Last year, one of the largest labor unions in the country, the AFL-CIO, announced it would no longer be contributing to the Colorado Democratic Party due to frustrations that party leaders were not doing enough of the union’s political bidding. A few months later, with an election year approaching, legislative Democrats announced that they would be introducing a bill that could potentially add up to 250,000 government workers to the rolls of public sector unions.

Was that timing a coincidence — or an old-school political kickback to a powerful special-interest group?

Either way, for taxpayers and local governments, what matters most is that the proposed new government mandate is bad news.

If passed, the legislation would be incredibly costly, resulting in a massive unfunded mandate on local governments, school districts, fire districts, and other local government entities across the state.

Research has found that public sector collective bargaining can increase the tax burden on a family of four by up to $3,000 a year.

Colorado Public Radio reported that currently only 16 out of 270 local governments in the state have collective bargaining agreements in place. This legislation would force the other 254 governments into having one regardless of what local voters and taxpayers want.

That’s the exact opposite approach that former Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper took in 2013, when he signed into law a bill that would allow collective bargaining by local firefighters — with the specific stipulation that it required permission from local voters.

Since the passage of that law, by and large when asked for permission, local voters have said no thanks. Frustrated by the rejection at the ballot box, unions are now hoping that desperate politicians searching for any election year lifeline available will do their bidding.

The forced unionization plan would not only be a slap in the face of Colorado voters, but would also be an outright violation of the constitutional rights of home-rule municipalities.

In Colorado there are over 100 home-rule municipalities, a designation that allows local governments and voters more control over matters of local significance. As drafted, the new law flies in the very face of the concept of local control and is likely to engender a great deal of legal and political blowback.

In recent days, we have seen both a great deal of public opposition and support for the striking employees of King Soopers. However, if you want to continue shopping at King Soopers you can, and if you don’t, there are dozens of other grocery stores to which you can take your business.

Such options don’t exist for many of the services provided by local governments — there are no alternatives for snow removal, nor a private 911 number to call in an emergency. The services provided by local governments are nearly always monopolies.

That puts them in an entirely different category.

Their services are critical and have no alternatives. This plan allows unions to potentially hold these services, and local taxpayers, hostage to their demands.

If local unions want to enter into collective bargaining agreements, they should ask local voters, not publicly coerce politicians with threats of defunding their campaigns.

It’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work — and it’s not how laws in Colorado should be written and passed.

This brazen election year down payment at the expense of Colorado taxpayers will not go unnoticed by voters, nor should the bill’s opponents let voters forget the politicians who support such abject and outright display of political quid pro quo.

Dustin Zvonek is an Aurora city councilman at-large.

Dustin ZvonekAFL-CIOGetty images