OPINION: Law? What law?

Forget about separation of powers in Colorado, where we have a judicial branch that's supposed to keep the legislative and executive branches in check and in obedience to the laws of the land. What we appear to have is a controlling class of elites, in all three branches, who know what's best for the public without regard for the state constitution or the clear will of Colorado voters.

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday made mockery of the state constitution, overturning a lower court and upholding a property tax freeze enacted in 2007 to increase state revenues without an election, even though the law requires one. But elections involve pervasive arguments and the need to win hearts and minds. And often voters say no to politicians who want more money through higher taxes. Voters sometimes decide they'd like less from government, and more freedom to control their own money. Some politicians, including Gov. Bill Ritter, don't like that process in the least. It's cumbersome for them. Besides, they really know what's best. They're just so much smarter than just plain folks, who sometimes just don't get it.

So, to avoid having to ask taxpayers for more money, Ritter signed into law a mill levy freeze in 2007 that was specifically designed to negate the will of voters. In 1992, Colorado voters decisively enacted TABOR, the taxpayer's bill of rights, which prevented the state and other taxing entities from receiving revenue windfalls as a result of rising property valuations.

The mill levy is the rate at which the taxable value of property gets taxed. Without the state-imposed freeze, mill levy rates would have declined in some school districts, to offset rising property values, in accordance with the constitution. To simplify a boring and intentionally confusing scheme, look at it this way: The unlawful tax rate freeze may free up state revenue by about $1 billion over six years so that legislators and the governor can spend it as they please. The legislative tax increase was struck down by a lower court, but on Monday was given the blessing of the state's Supreme Court. Justices said because state taxes don't technically increase under the mill levy freeze, no vote of the people is required.

But here's what the Colorado Constitution says must go to a vote of the people: "a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district."

The mill levy freeze is a "tax policy change" that will directly cause a net tax revenue gain to various taxing districts and free up money for the state. It just doesn't get clearer than this. What might we expect next from this Supreme Court, which makes mockery of a crystal-clear law that was enacted by voters with a clear intent? Perhaps we should expect a ruling that says stop signs don't require the governor and Democratic legislators to stop their cars, because the signs could technically mean "stop" texting.

Attorney General John Suthers, the former El Paso County district attorney, said the tax-rate freeze and attendant revenue increase should have gone to voters for approval: "I remain convinced that the Colorado Constitution dictates that the voters decide when their taxes should be increased."

Of course he remains "convinced," because nothing could be clearer. Again: "a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain" goes before voters, according to the Constitution. Nobody dealing with a full deck could say the mill levy freeze isn't a "tax policy change directly causing a net revenue gain." It's an obvious change in tax policy, and there would be no desire for it if it didn't cause a revenue gain.

Rep. Jack Pommer, a Boulder liberal who co-sponsored the tax heist in 2007, boasted Monday the new tax revenue "can be used on anything. We could increase Medicaid or lower higher education tuition." Without a vote. Take that, you members of the proletariat, who thought you should have say in the state's use of your money.

Ritter said the court-sanctioned violation of law is "the right thing to do," and moves Colorado forward.

"The real winners today are Colorado's children, families and schools," Ritter said.

Of course they are. That's because Ritter is quite certain he knows better than anyone else what's in the best interest of the Colorado citizens who amended the constitution to forbid precisely this type of scheme. It's anyone's guess how all children benefit, when it means higher overhead for their families for the purpose of raising money that "can be used on anything."

"Unfortunately for citizens, this property tax hike comes at the worst possible time - the moment when many Coloradans are struggling just to keep their homes," said State Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction.

Coloradans, do no not think you're protected by the laws you enact. You are not. It seems clear the law isn't the law in Colorado, if that law restricts the actions of people in high places. The Supreme Court has said as much.