Colorado Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecom Taxes, Proposition 101 (2010)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The Colorado Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecom Taxes, Proposition 101 will appear on the November 2, 2010 state ballot as an initiated state statute.[1] The ballot measure proposes to add a new article to title 39, taxation, of the Colorado Revised Statutes - revising the current vehicle, income and telecommunications taxes and fees.[2]

Some of the proposed statements in the amendment read as follows:[3]

  • Require all state and local taxes to cease on vehicle rentals and leases
  • Specify that sales rebates are not taxable
  • Require that all registration, license, and title changes combined total ten dollars yearly per vehicle
  • Set the 2011 income tax rate at four and one-half percent and require later rates to decrease a specified amount yearly until reaching a specified amount under certain conditions
  • Repeal the alternative minimum tax
  • Specify that all added charges to telecommunication service customer accounts, with the exception of 911 fees at 2009 rates, shall be tax increases

Text of measure

Title

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases?

Support

Supporters of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61 say the proposed measure will force government to operate more efficiently and cut bloated spending.[4] Marty Neilson, president of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, said she believes the measure will be beneficial for the state of Colorado. "There is plenty of taxing going on and too much spending," she said. Additionally, Neilson rejected the argument that county government and school districts would be harmed by the tax changes.

She added,"I know the schools' mantra: 'It's for the children.' But many of our graduates going on to college have to take remedial classes. These schools need to perform a bit better and do it on the funds they have."[5]

Arguments

  • Marty Neilson, president of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers said, "It's our general belief that the state of Colorado has enough money to spend. They can spend more wisely, or even cut their spending," said Neilson at a May 2010 Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's "State of the State" session.[4]
  • Natalie Menton, campaign coordinator for the three ballot measures, agreed that with the three proposed measures government would receive less funds. But that, she said, is the point. "These are moderate, modest proposals for taxes and tax reform. They are phased in over many years, so it’s a gradual process. The more money that we can put into individuals’ hands and business owners’, that’s what really grows an economy," said Menton. She added that supporters felt it was right time to make the proposals because of "the actions of the government." The mood, among citizens she said is "ripe" for the proposed changes.[6]

Donors

The main committee in support of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 is CO Tax Reforms. According to July reports, the committee has an estimated $12,000 in cash.[7]


Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to CO Tax Reforms:

Contributor Amount
Muhammad A. Hasan[8] $5,000
Seeme Hasan (retired)[9] $5,000
Coleen & William Robinson (retired)[10] $2,760

Opposition

Senate President Brandon Shaffer, House Speaker Terrance Carroll, Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry and House Minority Leader Mike May oppose Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61.[11] Some 2010 gubernatorial candidates announced their opposition in February 2010: Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, the Democrat running for governor, and former Congressman Scott McInnis, one of the Republicans running.[12]

Coloradans for Responsible Reform is also opposed to the proposed measure and described the proposed measures as the "the evil three" ballot questions. Coloradans for Responsible Reform is led by Rick Reiter who argues that the measures would devastate the state.[6][13]

The University of Colorado Board of Regents passed a resolution on July 16 to oppose Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101.[14]

