The seven justices peppered both the plaintiffs in the high-profile lawsuit and Trump’s legal team with questions, including if the siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters constituted an insurrection. They also probed the legal ability of the Colorado secretary of state to keep candidates off the ballot, the language of the 14th Amendment itself — which says insurrectionists can’t run for office — as well as whether Colorado can invoke that rule on its own.

The provision at issue in the Civil War-era 14th Amendment was aimed at keeping Confederates away from federal power after the nation reunited. But its language doesn’t explicitly bar insurrectionists from the highest office in the land, prompting the Colorado justices to prod both sides about what that means.

“If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question: Why not spell it out?” Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. asked the petitioners’ lawyers. “Why not include president and vice president in the way they spell out senator or representative?”

The attorneys hoping to keep Trump off Colorado’s ballot had argued that it would be “bizarre” and “counterintuitive” to read the amendment as barring rebels from most federal offices while leaving the presidency open to them.

Trump’s legal team argued the presidency was excluded on purpose, as a unique office. But would that mean, Justice Melissa Hart asked, that Jefferson Davis, the former president of the breakaway Confederacy, could have been elected U.S. president after the Civil War?

“That would be the rule of democracy at work,” replied Scott Gessler, a lead attorney for Trump and a former Colorado secretary of state.

The justices will sift through those answers and others in the weeks to come. They have no timeline to issue their ruling, though Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in January must certify the ballots for the state’s March 5 presidential primaries.

After the hearing, Gessler said he viewed the justices’ close attention to the legal structure of Amendment 14’s Section 3 as “a positive.” That argument is what won for Trump in the lower court. He also didn’t want to read too much into their questioning and posture.

“I think the justices, in one form or another, expressed skepticism of everyone’s answers throughout the whole two hours,” Gessler said. “I don’t think you can really predict a whole lot from it.”

In a statement from the plaintiffs afterward, Lakewood attorney Mario Nicolais said: “Our oral argument today speaks for itself: Donald Trump took an oath to support our Constitution as an officer of the United States, violated that oath when he engaged in insurrection and consequently disqualified himself under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

The court’s coming ruling could open the case up to a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if the justices disqualify Trump. The Colorado ballot case is among several similar ballot-qualification lawsuits targeting Trump across the country, but so far all have failed.

As it stands, Trump will be on Colorado’s Republican ballot. A Denver District Court judge ruled last month that Trump must be included because the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to presidents — though Judge Sarah B. Wallace also declared in the findings of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection back in January 2021.

That ruling prompted an appeal from both Trump’s legal team and the group of Republican and unaffiliated voters suing to keep him off the ballot.

Trump’s team agreed with Wallace’s reading of the 14th Amendment but asked the state Supreme Court to strike the declaration that he engaged in insurrection.

The petitioners, who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sought a broader ruling, arguing that an insurrectionist can’t be allowed to seek the Oval Office.

There are similar heavy-hitting cases underway in Minnesota and Michigan, though courts in those states have halted the complaints. Minnesota’s Supreme Court did not rule on the merits but said political parties could nominate whomever they liked — leaving open the possibility of a 14th Amendment challenge before the general election there.

A Michigan court ruled it would be up to Congress to decide if the amendment bars Trump from the ballot there, and that state’s high court declined to expedite its review of the case.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

It’s the latest milestone in a lawsuit that alleges Trump engaged in insurrection surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the U.S. Capitol — and in doing so, disqualified himself from regaining the nation’s highest office under a Civil War-era amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The provision of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

In November, a district court judge in Denver found Trump did engage in insurrection while also finding that the 14th Amendment restriction did not apply to the presidency the way it would to other federal offices.

Since then, lawyers for both sides as well as outside organizations and state officials across the country have weighed in on how Colorado’s justices should decide the matter. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the early afternoon.

Here’s a guide to the case and what’s at stake.

Why is the Colorado Supreme Court involved?

Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, after a weeklong trial this fall, that Trump can appear on Colorado’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot, despite her finding that he participated in an insurrection. This prompted both the petitioners and Trump’s legal team to appeal, though from opposite directions.

The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last month.

Who is challenging Trump’s eligibility?

The lawsuit was brought by a group of unaffiliated and Republican Colorado voters who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Republican petitioners include Claudine Cmarda, a former Rhode Island congresswoman who now lives in Colorado; Norma Anderson, a former majority leader in both Colorado’s state House and state Senate; and Denver Post columnist Krista Kafer.

Republican-turned-unaffiliated voter Chris Castilian, who served as deputy chief of staff for Colorado’s last GOP governor, Bill Owens, is also involved in the suit. None of the voters involved are current Democrats.

What are the plaintiffs seeking from the higher court?

Wallace’s underlying ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection through his words and actions was seen by critics of the former president as a victory in its own right. But the plaintiffs are now asking the state’s justices to go where Wallace didn’t.

Her overall ruling that the president does not qualify as an officer of the United States — a key phrase in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — would “yield absurd results,” the petitioners argued.

“It would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office except for the highest and most powerful in the land,” their attorneys wrote in the appeal. The legal team includes former Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson.

Why did Trump appeal a ruling he won?

Trump’s legal team, which includes former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, agrees with Wallace’s ruling that the 14th Amendment shouldn’t apply to Trump. But his appeal argues she committed “multiple grave jurisdictional and legal errors” — including by finding he engaged in insurrection.

Trump’s speech near the White House on Jan. 6 didn’t call for violence, his attorneys argued, and still “the district court found that President Trump’s supposed intent, and the effect of his words upon certain listeners, sufficed to render his speech unprotected under the First Amendment.”

The appeal also questions whether the five-day trial that began in late October was a proper venue for constitutional litigation and the establishment of “new, unprecedented, and unsupported legal standards.”

How have challenges of Trump’s eligibility fared elsewhere?

Similar lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility have been filed in several states, with none succeeding so far. Among other cases with significant backing, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in November that Trump could remain on the ballot there because political parties have discretion over their primary ballots. And a Michigan judge has ruled that Congress should decide if Section 3 applies to Trump.

How will Colorado’s high court consider the case?

The Colorado Supreme Court doesn’t generally overturn a lower court’s findings of facts unless the judge made a clear error, meaning the justices likely will give some deference to Wallace’s finding that Trump did engage in insurrection. Instead, their eyes will focus more closely on how she applied the law and whether the 14th Amendment applies to Trump.

The court has no specific timeline for a ruling, but Secretary of State Jena Griswold must certify the primary ballot in January. That election is set for March 5.

What’s at stake?

In her ruling, Wallace wrote that she took the gravity of the case seriously: “To be clear, part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent” of 14th Amendment’s Section 3.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, called it “significant” that Wallace declared that Trump engaged in insurrection. He is the author of the upcoming book “The Law of Presidential Impeachment” and was the only expert called by both Republicans and Democrats in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

He said recent scholarship is supportive of the petitioners’ arguments that the 14th Amendment should apply to former presidents. But he didn’t have any predictions for the case — except that a ruling in the lawsuit plaintiffs’ favor would make it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would get involved, having the final say.

