While Democrats took control of the House
of Representative for the first time
in eight years on Tuesday, President
Donald Trump told the country
that the midterms were actually a victory for
Republicans.
“I thought it was very close to a
complete victory,” Trump said.[i]
Do Colorado districts and schools need more money? Sure. It
is why I voted for Amendment 73, the statewide tax to benefit K-12 education.
But before we leave the Nov. 6 vote behind, I ask that we
review what we learned from the failure of Amendment 73. Because it’s not the
lesson its proponents (or some foes) are willing to acknowledge.
In fact, from a few supporters of Amendment 73, the lesson
is not that it failed but that it almost
won, or that each time Colorado voters have been asked to raise taxes for
schools, the vote gets closer. As in—it’s really a win! (Remind you of
someone?) Momentum is on our side! Just
try again – in 2020!
I quote several news articles
written immediately after the election. Some numbers used in these articles
were not the final tallies. With 100% of votes in:
Amendment
73
YES
- 1,137,527 – 46.4%
|
Let’s not put on rose-colored glasses and misread the “lessons” of the
November vote. I am sure to offend those who, in my mind, have worked hard to
address a vital problem for public education in our state, but I hope they will
consider what strikes me as the most obvious takeaway. It comes from Floyd
Ciruli, the director of the Crossley Center for Public Opinion Research. In his commentary for The Denver Post (Nov. 9, 2018) of the 2018 midterm election,
Ciruli, one of Colorado’s most well-respected (and nonpartisan) political observers,
wrote: "... voters' historical patterns held in the area of ballot issues. They continue to
distrust and dislike statewide tax increases, even for problems they identify
and know will require more money. They said ‘no’ to the school income tax
proposal and the sales tax for roads."[iii]
(The Denver Post, Nov. 9, 2018)
With the key word being statewide.
Instead, here is the wishful
thinking from three advocates for the ballot proposal.
Lisa Weil, executive director of Great Education Colorado,
sounded hopeful about “a future effort.” After the results came in on the
evening of Nov. 6, she spoke to supporters.
[She]
said that the conversation around school funding was forever changed, with even
opponents admitting the need for more resources in the classroom and better pay
for teachers.
The
press release from Great Education Colorado on the vote (Nov. 6), titled, “WE WON’T STOP FIGHTING THIS FIGHT UNTIL
COLORADO DOES RIGHT BY ALL ITS STUDENTS,” begins:
The story tonight is that a
record number of Colorado voters recognize the need to invest in our
students, our teachers, our schools and our communities. That is
historic and we thank the voters for this powerful statement.
Together, we have changed the conversation
and made clear the urgency that exists in solving the school funding crisis
in Colorado. We’ve mobilized at the grassroots level, we will continue to
make our voices heard, and we expect our public officials to listen and to
come together on solutions.[iv]
|
“We are within striking distance, and we are
not going back….”
Weil said she believes voters heard that
message, but supporters did not have the resources to reach enough people.
“The more people learned about Amendment 73,
the more they liked it. It is a difficult thing, we know, to get
people to understand a policy, which is what we have to do. In Colorado, our
tax policymakers are our voters. The thumb is on the scale because good
policy is complex.”
In the coming days, Weil said supporters
would do a “deep dive” into the vote results to see where support lay and build
for a future effort.[v]
Tracie Rainey, executive director of the Colorado School Finance
Project, was equally positive. Like Weil, she too was willing to suggest a (dubious)
explanation for the no vote. The Colorado
Sun spoke with her later that week:
… she was heartened, at least, that 900,00 people
voted for Amendment 73 and that it captured 45 percent of the vote. That was a
boost from the 34 percent approval of Amendment 66 in 2013 which would have
raised $950,000 million for schools….
