COLORADO SENATE DISHONORS ITS OWN RESOLUTION "HONORING" GOLD STAR FAMILIES

I'D CALL IT A JOKE BUT IT ISN'T.

One month ago the Colorado Legislature payed its respects to Gold Star Families* with a sweetly-worded joint resolution. Passed unanimously, the resolution praised the patriotism and dedication of families of Colorado's soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen who've died in the line of duty:

Right. Uh-huh. Fellow Coloradans, SJR21-010 wasn't worth the postage to mail it to the survivors. Neither was it enough of "an expression of profound gratitude and respect" to move the mighty senators to more carefully consider HCR21-1002. It certainly wasn't worth the esteemed committee of law-makers' bipartisan review. Instead, on a party-line vote, all Dems voted NO and the outnumbered Republicans voted YES.

What did they shoot down? Spending $93,000 to qualify just 140 Gold Star Widows the same small partial property tax exemption we give thousands of widows of our 100% disabled veterans. The situations are quite similar, except the disabled vets made it home and qualified for the exemption; dead servicemembers could not. The total impact of the Gold Star Widows would have been a "whopping" 0.00062 increase. Wow, how generous (not.)

That's the only difference. The tax law states for survivors to have the disabled veteran property tax exemption, their disabled veteran must have received it before his/her death. As you can imagine, a death on active-duty, and in the line of duty, pretty much precludes coming home disabled to apply for and get the exemption. 

Perhaps legislators who crafted the Seniors' and Disabled Veterans' Survivor Exemption (HB14-1373) did not pause to consider that not all troops make it home. Most do. A few of them are 100% disabled and can qualify for the exemption and so will their survivors. However, the very few who will never come home will never qualify their survivors only because they died first.

HCR21-1002 was an effort to correct this macabre injustice in our tax laws. I'm a totally disabled veteran in receipt of the exemption, and my wife will keep it as my survivor. Had I died in service she would be disqualified. Only because of awkward wording on our tax code.

June 7 was an opportunity to make things right, and to honor the resolution Colorado passed to respect Gold Star Families. June 7 was a missed opportunity to make good law. Shame on those who thought otherwise.

The Senate committee may not have realized that 90% of these widows are over 57, and 40% over age 75.  Or if the senators did know, perhaps they were appreciating that, given the survivors' average age, putting off a solution for their property taxes will have nature taking her usual course. The Senate can anticipate that year by year, for as long as the Senate is able to prevent any relief, there'll be fewer and fewer Gold Star Wives surviving to take advantage of any exemption.

What might be the reasons Gold Star Wives might want to be included in the exemption if they happen to be senior citizens eligible right now?
1. sell the marital home and downsize
2. reduce housing costs to adjust to loss of spouse's income

3. conflicts in wills taxes, credit, or other important property details

4. selling home elsewhere to return to Colorado

5. purchase home for first time

6. inherit home from other than deceased spouse, or gift

7. situations I can't predict

SHAME

Are 140 Gold Star Wives added to the current 489,000 homestead
exemptions just too, too much of a burden for the Great State of Colorado? No, not when we can also spend many millions on family planning for undocumented immigrants.

Someday solution: redefine "qualified veteran" to include a dead one. Add the words, "or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who died in the line of duty on active service" in a new statute – one that respects and honors Gold Star Widows.

* NOTE:
1. There are two types of Gold Star Wives. First, a small number of survivors of servicemembers whose deaths were in the line of duty while on  active military service. This is the group proposed for the disabled veteran survivor property tax exemption.

2. The other group are survivors of veterans who die after active duty and whose service was 100% disabling. They are already qualified for the exemption.

Helped My Old College Roommate With His VA Claim

PAUL, my old (we're both 75) roommate from college days, Army buddy, fellow IBM employee and friend for over half a century, is almost totally deaf.  

Paul (L)  and Wes, San Diego 1967

He hears sounds but needs powerful hearing aids to grasp the words. We first met as roommates during college and were occasionally bunkmates in the Army. Travels over the years gave us the opportunity to stay in touch. I'm writing this note about Paul to remind all veterans that military service has made us brothers and sisters; we must always help others, including getting them help from the VA when needed.

