Before Voters Speak, the Legislature Is Already Rewriting Their Answer

Colorado voters have not yet had their say on Initiative 175. Yet HB26-1430 tries to plan around their answer before they give it.

That is the core problem.

HB26-1430, called the Colorado Budget Protection Act, is written to take effect only if voters approve a proposed constitutional change that would dedicate more state revenue to road transportation. If that happens, this bill automatically reduces the gasoline excise tax, special fuel excise tax, several vehicle registration fees, and the road usage fee from January 1, 2027, through July 1, 2030. It also creates a new Support Road Transportation Fund to receive revenue dedicated to road transportation and then reroutes that money through a new statutory structure.

That may sound technical. It is not. It is a question of whether the legislature should respect the voters or maneuver around them.

I voted no because HB26-1430 treats a possible voter-approved constitutional amendment as a problem to be managed before the public has even made its decision. As I said publicly, Colorado voters have not even had their say on Initiative 175 yet, and the legislature is already moving money around to blunt its impact.

That is backwards.

When citizens use the initiative process, they are using one of the few tools that allows them to speak directly into state policy. Legislators may disagree with the policy. They may campaign against it. They may explain its consequences. But they should not preemptively build a statutory workaround that activates only if voters approve something the majority does not like.

HB26-1430 is framed as budget protection. The bill’s legislative declaration says Initiative 175 could make the state budget harder to balance and could force reductions in K-12 education, health care, and higher education. It says the bill’s purpose is to lower certain transportation taxes and fees so transportation funding does not increase at the expense of general fund services.

That argument deserves scrutiny.

The state does have serious budget pressures. But this bill does not solve those pressures. It rearranges them. It creates a conditional mechanism that reduces transportation revenue, diverts other revenue into a new fund, replaces general fund transfers, changes TABOR refund outcomes, and adds administrative complexity across multiple agencies.

According to the fiscal note, if Initiative 175 passes, HB26-1430 would reduce Highway Users Tax Fund revenue by $226.7 million in FY 2026-27, $499.4 million in FY 2027-28, $523.4 million in FY 2028-29, and $548.3 million in FY 2029-30. The fiscal note also projects diverted funds into the new Support Road Transportation Fund of $342.7 million in FY 2026-27, $690.4 million in FY 2027-28, $714.4 million in FY 2028-29, and $739.2 million in FY 2029-30.

Those are not minor accounting adjustments. Those are major fiscal decisions.

The bill also changes TABOR refund expectations. The fiscal note says HB26-1430 would decrease the amount of state revenue required to be refunded to taxpayers by $136.1 million in FY 2026-27 and $499.4 million in FY 2027-28, assuming Initiative 175 passes. It further states that reduced cash fund revenue would increase the amount of general fund money available to spend or save in years when the state is over its revenue limit.

That matters. Voters should know when a bill marketed as a transportation funding adjustment also affects taxpayer refunds.

There is also a governance issue. HB26-1430 creates a mechanism that depends on the outcome of a ballot measure, then changes how that outcome operates. That is a dangerous habit. If lawmakers believe an initiative is flawed, they should make that case honestly to the people. They should not say, in effect, “If voters approve it, we already have a bill ready to dilute it.”

That erodes trust.

Colorado’s initiative process exists because the people are sovereign. The legislature is not the owner of state government. It is the servant of the people. When the people reserve power to themselves through the constitution, the General Assembly should approach that power with humility.

HB26-1430 lacks that humility.

Supporters may argue that the bill protects schools, health care, and higher education. Those are serious priorities. But responsible budgeting does not mean using one important service as rhetorical cover for avoiding hard fiscal choices. Colorado’s budget problems did not appear overnight. They came from years of spending decisions, program expansions, fee structures, revenue diversions, and political promises that could not all be sustained.

You cannot patch a billion-dollar hole with a procedural maneuver.

You fix it by setting priorities. You fix it by controlling spending. You fix it by respecting taxpayers. You fix it by building a budget that can survive without gimmicks, games, or last-minute statutory traps.

The transportation question is also real. Colorado families sit in traffic. Rural roads need attention. Growth has strained infrastructure. Local governments need predictable funding. Initiative 175 may or may not be the right answer. That is for the voters to decide.

But if voters decide road funding deserves constitutional protection, the legislature should not immediately undercut that decision through a conditional bill passed before the election.

That is why I voted no in committee, where HB26-1430 advanced on a 9-4 vote, and why I remained opposed when the bill passed third reading in the House by a vote of 42-22.

My vote was not against roads. It was not against schools. It was not against health care. It was a vote against preemptive legislative manipulation of voter intent.

Colorado needs a government that trusts its citizens. That means giving voters clear information, respecting their constitutional role, and accepting the outcome when they speak.

HB26-1430 does the opposite.

That is why I voted no.