DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-460 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Petitioner, v. ANDY KERR, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF THE COLORADO UNION OF TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION, MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, AND 22 COLORADO STATE LEGISLATORS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STEVEN J. LECHNER Counsel of Record GINA M. CANNAN MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION 2596 South Lewis Way Lakewood, Colorado 80227 (303) 292-2021 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae [Individual Legislators Listed On Inside Cover] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM ADDITIONAL AMICI Sen. Kevin Lundberg (SD 15) Sen. Ellen Roberts (SD 6) Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (HD 65) Rep. Justin Everett (HD 22) Rep. Spencer Swalm (HD 37) Rep. Janak Joshi (HD 16) Sen. Ted Harvey (SD 30) Sen. Kent Lambert (SD 9) Sen. Mark Scheffel (SD 4) Sen. Kevin Grantham (SD 2) Sen. Vicki Marble (SD 23) Rep. Dan Nordberg (HD 14) Rep. Frank McNulty (HD 43) Rep. Chris Holbert (HD 44) Rep. Kevin Priola (HD 56) Sen. Scott Renfroe (SD 13) Sen. Bill Cadman (SD 12) Sen. Steve King (SD 7) Sen. Greg Brophy (SD 1) Rep. Lori Saine (HD 63) Rep. Bob Gardner (HD 20) Sen. George Rivera (SD 3) i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, after this Court’s decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), Plaintiffs’ claims that Colorado’s government is not republi- can in form remain non-justiciable political ques- tions. 2. Whether a minority of legislators have standing to challenge a law that allegedly dilutes their power to legislate on a particular subject. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iv IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 7 I. THE TENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION UNDERMINES THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY HOLD- ING THAT ARTICLE III COURTS MAY ADJUDICATE CLAIMS INVOLVING ABSTRACT INJURIES ............................. 7 II. THE TENTH CIRCUIT EVISCERATED THIS COURT’S LEGISLATIVE STAND- ING PRECEDENT BY HOLDING THAT INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS HAVE STANDING BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF AN INCREMENTAL DIMINUTION IN INSTITUTIONAL POWER .................. 9 A. The Injury Alleged By Respondents Is A Diminution In Institutional Power, Not A Loss Of Any Private Right ......... 9 B. Respondents’ Alleged Injuries Are Not Caused By TABOR .............................. 17 C. Respondents’ Claims Are Not Redres- sable By A Federal Court .................... 19 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page III. THE TENTH CIRCUIT CONTRAVENED THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOC- TRINE BY HOLDING THAT A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO COLORADO’S RE- PUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION ...... 21 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 25 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Alaska Legislative Council v. Babbitt, 181 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ............................. 11, 12, 13, 14 Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) ...................... 7, 23 Baird v. Norton, 266 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2001) ........................................................ 9, 11, 12, 13 Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534 (1986) ................................................. 16 Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ....... 15 Chenoweth v. Clinton, 181 F.3d 112 (D.C. Cir. 1999) .............................................................. 9, 14, 19 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) ..... 10, 12, 19, 20 Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation v. City of Aspen, 2014CA1869 (Colo. Ct. App.) ............ 2 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) ................................................................. 18, 20 Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representa- tives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) ....................................... 16 Huber v. Colorado Mining Ass’n, 264 P.3d 884 (Colo. 2011) ................................................................ 4 Japan Whaling Ass’n v. American Cetacean Soc., 478 U.S. 221 (1986) .................................. 21, 23 Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Colo. 2012) ............................................................. 4, 5 Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 744 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2014) ................................................................ passim v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 759 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 5, 24 Kucinich v. Bush, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002) ........................................................................ 15 Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) ........................ 5 Lexmark Intern., Inc. v. Static Control Compo- nents, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) ............................ 7 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ................................................................... 9, 19 Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) ........... 21, 22, 23, 24 Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ............ 20 Moore v. United States House of Representa- tives, 733 F.2d 946 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .......................... 8 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ........ 22 Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. State of Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912) .......... 