the legislature can eliminate the school finance formula entirely so long as each dis-trict receives the statewide base per pupil funding amount. Maj. op. ¶ 24 & n.6. Such a view cannot possibly comport with the voters’ understanding of Amendment 23.
¶ 50 Accepting the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Colo. Ethics Watch, ¶ 16, 269 P.3d at 1253. Accordingly, I would discharge the rule to show cause and allow Plaintiffs to prove their claims at trial.
III. Conclusion
¶ 51 Although the State faced extraordi-narily difficult fiscal choices during the re-cent recession, Plaintiffs contend that enact-ing cuts to education funding that circumvent a constitutional amendment was not one of the legislature‘s options. They have pleaded sufficient facts to support a claim that the
I am authorized to state that Justice HOOD and Justice GABRIEL join in this dissent.
APPENDIX A
This appendix, derived from the briefing and submissions from Plaintiffs and amici, describes the calculation of a school district‘s state-provided funding pursuant to section
* * *
Section 22-54-104 sets forth the formula for calculating a school district‘s “total pro-gram,” which is the annual financial base of support for public education in that district.
For the 2009-2010 budget year and all years thereafter, a district‘s total program is initially calculated as follows (provided that the total program is not lower than a statuto-ry floor):
district total program = district per pupil funding x (district funded pupil count - district online pupil enrollment - district ASCENT program pupil enrollment) + district at-risk funding + district online funding + district ASCENT program funding
district total program = district per pupil funding x district funded pupil count + district at-risk funding
Each of the terms on the right-hand side of the formula can be broken down further, as described below.
- district per pupil funding = statewide base per pupil funding x (district personnel costs factor x district cost of living factor + statewide base per pupil funding x district nonpersonnel costs factor) x district size factor
See
district per pupil funding = BPPF x EF
Second, district funded pupil count is typi-cally the district‘s pupil enrollment for the applicable budget year, plus certain special
Third,
district at-risk funding = district per pupil funding x 12% x district at-risk pupils
district at-risk funding = BPPF x EF x 12% x district at-risk pupils
Inserting these three expansions, the total program formula becomes:
district total program = BPPF x EF x district funded pupil count + BPPF x EF x 12% x district at-risk pupils
Pulling BPPF and EF out of the two added terms on the right side of the equation yields:
district total program = BPPF x EF x (district funded pupil count + 12% x district at-risk pupils)
Finally, if one treats the enrollment factors multiplied by pupil counts as the district‘s weighted enrollment (“WE“), the formula is simply:
district total program = BPPF x WE
Thus, one arrives at a simplified form of the formula that produces a district‘s total pro-gram before the negative factor has been applied.
* * *
Paragraph (g) requires the Department of Education to reduce total program funding through the application of a negative factor.
district reduction amount = district total program x negative factor
negative factor = statewide reduction amount / statewide total program
district reduction amount = district total program x (statewide reduction amount / statewide total program)
Subtracting the district reduction amount from the district total program derived above gives the following:
reduced district total program = district total program - district reduction amount
reduced district total program = district total program - (district total program x (statewide reduction amount / statewide total program))
Realizing that the statewide reduction amount is the initial statewide total program minus the budgetary cap,
reduced district total program = district total program - (district total program x ((statewide total program - budgetary cap) / statewide total program))
simplifying within the brackets,
reduced district total program = district total program - (district total program x (1 - (budgetary cap / statewide total program)))
applying the district total program inside the parentheses,
reduced district total program = district total program - (district total program - ((district total program x budgetary cap) / statewide total program))
and canceling out the first two instances of district total program, one ends up with:
reduced district total program = (district total program x budgetary cap) / statewide total program
As noted above, a district‘s total program equals base per pupil funding times the dis-trict‘s weighted enrollment, and statewide to-tal program is the sum of all districts’ total programs,
reduced district total program = (BPPF x WE x budgetary cap) / ((BPPF x WE1) + (BPPF x WE2) + (BPPF x WE3)...)
Pulling base per pupil funding out of the denominator and designating the sum of all districts’ weighted enrollments as statewide weighted enrollment (“SWE“),
reduced district total program = (BPPF x WE x budgetary cap) / (BPPF x SWE)
one can see that base per pupil funding cancels out of the formula, leaving the dis-trict‘s final, reduced total program as its weighted enrollment divided by statewide weighted enrollment, multiplied by the bud-getary cap:
reduced district total program = (BPPF x WE x budgetary cap) / (BPPF x SWE)
reduced district total program = (WE / SWE) x budgetary cap
This result demonstrates that a district‘s to-tal program, as reduced using the negative factor, does not depend on base per pupil funding.