No Vet left behind. Ever.

Paul was supposed to be best man at my wedding at the March AFB chapel on June 14, 1969. Instead, he found himself headed off for Army basic training. While at Fort Bragg an incident on the rifle range left him totally deaf for days. He was seen at the base medical clinic but the damage was done: he gradually regained most of his hearing after a week of rest, but then year after year, the ears "rang" louder and louder as Paul's tinnitus developed. And so did his bilateral hearing loss worsen. A lot! 
 
This was a half century ago. Specialist-5 Paul Hansen was a traditional Army reservist, serving his initial six months of Active-Duty, but without full-time active duty after that to qualifying him as a "veteran" per the law; nothing that would leave him eligible for VA care or any other benefits. Paul did his six year military obligation and began the rest of life's complicated journey in earnest.

Paul moved between Tokyo and California while I bounced around the country with my civilian and military careers. Once, after I left the Army to fly for the California Air National Guard, I was able to take Paul on a flight with me to Massachusetts for his aunt's funeral. Because we kept in touch and visited occasionally plus weddings and funerals, I noticed Paul's advancing hearing loss and urged him to file a disability claim at the VA.

In fact, around 2014 I even filled out his VA claim for him! But Paul is the reigning world champion of procrastination; the application lay somewhere, ignored, then trashed or perhaps shuffled into some unrelated pile of documents never to be seen again. Okay, I'm a nag. Phone call after phone call, "how ya doin" was followed by reminding him to file with the VA. It never happened.

Paul's hearing loss was significant, but the real goal was for him to establish veteran status with VA. This would entitle him to hearing aids but also vital health care for a multitude of other problems. The disability compensation of his claim was an insignificant concern  – in poor health, twice-widowed and living alone, Paul needed the wide range of VA benefits due disabled veterans but he'd never be a veteran, much less a disabled veteran, without getting around to submitting his claim.

It got to the point that we both realized a claim just wasn't going to get done in our lifetime or before the sun burned out. With Paul's permission I used his power of attorney and applied to the VA for tinnitus and hearing loss disabilities. The initial obstacle of getting Paul to file finally accomplished, we next moved to finding proof of his Army rifle range problem. I filed a request with the Army's personnel records center in St. Louis and the vital proof of injury medical records were promptly sent to us. 

Then there had to be an effective argument that even though he was a traditional Reservist over fifty years back, Paul's injury should entitle him VA care and benefits. Usually VA will only consider problems a year after discharge, probably not Paul and more than half a century later! Paul wasn't even a statutory veteran per the law because he'd never been on active duty after basic training. 

I have a medical background and I also remembered a key detail: The law provides that Reservists and National Guard troops, if they have a disabling injury during their training, the requirements for full veteran status are met. Further, because Paul's training was during the Vietnam War he'd have a wider range of important coverages as a wartime veteran – but only if he succeeded in his claim. 

I also wrote a lengthy report about the Army's poor history of troops' hearing injuries in the years before earplugs were even permitted on a rifle range. I quoted similar VA disability claims from other veterans who won their claims, even years later like Paul. Because of Paul's age and health, his claim needed to be approved on our first pass, not rejected for correction or appeal. Too often, claims have flaws that delay the process a year or even longer for an appeal. At best, we hoped that Paul would get a small 10% disability award for his tinnitus and hearing loss but also worried about any delays for this increasingly frail man.

This week, VA notified him it approved the claim on the initial application. Paul Hansen thus became our newest honored disabled veteran. 40% disabled, not just 10% as first hoped. Two other major health issues are still under consideration and we're hoping it will put Paul over 50% disability, at which point all his medical care is provided free. Other benefits he can get now:

• Benefits for Veterans 40-50% Disabled, plus compensation
  • Preventive care.
  • "Level 2" VA medical priority group
  • Inpatient (hospitalization) services.
  • Military PX and commissary use.
  • Care in the Community
  • Ancillary services.
  • Mental health care.
  • Geriatrics and extended care.
  • Medical equipment/prosthetic items and aids.
  • Old age, low income pension (income-based.)
  • Medical travel.
  • Veteran-Directed Care program, a budget to help with activities of daily life.
  • Medication/supplies
    

The VA decision on his application also made his disability retroactive to December 2020, the date VA received his claim. Paul, faced with many health issues, is finally entitled to VA hearing aids and so many other benefits. Paul isn't poor but the VA check will be useful.

