Topics
Code Section
Tool bar
Colorado > Colorado Electoral Code > Initiative And Referendum

1-40-107. Rehearing – appeal – fees – signing

Statute

(1) (a) Any person presenting an initiative petition or any registered elector who is not satisfied with a decision of the title board with respect to whether a petition contains more than a single subject pursuant to section 1-40-106.5, or who is not satisfied with the titles and submission clause provided by the title board and who claims that they are unfair or that they do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed state law or constitutional amendment may file a motion for a rehearing with the secretary of state within seven days after the decision is made or the titles and submission clause are set.

Editor’s note: This version of paragraph (a) is effective until March 26, 2016.

(1) (a) (I) Any person presenting an initiative petition or any registered elector who is not satisfied with a decision of the title board with respect to whether a petition contains more than a single subject pursuant to section 1-40-106.5, or who is not satisfied with the titles and submission clause provided by the title board and who claims that they are unfair or that they do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed state law or constitutional amendment may file a motion for a rehearing with the secretary of state within seven days after the decision is made or the titles and submission clause are set.

(II) The designated representatives of the proponents or any registered elector who is not satisfied with the abstract prepared by the director of research of the legislative council of the general assembly in accordance with section 1-40-105.5 may file a motion for a rehearing with the secretary of state within seven days after the titles and submission clause for the initiative petition are set on the grounds that:

(A) An estimate included in the abstract is incorrect;

(B) The abstract is misleading or prejudicial; or

(C) The abstract does not comply with the requirements set forth in section 1-40-105.5 (3).

Editor’s note: This version of paragraph (a) is effective March 26, 2016.

(b) A motion for rehearing must be typewritten and set forth with particularity the grounds for rehearing. If the motion claims that the petition contains more than a single subject, then the motion must, at a minimum, include a short and plain statement of the reasons for the claim. If the motion claims that the title and submission clause set by the title board are unfair or that they do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed state law or constitutional amendment, then the motion must identify the specific wording that is challenged.

Editor’s note: This version of paragraph (b) is effective until March 26, 2016.

(b) A motion for rehearing must be typewritten and set forth with particularity the grounds for rehearing. If the motion claims that the petition contains more than a single subject, then the motion must, at a minimum, include a short and plain statement of the reasons for the claim. If the motion claims that the title and submission clause set by the title board are unfair or that they do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed state law or constitutional amendment, then the motion must identify the specific wording that is challenged. If the motion claims that an estimate in the abstract is incorrect, the motion must include documentation that supports a different estimate. If the motion claims that the abstract is misleading or prejudicial or does not comply with the statutory requirements, the motion must specifically identify the specific wording that is challenged or the requirement at issue. The title board may modify the abstract based on information presented at the rehearing.

Editor’s note: This version of paragraph (b) is effective March 26, 2016.

(c) The motion for rehearing shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the title board; except that, if the title board is unable to complete action on all matters scheduled for that day, consideration of any motion for rehearing may be continued to the next available day, and except that, if the titles and submission clause protested were set at the last meeting in April, the motion shall be heard within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the seven-day period for the filing of such motions. The decision of the title board on any motion for rehearing shall be final, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, and no further motion for rehearing may be filed or considered by the title board.

(2) If any person presenting an initiative petition for which a motion for a rehearing is filed, any registered elector who filed a motion for a rehearing pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, or any other registered elector who appeared before the title board in support of or in opposition to a motion for rehearing is not satisfied with the ruling of the title board upon the motion, then the secretary of state shall furnish such person, upon request, a certified copy of the petition with the titles and submission clause of the proposed law or constitutional amendment, together with a certified copy of the motion for rehearing and of the ruling thereon. If filed with the clerk of the supreme court within seven days thereafter, the matter shall be disposed of promptly, consistent with the rights of the parties, either affirming the action of the title board or reversing it, in which latter case the court shall remand it with instructions, pointing out where the title board is in error.

Editor’s note: This version of subsection (2) is effective until March 26, 2016.

(2) If any person presenting an initiative petition for which a motion for a rehearing is filed, any registered elector who filed a motion for a rehearing pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, or any other registered elector who appeared before the title board in support of or in opposition to a motion for rehearing is not satisfied with the ruling of the title board upon the motion, then the secretary of state shall furnish such person, upon request, a certified copy of the petition with the titles and submission clause of the proposed law or constitutional amendment or the abstract, together with a certified copy of the motion for rehearing and of the ruling thereon. If filed with the clerk of the supreme court within seven days thereafter, the matter shall be disposed of promptly, consistent with the rights of the parties, either affirming the action of the title board or reversing it, in which latter case the court shall remand it with instructions, pointing out where the title board is in error.