Rainey said she didn’t want to second-guess
voters, but believes that many don’t realize that the people—not the
legislature—must make the decision to increase taxes for schools.[vi]
Scott Wasserman is president of the Bell Policy Center. Note
the headline of his guest commentary in The
Denver Post, written later in November: “Colorado voters said no to taxes, again, but there’s hope even in this
defeat.” (Are you beginning to see a pattern?) Wasserman wrote:
… I think something historic—beyond the blue
tsunami—occurred on election night. For the first time since the passage of
TABOR, a statewide proposal to raise taxes for education came close to a
majority of votes. This was the third attempt to raise taxes for education over
the past decade; Proposition 103 lost in 2011 with 36.3 percent of the vote. In
2013, Amendment 66, netted 35.54 percent. This year, Amendment 73 got 46.3
percent. It received more votes than Walker Stapleton got in his failed bid for
governor.*
What’s more, in contrast with the $7 million
campaign for Proposition 110 and the $11 million raised for Amendment 66,
Amendment 73’s backers accomplished their milestone with just $1 million….
How did Amendment 73 get this far? First, a
genuine grassroots movement comprised of teachers and parents came together
without the aid of consultants and polling to get on the ballot. …
[*True, but Stapleton did win in 38
out of 64 counties. Amendment 73 won in
only 12 counties.]
And again we hear a proponent unconvinced the voters
understood what was on the ballot:
Because of its fundraising disadvantage and
the complications of a very technical proposal, it’s debatable as to whether or
not all voters truly saw the proposal for what it was. The polling [from prior
to the election, referred to at the top of his commentary] … indicates if they
had, Amendment 73 would now be in our constitution.
A leap of faith there. But his next leap is pure fantasy.
… In fact, looking at the results, how can
we not now wonder what would have happened if the proponents of Proposition 110
and Amendment 73 had joined forces, seeking funding for both education and
transportation through a progressive tax proposal?[vii]
Logical? If two
efforts, both asking for a statewide tax, both soundly rejected, had only
combined forces, they might have won?
I return to Ciruli’s thesis—Colorado voters "distrust and dislike
statewide tax increases.” Which is exactly what Amendment 73 and Proposition
110 had in common. In Addendum A – “Schools and
roads: Different issues, but huge overlap in how counties voted,” I
offer evidence to support Ciruli’s analysis: the votes, county-by-county, on
these two entirely different issues. You will find a remarkable similarity: in both cases, 51 out of 64 counties said NO.
Four
more points – for both sides of the debate
1. Two days after the vote, Monte Whaley of The Denver Post summarized next steps,
in:
“Educators looking to
governor, legislature after rejection of $1.6 billion school finding measure.” Whaley wrote:
Critics, however,
blasted Amendment 73 as just another attempt to throw tax dollars into an
education system burdened by administrative costs and little accountability.
“We know that a
massive tax increase that is not tied to results is not going to make a
difference for Colorado kids,” said Katie Kruger, the No on 73 campaign chair.[viii]
If overstated, Kruger raises a point that few advocates for
Amendment 73 seemed willing to address (and one featured by gubernatorial
candidate Walker Stapleton in his campaign ads): a suspicion among many voters
that the system is not as efficient or transparent as it should
be in spending the taxpayers' dollar. This is not a ridiculous sentiment. Listen to Denver’s next superintendent
speak of the need to “slim down the central office” at DPS (CPR, Colorado
Matters, Dec. 6, 2018[ix]).
Watch teachers roll their eyes when
asked about the number of administrators in the building—and their value. Hear what my friend, who drives a school
bus, has to say about the inefficiency and waste around student transportation.
Pro-tax advocates seldom speak to these real concerns.
2. By my count, only
half a dozen rural counties supported Amendment 73 (see Addendum A). It is possible
to pass “statewide” measures with little support from our rural communities (the
I-25 corridor has the votes to do it), but
would we want to? I am not sure advocates for a statewide tax appreciate
why so many rural voters might have had their doubts. A rural teacher I know wrote
to me of “an
enormous gap in trust between rural and metro CO voters. Rural folks lack faith
that metro Colorado fully understands the issues that rural Coloradans face in
regards to policy, taxes, etc.” I attended a school board meeting in another rural school district this
fall, where several board members voiced this very skepticism;
not one of them was willing to make a motion in support of Amendment 73.
