When the people vote, the majority should not pre-load a workaround

By C. J. Garbo | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado is supposed to be a representative government, not a manager class that “handles” voters the way an accountant handles a problem line item.

Yet that is exactly what HB26-1430 represents: a legislature preparing a conditional “counterpunch” that activates only if voters approve Initiative 175 this November.

Reasonable people can disagree about Initiative 175. That is not the point.

The point is this: the majority is building an escape hatch before the people have even spoken. That posture is a warning sign in any republic, because it reveals what leadership thinks about consent.

What HB26-1430 is, in plain English

Initiative 175 would amend the Colorado Constitution to redirect certain transportation-related revenues so they must be used on “road transportation” (roads, bridges, safety, related planning and engineering, and State Patrol), and it would decrease funding for other transportation programs.

HB26-1430 is explicitly contingent on voters approving that initiative, and then it reduces certain transportation-related taxes and fees for a defined period (starting January 1, 2027, through July 1, 2030, per the bill summary), among other adjustments.

That means lawmakers are not simply debating the initiative on the merits. They are designing a policy mechanism to change what happens after your “YES” vote.

“Safeguard” is the Tell

Supporters of HB26-1430 describe it as a way to “safeguard” or “protect” K-12 and healthcare funding if Initiative 175 passes.

Read that carefully. “Safeguard” is not a neutral word. It signals that the voters’ decision is being treated as a threat, and that the legislature’s job is to neutralize it.

That is the mindset voters should be paying attention to.

Because once you accept the premise that elected officials are justified in “protecting” their preferred budget priorities from the public’s vote, you have quietly replaced government by consent with government by containment.

This is what contempt for the voter looks like in practice

You can dress it up in policy language, but the dynamic is straightforward:

1. Citizens go to the ballot to set priorities because the normal process is not delivering.
2. The majority, instead of making its case and accepting the outcome, builds a conditional workaround in advance.
3. If voters approve the initiative, the workaround triggers and blunts the impact.
4. Officials then claim they “respected the vote” while ensuring the vote changes as little as possible.

That is not representation. That is a controlled burn.

And it trains politicians in the most dangerous habit a political class can learn: “We can ignore the public and survive.”

The pattern is getting bolder

For years, voters have watched a steady increase in “inside baseball” governance: complicated fiscal triggers, indirect offsets, and procedural maneuvers that allow politicians to say one thing and do another. Most of it happens quietly, buried under jargon, and the public only sees the result after the fact.

HB26-1430 is different in a crucial way.

It is not even subtle.

It is openly framed as a legislative response to a ballot measure that has not yet been decided. Colorado Public Radio described the bill as a way to “combat” Initiative 175.

Colorado Newsline described it as an effort to “neutralize” the proposed constitutional amendment.

When the press can summarize your bill as “neutralize the voters’ initiative,” the mask is slipping.

And that is why this moment matters. Once a governing majority becomes comfortable doing this publicly, it signals something deeper than a single bill.

It signals a growing confidence that accountability is optional.

Why this matters even if you oppose Initiative 175

This is bigger than roads.

If you cheer when your side circumvents voters today, you will rage when the other side does it tomorrow.

A healthy republic has a simple moral rule: when the people decide, leaders implement in good faith. If leaders believe the people are wrong, they argue their case, persuade, and try again in the next election.

They do not pre-wire a “Yes-but-not-really” system.

Because once you normalize that behavior, you end up with a government that always finds a way to get what it wants, regardless of what you vote for. And the only people who thrive in that system are insiders, lobbyists, and the permanent political class.

The corruption is not always bribery. Sometimes it is the corruption of motive.

Corruption is not only envelopes of cash. Sometimes it is the slow moral corruption of a governing attitude:

• The belief that power belongs to the institution, not the people.
• The belief that voters are a hazard to be managed.
• The belief that outcomes should be engineered, not earned.

That attitude produces the same end result: the public is ruled, not represented.

The ask to Colorado voters

You do not have to be a Republican. You do not have to agree with every conservative policy preference. You do not even have to support Initiative 175.

But you should demand this, clearly and without apology:

Stop treating the voter as an inconvenience. Stop building conditional workarounds to dilute the public’s decisions.

If your representatives believe Initiative 175 is harmful, they should say so plainly and campaign against it, then accept the outcome. HB26-1430 is an admission that they fear the voters’ priorities, and they are preparing to override them in advance.

A government that “protects itself” from the people is not protecting democracy. It is protecting power.

And Colorado should not tolerate it.

C. J. Garbo is a Colorado native, former resident, cybersecurity executive, civic leader, and seasoned public-policy strategist with more than two decades of experience across technology, public safety, governance, and political communication. He has served in executive cybersecurity leadership for global enterprises, advised campaigns from local to federal levels, and held public service roles in law enforcement, planning, elections, and community safety.  He has served as a legislative aide for the state legislature and holds a B.A. in Political Science from the Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.