Editor’s note: This version of subsection (2) is effective March 26, 2016.

(3) The secretary of state shall be allowed a fee which shall be determined and collected pursuant to section 24-21-104 (3), C.R.S., for certifying a record of any proceedings before the title board. The clerk of the supreme court shall receive one-half the ordinary docket fee for docketing any such cause, all of which shall be paid by the parties desiring a review of such proceedings.

(4) No petition for any initiative measure shall be circulated nor any signature thereto have any force or effect which has been signed before the titles and submission clause have been fixed and determined as provided in section 1-40-106 and this section.

Editor’s note: This version of subsection (4) is effective until March 26, 2016.

(4) No petition for any initiative measure shall be circulated nor any signature thereto have any force or effect which has been signed before the titles and submission clause have been fixed and determined as provided in section 1-40-106 and this section, or before the abstract has been fixed and determined as provided in section 1-40-105.5 and this section.

Editor’s note: This version of subsection (4) is effective March 26, 2016.

(5) In the event a motion for rehearing is filed in accordance with this section, the period for filing a petition in accordance with section 1-40-108 shall not begin until a final decision concerning the motion is rendered by the title board or the Colorado supreme court; except that under no circumstances shall the period for filing a petition be extended beyond three months and three weeks prior to the election at which the petition is to be voted upon.

(5.5) If the title board modifies the abstract pursuant to this section, the secretary of state shall provide the director of research of the legislative council of the general assembly with a copy of the amended abstract, and the director shall post the new version of the abstract on the legislative council web site.

Editor’s note: Subsection (5.5) is effective March 26, 2016.

(6) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 1622, § 5, effective August 2, 2000.)

(7) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 432, § 5, effective May 8, 1995.)

 

 

Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 680, § 1, effective May 4.L. 95: (1) and (7) amended, p. 432, § 5, effective May 8.L. 98: (2) amended, p. 635, § 9, effective May 6.L. 2000: (1), (2), (4), and (6) amended, pp. 1621, 1622, § § 2, 5, effective August 2; (6) amended, p. 297, § 1, effective August 2.L. 2004: (1) amended, p. 756, § 2, effective May 12.L. 2009: (1) and (5) amended, (HB 09-1326), ch. 258, p. 1171, § 5, effective July 1.L. 2012: (1) and (2) amended, (HB 12-1313), ch. 141, p. 511, § 2, effective April 26; (2) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 896, § 172, effective July 1.L. 2015: (1)(a), (1)(b), (2), and (4) amended and (5.5) added, (HB 15-1057), ch. 198, p. 677, § 4, effective March 26, 2016.

 

Editor’s note: (1) This section is similar to provisions of several former sections as they existed prior to 1993, and the former § 1-40-107 was relocated to § 1-40-113. For a detailed comparison, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index.

(2) Section 9 of chapter 198 (HB 15-1057), Session Laws of Colorado 2015, provides that changes to this section by the act apply to initiatives that are submitted for review and comment on or after March 26, 2016.

Cross references: For the general assembly, powers, and initiative and referendum reserved to the people, see also § 1 of art. V, Colo. Const.; for recall from office, see art. XXI, Colo. Const.
 
ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, “Popular Law-Making in Colorado”, see 26 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 439 (1954).

Annotator’s note. (1) The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

(2) On rehearing by the title-setting board or review by the supreme court under this section, many of the same concerns will be relevant as are relevant to the initial setting of titles under § 1-40-106. To avoid excessive duplication, most of the annotations to cases construing § 1-40-106 are not repeated here. Please see the annotations under § 1-40-106 for additional cases concerning the sufficiency of titles, and the authority and powers of the title-setting board, and the compliance of the title-setting board with statutory requirements.

(3) For additional cases concerning the initiative and referendum power, see the annotations under § 1 of article V of the state constitution.

Subsection (1) allows an objector to bring only one motion for rehearing to challenge the titles set by the title board. The title board properly denied an objector’s second motion for rehearing based on lack of jurisdiction. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 219, 999 P.2d 819 (Colo. 2000).