Arguments

  • John Straayer, a political science professor at Colorado State University, is opposed to Amendment 60, Amendment 61 and Proposition 101. "These initiatives pose to the voters in a stark fashion whether they want the world of Douglas Bruce or an efficient and functioning government system," said Straayer.[15]
  • Colorado Counties Inc., a nonprofit organization that "offer[s] assistance to county commissioners, mayors and councilmembers and to encourage counties to work together on common issues," announced in December 2009 that they are opposed to Amendment 60, Amendment 61 and Proposition 101. Additionally they announced plans to contribute $10,000 for a review of submitted signatures.[15]
  • Gov. Bill Ritter, who is attempting to close a $1 billion state budget shortfall, characterized Amendment 61, Amendment 60 and Proposition 101 as "dangerous."[15] In March 2010 Ritter said his top priority is defeating Amendment 60, 61 and Proposition 101.[16]
    • Proposition 101 and amendments 60 and 61 on the November ballot "would set Colorado back a generation and bring to a halt the pro-business environment we have all worked so hard to build," said Gov. Bill Ritter in May 2010 at the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's "State of the State" session.[4]
  • According to Grand Junction city officials the passage of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61 would ultimately cost the city millions in tax revenue. According to the city's financial services department in 2011 all three amendments could cost the city the following: $3.6 million in vehicle registration taxes, $2 million in sales taxes on vehicles and $1.5 million in telecommunication taxes. [17]
  • Tom Clark, executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp, said that Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61 would cut the state's general fund by at least $1.6 billion. The reduction would be on top of the already implemented state cuts of about $2.5 billion.[18]
  • In several school districts across the state, opponents argue that Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61 will eliminate funding to school districts. Funds provided to districts from the state’s interest-free loan program, they argue, could disappear. South Routt Superintendent Scott Mader said,"It would bring us to our knees. We couldn’t operate," of the proposed measures. Sen. Al White said the measures would "pretty much shut down government in the state of Colorado."[19]
  • Steamboat Springs school officials said it would cost the school system an estimated $1.23 million in revenues in a four-year period and Amendment 60 would result in a loss of $1.5 million.[20]
  • Routt County Finance Director Dan Strnad said the county would lose an estimated $2 million if Proposition 101 is approved and $1.67 to $3.9 million if Amendment 60 is approved.[20]
  • The Aspen Valley Hospital board of directors announced in mid-June their opposition to Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61. According to reports, the potential impact of the measures is not yet known, however, the resolution states that Amendments 60 & 61 would reduce funds by at least $1 billion annually in state taxes. The resolution was adopted at the urging of the Special District Association, whose members include hospital, fire protection, sanitation and other taxing districts.[21]
  • Colorado Mountain College, on June 30, announced their opposition to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61. "The cumulative and destructive nature of the three measures ensures that Colorado will surrender its competitive standing to attract employers, significantly hampering economic growth for the state," said the College Board of Trustees.[22]
  • The Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association Board of Directors is opposed to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61. Chamber Board President Bob Larson said, "The proponents of Proposition 101, Amendments 60 and 61 are presenting these initiatives at a time when businesses and families are strapped. So the idea of tax reductions in any form is tempting. However, when one looks at the true impacts of these things, the impacts are broad and significant in a negative way to many of our local institutions and service providers."[23]

Donors

According to reports Coloradans for Responsible Reform, an opponent of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61, has reported receiving $2.548 million in campaign contributions and has spent $2.377 million. Their current balance is $171,045.93.[24] In May, reports revealed that the group had $777,000 in campaign donations and a total of $671,190 in the bank.[25] In July 2010, state campaign finance records revealed that opponents received contributions from 36 businesses and 11 business & trade groups.[7]


Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to Coloradans for Responsible Reform:[26]

Contributor Amount
Colorado Contractors Association, Inc. $300,000
Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association $150,000
CH2M Hill Companies, LTD $100,000
Southeast Business Partnership $100,000
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association $90,000
Chevron $50,000

Opponents purchased $2 million of television air time. Their ad campaign is expected to launch after Labor Day.[7]

Tactics and strategies

In May 2010 Coloradans for Responsible Reform launched a website called www.donthurtcolorado.com in order to fight Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to reports, the group has raised approximately $800,000 to fight the measures. The campaign group is supported by Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and others. According to Coloradans for Responsible Reform the proposed measures would make Colorado an "investment-flight state."[25]

Policy analysis

The Bell Policy Center

The Bell Policy Center, a nonprofit organization based in Denver, estimated that Proposition 101 would cost the state more than $2.3 billion in lost revenue, including about $622 million for local governments and school districts, according to a December 2009 study.[27] According to their preliminary analysis Proposition 101, when fully implemented would reduce state income tax revenues, transportation revenues and sales tax revenues. For local communities the proposition would specifically cut revenues by an estimated $500 million in vehicle ownership taxes, $100 million in sales taxes from exempting $10,000 in vehicle value from sales taxes, $22 million by eliminating sales taxes on rental vehicles.[28]

The analysis report can be found here.

A county by county analysis by The Bell Policy Center can be found here.

