This story was produced as part of the Colorado Capitol News Alliance. It first appeared at .
Colorado Democrats have been trying for more than 30 years to dismantle the Taxpayer鈥檚 Bill of Rights. But seven consecutive years into their universal control of state government, the party has barely made , a relic of a different political universe.
Voters have to eliminate or raise TABOR鈥檚 cap on government growth and spending. Democrats in the legislature have even resorted to using the policy to carry out their and .
But now, with the state facing an and threatening to make things exponentially worse, Democrats鈥� interest in trying to do something lasting about TABOR is again gaining traction.
The party just can鈥檛 agree on which direction to take the momentum.
Ask voters to eliminate the cap? Use some of the money in excess of TABOR鈥檚 revenue limits to fund specific programs and services? Pursue a graduated income tax code? Try to invalidate the 1992 constitutional amendment altogether?
They鈥檙e all on the table. But, depending on whom you ask, they鈥檙e not all politically viable options.
The situation underscores just how intertwined TABOR, which no other state has copied, is with government finances in Colorado. In addition to capping governmental growth and spending, TABOR requires voter approval for all tax increases.
The lack of direction also highlights how Democrats have struggled to gauge voters鈥� temperature on the policy, which polling shows is broadly popular.
鈥淵ou have all these different theories of the right policy to put in place to try to help address the harms of TABOR,鈥� said Chris deGruy Kennedy, a former state representative who now leads the Bell Policy Center, a liberal fiscal policy nonprofit. 鈥淵ou also have all these different beliefs about the politics of what it takes to be successful in this effort. The problems that TABOR has created for our state, and the inequities that TABOR has locked into our tax system, have been stuck so long that people really have a hard time uniting around a solution.鈥�
A TABOR conversation at the Capitol this year
What happened in the Colorado legislature was emblematic of the disagreements about TABOR within the Democratic Party.
A pair of representatives introduced a resolution that to file a lawsuit aimed at invalidating TABOR. The resolution argued that TABOR violates Colorado鈥檚 ability to operate a republican form of government and therefore runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. (A similar lawsuit brought by a group of active and former elected officials, as well as some local governments, failed after about a decade of litigation.)
The measure cleared its first committee, but it was never brought up for a vote before the full House, which meant the resolution died on the Capitol calendar.
The resolution likely had the votes to pass the House, but the holdup was the Senate 鈥� the legislature鈥檚 more moderate chamber. Democratic senators who represent swing districts didn鈥檛 want to weigh in. They were worried about the political consequences.
During a caucus meeting, some Democrats in the Senate urged their colleagues to take up the resolution.
鈥淧eople can vote how they want on it,鈥� said state Sen. Cathy Kipp, D-Fort Collins. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 really important.鈥�
State Sen. Tony Exum, a Colorado Springs Democrat who represents a swing district, fired back: 鈥淵ou鈥檙e in a safe seat.鈥�
鈥淭ABOR is killing us,鈥� Kipp replied.
House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat, told The Colorado Sun earlier this month that she thinks any changes to TABOR need to be made through a vote of the people.
鈥淥ne of the comments I heard from members when the TABOR resolution was moving through the system is 鈥楾ABOR was enshrined by the public through a vote, those are the people who should have a vote on any changes that come next,鈥欌�� she said at The Sun鈥檚 post-legislative-session event on May 15. 鈥淚 really honor that and believe that we do need for it to be more than just a legislative solution.鈥�
McCluskie called the resolution 鈥渁 really powerful conversation starter,鈥� but said the future of TABOR is "ultimately a public decision.鈥� She also said the TABOR debate is really just the beginning.
"I don't think it's the end of what folks are going to hear about TABOR,鈥� she said, declining to share more about what鈥檚 on the table.
State Rep. Sean Camacho, a Denver Democrat and one of the lead sponsors of the failed TABOR lawsuit resolution, sees things differently. The outcome of the case may not be as simple as win-lose. It could result in parts of TABOR being struck down and others being upheld.
Camacho also pointed out how not everything passed by voters passes legal muster. There have been several examples in Colorado history of ballot measures approved by the electorate being overturned in court. For instance, Amendment 2, which prohibited Colorado from passing laws protecting gay and lesbian people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, was .
鈥淭here鈥檚 a difference between popularity and legality,鈥� he said. 鈥淟et鈥檚 ask the courts to give us direction.鈥�
Camacho said he plans to bring the lawsuit resolution back in 2026.
The governor said at The Sun鈥檚 post-legislative-session event that he likes the idea of putting a measure on the ballot that would ask voters to increase the TABOR cap by a set amount and let the state use the money for specific purposes, like schools and health care. A measure doing just that was almost debated at the Capitol this year.
That approach would be similar to Referendum C, which the legislature placed on the ballot in 2005 and was backed by then-Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican. , creating a five-year lifting of the cap and then resetting the cap at a higher level than it was before the measure was approved.