This section provides a special statutory process that overrides claim preclusion or law of the case principles. Consequently, the title board and the supreme court must review an initiative challenged under this section even if its language is identical to the language of a previous initiative. In re Ballot Title 2005-2006 No. 55, 138 P.3d 273 (Colo. 2006).

In a proceeding under this statute: (1) the supreme court must not in any way concern itself with the merit or lack of merit of the proposed amendment since, under our system of government, that resolution rests with the electorate; (2) all legitimate presumptions must be indulged in favor of the propriety of the board’s action; and (3) only in a clear case should a title prepared by the board be held invalid. Bauch v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 308, 497 P.2d 698 (1972); In re An Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 199 Colo. 409, 609 P.2d 631 (1980); In re Title Pertaining to Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores, 646 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1982); Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982); In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 682 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1984); In re Proposed Initiative Concerning State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1984); In re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age, 691 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1984); In re Proposed Initiative on Parental Notification of Abortions for Minors, 794 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1990).

In reviewing the board’s title-setting process, the court does not address the merits of the proposed initiative and should not interpret the meaning of proposed language or suggest how it will be applied if adopted by the electorate; should resolve all legitimate presumptions in favor of the board; will not interfere with the board’s choice of language if the language is not clearly misleading; and must ensure that the title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary fairly reflect the proposed initiative so that petition signers and voters will not be misled into support for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed by the board. In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the Town of Burlington, 830 P.2d 1023 (Colo. 1992); Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993); In re Proposed Initiative Concerning “Automobile Insurance Coverage,” 877 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1994).

Court will not address the merits of proposed initiatives nor interpret the meaning of proposed language. It is beyond the scope of the court’s review to interpret or construe the language of a proposed initiative. In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1996).

So long as the language chosen by the board fairly summarizes the intent and meaning of the proposed amendment, without arguing for or against its adoption, it is sufficient. In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1996).

The board is not required to state the effect that an initiative may have on other constitutional provisions and the initiative summary is not intended to fully educate people on all aspects of the proposed law. In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1996).

Court will not rewrite the titles or submission clause for the title board. Also, the court will reverse the title board’s action in preparing the title or submission clause only if they contain a material and significant omission, misstatement, or misrepresentation. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 62, 961 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1998).

And the mere fact that, after an appeal has been taken and a court has had the benefit of the additional labor bestowed upon the ballot title by counsel, a court may be able to write a better ballot title than the one prepared by an attorney general constitutes no reason for discarding his title. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155, 322 P.2d 317 (1958).

Because the purpose of an appeal is not to secure for the bill the best possible ballot title, but to eliminate one that is insufficient or unfair, if it should develop that the one submitted by an attorney general is of that kind. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155, 322 P.2d 317 (1958); In re Branch Banking Initiative, 200 Colo. 85, 612 P.2d 96 (1980); Matter of Educ. Tax Reform, 823 P.2d 1353 (Colo. 1991).

Court’s function limited. It is not the function of the supreme court to rephrase the language of the summary and title in order to achieve the best possible statement of the intent of the amendment. In re Mineral Prod. Tax Initiative, 644 P.2d 20 (Colo. 1982).

Actions of the title setting review board will not be reversed just because a better title could have been adopted. Matter of Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Suits Against Nongovernmental Employers Who Knowingly and Recklessly Maintain an Unsafe Work Environment, 898 P.2d 1071 (Colo. 1995).

Review limited to whether intent of initiative properly reflected. On review, the supreme court can only consider whether the titles, summary, and submission clause reflect the intent of the initiative, not whether they reflect all possible problems that may arise in the future in applying the language of the proposed initiative. In re Proposed Initiative on Transf. of Real Estate, 200 Colo. 40, 611 P.2d 981 (1980); In re Title Pertaining to Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores, 646 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1982); Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982); In re Proposed Initiative on Confidentiality of Adoption Records, 832 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1992); In re Proposed Initiative on Sch. Pilot Program, 874 P.2d 1066 (Colo. 1994); Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 10, 943 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1997).

And interpretation of initiative not permitted. It is not the function of the supreme court in the review proceeding, nor is it the board’s function, to determine the meaning of the language of the initiative: A judicial interpretation of the meaning of the initiative must await an adjudication in a specific factual context. Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982); In re Proposed Initiative on Parental Notification of Abortions for Minors, 794 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1990).

Court will not rewrite the titles or submission clause for the title board. Also, the court will reverse the title board’s action in preparing the title or submission clause only if they contain a material and significant omission, misstatement, or misrepresentation. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 62, 961 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1998).