California has some property tax exemptions and other benefits, mostly kicking in at a 100% disability. We'll have to see if Paul's remaining issues are going to be service-connected.

Here, I'll take a firm grasp on myself and control the urge to tell Paul what his disability checks would have totaled (over $35,000) if HE'D ONLY DONE AS I SUGGESTED SEVEN YEARS AGO. I've helped vets with their VA claims but just one other went back over half a century like Paul's. That was for Bob Edwards, church friend and former Navy officer for whom we got a total disability based on World War II injuries 63 years earlier.

A note: Paul's dad's Coast Guard leather bridge coat (he's wearing it in the top photo) saved my life, quite literally, sometime around 1967 in Riverside, California. But that's another story.

THE REST OF THE STORY: The Brief Life & Sudden Death of Colorado's Gold Star Wives' Tax Exemption

Not about to waste a perfectly good opportunity to turn virtually every veterans' wrath against them, yesterday the Colorado Senate Veterans Committee killed HCR21-1002. 

Ever budget-conscious, the committee's discussion indicated they felt it terribly unwise to "waste" $94,000 permitting widows of active-duty troops the same very modest property tax break now given widows of our 100% disabled veterans. Colorado has 140 widows of active-duty troops, all denied the small exemption because the awkward wording of the 2014 legislation restricted the exemption to widows of a veteran already getting the exemption.

Get it?

a) Die on active duty = no widow's tax exemption, or

b) Die after active duty as a disabled vet = widow gets exemption.

Troops call this kind of situation "bass-ack-wards." 

The rest of the story? After a unanimous House vote for HCR21-1002, it was killed because some senators might to do "something" next year to go to the voters in 2023 for some relief for the widows in 2024.

"Something" apparently being a larger overhaul of the entire property tax exemption issue that costs $150,000,000 each year. Gold Star Wives  (mostly elderly of World War II, Korean Conflict and Vietnam eras) would have added 0.00062 to that $150M.

I think the House could have chosen a better approach to the Gold Star Wives, something easier than the constitutional amendment HCR21-1002 required. The legislature took it on themselves to include widows of 100% disabled vets who were receiving the exemption by HB14-1373, not an amendment which is more difficult. 

All the House had to do was use 21 new words refine the definition of "qualifying veteran" to include "or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who died in the line of duty on active service" in a  new statute.

Here's what it took to include survivors in the original 2014 bill:

39-3-203. Property tax exemption - qualifications. (1.5) (a.5)

FOR PROPERTY TAX YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2015, FIFTY PERCENT OF THE FIRST TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OF ACTUAL VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY THAT AS OF THE ASSESSMENT DATE IS OWNER-OCCUPIED AND IS USED AS THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF AN OWNER-OCCUPIER WHO IS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A QUALIFYING DISABLED VETERAN WHO PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED AN EXEMPTION UNDER PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1.5) IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.

Here's the redefined "qualifying veteran":

SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A QUALIFYING DISABLED VETERAN WHO PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED AN EXEMPTION or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who died in the line of duty on active service UNDER PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1.5) IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.

And that's "the rest of the story!" 

Here's the Colorado Bar Association's statement:

"Gold Star Wives, survivors of active-duty servicemembers, are denied the exemption because the state constitution (Amendment X Section 3.5) allows the exemption to survivors of veterans already in receipt of the benefit. Colorado legislators apparently did not consider the issue of active-duty deaths. Loss of the servicemember on active duty precludes the 'already in receipt of the benefit' requirement. Proposed is a redefinition of a qualified recipient to include survivors of active duty servicemembers who die in the line of duty."

How interesting. And HOW CONFUSING! Gold Star Spouses Property Tax Exemption HCR21-1002 KILLED!

