The bipartisan bill at the center of this week’s special property tax session passed a tiebreaking House vote of 45-18 on Wednesday and was sent to the state Senate.

But for many Democrats in the chamber, this compromise bill, which is intended to prevent two referendums in November, is a bitter pill to swallow.

“I think everyone just says, ‘Well, we have something that’s less bad and we’re OK with it,'” Democratic Rep. Brianna Titone of Arvada said in an interview with CPR News before the vote. “Less bad is still bad, so why are we putting up with this?”

The two ballot proposals are backed by the business group Colorado Concern and the conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado. Initiative 50 would cap the total amount of statewide property tax revenue by allowing an annual increase of no more than four percent. Initiative 108 would drastically reduce tax rates on homes, businesses and other properties while providing more state money for schools to make up for lost taxes.

Gov. Jared Polis called the special session after he and others reached an agreement that got the groups to withdraw both measures. Democratic leaders said they did not want to gamble on an unpredictable outcome on election night.

“I believe that passing this bill and removing these initiatives from the ballot is the most sensible and important thing we can do today,” said House Speaker Julie McCluskie as she delivered her closing remarks on the House floor on Wednesday before lawmakers cast their votes. McCluskie is one of the bill’s main sponsors.

Titone and other Democratic lawmakers were unhappy with the process.

“It makes me angry because we could be spending this time developing something meaningful that actually helps more people,” Titone said. She ultimately voted for the bill.

Hart Van Denburg/CPR News

Democratic Rep. Meg Froelich of Englewood was also unenthusiastic about the vote. She called this week a “blackmail session” and said lawmakers had been presented with two really bad alternatives.

“It’s never a good feeling to give in to blackmail or to let a bully win,” Froelich said in an interview with CPR News. “The average lawmaker certainly wasn’t involved in the negotiations. So we don’t even really know who was involved in crafting the deal.”

A small negotiating circle worked out the compromise. Those involved included the governor’s office, representatives of the tax cut campaign and a handful of representatives, including leading politicians in the legislature and the senators most important for tax policy, Democrat Chris Hansen and Republican Barbara Kirkmeyer.

Hart Van Denburg/CPR News

In the House, Rep. Tammy Story of Evergreen echoed Froelich’s sentiments and was among the chamber’s no votes.

“How can this be OK? Why should any of us accept this negotiated deal and expect the legislators to just go along with it?” Story complained.

But Republican Sen. Bob Gardner of Colorado Springs has little patience for those concerns. He said no matter the issue, lawmakers are expected to have discussions and educate themselves on any major bill, even if they weren’t involved in the discussions to craft the bill. And if lawmakers feel they’ve been left in the dark, Gardner said they should bring it up with their politicians.

“Maybe you should call some people and ask, ‘What are you doing and why are you doing it? And if you expect me to come and vote for your proposal, then maybe you should explain it to me.’ Because that’s what I’m doing,” Gardner said.

House Bill 1001 would permanently reduce property taxes for homeowners by 2 percent. That’s about a $50 savings for a $500,000 home in an average tax area. It would have a bigger impact for non-homeowners, who would see their tax rates reduced by about 7 percent in the short term and even more in later years. That’s about $800 for a typical $1 million home.

For Republican Rep. Anthony Hartsook of Parker, this session is a bit of an “I told you so” moment. He said Republicans have tried to push through such cuts in the last two sessions.

“I just think it’s a shame that it’s taken so long for us to get to the point where we say, ‘Oh yeah, maybe we should listen to the minority party.'”

It is unfortunate that Democrats denounced this compromise, Hartsook said, while liberal groups also used the initiative process as a negotiating tactic to push through their goals.

“Now when people suffer the tax consequences and Republicans use the same tools, they say, ‘Oh, that’s not fair,'” Hartsook said.

Ultimately, 15 Democrats and three Republicans rejected the bill.

“I was against it from the beginning,” said Democratic Rep. Lorena Garcia of Adams County. “I was against a special session. I was against continuing further cuts.”

Hart Van Denburg/CPR News

This is the second time in less than a year that lawmakers have returned to the Capitol for a special session on property taxes. Garcia said this sets a bad precedent; policy disagreements should be resolved during the regular session. She wishes her party had simply focused on fighting the initiatives at the ballot box.

“I think voters would have seen through these measures. I think even if they hadn’t, there’s a trend. There are signs that voters vote no when they don’t understand something. And I feel like we actually had a much better chance of stopping these measures, and people really wanted to accept it or admit it,” she said.

House Assistant Majority Leader Jennifer Bacon, who also voted no, worries the special session will send a message to deep-pocketed special interest groups. But she also had a message for everyone watching.

“If you want to tell us what to do, you have to understand that not everyone is ready to do that,” she said during an impassioned speech in the plenary. “We only work for the people. We can work with others, but we only work for the people.”

However, Speaker McCluskie defended the process leading up to the special session, saying the bill was thoroughly vetted and shaped by feedback from local governments, school districts and legislators.

“Is this a defensive move? You bet,” McCluskie said. But a move, she said, that is necessary to protect critical services at all levels of government.