Title language employed by the title board will be rejected only if it is misleading, inaccurate or fails to reflect the central features of the proposed measure. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 215 (Prohibiting Certain Open Pit Mining), 3 P.3d 11 (Colo. 2000).

Title, ballot title, and submission clause of an initiative measure were not unfair or misleading where a term was not defined that would have required detailed statutory explanation. The board’s omission of a definition in its title and summary is not an abuse of discretion where the definition is complex and would be impossible to define within the title and summary of the initiative without a detailed statutory explanation, even though the term is obscure and not within the common knowledge of most voters. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 75, 960 P.2d 672 (Colo. 1998).

Title set by the title board was misleading and inaccurate and would be modified where the intent of the proposed measure was to prohibit the modification of certain mining permits to allow the expansion of mining operations but the title could be construed as prohibiting the expansion of mining operations under an existing, unmodified mining permit. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 215 (Prohibiting Certain Open Pit Mining), 3 P.3d 11 (Colo. 2000).

Issues of whether initiative violated article X, section 20, of the Colorado Constitution are premature and the court will not address them since that determination would necessarily require the court to interpret its language or predict its application if adopted by the electorate. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 10, 943 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1997).

Although this section provides for supreme court review of citizen initiatives before they are submitted to the general electorate, it does not confer jurisdiction on the supreme court to review the constitutionality of legislative referenda prior to enactment. Thus, the supreme court lacked jurisdiction to review a legislative referendum for compliance with the single-subject requirement prior to enactment of the referendum. Polhill v. Buckley, 923 P.2d 119 (Colo. 1996).

Judicial determination of retroactive application of proposed amendment. If a controversy arises in a specific factual context, then judicial determination of retroactive application may be appropriate, but it is not relevant to the determination of the accuracy of the language of the titles, summary, and submission clause of a proposed amendment. In re Proposed Initiative on Transf. of Real Estate, 200 Colo. 40, 611 P.2d 981 (1980); In re Proposed Initiative on Confidentiality of Adoption Records, 832 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1992).

Where a proposed amendment uses the term “strong public trust doctrine” but does not define it, such a definition must await future judicial construction and cannot appropriately be included in the title or submission clause. In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1994).

The board is not required to state the effect that an initiative may have on other constitutional provisions, and the court may not address the potential constitutional interpretation implications of the initiative in the court’s review. In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1994).

As a general rule, court will reject the board’s actions only where the language it has adopted is so inaccurate as to clearly mislead the electorate. In re Petition on Campaign and Political Finance, 877 P.2d 311 (Colo. 1994).

Burden for invalidating an amendment because of an alleged misleading ballot title, after adoption by the people in a general election, is heavy since the general assembly has provided procedures for challenging a ballot title prior to elections. Unless the challengers to the amendment can prove that so many voters were actually misled by the title that the result of the election might have been different, the challenge will fail. City of Glendale v. Buchanan, 195 Colo. 267, 578 P.2d 221 (1978).

In considering whether the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary accurately reflect the intent of the proposed initiative, it is appropriate to consider the testimony of the proponent concerning the intent of the proposed initiative that was offered at the public meeting at which the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary were set. In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Unsafe Workplace Environment, 830 P.2d 1031 (Colo. 1992).

Once petitioners file their petitions for review with the supreme court pursuant to subsection (2), the board loses jurisdiction to make substantive changes to the titles and summary. The board properly refused to consider a motion for rehearing filed by one opponent that raised substantive issues when the other opponents had already filed petitions for review with the supreme court; any action by the board to make substantive changes to the summary after the matter was before the supreme court on review would impermissibly intrude on the court’s jurisdiction over the case. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).

The time for filing an appeal to a decision of the title board is five days after the board denies the motion for rehearing and not five days from the date the secretary of state certifies the documents requested for appeal. Five days from the board’s denial of a motion for rehearing is final action by the board regardless of whether an appeal is filed. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 62, 961 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1998).

For a timely appeal, it must be filed within five days from the board’s denial of a motion for rehearing and must be construed with C.A.R. 26, thus clarifying the computation of five days to exclude Saturday and Sunday. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 62, 961 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1998).

Initiative proponents may circulate petitions for signatures after the title board has taken its final action in regard to the ballot titles and summary, pursuant to subsections (1) and (5), and while an appeal of that action to the supreme court is pending pursuant to subsection (2). Setting of titles and summary becomes a final title board action upon denial of a rehearing petition or upon expiration of the time for filing a rehearing petition with the title board. Armstrong v. Davidson, 10 P.3d 1278 (Colo. 2000).

