One of the more contentious topics within Colorado politics is budgeting and funding for projects, education, and revenue intake. This came to a head in this year's election with Proposition CC. Despite failing at the ballot box, the Democratic Party is pushing ahead with the 2020 legislative agenda that includes drafts to eliminate the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights or amend it to ensure more accessible revenue for the party's policy objectives. What is critical to the debate is the increasing partisan divide within Colorado, the historical shift from Republican control to Democrat trifectas in state government, and the institutional mechanisms that have hampered strategy for the dominant party. Also, in the mix are interest groups that influence local politics which can help uncover party strategy from another perspective.
The Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI) a left-leaning think tank, is a key player in this battle, authoring several proposals that align with the Democrats agenda in eliminating smaller sections of TABOR like Prop CC addressed with TABOR refunds. In some instances it would be an all-encompassing tax overhaul, which would allow Governor Polis to fulfill one of his campaign promises in modifying the revenue stream for the state. It is important to note that members of the Democratic party are divided on end-state goals. Governor Polis for example has repeatedly supported the direct democracy aspect in TABOR, while Carol Hedges of the CFI wants to return that power to the legislature since the content of Colorado tax policy is complex. On the other side of the aisle the Colorado branch of Americans for Prosperity, a Charles Koch funded group, as well as Colorado Rising Action, a fiscally conservative, small government PAC, were supporting the status quo emphasizing more discipline and less taxes.
Funding is another element here, Pat Stryker one of the "Gang of Four" Democratic donors as Straayer discusses, contributed to the support of Prop CC. However, despite outspending the opposition 2019 has provided a different outcome than the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections where donations were a key element in electoral logistics (Straayer 149-150). Straayer caveats that Democrats did not seize power in those elections with financing alone. In fact it may have been the funding combined with a shift within Colorado Republicans toward socio-cultural conservatism as well as fiscal conservatism that sealed the deal on the 21st century Democrat dominance (Straayer 150). What this may suggest by proxy is that the Republican party within Colorado has shifted away from the electorate which is still fiscally conservative in regard to TABOR but socially liberal. However, given Prop CC was on the ballot during an odd year in the Colorado election cycle one factor is that voter turnout was higher in more conservative areas with Democratic strongholds like Boulder and Denver counties seeing a relatively low turnout. It may not be the electorate as a whole that is fiscally conservative, but which part appeared at the polls. During a higher turnout year like 2020 the polls may very well see an increase in Democrat voters.
Another tactic that Democrats could use is to attempt to court moderates or reach a limited bipartisan consensus like in 2005 with Referendum C, another TABOR initiative that suspended the revenue limits for a five-year span. Oddly enough we see the familiar name of Pat Stryker as a principle donor like with Prop CC, but the lack of support from Republican leaders likely explain the differences in outcomes between these two initiatives. Another hindering factor is increasing polarization. The Republican party gradually has wandered to the right insofar as cultural issues and policy is concerned which hampers any remaining nostalgia for mutual support of TABOR reform. Research, like that of Hinchliffe and Lee, indicates that Colorado is likely to remain polarized due to the high degree of competition within the state. Despite TABOR being a more clear example of direct democracy, signalling by party leaders, as well as effective campaigning by interest groups in this polarized regime appear to be more effective tools in swaying voters next fall.
The Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI) a left-leaning think tank, is a key player in this battle, authoring several proposals that align with the Democrats agenda in eliminating smaller sections of TABOR like Prop CC addressed with TABOR refunds. In some instances it would be an all-encompassing tax overhaul, which would allow Governor Polis to fulfill one of his campaign promises in modifying the revenue stream for the state. It is important to note that members of the Democratic party are divided on end-state goals. Governor Polis for example has repeatedly supported the direct democracy aspect in TABOR, while Carol Hedges of the CFI wants to return that power to the legislature since the content of Colorado tax policy is complex. On the other side of the aisle the Colorado branch of Americans for Prosperity, a Charles Koch funded group, as well as Colorado Rising Action, a fiscally conservative, small government PAC, were supporting the status quo emphasizing more discipline and less taxes.
Funding is another element here, Pat Stryker one of the "Gang of Four" Democratic donors as Straayer discusses, contributed to the support of Prop CC. However, despite outspending the opposition 2019 has provided a different outcome than the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections where donations were a key element in electoral logistics (Straayer 149-150). Straayer caveats that Democrats did not seize power in those elections with financing alone. In fact it may have been the funding combined with a shift within Colorado Republicans toward socio-cultural conservatism as well as fiscal conservatism that sealed the deal on the 21st century Democrat dominance (Straayer 150). What this may suggest by proxy is that the Republican party within Colorado has shifted away from the electorate which is still fiscally conservative in regard to TABOR but socially liberal. However, given Prop CC was on the ballot during an odd year in the Colorado election cycle one factor is that voter turnout was higher in more conservative areas with Democratic strongholds like Boulder and Denver counties seeing a relatively low turnout. It may not be the electorate as a whole that is fiscally conservative, but which part appeared at the polls. During a higher turnout year like 2020 the polls may very well see an increase in Democrat voters.
Another tactic that Democrats could use is to attempt to court moderates or reach a limited bipartisan consensus like in 2005 with Referendum C, another TABOR initiative that suspended the revenue limits for a five-year span. Oddly enough we see the familiar name of Pat Stryker as a principle donor like with Prop CC, but the lack of support from Republican leaders likely explain the differences in outcomes between these two initiatives. Another hindering factor is increasing polarization. The Republican party gradually has wandered to the right insofar as cultural issues and policy is concerned which hampers any remaining nostalgia for mutual support of TABOR reform. Research, like that of Hinchliffe and Lee, indicates that Colorado is likely to remain polarized due to the high degree of competition within the state. Despite TABOR being a more clear example of direct democracy, signalling by party leaders, as well as effective campaigning by interest groups in this polarized regime appear to be more effective tools in swaying voters next fall.
Well done! This was very interesting to read about TABOR and Prop CC and how it has affected Colorado's politics and polarization. Great incorporation of the different news sources as well as a piece from Straayer!
ReplyDeleteNice job! Your knowledge and explanation on the topic is great. You do a good job analyzing TABOR and Prop CC. I think you make a good connection about voter turnout and that Colorado is very polarized state. With polarization increasing who knows if something like Prop CC will ever pass!
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job with your post, being very detailed and specific with your connections.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really good post! I think TABOR is a really difficult topic to understand and this lays out how it relates to Prop CC and Colorado politics in general.
ReplyDeleteSam, thanks for your description of the problems and aspects surrounding TABOR in our contemporary state Government. I also wrote my blog post on this same issue, which is why I really enjoyed reading your take and perception of this issue. One thing that I really appreciated about your post was how you highlighted the differences in opinion among the various politicians. It was fun to hear about Polis's take on the issue, and his opinion differed from some of the other Dems. I would have to agree with Polis in that I think TABOR is a big issue but I also believe that the direct democracy aspect of TABOR is probably its best quality of the entire law.
ReplyDeleteI like how you compared the Colorado act to the one in Virginia. It gives the reader more to think about in terms of the different impacts to the states.
ReplyDelete