Election officials on Thursday confirmed that the proposal to cap the state’s income tax at the current rate submitted signatures and voters will consequently decide its fate this November.

The fight over tax rates is part of the tug and pull in Colorado between opposing political forces feuding over state revenue. One side of that fight argues that Colorado isn’t generating enough revenue to spend on state priorities, such as education. The competing side counters that the state already collects enough — but policymakers’ spending priorities are misplaced.

The Secretary of State’s Office on Thursday cleared Initiative No. 232 after Advance Colorado, the group behind it, submitted more than 184,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. The state’s Elections Division said the number of valid signatures exceeded the threshold required for qualification.

Initiative No. 232 would set a statutory cap on Colorado’s income tax rate at 4.4%, positioning itself as a counter to a separate proposal seeking to undo the state’s flat rate in favor of a graduated system.

Backers of the graduated tax proposal — which would marginally decrease the tax liability for the lower ends of the new bracket, while raising taxes for others — earlier turned in 157,000 signatures.

After submitting signatures for verification, Michael Fields of Advance Colorado said the tax cap measure intends to block efforts to raise taxes, thereby maintaining the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights framework.

Colorado is one of 15 states with a flat income tax, meaning all taxpayers pay the same percentage regardless of income.

The measure Advance Colorado is looking to counteract is Initiative No. 195, backed by the Bell Policy Center and the coalition Protect Colorado’s Future, which would replace Colorado’s flat rate with brackets.

Initiative No. 195 would set up a six-tier structure for state income taxes. Those making between $100,000 and 500,000 will get a tax cut on the first $100,000 of their annual income, though they’ll pay the same rate for income between $100-500k. 

For those with incomes above $500,000, they’ll only pay the higher rate on the amount of income exceeding those thresholds.

So, someone making over $1,100,000 per year, for example, will only pay 8.4% on the last $100,000 of income. The effective rate they’ll pay on their overall taxable net income would be 6.21%, according to the proponents.

Ballot measures need 124,238 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, though constitutional amendments face an additional requirement — they must also obtain signatures from 2% of registered voters in each of the state’s 35 senate districts. To pass, constitutional amendments must be approved by 55% of voters.

Initiative No. 195 contains both a constitutional section and statutory provisions. The second part of the measure is statutory and contains the tiered income tax rates.

The state’s title board, which determines whether a ballot measure meets the constitutional rule that it contain only a single subject, concluded back in January that, while it changes the state constitution, it would not need approval from 55% of voters. However, it would need signatures from 2% of registered voters in Colorado’s 35 Senate districts.

If approved at the ballot box, it is expected to generate $2 billion more in tax revenue for the state.

Election officials still need to determine if Initiative No. 195 has met the signature threshold in order to appear on the November ballot.

So, if both pass, which one becomes law?

It’s the one with the most votes — even when one of them changes the state constitution.

Mario Nicolais, an attorney who specializes in election law, pointed out that most of No. 195 is statutory. The part that changes the state constitution only repeals a portion of Article 20 and doesn’t add language to the state constitution. That’s also the view of the title board.

Therefore, the measure with one more vote than the other will become law, he said.

Chris deGruy Kennedy, who heads the Bell Policy Center and is listed as one of two proponents for No. 195, weighed in on what happens if both measures pass — meaning each receives more than 50% of the vote.

“The precedent in the process is reasonably clear and then there’s a little bit that will be left up to judicial discretion later in the year,” deGruy Kennedy earlier told Colorado Politics.

The first step after the election, if both measures pass, is an analysis by the state Supreme Court. He said the court will look at which components of the ballot measure do not conflict with each other and can go into effect.

That will apply to his proposal, since the competing ballot measure has no constitutional impact.

One result of that, according to deGruy Kennedy, is that a future Colorado General Assembly would have the ability to refer tax measures to the ballot without needing a two-thirds vote of lawmakers.

After that, the court will look at the conflicts between the two ballot measures, he said.

That’s where it gets interesting and it goes back to the challenges to Initiative No. 195 that went to the state Supreme Court earlier this year.

Because the court decided that it met the single-subject requirement, it also means that its tax increase and tax cuts provisions are not severable. He said if the court decided in favor of Initiative No. 232, none of the changes in Initiative No. 195 would go into effect — not the tax hikes nor the tax cuts.

He added that his coalition would be “bummed” if the tax rates contained in No. 195 don’t go into effect.

Fields of Advance Colorado, meanwhile, believes that if both pass but his proposal gets more votes and therefore becomes the controlling law, the state’s income tax rate would be capped at 4.4% — and at the same time Initiative No. 195’s tax cuts for the lower brackets would take effect.

That would mean a loss of state revenue.

He told Colorado Politics that, if both pass, the competing measure’s increased rates above 4.4% would not happen but that the lower rates would go into effect, since there’s no conflict between the two initiatives on this specific issue.

“It isn’t all or nothing,” he said.

Reporter Marianne Goodland contributed to this article.