Objector may not raise in a second motion for rehearing a challenge that the objector could have raised in the first motion for rehearing. Case-by-case analysis of the interests involved in setting the titles to an initiative is not required. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 215, 3 P.3d 447 (Colo. 2000).

Applied in Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 86, 962 P.2d 245 (Colo. 1998); Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 109, 962 P.2d 252 (Colo. 1998); Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 112, 962 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1998).

Definition [Circulated]

Presented to an elector for the collection of a signature and other information required by this article. C.R.S. § 1-12-100.5.

Definition [State]

A state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. C.R.S. § 1-8.3-102.

Definition [Ballot]

(a) A federal write-in absentee ballot;

(b) A ballot specifically prepared or distributed for use by a covered voter in accordance with this article; or

(c) A ballot cast by a covered voter in accordance with this article.

(2) “Covered voter” means:

(a) A uniformed-service voter defined in paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section who is a resident of this state but who is absent from this state by reason of active duty and who otherwise satisfies this state’s voter eligibility requirements;

(b) An overseas voter who, before leaving the United States, was last eligible to vote in this state and, except for a state residency requirement, otherwise satisfies this state’s voter eligibility requirements;

(c) An overseas voter who, before leaving the United States, would have been last eligible to vote in this state had the voter then been of voting age and, except for a state residency requirement, otherwise satisfies this state’s voter eligibility requirements; or

(d) An overseas voter who was born outside the United States, is not described in paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection (2), and, except for a state residency requirement, otherwise satisfies this state’s voter eligibility requirements if the last place where a parent, legal guardian, spouse, or civil union partner of the voter was, or under this article would have been, eligible to vote before leaving the United States is within this state.

C.R.S. § 1-8.3-102.

Definition [Person]

Any natural person, partnership, committee, association, corporation, labor organization, political party, or other organization or group of persons. Section 2(11) of article XXVIII of the state constitution.

Definition [Election]

Any election under the “Uniform Election Code of 1992” or the “Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965”, article 10 of title 31, C.R.S. C.R.S. § 1-7.5-103.

Definition [Secretary]

The Colorado secretary of state. C.R.S. § 1-1.5-102.

Cases

colorado Cases

Case Name: In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 219

Citation: 999 P.2d 819 (Colo. 2000)

Year: 2000

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/d147ef727546652773e830a90d943a8b

Case Summary: Holding that objector to titles and summary for an initiative could not bring a second motion for rehearing, after titles and summary had been reset pursuant to objector's first motion for rehearing, because the issue raised in the second motion related to the initial titles rather than to the reset titles.

Case Name: In re Ballot Title 2005-2006 No. 55

Citation: 138 P.3d 273 (Colo. 2006)

Year: 2006

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/60ae437532343fc2ecd71abe7d4853e1

Case Summary: Holding that initiative that would amend the state constitution to prohibit government from providing any non-emergency services to persons who were not otherwise lawfully present in the United States violated the single subject rule.

Case Name: In re An Initiated Constitutional Amendment

Citation: 609 P.2d 631 (Colo. 1980)

Year: 1980

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/ea7ca7db783aecbe2f97e6c07227d3c3

Case Summary: Holding that calculation by state office of planning and budgeting of cost for “average hearing” regarding state “classified employee” was insufficient basis for estimating fiscal impact in view of many variables which could affect cost of processing dismissals; therefore, statement in summary that estimated cost of each hearing was $996 and that other net fiscal impact was indeterminable must be deleted and replaced by a statement that the fiscal impact of proposed amendment could not be determined.

Case Name: In re Title Pertaining to Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores

Citation: 646 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1982)

Year: 1982

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/15aa1147bbea6719fc9c8ac74eb67f43

Case Summary: Holding that the language of the title and the ballot title and submission clause were proper, even if specific wording was not found in text of the proposed initiative; use of the phrase “after licensing” in the title and ballot title and submission clause accurately reflected the true meaning and intent of the proposed law; the summary was a true and impartial statement of the intent of the proposed law; and the Board obtained sufficient evidence to prepare an adequate fiscal impact statement and the fiscal impact statement was true and impartial.