        Senate Veterans Committee Kills HCR21-1002

FLASH: Colorado House approves unanimously the bill HCR21-
1002 to submitting a constitutional referendum to the public to add 140 surviving Gold Star Spouses to the state's Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption. To repeat, unanimous House vote. Colorado's state representatives merely wanted to give active-duty widows the same too-small exemption disabled veterans' survivors get.

Every single Democrat and Republican voted for these 140 widows (no known husbands) to a total cost of only $95,000. HCR21-1002 then went to the Senate. These 140 widows would have represented 0.00062 of the $150M spent towards the entire homestead exemption program.

SECOND FLASH: To prevent the embarrassment of a Senate vote where Colorado's voters would see who voted against these Gold Star Spouses, the Senate killed the bill last night in committee. Straight party line, thumbs down and the bill died. Republicans YES, but every Democrat NO. I guess cautious senators felt Colorado would be overburdened if we didn't continue to ignore our dead soldiers' spouses.

I've been interested in advancing the Gold Star Wives property tax exemption for many years, urging action through the United Veterans Coalition. I've recently set the issue aside and for the UVC and Gold Star Wives to address the exemption for themselves – perhaps too much from me when I'm not a Gold Star spouse, only a Gold Star son.

Anyway...shot down behind closed doors. It feels like something's backwards here, as I'd have expected Democrats to have more concern than Republican. This was a vicious slap in the face to the House and to survivors of our troops who've died in the line of duty. The cost?  Less than $94,000 according to Legislative Council Staff.

Colorado Bar Association: Statement of Support for Disabled Veterans and Gold Star Wives re: Property Tax Exemption

 Colorado Bar Statement:

"The Military and Veterans Affairs Committee (MVA) of the Colorado Bar Association has affirmed its support for two state legislative objectives for 2022. Both involve the state's partial Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption, a constitutional benefit since 2007.

Gold Star Wives, survivors of active-duty servicemembers, are denied the exemption because the legislation (HB-14-1373) and enabling statute provides the exemption for survivors of veterans who had the benefit at the time of death. Using the text, "the surviving spouse of a qualified disabled veteran who previously received an exemption," 

Colorado legislators apparently did not consider the issue of active-duty deaths. Loss of the servicemember on active duty precludes the 'previously received an exemption' requirement. Proposed is a redefinition of a qualified recipient to include survivors of active duty servicemembers who die in the line of duty.

The second proposed legislative issue is veterans with VA Total Disability for Individual Unemployability, or 'TDIU.' Just like VA's other 100% disability veterans whose wounds or illnesses are rated totally disabling, these vets are 100% permanently and totally disabled, but currently are excluded from the exemption. 

Their disability is total, not per the VA rating schedule for the particular disability, but because their service-connected disability makes them unable to maintain employment. A TDIU veteran has been found by the VA to be physically or mentally unable to ever work again due to their service-connected disabilities. MVA will propose redefining 'disabled veteran to include TDIU veterans."

We ALL must start reading the Colorado state constitution

Otherwise, we won't know what they're doing to us, or how.

Article X Section 3.5:

"1.5) For purposes of this section, "disabled veteran" means an individual who has served on active duty in the United States armed forces, including a member of the Colorado national guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, has been separated therefrom under honorable conditions, and has established a service-connected disability that has been rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits or a pension pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department, the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force"

 I admit to a period of unAmerican cowardice. I failed to to stand up for myself, and in that failure also failed other Colorado veterans who were in the same situation. We were about 450 totally disabled military retirees, and as you can read in the clip from the Colorado constitution above, we have a property tax exemption. My failure was when DOLA and CDMVA denied me the exemption and disregarded the state constitution. In effect, these agencies and the legislature nullified parts of Article X Section 3.5.

I pointed out the constitution but was rebuffed – "No, we follow the law," insisted DOLA. There was no argument about the law being flawed, having left out those last fifteen words that clearly included us, clearly providing us a constitutional protection and benefit. Too bad, was the state's attitude. Go talk to your legislator. They failed to uphold the constitution or do anything about it. In fact, they NEVER did anything about this obvious conflict except make sure taxes were demanded and paid. Between 2007 and 2021, the estimate is that $3.825,000 was unconstitutionally taxed from these veterans.