3. And yet, opponents of the proposal
surely exaggerate when they say the defeat of this tax proves Coloradans don’t want to throw good money after bad
into public education. It is
true, on Nov. 6 most voters said no
to 73’s broad claim to use the tax increase “to
support early childhood through high school public educational programs on an
equitable basis throughout the state without decreasing general fund appropriations.”[x]
However, on that same day most voters, when asked by their school districts to vote on local mill levy and bond issues, most voters said yes. The six winning bond requests, alone, will raise close to
$1.5 billion. We should not confuse taxpayers’ mistrust of sending money
into “the system” with a refusal to support the schools and principals and
teachers they know best, in their
community. Local districts were able
to make more specific requests–some
stating increased funds would boost teacher salaries—in a way Amendment 73 either
could not, or did not, do.
4. As I hope to be impartial here, I would
quickly add that the support for mill levy overrides (16 of 21) and bond
requests (6 of 8) in no way solves our funding problem. This Douglas County resident cannot rejoice that our
community said yes to both a bond and mill request, while districts with fewer
resources failed to win support for far more modest requests. Consider these disparities:
BOND: Voters in Jefferson County (86,112 students) and Douglas County
(67,597) passed bonds for $567 million and $250 million respectively. In much
smaller districts, Lewis Palmer (6,703 students) and Garfield RE-2 (4,813),
voters said no to requests for far less, $36.5 million and $5.7 million respectively.
MILL LEVY OVERRIDE: Four of the state’s largest districts—Jeffco,
DougCo, Aurora Public Schools (40,920 students) and Adams 12 (38,870)—all gained
their override, which together will reap a total of $135 million. But in Bennet
29J (1,126 students), Trinidad (982), and Bethune (112 students), voters said no.
Not fair, agreed? Here, Rainey’s
conclusion rings true: “the state’s unfair school finance formula [has] created
a system where a child’s education ‘depends on their ZIP code,’ she said. ‘Now
you just created more haves and have-nots.’”[xi]
Common ground: It’s the funding
formula, stupid
The good news is that leaders across the political spectrum
agree that they have a responsibility to address this formula. The following comments
tell me that many agree: we cannot ask citizens to walk into the voting booth
and unravel the Gordian knot of Gallagher-Tabor-Amendment 23.
·
Gov-elect Jared Polis did not endorse Amendment
73 during the campaign, but he expressed a goal, as his spokesman Mara Sheldon put it,
“... to find a path forward to ensure our
schools receive the funding they need, whether or not this initiative passes.”[xii]
·
“People are keenly aware now more than ever
that our school finance model is in crisis,” Alec Garnett, vice chairman of the
school finance committee at the Colorado legislature.
·
“It’s crystal clear that people want better
schools and for their teachers to be better compensated. There is a charge
to the legislature to take up the school finance formula that’s been sitting
there untouched since 1994. It’s time for a change,” Luke
Ragland, Ready Colorado.
·
“We hope that both sides of this debate will
set aside difference, roll up their sleeves and work together to come up with
real solutions,” Katie Kruger, co-chair of the No on 73 campaign.
No matter how we voted on Amendment 73, let us cheer such
work in 2019. May it lead to a real win!
Amendment A
The obvious question: What was similar
enough about these two extremely different items on the ballot that might
account for such a pattern?
Out of 64
counties, only 13 voted in favor of Amendment 73 (highlighted in yellow).
5 of those 13 also voted in favor of Proposition
110.
·
Denver
– 58.0% yes on Proposition 110
·
Boulder
– 57.3% yes
·
San
Miguel – 53.4% yes
·
Pitkin
– 51.7% yes
·
Summit
– 50.9% yes
Another 6 of
those 13 showed fairly strong support
for Proposition 110:
·
Eagle
– 47.7% yes on Proposition 110
·
Rout
– 47.6% yes
·
Broomfield
– 46.1% yes
·
Ouray
– 46.1% yes
·
Larimer
– 45.4% yes
Gunnison 42.2% yes
Two of the 13 counties voting in favor of Amendment
73 showed less than 40% support for
Proposition 110:
·
Lake
– 39.6% yes
·
San
Juan – 38.5% yes
Out of 64
counties, only 5 voted in favor of Proposition 110 (highlighted in yellow).