Colorado Municipal League

The Colorado Municipal League released a report on June 28 regarding the possible future impacts of Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61. The organization is described as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization "that provides advocacy, information and training to build stronger cities and towns." It was founded in 1923.[29] According to the released report the organization concluded that all three measures would be "devastating to local government’s finances." Sam Mamet, executive director of the organization, said, "These are very, very dramatic in terms of their impact on municipal finance unlike I’ve seen in a very long time. This comes on top of two years of significant budget cutting and layoffs and service reductions. This really just cuts directly into revenue streams for local governments and just adds more stress to an already stressful situation."[30]

Colorado Legislative Council

In July 2010 the Colorado Legislative Council released an analysis of proposed measures Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61. The analysis describes the possible fiscal impact of the three measures. According to the report, it assumes "each measure is fully implemented in FY 2010-11."[31][32]

According to the report, if all of the measures are implemented in FY 2010-11:

"the state would lose $2.1 billion in revenue and would have to increase K-12 education funding by $1.6 billion. The combined impacts mean that K-12 education funding would require about 99 percent of the General Fund budget. A homeowner earning $55,000 per year with a $295,000 home would save approximately $1,800 annually in taxes."[31]

Specifically, Proposition 101 is expected to:

"reduce state revenue by $1.6 billion annually. This results from decreases in income and sales taxes, vehicle registration fees, and telecommunications fees. Local governments will lose $936 million in revenue from specific ownership taxes and local sales taxes. Of the local government decrease, school districts will lose about $150 million, which the state is required to backfill. A household earning $55,000 per year is estimated to save $604 annually."[31]

Media endorsements

Main article: Endorsements of Colorado ballot measures, 2010

Opposition

  • Steamboat Pilot & Today is opposed to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. In an editorial the board said, "It will be tempting come fall — particularly in the midst of a recession — to fall victim to campaign spots that promise reduced income taxes and vehicle registration fees. We think voters are smarter than that and will see the crippling effect Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 would have on state and local governments, which will be manifested in the diminishment, and in some cases abolishment, of services...It’s hard to imagine that, armed with the facts, voters could support such ill-conceived initiatives come November."[33]
  • The Denver Post is opposed to Proposition 101. In an editorial, the board said, "Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 may appear to be simple tax-cutting measures that will appeal to voters tired of big-government spending, but don't be fooled. The operating language within each one is a virus that would cripple the ability of our local and state governments to provide the most basic of services — from building schools for our children to supplying clean water to our homes...Don't be fooled, Colorado. Amendments 60 and 61 and Prop 101 are not smart budget-cutting measures. They're out to cripple Colorado, and should be rejected at the polls."[34]

Campaign contributions challenged

A group opposed to Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 called Protect Colorado’s Communities is requesting an explanation as to how the proponents of the measures spent $200 or less to print and circulate the petitions. According to state law, if more than $200 is spent to place a proposal on the ballot, proponents must register issue committees. Protect Colorado’s Communities argues that it takes thousands of dollars to place a measure on the ballot. The Colorado Secretary of State was expected to issue a statement in early January 2010.[35]

Campaign finance hearing

A campaign finance hearing was held in April 2010 in an effort to clarify who financed the signature-gathering effort that for Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61, all of which are on the ballot. However, tax advocate Douglas Bruce was not present at the hearing.[36]

Of the hearing in an April 20 motion, Russell Haas, sponsor of Amendment 61, said,"The problem is, as we said all along, the evidence DOES NOT EXIST. His (Grueskin’s) fishing expedition has produced NOTHING because there is NOTHING to produce. Volunteer petition drives are lawful. He has NO RIGHT to learn who volunteered to help, or orally supported or signed our forms." However, argued in a court document that supporters of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 & 61 are using "obstructionist" tactics and have have continuously tried to hamper the efforts to "unravel the 'scheme of secrecy' behind the three ballot issues."[37]

Although Bruce has appeared to have no involvement with the measures, Secretary of State records revealed that the eight professional petition circulators lived in an apartment house on Boulder Street near Colorado Springs owned by Bruce. The petition circulators have since moved but the records have called into question Bruce's involvement in the campaigns. According to reports, court records reveal that Bruce failed to show up for a deposition weeks prior to the hearing, despite being served with subpoenas.[38]

On March 10 Bruce described the subpoenas as a "case of gross harassment." In regards to the April hearing, Bruce said he did not appear because he was not subpoenaed.[36][38]

At the request of attorney Mark Grueskin, who represents opponents of the measures, and attorney Scott Gessler, who represents proponents of Amendment 61, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer moved the hearing to May 24-25.