“It’s just speculation when and whether the U.S. Supreme Court will ever hear this case,” Gerhardt said. “But if somebody is being declared ineligible to run for the presidency, that could possibly make this a more pressing matter.”

What outside voices have weighed in?

The case has drawn interest from more than a dozen parties that have filed formal advisory briefs with the Colorado Supreme Court, expressing a range of opinions. Some briefs are outwardly partisan, including joint briefs submitted by more than a dozen state Republican parties; by 19 states with Republican leaders, spearheaded by the attorneys general of Indiana and West Virginia; by the Republican secretaries of state in Wyoming, Missouri and Ohio; and by the Republican National Committee.

“The Reconstruction Congress (after the Civil War) did not grant state officials sweeping authority to undermine the federal government,” attorneys for the national GOP wrote in a brief that argued the 14th Amendment provision shouldn’t be applied until after an election.

Trump’s team also has received backing from Treniss Jewell Evans III — a Texan who pleaded guilty last year to misdemeanor charges related to storming the Capitol on Jan. 6; he admitted to drinking a shot of Fireball whiskey in a conference room that other rioters told him belonged to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In his brief, Evans, who said he’d been defamed by the petitioners, disputed characterizations of that day, arguing that “there was no competent evidence … to support that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection or that there was any insurrection.”

What about on the other side?

Several law professors as well as Colorado Common Cause and the Constitutional Accountability Center, which advocates for a progressive reading of the founding document, urged the state’s justices to bar Trump from the state’s ballot.

Nine law professors countered Trump’s First Amendment defense in a joint brief, arguing it doesn’t protect speech that incites lawless action or constitutes a threat — and that disqualification wouldn’t infringe on protected speech, anyway. The filing from Common Cause, a left-leaning government watchdog group, called it “a great credit to prior generations of American political leaders” that the disqualification clause of the Constitution had so rarely been invoked — but argued this case rose to that standard.

“The fact that the Disqualification Clause is so clearly implicated at this hour, then, is a proportionally great discredit to Mr. Trump himself, who allowed a lust for power to supersede his own Oath of Office and over two centuries of American political precedent,” the filing reads.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

State Rep. Ruby Dickson, a Greenwood Village Democrat and rising star in the majority party, announced her resignation, effective Dec. 11.

“While I’m proud of our legislative accomplishments, it has recently become clear that the sensationalistic and vitriolic nature of the current political environment is not healthy for me or my family,” Dickson wrote in a letter to the House’s chief clerk.

She also thanked her constituents and called her time in office “the honor of my life.”

Dickson did not immediately return a request for an interview.

House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, praised Dickson in a statement soon after her announcement, calling her “a brilliant champion for working families.” McCluskie did not return a request for comment about Dickson’s cited reason for resigning.

Dickson won her seat in November 2022 with 56% of the vote. In the days before the special session last month, she told housing advocates that she was working on legislation for early 2024 to address parking regulations amid the broader push by Democratic legislators to reform land use codes.

She would have faced reelection next November. Her seat will be filled by a vacancy committee in the coming weeks.

Staff writer Seth Klamann contributed to this story.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

“We’re investing in America (and) investing in Americans. And it’s working,” Biden said Wednesday during a 24-minute speech from a temporary stage on the factory floor of CS Wind, the largest wind turbine tower manufacturer in the world.

The stop was part of the Democratic president’s “Investing in America” tour to tout the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act and other laws passed early in his term. The South Korea-based CS Wind cited the law as a factor in its $200 million investment in expanded capacity at the Pueblo plant, and with it, the creation of more than 800 new jobs.

Tony Salerno, a production manager for CS Wind, said during introductory remarks that “this factory found new life” when Biden signed the act into law.

The setting gave Biden a jumping-off point to cast the economy as strong — even as he acknowledged that there’s “more work to do” to slow down inflation.

Unemployment has sat below 4% for a stretch not seen since the 1950s, he said, and America’s share of manufacturing for high-tech components such as microchips is rebounding. More than 250,000 new jobs have started in Colorado alone during his administration, Biden said.

Despite that messaging and the positive data points, voters have a sour view of the economy — and they largely blame Biden for it, according to recent polls.

A Gallup poll released Tuesday showed a 37% overall approval rating for Biden as he ramps up his reelection campaign. The survey found that just 32% of adults approve of his handling of the economy.

Beyond his economic message, the Pueblo setting also gave Biden a stage to slam Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, a Republican whose sprawling district includes the blue-collar city, as “one of the leaders of this extreme MAGA movement” standing against his efforts.

Displaying a sly grin, he made the sign of the cross at his first mention of Boebert.

She voted against the Inflation Reduction Act and several other laws Biden credited with spurring more than $1 billion in private investment in Colorado. Boebert narrowly won reelection in 2022.

After rattling off investments in microchip manufacturing, solar energy and wind turbine manufacturing, Biden quoted Boebert’s past criticism of the IRA, chiding: “Folks, none of that sounds like a ‘massive failure’ to me.”

“You all know you’re part of a massive failure?” Biden said. “Tell that to the 850 Coloradans who get new jobs in Pueblo at CS Wind thanks to this law. Tell that to the local economy that’s going to benefit from these investments.”

Ahead of Biden’s speech, a statement from Boebert criticized the president and “Bidenomics” — a term emblazoned on a banner in the rafters during Biden’s event.

“On Joe Biden’s watch, credit card debt, inflation, groceries and gas prices have all reached record highs,” Boebert said. “These high prices are squeezing working-class Coloradans and rural America. Rather than cutting wasteful federal spending and unleashing American energy production, Joe Biden continues to pander to radical extremists, lock up more land, and spend his time focused on campaign stunts and vacations rather than doing the job he was elected to do.”

(View the White House’s recorded video on YouTube.)

Besides Boebert, Biden took aim at former President Donald Trump, now his potential 2024 election opponent.

Trump also was Biden’s focus during a fundraiser Tuesday night in Cherry Hills Village at the home of Tamara Totah Picache, a managing partner of the Flatiron Group. He drew contrasts with Trump and highlighted public response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade.

“Donald Trump’s about to find out the power of women in America in 2024,” Biden told attendees, according to a press pool report.

The president had planned to visit Pueblo last month but postponed the trip because of the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas. U.S. support for Israel during its war in the Gaza Strip, which was launched in response to a terrorist attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, has posed political challenges for Biden among his Democratic base.

On Tuesday night, a few dozen pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated on the street in front of the hotel where Biden stayed in downtown Denver.

Biden last visited Colorado in June, when he delivered a commencement address at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

During his Pueblo visit Wednesday, the CS Wind factory looked as though work had stopped mid-production, with metal tubes — a dozen feet or more in diameter and weighing tons — lying on the floor. On a typical day, it would be a hive of work and a cacophony of warning bells, whirring motors, welding hisses and hammering steel.