Polis said voters have clearly and repeatedly rejected proposals to eliminate the Taxpayer鈥檚 Bill of Rights cap on government growth and spending, and so he wouldn鈥檛 support any attempt to try that again. Polis said he favors making a 鈥渄iscrete ask鈥� to voters to increase the cap for specific purposes, such as education, housing and health care.
鈥淚f I was designing something to win, I would say, 鈥榃hy don't we do $100 million for teacher salaries?鈥欌�� he said.
What鈥檚 coming down the pike
A bill that would have followed Polis鈥� formula was almost introduced in the legislature this year.
It would have asked voters in November to let the state keep 10% of TABOR refunds to pay for rural hospitals and transportation projects.
State Sen. Jeff Bridges, a Greenwood Village Democrat and chair of the legislature鈥檚 Joint Budget Committee, was behind the proposal. He said the aim was to make sure the state doesn鈥檛 have to cut more services to balance the budget.
鈥淭his legislation could potentially be part of that answer,鈥� Bridges said, vowing to bring up the proposal in 2026.
The bill wasn鈥檛 introduced at the Capitol this year because the idea came together too late in the 2025 legislative session. Part of the delay was the competing TABOR measures being considered by Democrats, Bridges said.
Senate President James Coleman, a Denver Democrat, thinks his party needs to do a better job of educating people across the state about how TABOR works and its effect on state finances.
鈥淲hat we have to do is a better job of an awareness campaign about our current financial situation in the state of Colorado,鈥� he said.
DeGruy Kennedy said the Bell Policy Center is partnering with other like-minded organizations to try to put a measure on the 2026 ballot that would amend the state constitution to impose a graduated income tax code. Sometimes also called a progressive tax structure, it would increase the income tax rate for higher earners and decrease the rate for lower earners.
鈥淚 think it's the right policy answer,鈥� deGruy Kennedy said. 鈥淚t is very straightforward.鈥�
DeGruy Kennedy said the other options Democrats have been talking about pursuing around TABOR 鈥� increasing or eliminating the cap or doing away with the amendment altogether 鈥� are not politically expedient and don鈥檛 solve what he thinks are the inequitable parts of the state鈥檚 tax code.
鈥淲hat has been especially difficult here is this is not an issue where our governor wants to lead,鈥� deGruy Kennedy said. 鈥淲hen you don't have the person in that office saying 鈥榯his is the thing we鈥檙e going to do鈥欌�� it leaves a power vacuum.
When Polis did try to lead on changing TABOR, he was unsuccessful. Proposition CC, , was rejected by voters in 2019. In 2023, , which would have expanded the cap as part of . CC failed by 11 percentage points while HH went down by 18 points.
鈥淭he one moment that he really did try to lead it was with HH 鈥� and it was a colossal failure,鈥� Kennedy said, pointing to how it confused voters.
Polis, however, is approaching lame-duck status. He will only be governor for one more legislative session before his term ends in early 2027.
His likely predecessors have TABOR in their sights.
鈥淲e are long overdue (for) a conversation in Colorado about how our state government is funded,鈥� said U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat running for governor in 2026.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, another Democrat running for governor, said changing the TABOR cap is his preferred way to address how TABOR affects the funding of state programs and services.
Count Republicans out
Republicans, who have complained about the state鈥檚 current level of spending within TABOR鈥檚 limits, will certainly fight any attempts to roll back the state鈥檚 fiscal constraints.
鈥淚 would say it's a nonstarter for Republicans,鈥� state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican and member of the Joint Budget Committee, said at The Sun鈥檚 post-session event.
Kirkmeyer said the difference between Referendum C in 2005 and the budget situation now is that Owens built major coalitions of support for the measure in response to economic downturns. At the time, the TABOR cap would shrink during recessions 鈥� a different problem than the state faces now, which is a cap that grows too slowly to keep up with the demands of programs like Medicaid.
Now, Republicans see the state鈥檚 budget issues as the result of Democrats at the Capitol overspending, not TABOR.
But the reality is Republicans are in the minority in the House and Senate. They have the numbers to stop the legislature from referring a constitutional amendment to voters, which takes a supermajority in both chambers. But they can鈥檛 halt something like Bridges鈥� proposal, which just needs a simple majority to be placed on the ballot.
Conservative fiscal activists have been focused in recent years on slashing the state鈥檚 income tax rate 鈥� . They鈥檝e also led to Propositions CC and HH.
Now they鈥檙e attempting to limit the legislature鈥檚 ability to impose fees, which have been used as a workaround to TABOR鈥檚 voter-approval requirement for tax increases. (Fee revenue can only be spent on government services with a direct connection to the charge, whereas tax dollars can be spent more broadly.)
State Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat who sits on the legislature鈥檚 Joint Budget Committee, thinks there is room for bipartisan work on TABOR. Just maybe not with Republicans at the Capitol.
鈥淭here are a lot of options on the table for addressing TABOR,鈥� she said at the event. 鈥淚 think that there are a variety of things that could garner bipartisan support, maybe not under the dome, but perhaps the voting public.鈥