Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the Colorado Title Board's actions concerning proposed initiatives governing initiative and referendum petitions. The court held that all four initiatives violated Colorado's constitutional single-subject requirement because provisions restricting attorneys' participation on the Title Board addressed a separate substantive subject.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether proposed initiatives #21, #22, #32, and #83 violated article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution because they contained multiple subjects.
- Whether the attorney provision, which excluded lawyers from serving on the ballot title board, was sufficiently connected to the initiatives' central purpose of liberalizing initiative and referendum procedures.
- Whether the court needed to decide whether the titles set by the Title Board complied with section 1-40-106(8).
Holdings
- An initiative violates article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution when it relates to more than one subject and contains at least two distinct and separate purposes that are not dependent upon or connected with each other.
- Initiatives #21 and #22 contained multiple subjects because their attorney provision substantively restricted attorneys' participation in the political process and was not connected to the measures' primary purpose of liberalizing initiative and referendum procedures.
- Initiatives #32 and #83 also contained multiple subjects despite exempting the Colorado Attorney General from the attorney prohibition, because they still barred all other attorneys from serving on the title board.
- Because all four initiatives violated the single-subject requirement, the court did not consider whether the titles set by the Board complied with section 1-40-106(8).
Key quotations
“To violate the single subject requirement, an initiative must: 1) "relate to more than one subject" and 2) have "at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other."” (76 P.3d at 461)
“By foreclosing any possibility that an attorney could serve on the title board, these initiatives restrict the political rights of all attorneys.” (76 P.3d at 462)
“Because these proposed measures would affect existing substantive rights in addition to the primary subject concerning the procedural mechanisms of the initiative and referendum process, #21 and #22 do not comply with the single subject requirement.” (76 P.3d at 463)
Factual background
The four proposed initiatives would have amended article VII of the Colorado Constitution by creating procedures governing initiative and referendum petitions. Each measure included a provision barring lawyers from serving on the ballot title board; initiatives #32 and #83 exempted the Colorado Attorney General in person from that prohibition. The measures also proposed numerous changes to petition procedures, including limits on signature requirements, title length, petition fees, and deadlines.
Procedural history
The Colorado Title Board refused to set titles for initiatives #21 and #22 because it found that they contained multiple subjects. The Board set titles for initiatives #32 and #83 after those measures exempted the Colorado Attorney General from a provision barring lawyers from serving as ballot-title setters. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the refusals as to #21 and #22, reversed the Board's decisions as to #32 and #83, and remanded with directions to strike the titles and return the initiatives to their proponents.
Remand instructions
The court affirmed the Board's refusal to set titles for initiatives #21 and #22. It reversed the Board's decision to set titles for initiatives #32 and #83 and remanded with directions to strike those titles and return the initiatives to the proponents.