Countering conventional wisdom around the Capitol, the Colorado Attorney General's Office has concluded that the governor's controversial proposal to raise property-tax bills statewide first must be put to a vote of the people.

The 11-page legal opinion , commissioned by Attorney General John Suthers and written by the state's solicitor general, makes clear that, "...this proposal requires voter approval under the Constitution."

In forwarding that verdict to the General Assembly today, Suthers weighed in as well: "After reviewing all available information, I concur with (the solicitor general's analysis) and believe the most prudent course of action would be for the legislature to refer the question to a statewide vote of the people of Colorado this November."  

The news further complicates an already beleaguered tax-hike proposal, casting additional doubt on Gov. Bill Ritter's ability to push the plan through the legislature, said Senate Republican leader Andy McElhany, of Colorado Springs.

"We have objected to this sweeping tax hike all along because it is simply bad policy," McElhany said. "It is unfair to many taxpayers as well as to school districts."

"We also have had serious doubts about the constitutionality of a tax hike without the people's consent, but we deferred to the lawyers on that question," he said. "Now, we have a comprehensive opinion that points to a whole new problem."

The governor and some of his fellow Democrats in the legislature have contended that the proposed tax measure, which would raise $1.7 billion over the next 10 years, does not have to be put to a popular vote despite a constitutional provision requiring a vote for any tax hike. Their position was bolstered by legal advisories from legislative lawyers as well as counsel for the Governor's Office.

The governor's proposal -- billed as a "mill-levy freeze" to shore up school funding and expand education programs -- ran into trouble shortly after it was publicly unveiled. All but one legislative Republican denounced it as a thinly veiled tax hike for most home- and business owners because it would raise tax bills as property values rise. They

signed a letter to the governor opposing the notion earlier this month. Even some key legislative Democrats have been giving the tax hike the cold shoulder.

The proposal's introduction in the legislature was stalled for weeks before finally being amended into the annual School Finance Act in the House of Representatives earlier this week.

The new opinion from the attorney general throws a curve at the governor, presenting him with another dilemma over and above trying to find political support for the besieged measure, McElhany said.

"This leaves the governor in a real bind," McElhany said.

The opinion's author, Solicitor General Dan Domenico, concludes in part, "I understand this may limit the flexibility of the General Assembly to adjust the source of school funds by increasing the amount of property taxes many school districts can impose... I must conclude, however, that the people of the state have also declared that that decision is not left to the General Assembly. It is a decision the people have reserved for themselves, and should properly be submitted to them for their approval."