Biden went on a tour of the factory before his speech. He asked workers questions about the process for building the giant wind turbines and other work conducted on-site, according to a press pool report.

At one point, he shouted to a worker: “Corey, watch out that entire sucker starts coming back towards you.”

U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, predicted the $740 million Inflation Reduction Act’s impact on the country eventually would be likened to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Hickenlooper proved a key negotiator last year as senators recruited enough votes to pass the bill, which included record climate spending.

“Energy independence begins in places like Pueblo,” Hickenlooper said.

Biden and his allies also extolled the effects of the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, passed in 2021, and other legislation that has invested in high-tech manufacturing.

State Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, a Pueblo Democrat, said the setting Wednesday reflected the historic steel town’s “resiliency and its expertise,” while the investment in the wind tower factory represents “long-term growth and sustainability” for the community.

He sees the area as sitting at a crossroads, since it’s also home to the state’s largest coal-fired power plant, which is preparing to shut down in the next decade. CS Wind’s expansion, he said, moves the community and the state forward.

“We’ve got concerns about (the coal plant) and what replaces that,” Hinrichsen said. “But we’re also providing the energy that will power our state into the future cleanly and renewably.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

But it wasn’t quiet. The House started Saturday with a group of pro-Palestine protesters interrupting the chamber’s morning work with calls for lawmakers to denounce Israel’s military campaign and urge a cease-fire. After the group was escorted out, Democratic leaders repeatedly tussled with Republicans who ignored those leaders’ directions to follow House rules. As a result, Democrats refused to recognize one Republican — Colorado Springs Rep. Scott Bottoms — for the rest of the day, meaning he wasn’t able to speak at the chamber’s mic.

Gov. Jared Polis called the special session in the aftermath of Proposition HH’s failure this month. The Democratic majority had hoped for a three-day gathering to hammer out some form of property tax relief as well as other proposals they argue will ease the rising cost of living in the state.

Republicans had led the charge against Proposition HH and cite its near 20 percentage-point loss as evidence voters don’t support Democratic priorities that echo proposals in that measure — and that they don’t want their tax refunds messed with.

Democratic leaders argued the proposition was too big and complicated to divine a single intent from voters, and that their new property tax proposal doesn’t tap into the refunds. And with majorities in both chambers, Democrats shot down Republican proposals and forged ahead with their own, including an increase to tax credits for low-income workers, more money for emergency rental assistance, and equal refunds, regardless of income level.

Here’s where those proposals stood as of early Saturday evening.

Immediate property tax rate reduction

The most contentious bill of the session – the one that led the Republican minority in the Senate to throw down a gauntlet on its first night – passed a key voice vote in the chamber that all but secured its passage. A formal vote still needs to happen Sunday, and then it needs to work through the House.

Democratic sponsors said they were able to stretch the $200 million previously set aside for property tax reduction a touch further than earlier projections. The amended proposal increases the value reduction for tax purposes from $50,000 to $55,000. It would save the owner of a $500,000 house, with an average mill levy rate, about $28 more a year, for a total of about $255 reduction in their annual property tax bill.

It also widens the criteria for local taxing districts that would qualify for full reimbursement of lost property tax dollars because of state cuts to the formula.

Republicans still fought the bill as much as they could from the minority position, arguing the state should instead dip into reserves to pay for property tax changes and past bills that used TABOR refunds to ease property taxes should be reworked.

Free summer meals for children of low-income families

While property taxes have dominated the conversation in the Capitol, the special session also is poised to allow Colorado to claim first-in-the-nation status for a $42 million summer meal program for children in low-income families. It would cost the state $6.7 million, and the program would begin next summer.

The federal program provides a $40-per-month food stipend for three summer months when children aren’t in school. The federal pool would pay for the stipend for up to 350,000 children. The state would need to establish criteria and an outreach program as part of the bill.

The bill also represents a moment of near-unanimity during what’s been a rancorous special session. The House still needs to consider it, although it’s not expected to raise temperatures there.

“This policy is an example of when two opposing parties can work together, how you can accomplish good things,” state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said. “It does stand a little apart from some of the noise down here, which is more exciting and gets more attention. For me, it’s a little bit of hope that we can still continue to function as the state government as opposed to the intractable mess that you see at the federal level.”

Rental assistance

As part of a broader commitment by Democrats to expand this special session’s relief beyond just property owners, the House green-lit a bill that would set aside $30 million in rental assistance to help keep at-risk renters from being evicted through the first six months of 2024.

Under the bill, renters below 80% of their area’s median income would qualify if they were at imminent risk of eviction or displacement. As the federal aid has dried up, evictions have shot up in Denver and across the state. Advocates have said those trends have led to increased homelessness.

If passed, that addition would be a big boost: It would nearly double the state’s rental aid budget, bumping it to $65 million. That’s still shy of the approximately $20 million the state was distributing every month in rental assistance during the pandemic, although that money largely came from federal pandemic stimulus.

The money from the bill would be distributed by nonprofit groups to landlords. The state would have to dole out the cash to those nonprofits before June 30, when the state’s fiscal year ends.

“People across the state live on the brink and are one job loss away, or one emergency away, from losing the roof over their head,” said Rep. Mandy Lindsay, an Aurora Democrat and the bill’s cosponsor.

“We can do something about it, right here, right now.”

Expanded tax credits

The bill passed by the House on Saturday expands the state’s match of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. As it stands, working and lower-income Coloradans get a 25% match on their federal EITC. For next year only, Democrats are proposing to spend $185 million in TABOR surplus money on upping the state match to 50%.

To put it in simple numbers: If you get a $4,000 federal tax credit under the program, this bill would mean the state would add an additional $2,000. Currently, the match would be $1,000.

The increase would benefit more than 400,000 families in the state, according to one of the House sponsors, Rep. Mary Young. Eligibility depends on how much you earn, how many children you have and whether you’re filing your taxes alone or as a joint filer. But generally it applies to lower-income workers.

Equal tax refunds

Another plank in the Democrats’ spread-relief-around platform: flattening TABOR for all income levels next year. That would do away with the six-tier system temporarily, giving a boost to most taxpayers in the state.

Exact figures are up in the air because the tax credit measure would affect the size of the TABOR surplus and, thus, the size of the checks. But Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, one of the bill’s sponsors, said Friday that the refunds would be more than $800 per recipient. His cosponsor, Sen. Janice Marchman, said the increase would benefit nearly 90% of single taxpayers and more than 50% of joint-tax filers.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The Senate was also nearing an end to its first blush of work, with the primary property tax bill set for a final vote Sunday. Senate committees are set to begin working the bills passed by the House heading into Saturday evening.