Case Name: Spelts v. Klausing

Citation: 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982)

Year: 1982

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/e4b828959488e9832ab31f883aae6aab

Case Summary: Holding that summary did not fail to explain the fiscal impact of the initiative; references to the “Southern Colorado Economic Development District” in the titles, summary, and submission clause were not misleading; titles, summary, and submission clause were not invalid for failure to accurately reflect the true intent of the initiative; and the Board did not act in excess of its jurisdiction by deleting a paragraph from the initiative.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment

Citation: 682 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1984)

Year: 1984

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/cf1fe8d3966a3a0c4e5d8492753bbc56

Case Summary: Holding that title and ballot title and submission clause impermissibly failed to reflect certain important limiting language contained in the actual proposed amendment; title, ballot title, and submission clause were not defective for failure to describe administrative consequences of adopting a core curriculum; and testimony presented to Board concerning infinite possibilities and  economic complexities any specific legislation implementing the amendment might or might not create supported Board's conclusion that fiscal impact of proposed amendment could not be determined.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative Concerning State Personnel Sys.

Citation: 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1984)

Year: 1984

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/81e66ba4d75d097081d6a84ae1e3ec06

Case Summary: Holding that description of effect of proposal on director's ability to authorize temporary employment was ambiguous but not so clearly misleading as to require disapproval; Board acted within its discretion in deciding not to describe specific provision deleting present constitutional provision requiring standards of efficient service to be identical for all persons having like duties; and Board's decision to refrain from describing feature of proposal repealing constitutional provision requiring General Assembly to make adequate appropriations for administration of state personnel system was not fatal.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age

Citation: 691 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1984)

Year: 1984

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/6dc9b92cdc0e841cfa3a8414a2b8f5e2

Case Summary: Holding that failure of the titles to mention that the act would prohibit persons under 21 from possessing fermented malt beverages in any store, public place, state property, or motor vehicle on a public way did not make the titles fatally misleading; consumption exception for persons who are 18 years of age and older prior to July 1, 1985, was not improperly summarized in the titles; failure of the titles to mention the change of prohibited times of sale of fermented malt beverages was within Board's discretion; and the titles and submission clause were adequate to meet statutory requirements of fairness and clear expression of the true intent of the proposed law.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative on Parental Notification of Abortions for Minors

Citation: 794 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1990)

Year: 1990

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/81b6a17dfef9ba71bc913ed985e8e280

Case Summary: Holding that proposed initiative's title, ballot title, and submission clause were inadequate; proposed initiative would have required that notice be given to an unemancipated child's parents or guardians prior to that child procuring an abortion.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the Town of Burlington

Citation: 830 P.2d 1023 (Colo. 1992)

Year: 1992

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/9ac96c72c8051af580e3283c91591a09

Case Summary: Holding that language set by Board fairly and correctly expressed true intent of initiative and adequately informed petition signers and voters of its effects and that challenge was not frivolous.

Case Name: Matter of Election Reform Amendment

Citation: 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993)

Year: 1993

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/f3b723f82e82df2a9f164c2d1be57f69

Case Summary: Holding that initiative title setting board had authority to set title, ballot title, and submission clause in summary of proposed constitutional amendment; question of whether proposed initiative would appear on either of two election ballots was premature; titles set by board were insufficient in that they were not specific enough; and summary was insufficient in that statement of fiscal impact was not sufficiently detailed but was otherwise sufficient.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative Concerning “Automobile Insurance Coverage”

Citation: 877 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1994)

Year: 1994

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/19256917a4b3ef71229342b3f9d03304

Case Summary: Holding that title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary were not misleading and that documents prepared by Board were not ambiguous.

Case Name: In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights

Citation: 913 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1996)

Year: 1996

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/9e698036a78b0d568c8ce6eb7447dfee

Case Summary: Holding that initiative embraced only a single subject; title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary were adequate; and therefore, fiscal impact statement was adequate.

Case Name: Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 62

Citation: 961 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1998)

Year: 1998

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/098c575ef875b336c8b28d313cfe1006

Case Summary: Holding that appeal from title and summary setting action of Board must be filed within five days of Board's denial of rehearing motion; petitioner's appeal was timely filed within five days, exclusive of intervening weekend; and title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary of proposed initiative did not contain material and significant omissions, misstatements, or misrepresentations.

