The Advance Colorado Team is committed to engaging in high-impact, public-interest litigation that has a direct and tangible impact on the people of Colorado. Our goal is to ensure that Colorado is a beacon of prosperity and opportunity for all Coloradans.
We stand firmly behind fundamental principles of free enterprise and challenge tax policies with potentially broad implications that could lead to negative, unintended consequences for taxpayers. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) gives Coloradans a direct say in government finances that isn’t available to any other state’s citizens. Advance Colorado fights to stop money-hungry politicians’ attempts to get around TABOR. Cases: Ward v. Colorado: Prop HH Challenge
Ward v. Colorado: Prop HH Challenge
Advance Colorado joined with 12 counties and multiple county commissioners and local elected officials to challenge SB23-303 and Proposition HH. Both the bill and the proposition violate Colorado's single subject requirement, and Prop HH has a misleading and unclear ballot title. This is unconstitutional. Colorado citizens are facing a $3-4 billion property tax increase in 2024. In response to this increase, the General Assembly waited until the last day of session to pass SB23-303 with Prop HH embedded in the bill. Each of them unconstitutionally “logrolls'” by pairing a politically popular notion (slightly reducing property tax assessment rates) with an unpopular notion (retaining an increasing amount of TABOR refunds – $10 billion over 10 years – and permanently eliminating them shortly thereafter). Advance Colorado sued to ensure that the legislature is held to the same constitutional requirements that citizens are.
Aranci v. Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District
The Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District (LSPWCD) doubled property taxes without asking voters for their permission to do so–a clear violation of TABOR.
Chronos Builders, LLC v. Department of Labor & Employment
Colorado has a flat income tax in its constitution: everyone’s income is taxed at exactly the same rate. Yet, the state tries to get around this clear rule by charging a “fee” measured purely as a percentage of an employee’s wages. And the state treats employees differently based on who they work for. (Government employees, conveniently, can avoid the fee.) This is not only unfair, it’s unconstitutional.