22, 23, 24 Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) ............... 12 Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 826 (1997) .................. passim Rangel v. Boehner, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 6487502 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2013) ....................... 20 Russell v. DeJongh, 491 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2007) ......... 8 Schaffer v. Clinton, 240 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 8, 13 Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) ........................................... 7 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page TABOR Foundation v. Colorado Bridge Enter- prise, 2014SC766 (Colo. S. Ct.) ................................. 2 TABOR Foundation v. Regional Transportation Dist., 13CV854 (Denver Dist. Ct.) ............................ 2 United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) ................. 16 United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) ................................................................... 7, 21 U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 11 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 1998) .......... 16 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4 .................................................. 4 Colo. Const. art. IV, § 11 ......................................... 3, 17 Colo. Const. art. IX, § 17 ............................................ 19 Colo. Const. art. IX, § 17(5) ........................................ 19 Colo. Const. art. X, § 2 .................................................. 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 3(1)(a) ......................................... 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 5 .................................................. 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 7 .................................................. 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 11 ................................................ 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 20 ...................................... passim Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(1) ........................................ 4 Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(3)-(4) ................................ 20 Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a) ............................... 3, 4 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page RULES Supreme Court Rule 10 ................................................ 9 Supreme Court Rule 37.2 ............................................. 1 Supreme Court Rule 37.2(a)......................................... 1 OTHER Anthony Clark Arend & Catherine B. Lotrionte, Congress Goes to Court: The Past, Present, and Future of Legislator Standing, 25 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 209 (2001) ............................ 16, 22 The Federalist No. 48 (James Madison) (Clin- ton Rossiter ed., 1961) ............................................ 25 James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Fed- eral Convention of 1787 (W.W. Norton & Co. 1987) (1840) ............................................................. 15 John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, § 140 (1690) (C. B. Macpherson ed., 1980) ............. 15 Note, Standing in the Way of Separation of Powers: The Consequences of Raines v. Byrd, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1741 (1999) ................................... 8 Randy E. Barnett, The Proper Scope of the Po- lice Power, 79 Notre Dame L. Rev. 429 (2004) ....... 14 1 AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, the Colo- rado Union of Taxpayers Foundation (“CUT”), Moun- tain States Legal Foundation (“MSLF”) and 22 members of the Colorado General Assembly respect- fully submit this Amici Curiae brief in support of Petitioner.1 --------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Election Results, 1997, 1998, 1999 (PDF)
    Official Publication of the Abstract of Votes Cast for the 1997- Odd Year 1998- Primary and General 1999- Odd Year Elections To the Citizens of Colorado: The information compiled in this summary is from materia/filed by each ofthe 63 county clerk.• and recorders. This publication will assist in the profiling ofvoting patter ns of Colorado voters during the 1997 odd year, 1998 primary and general and 1999 oddyear elections. As the State Election Officer, 1 encourage the Citizens of Colorado to take an active role in determining their destiny by exercising their right and privilege to vote. Don etta Davidson Colorado Secretary ofState TABLE OF CO:"iTE:"iTS GLOSSARY OF AUS"I RACI H.ln1S Glossary of Abstract Tcnns Page Research Assistance Page 4 Assembly: Meeting ofdclcgGtcs of a political party held to designate candidates fOr nomination at a primary election Directory of Elected & Appointed Oflicials Assemblies an: held C\-Cf)' two years I cderal and State of Colorado Officers Page State Senate Page 6 Conn~ntion: Meeting of delegates of a political party held to select delegates to other political conventions and to nominate State I louse of Representatives Page 8 Presidential Llcctors Such Conventions arc held c\cry four years Colorado Judiciary Or Supreme Court Justices Page 12 \tccting of delegates of a political party held for the purpose of nominating a candidate for a congressional vacancy election Court of Appeals Justices Page 12 Jlcld as needed. District & County Judges Page 13 District Attorneys Page 20 Initiative: I'hc Colorado Constitution provides that registered \Diers may propose Constitutional Amendments or changes Regional l'ransit Board of Directors (RTD) Page 21 w the Colorado Re\ised Statutes (CR~) by petition" Iitle I, Article 40.