Updated at 12:26 p.m.: The Senate doesn’t get to have all the fun. The House, amid some increasing tension between the majority Democrats and minority Republicans, passed a bill to double the state’s match for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. The program will primarily benefit low-income families and workers — as many as 400,000, Rep. Mary Young, a Greeley Democrat, said in a statement.

The bill still needs approval by the Senate.

“This special session is not exclusively about property owners,” Rep. Jenny Willford, the bill’s other sponsor, said. “It’s about bringing together a package of bills to provide necessary relief to our entire state.”

Updated at 11:40 a.m.: In a show that not everything at the Capitol is a political cage match, a bill to provide food to children in low-income households over the summer sailed through the Senate. The bill costs the state $6.7 million this fiscal year and $4.5 million in the next. In return, up to $42 million in federal benefits will help feed up to 350,000 children. The bill was sponsored by Sens. Rachel Zenzinger and Jeff Bridges, both Democrats, and won near-unanimous support. It now heads to the House of Representatives.

“This policy is an example of when two opposing parties can work together, how you can accomplish good things,” Zenzinger, of Aravada, said. “It does stand a little apart from some of the noise down here, which is more exciting and gets more attention. For me, it’s a little bit of hope that we can still continue to function as the state government as opposed to the intractable mess that you see at the federal level.”

Updated at 9:46 a.m.: A group of pro-Palestine protestors briefly interrupted the Colorado House of Representatives on Saturday morning, shouting from the balcony overlooking the House floor and calling for lawmakers to support a ceasefire in Gaza.

Lawmakers had just reconvened for the morning when a small group of protesters unfurled Palestinian flags and a banner calling for an end to Israel’s occupation while one man shouted for lawmakers to condemn Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

Troopers from the Colorado State Patrol, who oversee security in the Capitol, shepherded the dozen or so protesters out of the balcony area. The group then began to chant from the building’s interior, watched by law enforcement.

A group of Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Iman Jodeh, Tim Hernandez, Jen Bacon and Javier Mabrey — spoke with the group, and one of the House’s sergeants — the chamber’s quasi-security force — told the protesters they could go down to a basement room to talk further with legislators.

Shortly after, the chanting restarted, including with a promise to return to protest again. The troopers then directed the group into a stairwell and out of the building.

The scene was similar to when a group of student protesters, urging lawmakers to take action on gun violence, shouted down from the House balcony last spring. Law enforcement and building security drew criticism in the wake of that incident after they physically carried one shouting student from the balcony.

The House remained in recess 45 minutes after, as tensions over the policy issue of the day — property taxes — flared up in the wake of the protests.

Original story: Colorado lawmakers are convening for the second day of a special session Saturday as they advance legislation that aims to provide property tax relief, flatten state tax refunds and provide more aid aimed at preventing evictions for renters.

Friday’s opening day featured quick work by committees to advance the majority Democrats’ bills — while also rejecting Republican-sponsored legislation. Tangling over the expedited three-day schedule erupted in a Senate floor dispute Friday night between Republicans and Democrats, resulting in contested rules votes and a delay that will likely extend the session into Monday.

On Saturday, the Senate plans to convene mid-morning and hold preliminary floor votes on legislation. The House aims to take final votes on bills introduced in that chamber, sending them to the Senate.

The special session that began Friday was called by Gov. Jared Polis in response to voters’ rejection of Proposition HH in the Nov. 7 election. The measure, championed by Polis and Democratic legislative leaders, had aimed to reduce the size of coming property tax increases that are driven by recent increases in property values across the state that average about 40% at the median.

Prop. HH also would have provided compensation to school districts and local governments and special districts that rely on property tax revenue for their budgets.

Now lawmakers are pursuing a similar strategy, though the changes would apply only for the coming year. The direct property tax relief provisions match those proposed in Prop. HH for residential properties, though the “backfill” provisions for local entities differ.

Disagreements around Prop. HH and the election results have played into this weekend’s legislative debates.

GOP lawmakers argue that the measure’s loss, by nearly 19 percentage points, shows voters don’t want legislators to divert money away from tax refunds due to them from the state’s surplus under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR.

Democrats are eyeing the surplus, including to cover a boost in the Earned Income Tax Credit. But for direct property tax relief, they have proposed drawing from $200 million previously set aside by the legislature for help on property taxes.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The beginning of the special session chugged along for most of the day, as Democrats, who hold wide majorities in the legislature, planned for a three-day sprint through Sunday to pass legislation aimed at softening historic property tax increases facing Coloradans early next year. The proposals include spending hundreds of millions of dollars to cut property tax rates and make up at least some of the resulting losses that local governments and school districts would feel from the cuts.

But Republicans forced Democrats to take an evening floor vote to allow for the fast-tracking they planned for legislation in that chamber, via a special order. Without it, the Senate’s normal rules that govern the time between hearings and votes would slow down the handling of bills, potentially extending work into Monday or Tuesday.

Democrats contended that the quicker movement was typical in past special sessions.

The 23-12 party-line vote failed by one vote to clear a needed two-thirds majority threshold. On a quick revote, Senate President Steve Fenberg pressed ahead with a voice vote rather than calling for a roll call — and then declared, over Republicans’ howls, that the motion had passed.

A Republican appeal failed in another floor vote.

In the fallout, the Senate adjourned for the night at 9:20 p.m. rather than taking preliminary floor votes on bills. The resulting delay leaves lawmakers facing a four-day session that will last at least through Monday.

The dispute about timing had been brewing for much of the day, but the action played out quickly late Friday.

“This isn’t about time. It’s about political theater — and it’s exhausting,” Fenberg said before the first rules vote. “If you think people want property tax cuts, then let’s give them property tax cuts and go home. It’s irresponsible (to delay), and I think it’s dishonest to the people of Colorado.”

Later, Sen. Mark Baisley, a Woodland Park Republican, told Fenberg: “There’s an integrity issue here.”

“Yes,” Fenberg responded, holding his ground. “And it does have consequences.”

Fenberg and Minority Leader Paul Lundeen also tangled, with Fenberg insisting that “If you break the norms, the norms are broken.”

In seeking to slow down action, the Republicans invoked the three-day rush last session that put Proposition HH in front of voters. They said they were willing to push the special session into Thanksgiving week to give voters, who resoundingly rejected Proposition HH last week, a chance to digest the Democrats’ proposals.

The state House didn’t face as much uncertainty over its rules as the special session, the state’s first since the pandemic, began.

In committee hearings, the Democratic majorities in both chambers shot down every Republican proposal, broadly called the bills “fiscally irresponsible,” and shuttled through their own proposals to ease the cost of living in the wake of Proposition HH’s defeat. Some of those bills were likely to reach preliminary floor votes late Friday, with final votes beginning Saturday — and then an exchange of bills between the chambers, depending on any delays.

In addition to property taxes, the Democrats are seeking to provide more money for emergency rental assistance and increase tax credits for low-income Coloradans.

The day began with 14 introduced bills. By mid-afternoon, the number had been cut in half.