My cowardice was in paying the tax even without the exemption. I have no excuse because I'd read both the law and the constitution's Article X Section 3.5, so I knew better. But I caved. My failing was to politely stand up for my constitutional rights,  Not as some "oath keeper" or such, but merely as a quiet American citizen.

 

My fear? Refusing to pay might cost me more somehow, in fines or something. In the extreme I might lose my house, get something on my credit report or some kind of legal trouble even while being passively resistant. "No. It's only a few hundred dollars," I reasoned.

But that was no reason. I abused the constitution itself. No excuse. I let the state, my fellow veterans and all Colorado citizens down by my inaction. Trying to fix it after I caved is no redemption. I faced some really wild and weird stuff flying in crates ranging from the T-33 and C-47 to Fat Albert (C-5,) and 26 years of military service but never caved or soiled my trousers; this time, I folded like a baby. 

I should have paid all but the exemption value, let the state seize my home for non-payment of taxes, and then tried to defend my position in court.

The first and only constitutional I was faced with (state or federal,) I backed down. I paid my property tax in full because DOLA and CMDVA said I had to, despite our state constitution. They didn't do their sworn duty, and neither did I. My shame is the greater.

Why? I must not have truly believed what I thought about the constitution. In this instance, the state constitution but the principal is the same. Jefferson would be, probably is, ashamed of me. I am.

Public Officials take an oath to support Colorado's constitution. What does that really mean?

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.

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.  

Private citizens are not party to this reminder and have no duties under it directly. Public employees and officials most definitely do have duties they’ve sworn to fulfill. We should be able to rely on them faithfully doing so. The people of Colorado are sovereign over the courts, the executive and the legislature with all its laws. The constitution represents the will of the people – yet the people’s will has been ignored as regards the disabled veteran property tax exemption owed our 100% disabled medically retired servicemembers.

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.

DOLA has tried, and perhaps CDMVA even more than I know, but Colorado continues to insist on unconstitutional taxes taken from disabled veteran homeowners.

   

Very kind article from the National Veterans Legal Services Project

The National Veterans Legal Services Project (NVLSP) is a wonderful organization dedicated to America's veterans and our families. They just did a nice "puff" piece and video on me. NVLSP and its co-directors are acknowledged by the entire veteran community as instrumental in forcing VA to honor many commitments to veterans.

From military sexual trauma, immunizations, toxic exposures, unfair discharges, and many other causes have found NVLSP and its volunteer attorneys, law school veterans law clinics, and associated law firms to be powerful allies. Always pro bono.

    

In my own experience, NVLSP and Bart Stitchman brought their expertise, as well as that of the Yale School of Law, into the fray our C-123 Veterans Association was having as we fought for Agent Orange exposure care and benefits from the VA. It took some years, but success was sweet, indeed, when Bob McDonald signed the regulation (38 U.S.C.§ 3.307(a)(6)(v) (the "C-123 Rule") for us on June 18, 2015.
 
NVLSP has never charged veteran clients for their service or even expenses. For example, they saved our C-123 Association over $75,000 just on fighting for FOIA responses, something the Air Force didn't seem eager to release.

NVSLP and Perkins Coie have represented us pro bono before the US District Court in Washington, successes that were noted by the Federal Bar Association in 2018, and at the USAF Board for Correction of Military Records. Bart and his colleagues are top-rated for their proper use of donations. NVLSP is one of the Combined Federal Campaign agencies. I encourage all veterans to consider helping other vets by donating here.

Did Colorado OVERTAX 100% Disabled Veterans an EXTRA $3.6M in Property Taxes?

Yes. It appears that for nearly fifteen years Colorado has accidentally but unconstitutionally overcharged hundreds of our 100% disabled military veterans by $4,050,000! Nearly seven percent of the totally disabled military veterans in Colorado are involved.This is a complicated constitutional argument to follow, so have fun! (The final paragraph provides the reasoning behind the $4.1M unfairly taxed from vets.)