    [Show full text]
  • LEGISLATORS in Support of the Petitioners ______Steven W
    No. 18-1195 In The Supreme Court of the United States _________________________________________________ KENDRA ESPINOZA, JERI ELLEN ANDERSON, and JAIME SCHAEFER Petitioners, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, and GENE WALBORN, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR of the MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents. _________________________________________________ On Writ of Certiorari To The Montana Supreme Court _________________________________________________ BRIEF OF 131 CURRENT AND FORMER STATE LEGISLATORS in support of the Petitioners _________________________________________________ Steven W. Fitschen Counsel of Record The National Legal Foundation 524 Johnstown Road Chesapeake, VA 23322 (757) 463-6133 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................ 1 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 2 I. THE “SHAMEFULL PEDIGREE” OF THE STATE BLAINE AMENDMENTS. .......... 2 II. STATE BLAINE AMENDMENTS IMPEDE THE EFFORTS OF STATE LEGISLATORS WHO SEEK TO PASS BENEFICIAL LEGISLATION FOR THEIR CITIZENS. .......................................... 10 CONCLUSION ........................................................ 13 APPENDIX—LIST OF AMICI .............................. 1a ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019) .................... 4-5 Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN HICKENLOOPER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Petitioner, v. ANDY KERR, COLORADO STATE REPRESENTATIVE, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI JOHN W. SUTHERS Attorney General DANIEL D. DOMENICO Solicitor General Counsel of Record MICHAEL F RANCISCO FREDERICK YARGER Assistant Solicitors General MEGAN PARIS RUNDLET Senior Assistant Attorney General Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 [email protected] 720-508-6559 Counsel for Petitioner Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 1992, the People of Colorado enacted the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR), which amended the state constitution to allow voters to approve or reject any tax increases. In 2011, a group of plaintiffs, including a small minority of state legislators, brought a federal suit claiming that TABOR causes Colorado’s government to no longer be republican in form, an alleged violation of the Guarantee Clause, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals held that the political question doctrine does not bar federal courts from resolving this kind of dispute and that the Legislator-Plaintiffs have standing to redress the alleged diminution of their legislative power. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether, after this Court’s decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), Plaintiffs’ claims that Colorado’s government is not republican in form remain non-justiciable political questions.
    [Show full text]
  • March 7, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS Elisabeth A
    FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH March 7, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT ANDY KERR, Colorado State Representative; NORMA V. ANDERSON; JANE M. BARNES, member Jefferson County Board of Education; ELAINE GANTZ BERMAN, member State Board of Education; ALEXANDER E. BRACKEN; WILLIAM K. BREGAR, member Pueblo District 70 Board of Education; BOB BRIGGS, Westminster City Councilman; BRUCE W. BRODERIUS, member Weld County District 6 Board of Education; TRUDY B. BROWN; JOHN C. BUECHNER, Ph.D., Lafayette City Councilman; STEPHEN A. No. 12-1445 BURKHOLDER; RICHARD L. BYYNY, M.D.; LOIS COURT, Colorado State Representative; THERESA L. CRATER; ROBIN CROSSAN, member Steamboat Springs RE-2 Board of Education; RICHARD E. FERDINANDSEN; STEPHANIE GARCIA, member Pueblo City Board of Education; KRISTI HARGROVE; DICKEY LEE HULLINGHORST, Colorado State Representative; NANCY JACKSON, Arapahoe County Commissioner; WILLIAM G. KAUFMAN; CLAIRE LEVY, Colorado State Representative; MARGARET (MOLLY) MARKERT, Aurora City Councilwoman; MEGAN J. MASTEN; MICHAEL MERRIFIELD; MARCELLA (MARCIE) L. MORRISON; JOHN P. MORSE, Colorado State Senator; PAT NOONAN; BEN PEARLMAN, Boulder County Commissioner; WALLACE PULLIAM; PAUL WEISSMANN; JOSEPH W. WHITE, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor of Colorado, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellant. ------------------------------ D’ARCY W. STRAUB; INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE; CATO INSTITUTE; SEN. KEVIN LUNDBERG; REP. JERRY SONNENBERG; REP. JUSTIN EVERETT; REP. SPENCER SWALM; REP. JANAK JOSHI; REP. PERRY BUCK; SEN. TED HARVEY; SEN. KENT LAMBERT; SEN. MARK SCHEFFEL; SEN. KEVIN GRANTHAM; SEN VICKI MARBLE; SEN. RANDY BAUMGARDNER; REP. DAN NORDBERG; REP. FRANK MCNULTY; REP. JARED WRIGHT; REP. CHRIS HOLBERT; REP. KEVIN PRIOLA; SEN.