The major remaining proposals include:

• Property tax cuts that would be achieved by changes in the formula used to determine residential property taxes. The deduction from a property’s value for tax purposes would rise from $15,000 to $50,o00. The assessment rate, which is applied to determine the assessed value, or what’s taxable, would be reduced from 6.765% to 6.7%.
• Sending out equal tax refunds to all Colorado taxpayers, a temporary change — also implemented last year — from the normal income-based system in which higher-income Coloradans receive more money back. The amount each taxpayer will receive hasn’t been finalized, pending the outcome of other legislation, but co-sponsor Sen. Nick Hinrichsen’s early estimate Friday was $847.
• Doubling the state’s 25% matching credit provided to recipients of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC sends money directly to workers who earn less than $59,187 under this year’s guidelines. The tax credit is scaling, with more going to families with children, and a sponsor has estimated the proposed change would mean anywhere from $300 to $3,700 more for those who are eligible. The bill would cut into the state’s TABOR surplus by roughly $185 million, according to sponsor Rep. Jenny Willford.
• Adding $30 million to the state’s emergency rental assistance program, which is currently budgeted at $35 million, to help renters who are at risk of eviction. The caveat is that it must be spent by June 30, when the state’s fiscal year ends.

Gov. Jared Polis called the special session in the aftermath of Proposition HH’s loss almost two weeks ago. He and Democratic legislators backed that multifaceted measure as a way to trim back the extent of coming property tax spikes due to rocketing property values, without shortchanging local governments that rely on property taxes.

Republicans argued that HH’s loss, by nearly 19 percentage points, showed voters don’t want the refunds due to them under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, tampered with at all, even if that surplus went toward tamping down property tax bills.

Broadly, Democrats argued that the result showed voters rejected that specific measure. However, the renewed property tax effort in the session isn’t aiming to tap into those refunds for the property tax relief. It instead relies on $200 million from the general fund that was already earmarked for property tax help.

“Those sides are pretty dug in, for better or worse,” said Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat and the architect of both HH and the new property tax proposal.

The House continued forward with its slate of bills late Friday. The chamber was set to advance the Earned Income Tax Credit bill, the rental assistance measure, and a bill to create a property tax task force to come up with a long-term solution to recurring property tax increases.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Much more will be on the agenda during the special session, which begins at 9 a.m. and is expected to last at least three days. The Democratic-majority General Assembly has outlined proposals to reduce elements of the property tax formula to provide relief, to flatten tax refunds due under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights so that all taxpayers receive an equal amount, to increase tax credits for low-income households and to provide more money for the state’s emergency rental assistance program.

This story will be updated throughout the day.

Updated at 9:56 p.m.: The Senate’s early adjournment tonight will result in a delay because of even the expedited legislative rules. Lawmakers now face a four-day session that will last at least through Monday.

Updated at 9:23: The Senate adjourned for the night a few minutes ago, with leaders deciding against more action on the floor.

As the Senate descended into chaos earlier, the House was in familiar territory: its majority Democrats watching, snacking and chatting as Republicans railed at length against Democrats’ priority bills.

Steadily, though, the Democrats advanced their planned changes to the earned-income tax credit, plus a small bill to pay for more staffing in the state Department of the Treasury. Still left to pass before midnight were bills to create a property tax task force and to direct $30 million in rental aid to tenants through the first half of next year.

Updated at 8:52 p.m.: The appeal vote requested by Republicans of the prior voice vote — which Democrats claimed had passed — failed on the floor. Senate Democrats signaled that they planned to forge ahead on the intended timeline, but it’s possible that timing will continue to be a focus of discussion between the parties.

Updated at 7:51 p.m.: In a second special-orders vote that would allow for the fast-tracking of bills, Senate President Steve Fenberg pressed ahead with a voice vote — and then declared that the motion, which requires a two-thirds majority, had passed.

This has sparked protests from Republicans. It’s unclear what will happen tonight, with Democrats trying to move forward under this disputed second vote — while Republicans request an appeal on that vote, something that would go to the floor. This time, senators would vote under a normal majority-rules threhold to decide whether to uphold the vote.

“If you break the norms, the norms are broken,” Fenberg said to Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, referring to the usual procedures for special sessions.

Updated at 7:39 p.m.: In a 23-12 party-line vote, the Senate failed to clear the two-thirds majority needed to allow for the fast-tracking of legislation in that chamber during the special session. Without a change from normal requirements, via a motion for a special order, it’s likely the Senate’s work will extend into Monday or even Tuesday, well beyond the intent to wrap up by Sunday night.

The threshold for the motion to suspend rules was 24 votes. A re-vote is possible tonight, but with little prospect for a different outcome.

Before the vote, Senate President Steve Fenberg said on the floor: “This isn’t about time. It’s about political theater. And it’s exhausting. If you think people want property tax cuts, then lets give them property tax cuts and go home. It’s irresposible (to delay), and I think it’s dishonest to the people of Colorado.”

Updated at 6:38 p.m.: A procedural fight in the Senate threatens to push the special session onto the verge of chaos tonight, as Senate Republicans allege their Democratic colleagues in the majority didn’t follow certain rules to fast-track legislative work. At risk is whether the Senate can finish its work by Sunday.

Since the minority Republicans are pressing the issue, the Senate needs a two-thirds majority to put a special order in place. Otherwise, their work will be pushed into early next week. Democrats are one seat shy of that two-thirds threshold — meaning they need a Republican to support their motion. Senate President Steve Fenberg said he thought the vote would pass and argued that any further delay would hurt county assessors, particularly in rural counties.

But Senate Republicans have said they want concessions on the Democrats’ primary tax bill, which the Democrats have been unwilling to give. Fenberg reiterated that concessions wouldn’t happen.

Updated at 5:20 p.m.: After legislators cut the slate of bills under consideration by half during the day, lawmakers milled about early this evening and waited for final committee votes on the seven Democrat-backed bills.

All seven are virtually assured to clear that last hurdle tonight.

From there, three will advance to the full Senate, and the other four to the House floor. The rushed schedule then calls for the chambers to take a first full vote on their bills tonight, with the final-reading votes set for Saturday. After that, each bill will cross over to the other chamber for consideration, a step that marks the halfway point in the process and is likely to occur Saturday afternoon.

Legislative staffers predicted that today’s proceedings, however, would stretch well into the night.

Updated at 2:59 p.m.: Republicans’ final big property tax bill was just killed in the Senate Local Government and Housing Committee on a party-line vote. It would have changed the property tax formula and compensated local governments for some forgone revenue with reserves from the state budget.

Democrats rejected the idea of tapping into reserves but otherwise had kind words for Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, the Republican sponsor. The three Republicans on the committee all voted “for the people, aye.”

Another Republican bill, which would put a hard cap on property tax increases, is now being heard. But it was not part of the package touted by GOP leadership.

