brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

IV.THE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY TAXATION FOR SCHOOL FUNDINGVIOLATES THE UNIFORM TAXATION REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE X,SECTION 3Defendants contend that the uniform taxation requirement is not applicable to the widelydisparate mill levies of districts throughout the state, arguing that each district is free to set itsown rate. However, because districts' mill rates are determined by the state, and are levied for acore state purpose, the Constitution's uniformity requirement is unavoidably triggered.“Article X of the Colorado Constitution structures and limits the legislature’s taxationpowers, providing the root fairness of treatment requisite to governmental legitimacy.” Board ofCounty Comm’rs v. Vail Associates, Inc., 19 P.3d 1263, 1273 (Colo. 2001). In pertinent part,Section 3(1)(a) of Article X requires that “[e]ach property tax levy shall be uniform upon all realand personal property not exempt from taxation under this article located within the territoriallimits of the authority levying the tax.” This provision was “adopted in 1982 by referendum aspart of a more general overhaul of the constitution’s valuation and assessment provisions forproperty taxation. The court’s duty in interpreting a constitutional amendment is to give effect tothe will of people.” Washington County Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146,150 (Colo. 2005). The general assembly has the duty to “provide by law for an annual taxsufficient, with other resources, to defray the estimated expenses of the state government for eachfiscal year.” COLO. CONST., Art. X, §2 (emphasis added).Public education is a state purpose, and funding public education is a state obligation.See Florman v. School Dist. No. 11, El Paso County, 6 Colo. App., 40 P. 469, 470 (1895). InWilmore v. Annear, 100 Colo. 106, 65 P.2d 1433 (Colo. 1937), a taxpayer sought to enjoin the29