Case Name: In re Branch Banking Initiative

Citation: 612 P.2d 96 (Colo. 1980)

Year: 1980

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/73622bd52a81ae6c0775e639f3ed226c

Case Summary: Holding that titles, summary, and submission clause adequately expressed interrelation of proposed initiated law and federal laws governing national banking associations; use of the word “convenience” in titles, summary, and submission clause was not prejudicial; and effect of proposed law on authorization for existing detached facilities did not have to be treated in the titles, summary, and submission clause in order to prevent unfairness or to clearly express the true intent of the proposed law.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative on Education Tax Refund

Citation: 823 P.2d 1353 (Colo. 1991)

Year: 1991

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/14c90f5813fa7ac20846172596e82381

Case Summary: Holding that board-prepared title would not be invalidated, because any ambiguity in the title's wording was traceable to the initiative itself.

Case Name: In re Mineral Prod. Tax Initiative

Citation: 644 P.2d 20 (Colo. 1982)

Year: 1982

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/dba7ead0d7a90596b8ecf30325e580ee

Case Summary: Holding that it was the duty of the Initiative Title Setting Review Board to impartially summarize the stated intent of the amendment but not to argue for any certain interpretation; judicial interpretation would have to await adjudication in controversy arising in specific factual context; and summary was not shown to be inaccurate or misleading, even though it could have been more precise.

Case Name: Matter of Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Suits Against Nongovernmental Employers Who Knowingly and Recklessly Maintain an Unsafe Work Environment

Citation: 898 P.2d 1071 (Colo. 1995)

Year: 1995

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/f1a5575369a818c49f30df5c932c12f3

Case Summary: Holding that ballot title was properly set by Board; proposed initiative concerned the right of employees of nongovernmental employers to sue their employer for damages if their employer knowingly and recklessly maintained an unsafe work environment.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative on Transf. of Real Estate

Citation: 611 P.2d 981 (1980)

Year: 1980

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/15ba190a4c67d85c18cc363d737bac26

Case Summary: Holding that the failure of the title, summary, and submission clause to state that rights and prohibitions stated in the amendment were not applicable to federally chartered savings and loan associations was not improper; whether the proposed amendment would have retroactive application was a matter to be adjudicated in the future; failure to mention the existence of a statute addressing the same or similar subject as that of the proposed amendment had no effect on the validity of the title, summary, and submission clause; Board's failure to include language distinguishing sales “subject to” existing financing from “assumptions” of existing financing did not affect the accuracy of the title, summary, and submission clause; the title, summary, and submission clause did not contain language likely to create prejudice in favor of the amendment where that language was taken verbatim from the proposed amendment; and the record supported the Board's statement in the summary that the proposed amendment would have no direct fiscal impact on state government.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative on Confidentiality of Adoption Records

Citation: 832 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1992)

Year: 1992

Case URL: https://perma.cc/59N2-GQ68

Case Summary: Holding that title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary for initiative did not need to contain language that adoptions finalized prior to the initiative's effective date were not included in the amendment and that initiative's constitutionality could not be decided.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative on Sch. Pilot Program

Citation: 874 P.2d 1066 (Colo. 1994)

Year: 1994

Case URL: https://perma.cc/M39P-9AA2

Case Summary: Holding that title, ballot title, and submission clause were not unfairly misleading by not containing reference to subsection of the proposed amendment precluding purchase of services from institution discriminating on certain grounds; title, ballot title, and submission clause were not misleading in failing to state that neither review nor repeal of pilot programs could occur prior to 2001; summary was not misleading in stating that fiscal impact of proposed amendment was indeterminate; and failure of Board to explain why fiscal impact was indeterminate substantially complied with statutory requirements.

Case Name: Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 10

Citation: 943 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1997)

Year: 1997

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/af63e4d7bf6df3d511320b975fad5d3c

Case Summary: Holding that board acted within its discretion in preparing fiscal impact statement without speculating about whether transportation commission would impose tolls; titles and summary for proposed initiative tracked language of initiative with respect to transportation programs and sources of revenue and were not misleading; and amendments to portions of proposed initiative were made in response to comments of directors of legislative council so that resubmission of amended draft to directors before submitting it to secretary of state was not required.

Case Name: In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 215 (Prohibiting Certain Open Pit Mining)

Citation: 3 P.3d 11 (Colo. 2000)

Year: 2000

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/974b0f7960295fb6778e9d25ed16e688

Case Summary: Holding that elector had standing to challenge actions of Title Board; failure to indicate that only one mine currently used such a method and using the terms “open mining,” “cyanide,” and “leach,” did not render titles misleading; titles would be modified to make clear that initiative would prohibit the modification of such permits to allow mining operations to be expanded; and financial impact statement was not misleading.

