Full Breakdown
Colorado Judge Rejects Lawsuit Aiming to Keep Amendment 87 Off Ballot
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Court Dismisses Challenge to Amendment 87 Ballot Access
A Denver district court judge ruled that a lawsuit filed by Arapahoe County resident Michael Andre Hancock failed to meet the burden of proof required to remove Amendment 87 from the November ballot. The suit alleged irregularities in the signature-gathering process for the graduated-income-tax measure and challenged Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s review of those signatures. After a hearing, the judge concluded that the alleged deficiencies did not rise to the level needed to disqualify the measure. “Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this matter,” — Heidi L. Kutcher, district court judge
Background & Context: Colorado Income Tax and Competing Measures
Colorado currently levies a flat state income tax of 4.4 percent. Amendment 87 proposes a graduated structure: incomes under $500,000 would pay either the existing 4.4 percent or a lower rate (e.g., 4.2 percent for $25,001-$100,000), while incomes above $500,000 would face higher rates up to 8.4 percent for earnings over $1 million. Revenue would go to the Colorado Futures Account for education, healthcare and early-child-care programs.
Proposition 136, on the same ballot, seeks to cap the state income tax at the current 4.4 percent rate. If both measures pass, state statutes say the measure receiving more votes would prevail, though the exact outcome may require legislative or judicial clarification.
Data & Statistics
- Current flat income tax: 4.4 percent.
- Proposed graduated rates under Amendment 87: 4.2 percent (for $25,001-$100,000) up to 8.4 percent (for incomes > $1 million).
- Signature requirement for ballot measures: signatures from 5 percent of the total votes cast in the prior Secretary of State race.
Official Statements & Responses
Secretary of State Jena Griswold praised the court’s “careful consideration” and urged voters to decide the issue at the ballot box. Chris deGruy Kennedy of the Bell Policy Center noted that while some circulators were unregistered, the estimated 33 individuals were insufficient to disqualify the measure. Hancock’s attorney Jason Dunn contested the ruling, asserting that the decision relied heavily on testimony from a single Secretary of State office witness and that the Supreme Court would likely reverse the dismissal.
Criticism & Opposition
The Independence Institute, a Colorado-based think tank, opposes Amendment 87 and backs Proposition 136, arguing that maintaining the flat tax preserves economic stability.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources agree the legal challenge was dismissed, but they differ on the projected consequences if both ballot measures succeed. One explanation states that the measure receiving more votes would control the tax rate, while the state’s blue booklet emphasizes that the interaction between a graduated tax and a capped rate remains legally ambiguous, leaving resolution to the legislature or courts.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this matter,” — Heidi L. Kutcher, district court judge
- “This decision was based largely on the testimony of a single witness from the Secretary of States office that conflicted with much of the other testimony on the question of whether requiring circulators to register helps prevent fraud,” — Jason Dunn, Hancock's attorney
What’s Next
Hancock’s legal team plans to file an appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court later this week. Voters will decide the fate of both Amendment 87 and Proposition 136 on November 3, with ballots required to be returned by that date.