ap

Skip to content
Gov. John Hickenlooper says Colorado could be facing a bleak budgetary future. (David Zalubowski, Associated Press file)
Gov. John Hickenlooper says Colorado could be facing a bleak budgetary future. (David Zalubowski, Associated Press file)
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Getting your player ready...

In recent months, Gov. John Hickenlooper has been warning anyone who will listen that the state faces a bleak budgetary future because of a growth cap imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

He’s correct — up to a point — but what the governor doesn’t say is that he may be describing the best-case scenario.

The worst case? Colorado loses a lawsuit over school funding that got a hearing last week at the state Supreme Court.

Losing that lawsuit is a very real possibility, although it is rarely wise to predict how a court will rule. Suffice it to say that this lawsuit is no Hail Mary pass by education advocates.

To the contrary. Proponents make sober arguments about a curious fact regarding education funding in the 15 years since Amendment 23 passed. That amendment mandated school funding above inflation for 10 years and then at no less than inflation every year thereafter.

For the first nine fiscal years the amendment was in place, the state funded education according to a formula that everyone seemed to agree was needed for compliance. But then, in the 2010-11 budget year — not coincidentally, in the midst of the Great Recession — the state changed how it calculated funding. The result was that for two straight years, the amount provided schools actually declined.

Everyone understands why the state changed course: the word “desperation” comes to mind. Putting mandatory spending formulas in the state constitution is a bad idea precisely because tax receipts can collapse during economic downturns.

But like it or not, voters approved Amendment 23, and its mandates survive. And the state has never been able to make up what it took away when the bad times hit. The lawsuit demands that it do so.

It’s only fair to point out that the state argues Amendment 23 only mandates increases in “statewide base per-pupil funding for public education,” so it can cut funding for such factors as the number of at-risk students and district size. And maybe a majority on the court will find that convincing.

If not, however, “bleak” doesn’t begin to describe the state budget if officials are ordered to find another $880 million for schools.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

More in ap