Case Name: Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 75

Citation: 960 P.2d 672 (Colo. 1998)

Year: 1998

Case URL: https://perma.cc/W646-MU23

Case Summary: Holding that title, ballot title, and submission clause of initiative measure were not misleading and that fiscal impact statement adequately described the fact that taxpayer refund was possibly implicated.

Case Name: Polhill v. Buckley

Citation: 923 P.2d 119 (Colo. 1996)

Year: 1996

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/47ee7b5a579cae98c1a197e68fa6ea03

Case Summary: Holding that courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review a legislative referendum for compliance with state constitutional single-subject requirement unless and until it has been approved by voters.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights

Citation: 877 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1994)

Year: 1994

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/e5514ef6352cc3dcb1839f9f6057181b

Case Summary: Holding that title, submission clause, and summary accurately represented true intent of initiative, although they did not contain a definition of “strong public trust doctrine;” requirement that state defend against defining waters as part of private property was not an essential feature of initiative that had to be disclosed in title and submission clause; and Board was not required to include fiscal impact information in summary.

Case Name: In re Petition on Campaign and Political Finance

Citation: 877 P.2d 311 (Colo. 1994)

Year: 1994

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/5516263ef695dcebfe02af30b17fe6cf

Case Summary: Holding that court would not consider challenges based on alleged defects in initiated measure itself and that language chosen by the Initiative Title Setting Board was adequate.

Case Name: City of Glendale v. Buchanan

Citation: 195 Colo. 267, 578 P.2d 221 (1978)

Year: 1978

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/87a59050d5dfddbcbbb6c58b3f4bbb66

Case Summary: Holding that evidence that one voter mistakenly voted for an amendment because he was misled by ballot title was not sufficient to void initiated amendment; challenged constitutional amendments were not void as being inconsistent; and invalidating voter-approved constitutional amendment on ground of misleading title could not be justified absent good cause as to why amendment was not challenged before the election.

Case Name: In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Unsafe Workplace Environment

Citation: 830 P.2d 1031 (Colo. 1992)

Year: 1992

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/533e80995f4aec5e764cf5d9e6abd295

Case Summary: Holding that title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary reflected intent and central features of amendment despite lack of language differentiating entities to which initiative would apply; Board's conclusion that fiscal impact was indeterminable was reasonable; and two members of three-member Board had authority to rehear challenge to title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary.

Case Name: In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255

Citation: 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000)

Year: 2000

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/67edcad53f3fcce43fbc32bdf1e32b25

Case Summary: Holding that former statutory deadline for filing fiscal impact statement was not jurisdictional; late submission of fiscal impact statement substantially complied with that statutory deadline; objectors' filing of petitions for review did not preclude the board from correcting clerical errors in the summary; titles and summary did not violate single-subject requirement; titles and summary were not misleading; and fiscal impact statement was adequate.

Case Name: Armstrong v. Davidson

Citation: 10 P.3d 1278 (Colo. 2000)

Year: 2000

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/da3d051841708ad822bec80aaf73b87a

Case Summary: Holding that proponent of initiative may begin circulating initiative petition once Title Board has denied a petition for rehearing as to titles and summary or once time for filing a petition for rehearing has expired, even while an appeal of Title Board's action is pending.

Case Name: In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 215

Citation: 3 P.3d 447 (Colo. 2000)

Year: 2000

Case URL: https://perma.cc/ZFU5-C4RT

Case Summary: Holding that Title Board lacked jurisdiction to hear objectors' second motion for rehearing, because it was related to text that appeared in the initiative's titles at the time they filed their first motion for rehearing.

Case Name: Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 86

Citation: 962 P.2d 245 (Colo. 1998)

Year: 1998

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/c8f4e393bb88cd7502cd6b3258eadbb5

Case Summary: Holding that initiative violated state constitution by containing multiple subjects, because initiative contained both state and local tax cuts and mandatory reductions in state spending on state programs.

Case Name: Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 112

Citation: 962 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1998)

Year: 1998

Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/3d2b06a6019205cd083241ef49fcb835

Case Summary: Affirming action of title setting board in fixing the title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary  for a proposed constitutional amendment to provide that state laws and regulations concerning all livestock operations be uniform and based upon the similarity in the potential impact on the environment of all such livestock operations.

Out-of-State Cases

Federal Cases