After tax advocate Douglas Bruce failed to appear at the April 2010 hearing state officials asked for an order to force Bruce to attend the campaign finance hearing. The attorney general's office filed the petition on behalf of the secretary of state's office.[39][40] On May 11 District Court Judge Brian Whitney issued an order that stipulates that Bruce must appear for deposition.[41]

As of May 18, the attorney general said a total of 23 attempts to serve the court order have failed. [42]

Douglas Bruce tied to measures

See also: Douglas Bruce

In a campaign finance complaint hearing on May 24, 2010 after much speculation, Douglas Bruce was identified as a "guiding force" in Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61. Proponents said they received ballot language and instructions form a "Mr. X" in unsigned e-mails. Michelle Northrup testified on May 24 that she believed "Mr. X" was Douglas Bruce.[43] During the hearing Northrup said she didn't approve of the evasion tactics being used by proponents of the ballot measures. According to May 24 testimony proponents said they received advice from Bruce on the language of the ballot measures, how to get the measures approved for the ballot by the Secretary of State's Office and on the signature petition campaign.[44][45][46]

Attempts to subpoena Bruce in time for the May 24 hearing failed. Mark Grueskin, lawyer challenging campaign contributions, asked Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer to keeping the hearing open until Bruce's testimony could be collected but Spencer denied the request. According to the judge a decision on the finance complaints will be issued in 15 days.[47]

According to reports in late May, the state of Colorado tried and failed to contact Douglas a total of 29 times.[48]

State files contempt motion

On Friday, June 18, state officials filed a contempt motion in Denver District Court. The motion requests that the judge find Bruce in contempt of court for not testifying in the administrative proceeding and for avoiding process servers.[49] In response to the motion, Bruce argues that he has done nothing wrong. He said, "A subpoena requires personal service. I was not personally served. Therefore, I was not legally served."[50] If Bruce is found in contempt of court it is expected that Bruce will be fined for every day he didn't respond to the subpoena (March 19-May 24). According to Bruce, he was out of town on vacation.[51]

On June 23 a Denver judge cited Bruce with contempt of court.[52] Denver District Court Judge Brian Whitney said, "Based on the state’s showing in the motion, there is cause to believe that Mr. Bruce has not complied with the order and that, to date, he remains in disobedience of the order."[53]

A hearing was set for July 26 at 8:30 am in Denver.[54] Additionally, Bruce was ordered to appear at a June 30 as a witness in a grand jury investigation.[55][56] According to reports, the grand jury hearing is unrelated to Bruce's political activities and he is only serving as a witness.[57]

On July 26 Bruce appeared in court in regard to the contempt citation.[58] Bruce argued that he was out of town and did not purposely try to evade the subpoena. "I can produce motel receipts ... to prove that I wasn't here," said Bruce. Despite the state's arguments that Bruce should face civil or criminal charges, Bruce has not been charged with a crime. However, District Judge Brian Whitney said, "I don’t plan to impose incarceration."[59][60]

The case is scheduled to resume on August 18.[61]

Filing with State Court of Appeals

On late July 2010 sponsors of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 filed an appeal to a judge's order to disclose contributors of the proposed measures.[62] According to the filed appeal, it alleges that Denver Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer that presided over the case engaged in "flagrant misconduct." Additionally, the appeal states,"The weaving of wild speculative theories about unknown contributions in kind by unknown persons, and other distractions from the fact that there was NO evidence appellant ‘accepted’ over two hundred dollars." Judge Spencer ruled in June that the sponsors should have formed committees and reported the expenditures and contributions. The judge also issued $2,000 in fines against the three sponsors.[63]

Path to the ballot

See also: Colorado signature requirements

In order to place the proposed measure on the ballot, supporters were required to collect a minimum of 76,047 valid signatures.

