Voters in Colorado again voiced a clear objection to tax increases aimed at increasing education funding in the state when they smacked down ballot issue Proposition 103 with a 63.5% ‘No' vote. And this is not the first time Coloradoans demonstrated their education funding preferences. Still, in the face of overwhelming disapproval, a Colorado District Court will soon hand down a verdict in Lobato v. Colorado deciding the very same issue again; and all this amidst a Colorado budget already stretched very thin.  

In 2000, following lengthy, expensive trials arguing adequate funding for K-12 education, Coloradoans passed Amendment 23 requiring the General Assembly to provide specific increases in funding each fiscal year using a statewide "base" calculation. The statewide base is the per pupil funding based on several factors that all districts receive before annual adjustments are made, better tailoring funding to the districts with more need. Additionally, Amendment 23 requires that the state's General Fund contribution to K-12 education must increase by a minimum of 5 percent annually if personal income grows by at least 4.5 percent.

Still, in 2005, the plaintiffs in Lobato v. Colorado determined this an inadequate solution and filed a lawsuit in District Court. Despite rulings in 2006 and 2008 by the District Court and Court of Appeals, respectively, that the claims were non-justiciable (prohibited from court review), the Colorado Supreme court decided it is the responsibility of the court to hear the case and determine whether the actions of the legislature in passing Amendment 23 is consistent with the State's obligation to provide adequate school systems.

Despite the impending decision in Lobato, the state recently attempted again to utilize legislative means to pass education reform via Proposition 103 on November 1, 2011. The ballot initiative aimed at generating an additional $2.9 billion over the next five years by raising state income tax and state sales taxes to better leverage the $227.5 million cuts to K-12 education this year.

And once again, Coloradoans conveyed an adamant refusal to alter education funding by killing the initiative. Republican state Senator Bill Cadman stated, "We can't help children by bankrupting their parents." But will it happen anyway?

Even though Coloradoans seem satisfied with the education funding in their state, the Lobato case will effectively bulldoze legislative avenues of reform and impose the costly will of the Plaintiffs on Colorado purse strings should the Court find in their favor. The Colorado Attorney General reported that the state could end up siphoning an additional $2-4 billion from somewhere else in the budget should the Plaintiffs prevail. It certainly does not take an economist to recognize that litigation costs plus the costs of a successful challenge could lead Colorado down a debt-ridden path.

In FY 2010-11, the legislature cut $6.2 million total to maintain a balanced budget. K-12 education is the biggest expenditure, but on the chopping block could be the other four largest state expenditures: HCPF/Medicaid (17.7%), DOC/Public Safety, Judicial (15.2%), higher education (9.3%), and human services (9.2%), totaling $3,579,129,133.

If successful, the challenge may result in drastic cuts to these departments to increase the revenue for K-12. Also, the impact of a successful challenge may increase resentment towards the judiciary and dramatically weaken the efficacy of the legislature. After repeatedly conveying their overwhelming disapproval of increasing education funding, frustrations over the judiciary and legislature may explode. While students may get a more valuable investment in their education, it will likely come at a cost to taxpayers.