In 2007 voters approved Referendum E to create Article X Section 3.5, qualifying 100% disabled military veterans a partial property tax exemption similar to the senior exemption. This had been referred to the voters by the legislature for constitutional amendment as S.C.R. 06-001:

"Property tax exemption for disabled veterans. For property tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2007, extends the existing property tax exemption for qualifying seniors to any United States military veteran, including any member of the Colorado national guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, who has been separated from service under honorable conditions and who is 100% permanently disabled due to a service-connected disability. Requires the state to compensate local governments for property tax revenues lost as a result of the extension of the exemption."

For following this issue today, the relevant part of Article X Section 3.5, the amendment created by Referendum E is:

"(1.5) For purposes of this section, 'disabled veteran' means an individual who has served on active duty in the United States armed forces, including a member of the Colorado national guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, has been separated therefrom under honorable conditions, and has established a service-connected disability that has been rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits or a pension pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department, the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force"

The legislature then turned to provide an enabling statute to implement the new amendment, passing HB07-1251:

"(3.5) 'QUALIFYING DISABLED VETERAN' MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, INCLUDING A MEMBER OF THE COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD WHO HAS BEEN ORDERED INTO THE ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS BEEN SEPARATED THEREFROM UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS, AND HAS ESTABLISHED A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY THAT HAS BEEN RATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY PURSUANT TO A LAW OR REGULATION ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT."

HB07-1251 begat the tax details in C.R.S. Section 39-3-202 which read (until 2016 with HB16-1444):

(3.5) "Qualifying disabled veteran" means an individual who has served on active duty in the United States armed forces, including a member of the Colorado National Guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, has been separated therefrom under honorable conditions, and has established a service-connected disability that has been rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as a one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department.

By the plain reading of the new constitutional amendment, all a qualified vet would have to do is present a copy of their VA certification or proof of medical retirement from the armed forces as totally disabled in the line of duty. Both were specified in  Article X Section 3.5 because some military retirees never seek a VA disability – a number estimated by the state at about 450.

The problem causing vets being forced to pay extra property taxes by being denied the exemption arose when the constitutional amendment in Referendum E was implemented in tax statutes. The Legislature passed HB07-1251 and in doing so, forgot (neglected, opted against) to include the last fifteen words of Article X Section 3.5 – "the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force"

Do you see it? Compare the last fifteen words in Article X Section 3.5 against subsequent legislation. The lawmakers clearly did not include the referendum's provision for 100% disabled military retirees. Fifteen words left out denied the exemption to about 450 veterans.

By the plain reading of the new constitutional amendment, all a qualified vet would have to do is present a copy of their VA certification or proof of medical retirement from the armed forces as totally disabled in the line of duty. Both were specified in  Article X Section 3.5 because some military retirees never seek a VA disability – a number estimated by the state at about 450. 

Here's our problem: Colorado’s constitution is supreme, trumping statutory law in areas of conflict. Article X Section 3.5 therefore outguns HB07-1251, at least in the part where disabled military retirees are left out of the legislation.

So HB07-1251 seems unconstitutional. Only the Supreme Court can declare it so, but the plain meaning of the words (and of the words not included in the statute) is very clear. 100% disabled military retirees separated by their services should have been receiving our Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption since 2007.

In 2014 along came a 100% disabled military retiree who's application for the exemption was denied by CDMVA. The vet was initially rebuffed, referred back to the statute and various forms. But then he tracked the statutes back to the constitution and Article X Section 3.5. Even reading it a few times wasn't illuminating, at least not until he read it a bit more slowly and noted those missing fifteen words! Eureka!

This could have been resolved by working the issue up to the Supreme Court, but sympathetic advice from DOLA experts proved much more effective – "go to your legislators."

A couple phone calls, a few town hall meetings and many letters and emails later, Senator John Kefalas and other legislators took the bit in their teeth and got HB16-1444 enacted. That happened because the United Veterans Coalition backed the issue by making it a 2006 legislative objective. 

