Facing the Colorado General Assembly is Senate Bill 228, which eliminates restraints on growth of the general fund imposed by the Arveschoug-Bird limit on appropriations.
Arguments can be made against this bill on principles of fiscal responsibility, limited and efficient government, and failure of the state to more effectively use the tax dollars we already send to Denver.
However, there is a much more disturbing aspect to this bill that should alarm anyone who values the liberties of the republic in which we live: SB228 is unconstitutional, and as such must be rejected.
Article X, Section 20 (1) of the Colorado Constitution contains the statements “Other limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval” and “Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.” This directive is clear: weakening spending limits must be submitted to a vote of the people.
While Arveschoug-Bird is a limit on appropriations, a memorandum from the Office of Legislative Legal Services states that the General Assembly in SB93-74 defined “expenditure” (spending) as “the appropriation or disbursement of any state general fund ” and that modifications of Arveschoug-Bird require submission to the voters.
Additionally, recordings of original Arveschoug-Bird committee hearings demonstrate that the intent of Arveschoug-Bird is to be a limit on spending.
Furthermore, the constitution makes no distinction between spending limits that require funds to be returned to the taxpayer and limits that require funds to be spent elsewhere. A limit is a limit. The operative statement is ” restrains most the growth “, which is the clear intent of Arveschoug-Bird.
This is important, because SB228 will not be submitted to a vote of the people, and is therefore unconstitutional. Sen. John Morse and Rep. Don Marostica (bill sponsors) could have completely avoided any question of constitutionality by referring this issue to the people. Why didn’t they?
At a town hall meeting held March 14, I asked Rep. Marostica what reason existed to not submit this bill to a vote of the people, in light of his duty to uphold the constitution. His response was “let the legal eagles worry about that” and that he actually welcomes this case being brought before the Supreme Court so they can rule in his favor and “settle the issue once and for all.”
One can only infer from these comments that to supporters of SB228, the end justifies the means, and that the supporters are placing more faith in the Colorado Supreme Court to ignore constitutional mandates than they are placing in the voters to make their own decisions. The recent mill-levy decision by the court indicates that such faith may indeed be well placed.
Whether you believe that Arveschoug-Bird should remain or be repealed, every Coloradan should be alarmed at the audacity the supporters of this bill have shown in the means they are using to effect this repeal.
Much deeper principles are at stake than fiscal restraint on governmental growth and intrusiveness—foundational principles of our republic: objectivity of law, right of referral, and restraint of the government imposed by congressional mandates.
SB228 is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to circumvent the will of the people and the clear mandates of the constitution. Contact your legislators and inform them that on these grounds alone, SB228 must be defeated.
Patrick Albright lives in Wellington. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