Updated at 1:29 p.m.: Democrats’ main bill to provide property tax relief, by raising the deduction on valuations and adjusting the assessment rate downward, passed the Senate Finance Committee on a party-line vote. (See the original story below for details on what’s proposed.)

“We’re trying to make lemonade here, and we’re trying to provide as much relief as we can,” said committee chair Sen. Kyle Mullica, a Thornton Democrat.

Updated at 1:25 p.m.: All the House bills with Republican sponsorship died in committee by about 1 p.m. That includes the caucus’ proposal for property tax formula changes, a task force to look at a tax code overhaul, and a bipartisan proposal to increase the homestead exemption for qualifying seniors and veterans.

Another proposal from a Republican senator dealing with homestead exemptions failed in committee. It would have expanded that exemption to apply to seniors who moved due to medical emergencies.

In the Senate, the main Republican proposal on property taxes was still being heard in a Senate committee, where Democrats also hold a majority of votes.

Updated at 12:02 p.m.: Democratic legislators gave initial approval Friday to set aside $30 million in rental assistance through the first six months of 2024. The money would go to lower-income earners who are at immediate risk of eviction across Colorado, expanding a state program currently budgeted at $35 million.

“People across our state are living on the brink,” Rep. Mandy Lindsay, an Aurora Democrat, said. “… We can do something about it, and I’m here to do something about it.”

The bill was approved by a party-line 8-4 vote, with the House’s Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee’s four Republican members opposing it.

Rep. Don Wilson, a Monument Republican, asked Lindsay and fellow sponsor Rep. Leslie Herod if there would be controls to ensure aid recipients don’t spend their money on drugs. The Democrat-dominated committee bristled, and Lindsay replied that the money was vital to help communities facing evictions — not because they were using cocaine.

Updated at 11:35 a.m.: A Senate committee advanced a bill that would flatten TABOR refunds for all Coloradans next year. Sen. Janice Marchman, a Democrat co-sponsoring the measure, said that would mean that nearly 90% of single-filers in Colorado and 50% of joint-filers would receive a larger refund next year than under the current, income-based setup.

The bill passed on a party-line 3-2 vote and will be considered by the full Senate later today.

Fellow sponsor Sen. Nick Hinrichsen said TABOR refunds would be equalized at $847 for every taxpayer, though he cautioned the figure may change depending on the impact of other bills passed during the special session.

Republican Sen. Larry Liston said the failure of Proposition HH, which similarly aimed to flatten refunds, was proof that voters didn’t like the idea. Hinrichsen countered that he’d seen polling showing flattened rates were popular and reiterated that it would benefit most Coloradans.

Updated at 11:25 a.m.: Technical issues hampering the publishing of bills online and the availability of online testimony is delaying what many lawmakers hoped would be a smooth process. Those delays affected the starting times for separate Senate committees where the two primary, dueling property tax proposals — one from Democrats, one from Republicans — were set to be heard roughly simultaneously.

The Republican proposal’s hearing just began, and the hearing on the Democratic proposal is expected to begin soon. The majority Democrats have the numbers on both committees to pass and kill what they like.

Earlier, before the delays, legislative staff were predicting an adjournment today at 11 p.m. or later.

Updated at 9:56 a.m.: Opening the House session, Speaker Julie McCluskie reiterated what many House Democrats have said since Proposition HH went down: “Our agenda is made up of proven solutions, policies which have received bipartisan support these past few years.”

“These solutions are aligned deeply with our values to provide the most relief to the people feeling the brunt of our cost of living crisis,” she continued. “That means targeting our support toward working people, renters and middle-class homeowners.”

McCluskie also called for bipartisanship and civility — a point aimed both at the cross-party divide as well as disagreements within her own party. “I encourage us to work together, not fight each other,” she said. “History has proven that we achieve more and we are stronger when we strive for the same goals and collaborate as a team.”

Updated at 8:59 a.m.: Shortly before the 9 a.m. gavel, House Republicans held a pre-session news conference to draw contrast between their plans and those of the Democrats. Their plan calls for using reserves and state budget-tightening to cut property tax rates, but Democrats have said tapping into reserves would be fiscally irresponsible.

Republican House Minority leader Mike Lynch said the few Democrats they heard from responded with “thanks, but no thanks.” As it stands, he said his caucus will have “a very hard time getting behind what we believe is a disingenuous effort to bring true property tax relief to folks.”

But the caucus has no plans to resort to the drastic protest that marked the end of the last legislative session, when House Republicans walked out of the building.

“We’ve done the work. The people on the ground know we’ve done the work,” Lynch said of Republican plans around property tax relief. “The relief that comes out of this is squarely on the back of the Democrats, the people that are in charge here. … We’re not planning any shenanigans.”

Original story: Property tax bills due early next year will reflect increases driven by a median 40% rise in property values across the state. Gov. Jared Polis called the special session late last week in response to voters’ overwhelming rejection of Proposition HH in the Nov. 7 election, charging lawmakers with approving tax reforms and programs that will apply only for a year.

Among the highlights of plans outlined by legislative leaders:

• Proposed cuts in the formula used to determine residential property taxes, with the deduction from a property’s value for tax purposes rising from $15,000 to $50,o00. The assessment rate, which is applied to determine the assessed value, or what’s taxable, would be reduced from 6.765% to 6.7%.
• Increasing the maximum value of the homestead exemption granted to seniors, disabled veterans and surviving spouses of disabled veterans.
• Sending out equal tax refunds to all Colorado taxpayers, a temporary change — also implemented last year — from the normal income-based system in which higher-income Coloradans receive more money back. The amount each taxpayer will receive is unclear, but earlier the state estimate under the now-defunct Prop. HH was $898.
• Doubling the state’s 25% matching credit provided to recipients of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC sends money directly to low-income taxpayers, with more going to those with dependents.
• Adding $30 million to the state’s emergency rental assistance program, which is currently budgeted at $35 million, to help renters who are at risk of eviction — with the caveat that it must be spent by June 30, when the state’s fiscal year ends.

Why does much of this sound familiar?

The property tax relief proposed by Democratic lawmakers is largely copied from Proposition HH, including the figures for the changes to the property value deduction and the assessment rate.

Unlike Prop. HH, the legislative proposal does not address commercial property rates. Prop HH would have lowered their assessment rates by .05 percentage points this year.

What does this mean for homeowners?

The aid likely won’t scale back the entire property tax increase facing many homeowners, and the effect will vary somewhat because of the formula changes. Each bill also will depend on mill levies that local governments control — the tax rates — and how much money a property is worth.

Lopping off a chunk of property value for tax purposes will have a bigger effect for lower-value properties.

According to an analysis by the liberal Colorado Fiscal Institute ahead of the fall election, without any changes, the owners of a $300,000 home whose value had increased to $405,000 from 2022 to 2023 would see their property taxes rise by about $415 next year. With the proposed formula changes under HH — identical to what’s proposed now — the bill would increase by about $100 instead.

How would this affect local governments?