    [Show full text]
  • State Election Results, 2005
    Official Publication of the Abstract of Votes Cast for the 2005 Coordinated 2006 Primary 2006 General To the Citizens of Colorado: The information in this abstract is compiled from material filed by each of Colorado’s sixty- four County Clerk and Recorders. This publication is a valuable tool in the study of voting patterns of Colorado voters during the 2005 Coordinated, 2006 Primary, and 2006 General Election. As the State’s chief election officer, I encourage the Citizens of Colorado to take an active role in our democratic process by exercising their right to vote. Mike Coffman Colorado Secretary of State Table of Contents GLOSSARY OF ABSTRACT TERMS .............................................................................................. 4 DISCLAIMER ......................................................................................................................... 6 DIRECTORY .......................................................................................................................... 7 United States Senators .........................................................................................................................7 Congressional Members .......................................................................................................................7 Governor ..........................................................................................................................................7 Lieutenant Governor ...........................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • LEGISLATIVE WRAP-UP Colorado’S 2012 Legislative Session: the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence Achieves Its Policy Priorities
    LEGISLATIVE WRAP-UP Colorado’s 2012 Legislative Session: The Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence Achieves Its Policy Priorities Colorado’s 69th General Assembly wrapped up the 2012 legislative session May 9th; then, they found themselves ordered into a special session by Governor Hickenlooper to finish their busi- ness in a more democratic manner because House leadership had allowed the clock run out on the Civil Unions Bill and some 30 other bills caught up in line behind it. One of the bills which the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence invested a significant amount of time and energy on, the School Discipline Bill (Senate Bill 46), nearly failed along with the Civil Unions legislation, but was rescued during the special session by being added onto another related bill. The School Discipline Bill is one of many successful policy efforts, which CCADV accom- plished on behalf of our members and survivors this year. Other 2012 legislative priorities for the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence include Senate Bill 56, which we contributed several provisions to and provided input on other provisions which Senator Morgan Carroll brought forward. Senate Bill 56 addresses aspects of various court appointed roles in domestic relations cases and requires persons in those roles to make disclosures if they have any per- sonal, financial, or familial relationships that would create a conflict of interest with regard to the parties in the case to which they were appointed or with the court. Both of these senate bills passed and have been signed into law by the Governor! CCADV also worked diligently to support, oppose, and amend dozens of other pieces of legisla- tion this past session.
    [Show full text]
  • “However You Feel About It, What Happened in Cleveland Was Important”
    “HOWEVER YOU FEEL ABOUT IT, WHAT HAPPENED IN CLEVELAND WAS IMPORTANT” Colorado’s Oral History of the 2016 Republican National Convention LAUREL KAY TEAL HASTINGS COLLEGE Supervised by Dr. Glenn Avent, Dr. Rob Babcock, and Dr. Michella Marino This senior capstone is dedicated to the only other mountaineer, politico, and Hibernophile in our department: my friend, Nick Musgrave. See you on the Hill. Cheers! 1 Early in the morning on July 23rd, 2016, Republicans in Colorado House District 29B woke up to an email from their district captain, Dan Green.1 With a send time of 4:13 AM, Rocky Mountain Standard Time, Green’s email has the weary urgency of someone who has spent a long night thinking. To be sure, he had a lot to think about; in this email to his neighbors, Green effectively summarizes his past week as a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. The email reads like a Netflix political drama. Descriptions of underground grassroots movements, vocal and physical struggles on the convention floor, and bullying by “uncharacteristically efficient” Donald Trump campaign operatives and Republican National Committee members abound.2 As he recounts, all of these things culminated not only in the selection of Mr. Trump as the Republican presidential nominee, but also the “troublemaker” Colorado delegation’s name pillar being accepted into the Smithsonian Institute.3 Summarizing the thoughts of many in his delegation, Green concludes his red eye email by urging, “However you feel about it, what happened in Cleveland was important.”4 From July 18th to July 21st, 2016, Republicans from around the United States gathered in Cleveland, Ohio for the quadrennial ritual that is the selection of a presidential nominee at party convention.
