Politics
Colorado justices to decide whether income-tax measure gathered enough valid signatures
The Colorado Supreme Court is weighing an appeal that could remove Amendment 87 from the November ballot over claims that paid petition circulators violated state rules. The measure cleared the signature threshold after nearly 131,000 signatures were certified, but challengers say almost 10,000 should be thrown out.
The Colorado Supreme Court will hear an expedited appeal over whether Amendment 87, a proposal to create a graduated state income tax, can remain on the November ballot. A decision is expected before Election Day, Nov. 3, as voters are already casting ballots.
The appeal follows a Denver district judge’s Oct. 21 decision rejecting a lawsuit that alleged paid signature gatherers broke state rules. The case was brought by Michael A. Hancock, an Arapahoe County man. His attorneys appealed the next day.
The challengers contend that nearly 10,000 signatures were collected by paid circulators who were not properly registered for the petition effort or did not meet other state requirements, including updating their information and submitting training certificates. They argue those signatures should be invalidated because the rules are intended to prevent fraud. The allegations have not been established in court.
Amendment 87’s supporters submitted more than 157,000 signatures in August. The Secretary of State’s Office reported Sept. 1 that nearly 131,000 were valid—above the more than 124,000 required to qualify. If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers and excludes the disputed signatures, the measure could fall below the threshold and be removed from the ballot.
The court confirmed Friday that the first set of briefs is due Monday, with response briefs due Wednesday. The filings will address questions from the court’s seven justices.
If approved by voters, the proposal would raise state income-tax rates for Colorado’s wealthiest residents while lowering them for most households and businesses. The measure has become a prominent point of contention in the election, with mailers, social media posts and television ads urging voters to take opposing positions.
Chris deGruy Kennedy, president and CEO of the Bell Policy Center and co-chair of the Protect Colorado’s Future coalition, criticized the legal challenge, saying unnamed interests were trying to prevent voters from deciding the issue. The case now puts the measure’s ballot status in the hands of the state’s highest court just days before the election.