Face The State Staff Report
The Colorado Department of Education is getting impatient as it awaits a Colorado Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of a 2007 property tax increase.
CDE officials filed a motion Monday (PDF) asking the court to speed up its decision with a looming Dec. 15 deadline for certifying next year’s mill levy rates. The department assists school districts with calculating their mill levies as applied to the assessed value of property, and the court's decision directly impacts those calculations. The statewide change in tax policy was championed by Gov. Bill Ritter and was enacted in the 2007 School Finance Act. In its first year, it took an additional $118 million of new revenue from taxpayers; it is predicted to bring in almost $2 billion more over the next decade.
CDE spokesman Mark Stevens declined to say whether the department would use the disputed mill levy rate to calculate next year’s property taxes if a decision by the court is not made before the deadline. “We’re just hoping the court hears our sense of urgency,” he said.
The state constitution mandates that the court must give priority to cases brought under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. The responsibility for enforcing that requirement falls on justices themselves, and the seven member court has yet to set a date for the ruling.
Denver attorney Jason Dunn, who previously worked as a clerk under Justice Nathan Coats, who currently serves on the court, predicts CDE’s motion will have little impact. “I think the court gives very little weight to such a request,” he said.
In May, Denver District Judge Christina Habas ruled that the mile levy increase violates the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which requires voter approval of any change in tax policy that results in a net increase of government revenue. In June, Ritter, a defendant alongside CDE, appealed the decision to the state's highest court. Oral arguments for the case were heard on Sept. 11. Political insiders predicted the decision would be delivered almost immediately following the Nov. 4 Election, but they have grown increasingly disappointed as the weeks have passed and there is still no ruling.
“I’m not reading anything into the delay beyond that it is a big case,” said Richard Westfall, attorney for the plaintiffs.
Dunn noted the delay in handing down a decision could be because there are multiple opinions being written or there is a swing vote on the bench. “Predicting supreme court decision-making is a little like going to Vegas,” he said. “It’s not an exact science.”
Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey is widely regarded as a political liberal, and some insiders speculate that she delayed the ruling to spare state Democrats from having to address the tax increase during the campaign season. But the lower court's ruling was enough fodder for Republican Laura Bradford, who used the issue to defeat Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, who defended the measure.