For the 51 counties that voted no on both, the gap between the yes and no votes
was usually larger on Proposition 110.
For the most part, though, you will see more similarities than differences between the vote for a statewide
tax for schools and for roads.
In at least 10
counties the similarities in the % of yes/no
votes are striking:
1.
Cheyenne
2.
Clear
Creek
3.
Douglas
4.
Elbert
5.
Kit
Carson
6.
Las
Animas
7.
Lincoln
8.
Mesa
9.
Park
10. Teller
Highlighted in yellow – county voted yes
From The
Denver Post – (94.2% votes in) - https://elections.denverpost.com/
Amendment 73 -
Tax Increase for Schools
|
Proposition 110 -
Sales Tax for Transportation
|
County Results
|
|
YES (top line)
|
|
NO (bottom line)
|
|
|
46.5%
53.5%
43.2%
56.8%
47.6%
52.4%
43.4%
56.6%
28.0%
72.0%
30.9%
69.1%
63.0%
37.0%
50.4%
49.6%
45.3%
54.7%
24.9%
75.1%
45.7%
54.3%
36.6%
63.4%
43.4%
56.6%
29.6%
70.4%
30.5%
69.5%
36.2%
63.8%
60.6%
39.4%
28.4%
71.6%
36.7%
63.3%
51.0%
49.0%
25.2%
74.8%
31.2%
68.8%
31.4%
68.6%
49.2%
50.8%
46.2%
53.8%
46.2%
53.8%
57.3%
42.7%
38.9%
61.1%
40.2%
59.8%
33.6%
66.4%
47.2%
52.8%
24.0%
76.0%
27.8%
72.2%
52.4%
47.6%
47.2%
52.8%
52.6%
47.4%
32.7%
67.3%
29.4%
70.6%
43.0%
57.0%
33.8%
66.2%
43.3%
56.7%
31.0%
69.0%
42.5%
57.5%
33.3%
66.7%
34.8%
65.2%
32.2%
67.8%
54.8%
45.2%
35.4%
64.6%
40.2%
59.8%
58.8%
41.2%
31.3%
68.7%
35.3%
64.7%
32.1%
67.9%
34.4%
65.6%
51.4%
48.6%
47.1%
52.9%
52.6%
47.4%
55.4%
44.6%
43.3%
56.7%
53.0%
47.0%
28.8%
71.2%
34.7%
65.3%
39.5%
60.5%
30.5%
69.5%
|
37.3%
62.7%
34.1%
65.9%
42.2%
57.8%
33.5%
66.5%
19.1%
80.9%
24.1%
75.9%
57.3%
42.7%
46.1%
53.9%
35.4%
64.6%
24.4%
75.6%
43.5%
56.5%
23.4%
76.6%
32.5%
67.5%
21.9%
78.1%
25.4%
74.6%
28.6%
71.4%
58.0%
42.0%
19.5%
80.5%
36.8%
63.2%
47.7%
52.3%
22.9%
77.1%
25.4%
74.6%
26.1%
73.9%
39.0%
61.0%
39.2%
60.8%
38.2%
61.8%
42.2%
57.8%
42.0%
58.0%
34.5%
65.5%
25.0%
75.0%
43.1%
56.9%
29.4%
70.6%
27.9%
72.1%
39.6%
60.4%
44.1%
55.9%
45.4%
54.6%
30.3%
69.7%
23.0%
77.0%
28.1%
71.9%
30.7%
69.3%
37.4%
62.6%
24.2%
75.8%
30.0%
70.0%
26.7%
73.3%
26.8%
73.2%
26.0%
74.0%
46.1%
53.9%
31.4%
68.6%
32.6%
67.4%
51.7%
48.3%
26.2%
73.8%
28.9%
71.1%
23.7%
76.3%
28.1%
71.9%
47.6%
52.4%
38.1%
61.9%
38.5%
61.5%
53.4%
46.6%
29.4%
70.6%
50.9%
49.1%
25.4%
74.6%
21.5%
78.5%
31.8%
68.2%
24.1%
75.9%
|
TOTAL
45.6% YES
54.4% NO
|
TOTAL
40.2% YES
59.8% NO
|