Signature summary

Below is the signature county summary according to the Colorado Secretary of State:[1]

  • Total number of qualified signatures submitted: 142,680
  • 5% of qualified signatures submitted (random sample): 7,134
  • Total number of entries accepted (valid) from random sample: 5,307
  • Total number of entries rejected (invalid) from random sample: 1,827
  • Number of projected valid signatures from random sample: 106,140
  • Total number of accepted entries necessary for placement on ballot: 76,047
  • Percentage of presumed valid signatures: 139.57%

Signature challenge

According to proposition opponents, supporters may have failed to file required paperwork. Tyler Chafee, a member of Protect Colorado’s Communities, a proposition opponent, said, "It appears that the proponents of these measures have not filed any kind of reports or done anything to that effect. We are looking very closely at the petitions ... and the practices of the people trying to push these measures. We have some sense that they may not have followed the law."[64]

According to secretary of state officials, state law requires that paid petition companies register with the state and paid circulators receive training. Neither was completed by supporters of Proposition 101, according to both supporters and officials. However, the Bell Policy Center, an opponent of the measure, said that according to preliminary research two petition companies were hired.

Challengers had until January 4, 2010 to raise concerns in court.[64] [65]

See also

 		Suggest a link

Related measures

Articles

External links

Additional reading

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Colorado Secretary of State,"Proposed Ballot Measure Deemed Sufficient Proposed Initiative #10, “Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees” designated Proposition 101," December 4, 2009
  2. ↑ KDVR Denver,"Taxes, personhood, possibly health care set for November ballot," March 29, 2010
  3. ↑ Colorado State Legislature,"Proposed initiative measure 2009-2010 #4, concerning motor vehicle, income, and telecommunications taxes and fees," February 6,2009
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 The Denver Post,"Ritter says tax-cutting ballot initiatives would cripple Colorado," May 14, 2010
  5. ↑ The Denver Post,"Taxes, spending: Reaction sharp to Colo. ballot issues," February 22, 2010
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 The Daily Sentinel,"Opponent to ballot measures emerges," May 24, 2010
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The Denver Post,"Colo. firms spend millions fighting tax-cutting ballot measures," July 23, 2010
  8. ↑ Colorado Campaign Finance Database,"July 19, 2010 Report of Contributions and Expenditures," July 18, 2010
  9. ↑ Colorado Campaign Finance Database,"June 1, 2010 Report of Contributions and Expenditures," May 30, 2010
  10. ↑ Colorado Campaign Finance Database,"July 6, 2010 Report of Contributions and Expenditures," July 6, 2010
  11. ↑ Denver Business Journal,"Bipartisan opposition to Colorado ballot measures to cut state revenue, spending," December 14, 2009
  12. ↑ The Denver Post,"Candidates weigh in on right side of ballot items," February 28, 2010
  13. ↑ The Denver Daily News,"Anti-tax proposals blasted," June 3, 2010
  14. ↑ The Aurora Sentinel,"CU Regents take stand against props 60, 61 and 101," July 19, 2010
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 The Gazette,"Trio of anti-government ballot measures go too far, critics charge," December 4, 2009
  16. ↑ The Gazette,"POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Ritter talks TABOR in Springs," March 30, 2010
  17. ↑ The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel,"Ballot measures would cost city, Grand Junction official says," January 18, 2010
  18. ↑ Denver Business Journal,"Three ballot measures are ‘absolutely lethal’ to Colorado," March 5, 2010
  19. ↑ Steamboat Today,"Steamboat schools' funding could be affected by 'anti-tax' ballot measures," April 25, 2010
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Steamboat Today,"Steamboat officials critical of anti-tax ballot measures," May 19, 2010
  21. ↑ The Aspen Times,"Aspen hospital board takes stand against state tax-relief measures," June 16, 2010
  22. ↑ Vail Daily,"Colorado Mountain College opposes November ballot measures," June 30, 2010
  23. ↑ Steamboat Today,"Steamboat Chamber opposes anti-tax measures," July 13, 2010
