Democratic lawmakers are threatening to undercut a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at forcing Colorado to spend more on roads — which they warn would bust its already-teetering state budget — before it ever reaches the November ballot.
They announced a bill they planned to introduce Friday that’s designed to counteract Initiative 175, a measure they said could divert money from other state priorities to meet its mandate. The construction industry-backed proposal would require the state some $2 billion per year, including $540 million from the general fund, on road transportation projects.
The proposal, which hasn’t yet qualified for the ballot, immediately drew , who are reeling from making regular $1 billion-dollar cuts in recent years to make up for ongoing budget shortfalls. Dozens of outside groups, including the Colorado Hospital Association, the Sierra Club and Greater Denver Transit, released in April, calling for backers of the initiative to withdraw it.
Underscoring the fiscal pressure, lawmakers just recently sent a spending plan to Gov. Jared Polis for the next fiscal year that had to bridge a $1.5 billion deficit.
The Restore Our Roads Coalition is still gathering signatures for its measure, which would ask voters to require that state revenue collected from transportation-related sources be used only for “road transportation.”
The measure would, in effect, take money from other priorities, such as Medicaid and education, to pay for roads, the lawmakers argue. It could also make it more difficult to spend some transportation funding on transit programs.
“What we cannot do is fill a pothole and close a hospital,” said Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, a Fort Collins Democrat working on the legislative counter. “And thatap the situation that we will be faced with should Initiative 175 go into the state constitution.”
Boesenecker and other top Democrats have drafted a bill that would shift state spending to meet obligations outlined in the measure — and then cut the gas tax to make more room for other spending under the state’s spending cap set by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
In effect, Boesenecker said, the bill would create close to a net-zero effect on state spending if Initiative 175 becomes part of the state constitution.
Supporters of the initiative, which is being backed financially by the Colorado Construction Industry Coalition, have said the measure is necessary because of the dire state of Colorado’s roads — along with general frustration that taxes and fees on motor vehicles go to broader transit-related issues, and not just roads.
The initiative would require that the affected funding be spent on fixing roads and bridges, road planning and engineering, driver safety and the Colorado State Patrol.
“We are not spending enough money on roads. Voters know it,” Tony Milo, director of the Colorado Contractors Association, told The Denver Post for a story published earlier this week. “They know the taxes they are paying on motor vehicles and for using motor vehicles aren’t going toward roads. They’re frustrated about that.”
After the Democrats’ proposal became public Friday afternoon, the coalition appeared steady in their approach.
“Initiative 175 is simple. It funds roads without a tax increase using revenue that is already supposed to go to roads — something a majority of Colorado voters, especially rural Coloradans, support,” Grand Junction Mayor Cory Kennedy, a supporter of 175, said in a statement. “This new bill inserts the will of legislators over the will of voters.”
Boesenecker, like other opponents, called the initiative “an irresponsible measure that would gut core services for Coloradans.”
He and other lawmakers hope their legislative move will force supporters of Initiative 175 to pull down the measure, versus spending time and money to campaign for an ultimately ineffectual proposal.
If its supporters pull the proposal from the ballot, lawmakers said, they will be willing to discuss better funding for roads.
Boesenecker said lawmakers had been in touch with supporters of the initiative, including sharing a draft of the bill.
“Conversations can be had about how we can responsibly address transportation funding in the state,” Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat and chair of the powerful budget committee, said. “But those conversations cannot be had until they take down their irresponsible ballot measure.”
Any deal would have to happen relatively quickly, since the legislative session ends May 13. Boesenecker said the majority Democratic leadership is prepared to move quickly to make sure the bill to neutralize the initiative lands on Polis’ desk.
As for landing on a deal if supporters of the initiative were to agree to pull it down, he turned to an end-of-session adage: “We can pass a bill in three days.”
But, Boesenecker added, “I’d rather pass it sooner.”
The initiative is the latest salvo in a battle that has pushed state budget priorities through the ballot box.
In 2024, voters approved Proposition 130, requiring that the state direct $350 million to law enforcement, without specifying where the money should come from. In response, lawmakers passed House Bill 1084 this year, which would require citizen-run initiatives to identify where the money needed for their measure would come from.
Sen. William Lindstedt, who is sponsoring the anti-Initiative 175 bill, also sponsored HB-1084. Proposition 130 was a statutory change, he noted, which gives lawmakers some leeway in how they implement it.
Initiative 175 seeks to change the constitution — a much higher bar for any action.
Sen. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat on the budget committee and sponsor of the new bill, said people need to be wary of “special interest groups” directing state funding without regard for the bigger budget picture. That allows outside groups to swallow up ever more money from the budget — at the expense of the rest of the state’s priorities.
“Any individual ballot measure might look kind of good, and if they spend enough money to advertise the benefits, then they might be able to get it passed,” Amabile said. “So we’ve got to be on offense here in order to stop that from continuing to happen.”
