Why does the State of Colorado simultaneously have high levels of educational attainment among all adults but low rates of higher education enrollment among recent high school graduates? This “Colorado Paradox” stems in part from the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), which voters added to the state constitution in 1992 after failed amendment attempts in 1988 and 1990. Since then, Colorado has struggled to fund K–12 education, as well as public higher education, at levels comparable to other states.
After an election week full of “de-Brucing” ballot measures, it’s worth revisiting the link between public education and the tax revolts that began in the late 1970s. In a changing economic and political landscape, TABOR’s effects—good and bad—are more complex and nuanced than voters could have anticipated in the early 1990s. This story emerges in Scott Carlson’s long-form read in the Chronicle of Higher Education (with some additional commentary, below the fold).
Scott Carlson, The Colorado Paradox, Chron. Higher Ed. (Oct. 31, 2025):
The TABOR amendment, which was passed when the State Legislature was predominantly Republican, offers an example of how an anti-tax and free-market ideological project can have far-reaching and multifaceted impacts. Over the years, the constitutional amendment has arguably contributed to Colorado’s lower college-going rate, in part, by shifting the cost burden of higher education to students and families. The state has long relied on its vibe to draw educated workers for its corporate and innovation economy. But with high housing costs and other factors threatening migration to the state, Colorado will have to grapple with how to support education under a set of unusual, self-imposed constraints. . . .
Coloradans may be stuck with TABOR for the foreseeable future. Democrats in the Legislature considered filing a lawsuit earlier this year to challenge the law’s constitutionality, but then dropped the effort; there were more-pressing issues with the state budget to handle, and “the will wasn’t there to hear it,” as one state representative put it.
TABOR also polls well enough among supporters that even opponents of the law acknowledge that they are unlikely to overturn it anytime soon. . . .
Absent in Carlson’s article is a discussion of Colorado Promise, a 2024 state legislative initiative that provides complete last-dollar tuition support to students from households with income up to $90,000. This support generally covers four or five semesters of education at any of Colorado’s public colleges or universities, and the initiative essentially bridges any gap after federal Pell Grants, Colorado’s College Opportunity Fund, and institutional “promise” programs. Cost estimates for this initiative were relatively modest: approximately $40 million annually spread across 28 eligible institutions in the state.
What’s notable about Colorado Promise is the initiative’s structure, which is heavily influenced by TABOR. Colorado Promise is a paradigmatic tax expenditure: disguised spending implemented through a targeted tax beneift. Students pay tuition up front, then are reimbursed through a refundable tax credit when they—the students, not their parents—file a Colorado income tax return in the following year. The initiative is more like the EITC or CTC than the erstwhile advance versions of these credits. To my knowledge, there are no initiative-specific liquidity vehicles; students and their families must rely on federal or private loans to bridge cash-flow mismatches. Rolling the credits forward is less effective because of mismatches between the academic and calendar years. That’s a lot of churn for a grant program aimed at students from modest means.
Moreover, Colorado Promise has multiple eligibility cliffs, and students and their families have complete certainty about their tax credits only when their returns are filed. Again, not ideal for planning purposes. But tax expenditures generally aren’t restricted by TABOR, so the initiative’s idiosyncratic structural features are a necessary price of the policy. Essentially, Colorado Promise provides directed refunds of the state’s projected TABOR surpluses (for a given year, the excess of tax revenue collected over the TABOR spending limit) to support students (directly) and public higher education (indirectly). As this initiative enters its second full year, however, there remains a huge gap in knowledge about uptake and effects.
As Carlson notes, ingenuity within arbitrary contraints is a theme under Colorado’s constitutional tax limitations. For example, Carlson (and other commentators) cites Colorado’s constitutionally required flat income tax rate. In 2022, voters approved Proposition FF, which limits the standard and itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers. The effect, of course, is a higher effective tax rate on these high earners—a complex and idiosyncratic three-bracket progressive income tax, essentially. (I’ve made a similar point in parallel contexts.) This structure is affected by portions of the OBBB Act (namely, the expanded SALT limitation) and was expanded by Colorado votes on November 4, 2025, through Proposition MM.
Carlson also talks about the “bonkers” number of de-Brucing ballot measures that appear before voters in each election. These ballot measures are specific to taxing authorities (state, cities, counties, special districts), so there’s a lot of geographic variation in what’s on peoples’ ballots. Carlson notes that “[i]t’s all confusing, even to [the] highly educated.” And it doesn’t help that these measures must be printed in ALL CAPS. From my perspective, the plebiscite process envisioned by TABOR really cannot work without universal mail-in ballots—and I personally find working through de-Brucing measures both rewarding and democracy-affirming. I may be the only person who feels this way.
Finally, the political stakes of TABOR repeal are well-illustrated by Colorado’s experience repealing the Gallagher Amendment, a constitutional limitation on residential property taxes, in November 2020. This bipartisan effort, ratified by voters, generated substantial backlash. As with most tax changes, the pragmatic stakes of any putative TABOR repeal likely lie in transition relief, and the state’s experience with the Gallagher Amendment makes an end to TABOR even more remote.
Related TaxProf Blog coverage:
- WSJ: How to Squeeze the Most From the New SALT Cap (Nov. 3, 2025)
- Commentary on TABOR-Gutting in Colorado (Nov. 3, 2005)
- TABOR in the News (June 19, 2005)