So, this little problem solved, thought the vet. HB16-1444 took effect in 2017 and he got his exemption, although he'd also received a VA 100% rating to replace his initial VA 100% disability rating for TDIU. Then in 2018 he noticed few of the counties updated forms or instructions to include those fifteen last words left out that got the correction.

Off went a missive to DOLA, asking them to urge counties and other state agencies to more closely adhere to the law. DOLA responded quickly, posting another reminder that circulated throughout the state. DOLA also said they'd update their own form and web site information.

Problem solved? No. Checking this month of June 2021, four years after HB16-1444 went into effect, fourteen years after the constitutional mistake was made, DOLA, Treasury, CMDVA and other agencies and most counties still fail to include 100% military disabled retirees.

How did the figure $4,050,000 get calculated?  The number of 450 affected disabled military retirees from state agency reports was multiplied by $600 for the average value of the property tax exemption denied them, then multiplied by fifteen years. Total: $4.1M.  Unconstitutional?

Here is the background paper trail on this issue.

===============================

Here are examples of state or county agencies failing to properly describe qualified veterans:

A. DOLA, CMDVA, Boulder, Douglas, Pacific, Weld, most counties's application

=========================================================

B. Douglas, most other counties' application instruction
===================================================

Property Tax

Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

This program is for Disabled Veterans who:

• Are RATED by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs at 100%, Permanently and Totally Disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Individual Unemployability does not qualify) AND

C. Even DOLA and the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs doesn't correct inaccurate information.
====================================================

D.  Treasurer of the state - him, too! Fear of having to give unconstitutionally demanded property taxes back to the
disabled military retireesQ

I'm disappointed with passive, weak VFW support of racial justice and equality in America

Dear Veterans of Foreign Wars,

I am a life member, son of a life member and grandson of a life member.

My concern is with our VFW national approach to unjust racism.

A couple months back the new VFW national commander tried to quiet the storms caused during his installation when he said, "Black Lives DO Matter." Note his "DO" in all-caps. Emphatic! That led to an all-members letter to back-paddle his words. In this, VFW has chosen a coward's position regarding today's racial turmoil. https://drive.google.com/.../1qqASXd4Pc4.../view...

Dear Mr. Roesch,

I am alarmed and disappointed with the inadequate VFW response to our country's racial unrest.

VFW continues our passive approach, surrendering any moral claims to truly care or advance meaningful solutions. Our position remains a tepid non-solution "against racism" claim while doing nothing more positive. Empty words, little moral authority, we comfort nobody.

In 2016 VFW National Commander Keith Harman wrote, “We have no tolerance for racism. Our nation is great because of the diversity of its people, and there is no place within this organization for a differing opinion.” 

But five years later, we've done nothing useful. Of course we're against racism. Even bigots insist in their hatred and ignorance that they are not racists. 

Together with these bigots, we merely whisper we're against racism but do too little to matter. Why don't post or department reports cover minority issues and recruiting? When was the last article in our magazine or newsletters focused on overcoming the racial divide?

These last seven months I have been demonstrating, along with my church and other community folks - not protesting, just quietly trying to support of what I consider racial justice and equality. And peace.

After the first few days there were phone calls from VFW members to the post commander here in

Fort Collins, complaining about my sitting at a street corner in my wheelchair with a sign reading "VFW Against Racism." The post was concerned it would offend members even more than merely verbally stating we're against racism. 

Imagine: VFW members complaining about an important value officially proclaimed all around the county, but complaining about thisVFW value publicly proclaimed by my little poster.

This situation has parallels in combat, but this time we VFW troops hear the sound of the guns and quietly march away rather than towards our duty. As a 30-year life member, I'm ashamed. This is a battle we needed to win long ago but is instead a conflict being gifted to our children and grandchildren.

Of course, we're busy falsely assuring ourselves VFW and other veterans organizations are somehow not contributing in any way to these troubles! None of the lingering problem of racial turmoil is our responsibility and we are no part of any solution. WRONG!

This head-in-the sand, deliberate self-deception is not the solution we as warriors ...even if as old warriors...are responsible for delivering to our children and grandchildren.

Respectfully and in brotherhood,

Wesley T. Carter, USAF Ret.
Life Member, St Cloud Post 428