The big changes in the new legislative package compared to Proposition HH are that its provisions would kick in only for a year, and there is less money to hand out as compensation to local governments that rely on property taxes to fund local services.

Any cuts to property tax collections will affect the budgets of local governments — though critics of the Democrats’ approach argue that they should make do with what in many cases will simply be a smaller increase in revenue.

The Democrats’ proposal would funnel state money to school districts and fire districts to make sure they get all the money that would be due to them if property tax rates were left unchanged. Lower-growth areas, which haven’t seen surging property values, also would receive state money to make up for the revenue loss caused by rate cuts.

Counties that experienced growth in property values of 13.5% or more — and thus will see the greatest potential boost in their property tax base — would be left out of the “backfill.”

How do lawmakers propose to pay for this?

Legislative leaders are looking to lean on $200 million set aside already in the general fund for property tax relief.

Gov. Jared Polis said Thursday morning that he’d also be willing to draw down the state’s 15% reserve by up to 1 percentage point, which amounts to about $150 million.

It’s unclear if that will happen. Legislative Democrats have lambasted Republicans’ proposal to tap into reserves to pay for property tax relief as irresponsible, but they didn’t answer when asked if it was completely off the table.

Lawmakers can also tap into the state’s budget surplus, or tax money collected over the cap set by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. In a call with reporters Thursday afternoon, Democratic leaders said they were looking at the surplus for some direct tax credits primarily, such as the EITC credit match increase.

Those potentially would be in the $150 million range, which they predicted would have a minimal impact on total direct TABOR refunds that are estimated to top $3.2 billion. The roughly nearly $900-per-taxpayer refund estimate would hold if the surplus is left relatively untouched.

What’s the Republican alternative?

Republicans have launched their own plan to cut property taxes rates even more deeper, but with less money provided local governments to compensate for the effect on their revenue — and without touching the TABOR surplus.

The GOP lawmakers have aimed instead to use money from the state’s reserves. But the party is at a historic low point of representation in the Capitol, limiting its members’ influence.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

But legislative leaders were still sorting out details for their approach to what’s expected to be the legislative centerpiece — how to directly head off historic increases that will hit property tax bills across the state early next year, with median value increases running at about 40%. It was also not yet clear how much those increases might be scaled back.

Lawmakers will gather under the Gold Dome for a minimum of three days, working through the weekend to forge a post-Proposition HH path forward. Gov. Jared Polis called the special session in the aftermath of voters’ resounding no vote in the Nov. 7 election — by nearly 19 percentage points — on a ballot measure that he and other Democrats in the Capitol had championed.

Democrats have a supermajority in the state House of Representatives and a near supermajority in the Senate, putting them in the driver’s seat for this weekend’s session.

“The focus is really going to be: How can we max out the amount of property tax relief we can offer, given the amount of resources we have,” state Sen. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat and an architect of past property tax relief bills, said in an interview Wednesday night.

Expanded tax credits for low-income Coloradans and equalized refunds due during income tax-filing season under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, are also high priorities for the majority party, he added. The state sent flat refunds in the last year, but in Colorado they usually are distributed in differing amounts based on income.

Democrats also have introduced a proposed bill to put $30 million toward emergency rental assistance, to help people who don’t own their homes. Another is a bipartisan effort to increase the homestead exemption offered to property taxpayers for the 2023 tax year, which will show up on bills in early 2024.

The details of the measures are subject to negotiation as Democrats wrangle with how much to tap into the state’s reserves or the $3 billion-plus TABOR surplus, which otherwise has to be refunded to taxpayers. They also have $200 million in the general fund, specifically earmarked for property tax relief, that they can draw from.

The likely emphasis for property tax relief, Hansen said, will on property value deductions — which adjust the amount of money a home has deemed to be worth for tax purposes.

Progressives argue that’s a better way to direct help toward lower-income households than another major option, a flat reduction in the percentage of a home’s value that’s taxable. The latter option would reduce tax bills by a larger dollar amount for higher-valued homes.

Democrats are discussing boosting the value deduction, now set at $15,000, up to somewhere between $50,000 and $70,000. That would mean that a home valued at $500,000 would only be taxed on $450,000 or $430,000 of its value.

“The value deductions create a bigger help for homes that are under $500,000, for example, than your $2 million or $5 million home where it has a relatively small impact,” Hansen said.

Democrats, as they did in Proposition HH’s provisions, also aim to deal with the other side of the coin.

Property owners’ savings on their taxes would bite into local government budgets that rely on property taxes, with some beneficiaries, including school districts, long shorted on tax revenue. Hansen said Democrats are focused on keeping school and fire districts fully funded, but limited resources mean they’ll have to prioritize how much money the state will give other local governments to meet their budget projections.

While the state can influence the overall formula used for determining property taxes, the amount owed is ultimately determined by local governments’ mill levies, which are the tax rates applied to assessed property values.

The special session also opens up other opportunities, said state Sen. Chris Kolker, a Centennial Democrat.

He plans to introduce a bill to expand the earned income tax credit by increasing the state’s match of the federal program. The federal program gives a scaling tax credit to low-income families, with the most going to lower-income families with three or more children. The basic requirements include working and earning less than $59,187.

Kolker wants to increase the percentage of the credit matched by Colorado to 50% or more, up from 25% now, though where that settles will depend on the larger budget conversation. A 50% match would mean an extra $300 for a low-income family with no dependents, and about $3,700 for a low-income family with three children or dependent relatives.

That idea wasn’t part of the Prop. HH conversation, but it was something Polis explicitly allowed in his order calling a special session.

“The people who earn the earned income tax credit — 100% of them, practically, are renters,” Kolker said. “The silver lining of the special session is that we can address these needs of people at the lower income levels who are struggling to pay rent, trying to figure out what bills to pay.”

The minority Republicans will bring their own priorities to the Capitol this weekend.

The party’s leadership is touting a nearly $1.4 billion plan that would both increase the home value deduction to $80,000 and lower the assessment rate — without touching the TABOR surplus. Instead, they’d turn to the state’s historically filled reserves and ask local government to take a one-year buffer of state money. It’s unlikely to provide as much as they expect to receive under current tax projections.

“(The reserves are) there for a crisis,” said Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, of Monument. “Now is the time because the property tax crisis is a legitimate problem for the people of Colorado.”

Republicans in the past have supported using the state’s TABOR surplus to pay for property tax relief — most recently in 2022 — but they are reading the rejection of Proposition HH as voters’ message that they want refunds left alone. The HH opposition campaign focused heavily on the measure’s proposed increase to the TABOR revenue cap, which limits how much state revenue can grow.

Now it’s a line in the sand for the party heading into the special session.

“If you’re taking money out of one pocket to give to the other, you’re still taking it from the same person,” Assistant Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, a Colorado Springs Republican, said.