    [Show full text]
  • Senator Mark Udall (D) – First Term
    CBHC Lunchtime Webinar – Preparing for the NCCBH Hill Day in Washington, D.C. June 2010 Working together to develop and deliver health resources to Colorado Communities Colorado Specifics • Colorado has almost 80 people attending this year • CBHC is scheduling meetings with all of the members of Congress on your behalf • CBHC will email virtual Hill Day packets this year to all registered participants – These will include individualized agenda’s for Hill Visits • Please register with the National Council on the website: http://www.thenationalcouncil.org/cs/join_us_in_2010 June 29th, 2010—Hyatt Regency Hotel • Opening Breakfast & Check-in-- 8:00-8:30 a.m. • Policy Committee Meeting Morning Session—8:30-11:45 • "National Council Policy Update" - Linda Rosenberg, President and CEO, National Council • "Implementing Healthcare Reform: New Payment Models" - Dale Jarvis, MCPP Consulting • Participant Briefing Lunch-12:00-1:00 p.m. • "The 2010 Elections Outlook" - Charlie Cook, The Cook Political Report--1:00-2:00 p.m. • "Healthcare Reform and the Medicaid Expansion" - Andy Schneider, House Committee on Energy & Commerce 2:00-3:00 p.m. June 29th Hyatt Regency • Public Policy Committee Meetings 3:15-5:00 p.m. Speakers for the afternoon session include: • "CMS Update" - Barbara Edwards, Director, Disabled and Elderly Health Programs Group, Center for Medicaid, CHIP, and Survey and Certification (CMCS), CMS • "Parity Implementation - What You Should Know and Do" - Carol McDaid, Capitol Decisions, Parity Implementation Coalition June 29—Break Out
    [Show full text]
  • December 31, 2015 the Honorable Kent Lambert Chair, Joint Budget
    Physical Address: Mailing Address: 1375 Sherman Street P.O. Box 17087 Denver, CO 80203 Denver, CO 80217-0087 December 31, 2015 The Honorable Kent Lambert Chair, Joint Budget Committee Colorado General Assembly The Honorable Lois Court Chair, House Finance Committee Colorado General Assembly The Honorable Tim Neville Chair, Senate Finance Committee Colorado General Assembly Dear Senators and Representatives: Section 39-22-522.5(12), C.R.S., requires the Department of Revenue (Department) to submit a quarterly report to the Joint Budget Committee and the Finance Committees of the General Assembly which details specific information on the conservation easement (CE) program. The legislation requires information about the number of “tax credits” and “cases” which may be difficult to reconcile with data from the State Court Administrator of the Judicial Department or from the Office of the Attorney General. It is important to note that “tax credits” and “cases” discussed in this report refer to CE donations rather than cases filed in any legal proceeding. Since the inception of the CE program in 2000, there have been 4,295 donations of conservation easements for which tax credits have been claimed. Over 26,000 income tax returns claiming CE tax credits have been filed. The Department has reviewed all of these returns and has disallowed tax credits related to 710 donations. To assist with the understanding of the activity involving these disallowed credits and to comply with statutory reporting requirements, the Department offers the following information: a) For tax years prior to 2014, CE donors are statutorily required to submit an appraisal which provides a value of the CE donated with their tax returns claiming the CE tax credits.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition DD: Legalization and Taxation of Sports Betting to Fund Colorado’S Water Plan
    Legislative Council Draft Proposition DD: DD Legalization and Taxation of Sports Betting 1 Proposition DD, if approved, would: 2 legalize and regulate sports betting; 3 authorize a state tax on casinos’ net sports betting proceeds; and 4 use sports betting taxes and fees to create a dedicated source of 5 funding for water projects and water-related obligations and pay for the 6 regulation of sports betting, a hold harmless fund, and gambling 7 addiction services. 8 What your vote means: YES/FOR NO/AGAINST A "yes" vote on Proposition DD A "no" vote on Proposition DD means sports betting will be legal means that sports betting will and taxed in the state, with remain illegal in the state and revenue being used to fund sports betting activities will not be water projects and water-related regulated or taxed. obligations and pay for the regulation of sports betting, a hold harmless fund, and gambling addiction services. - 1 - Legislative Council Draft 1 Summary and Analysis for Proposition DD 2 Why is Proposition DD on the ballot? 3 In May 2018, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed all states to legalize sports 4 betting. Following this ruling, the state legislature referred Proposition DD to the 5 voters asking to legalize and tax sports betting. Under the Colorado constitution, 6 a new tax requires voter approval. The tax and fee revenue from sports betting 7 will be used to create a dedicated source of funding for the Colorado Water Plan 8 and water-related obligations and pay for the regulation of sports betting, a hold 9 harmless fund, and gambling addiction services.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Government Relations Annual Report 2016
