CSI: Ballot distraction before real disaster hits

Whose fingerprints are really on three November ballot questions that could reduce Colorado to the functional equivalent of a banana republic?

The prime suspect is transplanted Californian, anti-tax crusader, former state legislator, lawyer and landlord Douglas Bruce. He claims he did not write nor finance Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61, but circumstantial evidence seems otherwise. The nominal sponsors have testified their marching orders came from a mysterious “Mr. X,” they received legal advice from Bruce and eight petition circulators lived in the same Colorado Springs apartment building owned by Bruce.

This farce has become a long-running engagement because the caped crusader has managed to dodge process servers 30 times. His court appearance to answer a contempt citation devolved into whether he had been served, not whether he violated election laws. The Aug. 18 continuance runs the clock a month closer to voters deciding the fate of the potentially disastrous measures.

SPONSORED CONTENT

Federal District Court Rules Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional . . . But Most Small Businesses Must Still Comply

Lyons Gaddis Real Estate and Business Attorney Cameron Grant shares important details of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).

So, let’s look for internal evidence. If the measures should pass, who benefits?

Not the state of Colorado, which would eventually be statutorily obligated to spend 99 percent of its annual budget on K-12 education. No road repairs, no prison guards – and, ironically, no new school buildings, because it would become impossible for districts to borrow money for construction.

Individual taxpayers? The net tax reduction for a typical homeowner making $55,000 annually would be about $150 per month, according to Colorado Legislative Council staff.

But a couple of provisions could be a lawyer and landlord’s best friend. Amendment 60 allows any citizen to sue the state if he or she thinks its provisions are not being enforced – and the individual can never be assessed court costs. Hey, Colorado, heads I win, tails you lose, and I can play this game as many times as I want, on the taxpayers’ dime! Sounds like a steady revenue stream for serial litigators like Bruce.

Amendment 61 would allow property owners to vote on any finance-related measure in the district where the real estate is located. So a resident of, say, El Paso County with the means to own apartment buildings all over the state could have a say in taxes paid by and for the residents of Larimer and Weld counties. Sounds like wealthy out-of-towners gaining control of local government without the fuss of getting elected.

Let’s not let Bruce’s political theater distract us. These three measures spell economic collapse for our state, no matter who drafted them.