Hansen called the Republican proposal worrisome since it would draw on the state reserve funds. He raised the specter of the Great Recession, when the state more than a decade ago was forced to make “draconian” cuts to services because it didn’t have enough reserves to weather it.

“I found the Republican proposal to be very fiscally irresponsible,” Hansen said. “To take a deep chunk out of our reserves would put us at a very high risk as we think about a potential recession around the corner.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The nearly 19-percentage-point shellacking suffered by the property tax ballot measure Tuesday left policymakers scrambling for a backup plan and spurred Gov. Jared Polis to call the first special session since the pandemic.

It also raised the question: How does a measure aimed at tax relief, albeit while attempting so much more, fall hard before an electorate facing historic increases in their next property tax bills?

Both backers and opponents of Prop. HH chalk up its loss to a lack of a clear message to voters. And the electorate may have been primed to say “No” by a barrage of ads with directly contradictory messages, including plenty on either side that stretched the truth or misrepresented what HH would do.

Some 59% of voters rejected the proposal in a low-turnout, off-year election, according to the latest results. The loss prompted finger-pointing among some Democrats and their allies.

“Proposition HH was a well-intended measure that was trying to address what lawmakers perceived to be a sudden and loud demand for some kind of property tax policy,” said Ian Silverii, a Democratic consultant and founder of The Bighorn Company, a political advocacy firm.

While the measure would have accomplished most of its goals, had it passed — including partially scaling back next year’s property tax increases — he said the approach had a major problem: “It never had one coherent message. It never had one coherent messenger, and if … Colorado voters don’t understand where the money is coming from, where it is going and what it’s going to help, they vote no.”

In all, more than 989,000 Coloradans said no to the measure, as of Friday morning — and they had potentially just as many reasons.

Property taxes, education funding and government aid

Proposition HH’s language mentioned a reduction in property taxes for homes and businesses, but also the “backfilling” of counties and several kinds of special districts for lost tax revenue. It mentioned the funding of school districts, too. The money would come from a portion of the state surplus.

If voters did more research, they’d learn that the last part meant a reduction in the state refunds required by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, for years to come. They’d also see projections of huge sums of money set aside for new spending, reaching more than $2 billion a year within a decade, with most of it going to education.

State Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat and chief proponent of the measure, cautioned against treating the opposition as unified.

“The voters who voted no were not a monolith,” Fenberg said. “I think some of the Democrats who voted no feared it was something that would have resulted in reduced funding for their schools. There were Republicans who voted no who were concerned because they were told it would take away their TABOR refunds.”

Proposition HH’s chief opponent, Advance Colorado Institute President Michael Fields, echoed that sentiment, in his own way. But whether votes against it were about voters not liking pieces of the Prop. HH package, disliking its complexity or outright rejecting the policies proposed, a no vote is a no vote.

On top of that, many voters who participate in higher-turnout elections didn’t feel motivated to bother casting a ballot.

“When you lose by (nearly) 20 percent, it’s a combination of all the things” that might lead to a loss, said Fields, whose organization advocates for conservative fiscal policies.

He had expected the proposition to lose, he said, but was surprised by the wide margin.

Prop. HH failed by a much larger margin than the previous off-year ballot referendum to take aim at the state revenue cap, which is set under Colorado’s 31-year-old TABOR Amendment. The voter-passed constitutional amendment was aimed at limiting the growth of government.

In comparison, Proposition CC, which would have allowed the state to keep revenue above the cap instead of refunding it to taxpayers, failed by about 7 percentage points in 2019.

Citing internal polls his group conducted on Proposition HH, Fields said voters were particularly wary of its effect on refunds mandated by TABOR — especially on the heels of Democratic leaders’ much-touted Colorado Cashback Program for rebates in 2022.

The effect on refunds was a message he and other opponents hammered relentlessly in ads against the measure, at times saying Prop. HH would end them. The measure wouldn’t have ended refunds permanently, though by allowing the state to keep more money, it could have meant no refunds in some years.

Polis, during a news conference Thursday at which he announced the Nov. 17 special session, said the measure probably should have been broken into two or three separate, direct ballot questions that were in sync with each other.

“What people probably want to see is more specificity about exactly how the change would save them money and that it’s clear how that occurs,” Polis said. “This is technical, complicated stuff, so it’s hard to make it simple for a ballot initiative.”

For Polis, the measure’s failure was the second major blow to his agenda this year. It follows the death of his sweeping land-use reform bill in the final hours of the legislative session in May after fellow Democrats couldn’t overcome their differences.

Was Prop. HH too ambitious? Or not good enough?

For some of Colorado’s most progressive legislators, Proposition HH failed simply because some voters judged it to be insufficient.

“It was good, but it was not good enough. It provided some relief, but not enough relief,” said Rep. Lorena Garcia, an Adams County Democrat. “It was not an equitable piece of policy, and I think a lot of Coloradans saw that and said, ‘No.’ ”

Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Denver Democrat, agreed.

“Too many people were left out,” he said, referring to renters and lower- and middle-income earners.

Advocates for those groups considered HH’s set-aside of up to $20 million for rental assistance programs to be inadquate. Mabrey and Garcia both argued that renters would not have benefited from HH as much as homeowners. Renters make up more than a third of the state, according to census statistics, and have weathered sharp rent increases for years.

What’s more, Garcia said, HH was created in a vacuum — meaning inside the governor’s office. That, she argued, meant that there was no base of voters eager to sell a policy they had no hand in crafting.

It’s an argument echoed by Colorado’s major local government associations, which uniformly opposed the measure based on suspicions it would sap the vital revenue stream that property taxes provide for local services.

Kevin Bommer, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, suggested HH was “cooked up in a back room where no one from local government was present to talk through it.”

His group, along with Colorado Counties Inc. and the Special District Association of Colorado, all said they were ready to work with legislators and the governor’s office on a new plan. Some local governments are already taking steps to lower property tax rates on their own.

“While this is a victory for local governments, and I want them to enjoy this moment, our war is far from finished,” said Ann Terry, executive director of the Special Districts Association. “We cannot rest on our laurels. We need to get back to work to provide viable solutions and a path forward.”

The upcoming special session is aimed at addressing the shock facing property owners when they receive their bills early next year. But it also likely will result in the convening of a new committee to look at long-term changes to the tax structure to avoid future jolts.

Whatever emerges won’t be the only salvo in the ongoing war over property tax policy.

Fields’ group has already won approval to put a measure on the 2024 ballot that’s currently dubbed Initiative 50. It would set a hard cap on property tax collections so that, as Fields puts it, government coffers couldn’t grow faster than taxpayers’ wages.

Democrats, who control the state’s executive and legislative branches, have already raised warning flags. Silverii, for one, called it a “ticking time bomb” that could have particularly dire consequences for schools that rely on property taxes.

If it appears on the ballot, the initiative would be sure to draw heavy spending by opponents. But Fields would have one thing in his favor: a simple message to sell it.

Staff writer Seth Klamann contributed to this story.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.