  24. ↑ Colorado Campaign Finance Database,"Coloradans for Responsible Reform information," retrieved July 23, 2010
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Denver Business Journal,"Denver businesses blast Nov. ballot issues," May 11, 2010
  26. ↑ Colorado Campaign Finance Database,"July 19, 2010 Report of Contributions and Expenditures," July 19, 2010
  27. ↑ Steamboat Today,"Ballot measures would slash school funding in Routt County," May 2, 2010
  28. ↑ The Bell Policy Center,"Preliminary Analysis of Proposition 101," December 7, 2009
  29. ↑ Colorado Municipal League,"Main page," retrieved June 29, 2010
  30. ↑ The Daily Sentinel,"League warns of ballot measures’ effects" June 29, 2010
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 Colorado Legislative Council,"Amendments 60 and 61, and Proposition 101," July 8, 2010
  32. ↑ Denver Business Journal,"Legislative Council: 3 anti-tax measures could cost state $2.1 billion," July 22, 2010
  33. ↑ Steamboat Pilot & Today,"Our View: A close look at ‘anti-tax’ measures," May 23, 2010
  34. ↑ The Denver Post,"Ballot item could cripple Colorado," July 7, 2010
  35. ↑ The Denver Daily,"Group challenges anti-tax ballot proposals," January 6, 2010
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Associated Press,"Ballot measure opponents want information from tax foe Douglas Bruce about petition drive," April 24, 2010
  37. ↑ The Gazette,"Sponsors of statewide ballot initiatives using "obstructionist" tactics, lawyer says," May 3, 2010
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 The Gazette,"Douglas Bruce a no-show at campaign finance hearing," April 23, 2010
  39. ↑ Associated Press,"Order sought to make tax activist attend hearing," May 4, 2010
  40. ↑ The Gazette,"AG wants to compel Douglas Bruce to testify in campaign finance hearing," May 3, 2010
  41. ↑ The Gazette,"Douglas Bruce must appear for deposition, district court says," May 11, 2010
  42. ↑ The Gazette,"Attorney general's 23 attempts to serve Bruce come up empty," May 18, 2010
  43. ↑ Associated Press,"Proponents on tax, fee measures on November ballot cite "Mr. X" as source," May 24, 2010
  44. ↑ The Huffington Post,"Doug Bruce Identified By Ballot Initiative Backers As Man Behind Controversial Measures," May 24, 2010
  45. ↑ The Gazette,"Witness ties Douglas Bruce to three ballot measures," May 24, 2010
  46. ↑ Associated Press,"Tax petitioners: Not sure who's funding the effort," May 24, 2010
  47. ↑ The Gazette,"Hearing lifts veil on campaign for disputed measures," May 26, 2010
  48. ↑ The Denver Post,"Colorado has tried to serve Douglas Bruce 29 times," May 29, 2010
  49. ↑ The Denver Post,"State asks judge for contempt motion; Bruce asks for hearing," June 19, 2010
  50. ↑ The Gazette,"AG to file contempt motion today against Bruce," June 17, 2010
  51. ↑ Associated Press,"State pursues sanction against anti-tax activist," June 18, 2010
  52. ↑ Associated Press,"Judge considering sanctions against Bruce," June 23, 2010
  53. ↑ The Gazette,"Judge cites Bruce for contempt of court," June 23, 2010
  54. ↑ The Colorado Independent,"Denver judge rules in favor of motion to hold Bruce in contempt of court," June 23, 2010
  55. ↑ The Gazette,"Bruce agrees to go before grand jury, avoids a 2nd contempt charge," June 29, 2010
  56. ↑ The Daily Sentinel,"Bruce avoids a ‘perp walk,’ but discredits his initiatives," June 29, 2010
  57. ↑ Associated Press,"Colo. Anti-Tax Activist To Testify At Grand Jury," July 1, 2010
  58. ↑ Associated Press,"Colorado's tax iconoclast back in the spotlight," July 24, 2010
  59. ↑ The Denver Post,"Douglas Bruce likely won't get jail time if guilty of contempt of court," July 26, 2010
  60. ↑ The Gazette,"Bruce probably won't face jail time in contempt case," July 26, 2010
  61. ↑ Associated Press,"Anti-Tax Crusader To Fight Contempt Allegations," July 26, 2010
  62. ↑ Associated Press,"Sponsors Of Anti-Tax Measures Appeal Court Order," July 27, 2010
  63. ↑ The Gazette,"Ballot measures' sponsors appeal order to divulge financial backers," July 27, 2010
  64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel,"Ballot measure opponents question signatures," December 10, 2009
  65. ↑ State Bill Colorado,"Colorado Ballot Measure Opponents Question Signatures," December 11, 2009
v • d • e
2010 ballot measures
I&R States
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Motor_Vehicle,_Income,_and_Telecom_Taxes,_Proposition_101_(2010)"
Personal tools