    Office of Government Relations Annual Report 2016 Table of Contents Page Office of Government Relations Overview 2 Office of Government Relations Contacts 3 State Relations ♦ CU Initiated Legislation 4 ♦ Key Higher Education Legislation 5 ♦ Key Health Care Legislation 9 ♦ Other Legislation 12 Federal Relations ♦ Key Research Legislation 15 ♦ Key Health Care Legislation 68 ♦ Key Education Legislation 70 ♦ Key Immigration Legislation 73 State and Federal Meetings, Events and Tours 74 Office of Government Relations Team 81 OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Overview This annual report covers work by the Office of Government Relations from January 1 – December 31, 2016. Mission The mission of the Office of Government Relations is to support the University of Colorado by building effective partnerships between the University and state and federal governments. This is achieved through representation and advocacy of CU’s needs and interests with state and federal elected officials in Colorado and Washington, D.C. Goals • Promote the University’s interests at the state and federal level. • Enhance the understanding of the role and value of CU. • Achieve status as one of the top public university governmental relations offices in the United States. Strategies 1) Maintain visibility at both the state and federal level through testimony, tours, outreach events, Hill visits, and other activities to increase contact with state and federal policy makers. 2) Foster relationships between the president, chancellors and designated officers of the university with members of the General Assembly, Colorado Congressional Delegation, and Executive branch of both the state and federal government. 3) Engage the business community, CU Advocates, and alumni to help advocate for the university’s initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Nnual Report 16 a 2016 $122.7 11,945 Colorado Million Sbdc Totals $95.9 1 = $1,000,000 1 = 100 1 = 50 Compared to 2015 Million $88.7 Million 6,233 3,771 3,094
    ’ NNUAL REPORT 16 A 2016 $122.7 11,945 COLORADO MILLION SBDC TOTALS $95.9 1 = $1,000,000 1 = 100 1 = 50 COMPARED TO 2015 MILLION $88.7 MILLION 6,233 3,771 3,094 451 CAPITAL SALES CLIENTS TRAINING JOBS JOBS NEW FORMATION INCREASE CONTRACTS CONNECTED ATTENDEES CREATED RETAINED BUSINESSES WHAT IS THE ABOUT THIS REPORT COLORADO SBDC? The Colorado Small Business Development Center Network’s 2016 annual report The Colorado Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Network is dedicated to highlights the cooperation among community organizations that support small helping existing and new businesses grow and prosper in Colorado by providing free, businesses. Academic institutions, economic development organizations and local confidential consulting and no- or low-cost training programs and workshops. The governments, as well as corporate partners, all play a part in the success of the SBDC. SBDC strives to be the premier, trusted choice of Colorado businesses for consulting, The participation of these entities is crucial to the support given to businesses around training and resources. the state. participation of these entities is crucial to the The sbdc is dedicated to helping small and mid-sized businesses throughout the state achieve their goals. support given to businesses around the state. This report contains success stories of SBDC clients from across the state, as well The SBDC is dedicated to helping small and mid-sized businesses throughout the as financial impact numbers, all organized by center and congressional district. state achieve their goals of growth, expansion, innovation, increased productivity, management improvement and overall success. The network combines the resources As a result of its one-on-one consulting and free or low-cost training programs, the of federal, state and local organizations with those of the educational system and Colorado SBDC was able to assist in the generation of $19.58 in capital formation for private sector to meet the specialized and complex needs of the small business every federal grant dollar obtained by the state.
    [Show full text]