Why? Because it guarantees my rights and freedoms, and Colorado officials take a solemn oath of office to support my rights and freedoms guaranteed by it.
Apology: I have to admit writing out of seven years of mounting
frustration on this state issue. You see, in my world the oath was military; “support and defend” and we were trusted to do just that, regardless of personal hazards, difficulties, obstacles, etc. We were also carefully taught for decades that support and defense of the Constitution of the United States is our highest duty.
frustration on this state issue. You see, in my world the oath was military; “support and defend” and we were trusted to do just that, regardless of personal hazards, difficulties, obstacles, etc. We were also carefully taught for decades that support and defense of the Constitution of the United States is our highest duty.
Lesson from the 1946-1948 Nurenberg trials? Orders from a superior that conflict are illegal. If laws, orders and regulations present a conflict, I must seek assistance from colleagues, higher authorities, the Judge Advocate General, or even resign if possible. If circumstances leave my resignation impossible, I am obliged to obey the Constitution as best I can understand it. Merely hiding behind an illegal or unconstitutional order would be no defense at all.
But what about the oath to support the constitution of the state of Colorado? State officials swear to support both the US and the state constitutions?
This essay’s question arises because of an obvious conflict between our Colorado constitution’s Article X Section 3.5 and its enabling legislation, both resulting from the 2006 Referendum E. S.C.R. 06-001 in 2007 law left out fifteen words describing totally disabled military retirees and the guaranty therein of a disabled veteran property tax exemption:
"the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force."
Those last fifteen words in Section 3.5 and not in S.C.R. 06-001 or § 39-3-202 C.R.S. (until 2016) denied the property tax exemption to approximately 450 totally disabled military retirees, about ten percent of our entire eligible vets. Still abandoned as of June 2021 are 450 with an Army, Navy or Air Force medical retirement as totally disabled. They’re constitutionally qualified for but statutorily disqualified for the exemption.
That is, veterans who are qualified and entitled by the constitution but denied by the law or regulations or actions of the government.
In this instance, state agencies and state officials have elected since 2007 to adhere to the law and not the constitution. Year after year, they refused the constitutional protection of Article X Section 3.5 guaranteed these 450 Colorado disabled veterans.
The purpose of Colorado’s oath of office, itself part of our constitution, is to remind state workers and officials is that they do not swear allegiance to a supervisor, agency, political appointee, law or regulation, or even to the governor or president. Their paramount oath is to support the Colorado and United States constitutions and faithfully execute one’s duties.
If Colorado courts wait to address the problem until it arises as a case or controversy about taxation, public trust in the fairness and legality of imposed every citizen's tax burden could be shaken.
§ 39-3-202 C.R.S is just a statute; it cannot override the Colorado Constitution. In Colorado, the only way to remove the right of disabled military retirees to the property tax exemption would be by amending the state Constitution. Unless and until there is an amendment, no statute can deprive Coloradans of their constitutional rights. DOLA, the Treasurer, and CDMVA simply skipped that process and ignored the constitution.
Fortunately, the Colorado Constitution gives the Colorado Supreme Court the authority to “give its opinion upon important questions upon solemn occasions when required by the governor, the senate, or the house of representatives. . .” In other words, the governor, the state house, or the state senate can send an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court, even if no case has arisen in which a taxpayer plaintiff has standing.
For ten years, DOLA and CDMVA opted to tax 450 disabled veterans despite the constitutional protection due the vets. An estimated $3.825M has been lawfully but unconstitutionally raised in these excess taxes. DOLA writes they must assume the laws to be constitutionally correct; they have blinders on even when the laws clearly are unconstitutional.
One can assume that our fifteen missing constitutional words have long been noted for their absence. Noted, but never corrected, not by DOLA, CDMVA, LSC, the secretary of state, or the attorney general. Sworn officials dismissed this issue, telling veterans “go talk to your legislator or the supreme court. Get your constitutional rights only if you are able to and can afford to go to the supreme court.” In effect, “it is not our job to support the constitution for its benefits guaranteed you disabled veterans.”
After similar responses from DOLA, a 100% disabled military retiree sought correction of the issue in 2014; HB16-1444, a new law effect by 2017, brought the statute into agreement with the constitution. The important point: officials took the oath and should be expected to (but did not) uphold Article X Section 3.5 of Colorado above any conflicting law or regulation.
They did nothing to support the constitution, choosing instead enforcement of the flawed, incomplete law. Sworn officials did not go to the legislature for a correction, did not go to the supreme court, did not refuse to enforce a clearly unconstitutional tax statute – they opted not to uphold their solemn oath.
Where does this bring us today? Problem solved? Nope. Not hardly!
Despite HB16-1444, special legislation back in 2016 to bring the tax statutes into compliance with the constitution, the state continues to block veterans guaranteed protection from those fifteen last words in Article X Section 3.5 –"the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force."
How? By still requiring these 450 vets to submit documentation from the VA. Even the forms updated since 2016 continue to inform veterans they are qualified only if they are 100% VA vets with VA documentation.
Web site after county web site, state web site after state web site, virtually every place one finds information about the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption DOLA and CDMVA continue to ignore the constitution. DOLA has tried at least twice in the last five years to have counties update details about the exemption, but even the DOLA web site application and instruction forms continue to misinform veterans that a document showing VA 100% disability must be submitted. A disabled military retiree reading that simply doesn't bother going any further.
Web site after county web site, state web site after state web site, virtually every place one finds information about the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption DOLA and CDMVA continue to ignore the constitution. DOLA has tried at least twice in the last five years to have counties update details about the exemption, but even the DOLA web site application and instruction forms continue to misinform veterans that a document showing VA 100% disability must be submitted. A disabled military retiree reading that simply doesn't bother going any further.
DOLA has tried, and perhaps CDMVA even more than I know, but Colorado continues to insist on unconstitutional taxes taken from disabled veteran homeowners.
