Colorado's small but fanatical "Drown the government in a bathtub" faction is still celebrating Denver District Judge Christina Habas' ruling that Gov. Bill Ritter's property tax freeze violates the 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

The Thunder on the Right may be short-lived, however. The anti-gummint crusaders are glossing over the fact that Judge Habas rejected their key claim that the freeze, which applied in 174 school districts where voters had authorized such a step, required an additional statewide election to go into effect.

Ritter critics have repeatedly misrepresented that key part of Habas' ruling. Friday, for instance, Boulder gadfly Jon Caldara said: "This whole sordid affair could have been avoided had the governor asked voters first before raising taxes."

Likewise, Republican Attorney General John Suthers argued that the measure couldn't be applied without a statewide vote of the people. Ritter parried that no statewide vote was necessary because the freeze applied only in the 174 school districts where voters already had authorized "deBrucing" elections permitting them to keep the revenue produced by their existing taxes, as long as those mill levies weren't actually raised.

The court ruled against the freeze, but sided with Ritter on this point:

"The Attorney General takes the position first that SB-199 [the freeze] required not only voter approval, but that such approval must have been statewide. . . . While this suggested analysis is tempting in its simplicity, the court believes that this analysis is not correct. Because by its terms SB-199 does not apply to all districts within Colorado but only those districts conducting successful deBrucing elections, the Court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that SB-199 reflects a change to state tax policy, thus requiring a state-wide vote."

So, if the judge rejected Suthers' and Caldara's key argument, why did she decide to thaw the freeze?

Give the credit, or blame, to Republican attorneys Richard Westfall and Alan Hale. Essentially, they convinced Habas that the 174 successful de-Brucing elections, which all said the school district could keep whatever revenue its existing mill levies raised as long as they didn't actually raise the tax rate itself, didn't mean what on their face they explicitly said they meant.

"A summary of all 175 deBrucing measures was presented . . . Nearly all of those measures included language addressing authority to to 'collect,' 'retain' and/or 'expend' all revenues. . . . None of these ballot measures included any language . . . indicating that a 'yes' vote would result in an increase of collected property taxes," the judge concluded.

Note that Habas referred to 175 deBrucing elections while the freeze covered only 174 districts. That's because the language in one district, Steamboat Springs, was different than the rest, referring to "non-property tax revenues." Thus, Ritter excluded Steamboat Springs from the final property tax freeze along with the three districts that didn't pass de-Brucers: Colorado Springs, Harrison and Cherry Creek.

Habas' ruling that a vote authorizing retaining more revenue from taxes doesn't authorize "more collected property taxes" is at variance with similar rulings involving cities, counties and special districts — which is why the Colorado Supreme Court will probably reverse it on appeal. What, pray tell, would have been the point of holding 174 elections asking voters to approve an increase in revenue from property taxes if the intent wasn't to, well, increase the revenue collected from those taxes?

To be fair to Habas, she did her best to navigate a baffling legal quagmire. I heartily concur with one of her conclusions:

Each party has essentially argued to this court that the issues raised in this case require only a simple analysis. This Court must respectfully disagree. Untangling the various provisions of TABOR, especially as its provisions relate to calculation of limits on collection of revenue, voting requirements, and allocation of revenue among various school districts consistent with the School Finance Act, presents a difficult task indeed.

You said it, your honor.

Bob Ewegen (bewegen@denverpost.com) is deputy editorial page editor of The Denver Post.