Proponents hoping to change Colorado’s income tax structure from a flat rate to graduated tiers — thereby raising taxes for some brackets — walked away from a Wednesday meeting with eight ballot measures approved by the title board.

The coalition backing the graduated income tax change now must pick which one to move onto the petition process.

It’s a big change from the group’s last visit in October, when the three-member Initiative Title Setting Review Board rejected two proposed measures for violating a rule that ballot measures may only contain a single subject. In December, the title board turned down a third proposal for the same reason.

The title board is made up of representatives from the Attorney General’s Office, Secretary of State’s Office and Legislative Legal Services for the General Assembly. Its main job is to determine if a proposed ballot measure has a single subject.

The coalition, Protect Colorado’s Future, initially suggested 12 income tax brackets. The second round of proposals submitted in December and reviewed on Wednesday are now down to six.

There are differences among the proposals and the tax brackets.

All the proposals have the same bottom line: to raise taxes from higher-income earners to pay for K-12 education, child care and health care. Some of the proposed measures also look to cover early childhood education.

The ballot measures seek to change both state law and the state Constitution, including a partial repeal of the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights language that mandates a statewide flat tax rate.

At its core, TABOR limits the government’s ability to raise revenue. Political subdivisions must obtain voter approval for any tax increase, and it requires dollars above the TABOR limit to be refunded to residents. Numerous attempts, mostly on the litigation front, have been made to overturn TABOR. As recently as November 2020, voters rejected efforts to significantly overhaul or repeal it.

Under Amendment 71, adopted by voters in 2016, a ballot measure seeking to change the state constitution would require 55% voter approval, as well as petition signatures from all 35 state Senate districts.

However, the title board ruled on Wednesday that because the ballot measures do not seek a full repeal of TABOR, the 55% approval requirement would not apply. That provision only applies when adding language to the state constitution, not removing it, the board concluded.

The petition signatures, however, will still need to come from the state’s 35 Senate districts, with 2% of signatures from each district, according to Amendment 71 requirements.

Opponents will next appeal the title board’s decision, a hearing scheduled for Feb. 4, according to Chris deGruy Kennedy, who leads the Bell Policy Center and is the coalition’s spokesperson.

After that, the coalition will need to choose which one of the eight ballot measures to move forward to the petition phase. DeGruy Kennedy indicated there isn’t a clear leader among the proposals yet.

Once the petition has been approved, the proponents will need to collect at least 124,238 valid signatures from registered voters. Most of the time, petition collectors will try to obtain at least 200,000 or more to allow some wiggle room for invalid signatures.

That’s an expensive process that can cost as much as $1 million.

Protect Colorado’s Future has not yet filed an issue committee with the Secretary of State’s elections division. That isn’t required until the title is finalized, which normally takes place after the ballot measures have cleared the appeals process with the title board. That’s assuming the title board’s decision isn’t appealed to the state Supreme Court.

DeGruy Kennedy said getting eight measures through the title board, all unanimously, is “pretty good.” He doesn’t expect the appeals to change the outcome.

“We addressed all the single subject concerns” raised by the title board in October, he said.

Those who objected to the proposed ballot measures, including Advance Colorado’s Michael Fields, have argued that the measures still violate the single-subject law and that the additions to the proposals make them more confusing.