In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2009-2010, Nos. 22, 23, and 24; Philip Hayes v. Gail Lidley and Hitesh Patel

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed consolidated challenges to the Title Setting Board's titles, ballot titles, and submission clauses for Initiatives 2009-2010 Nos. 22, 23, and 24, concerning secret-ballot rights in employee representation elections. The court held that the initiatives satisfied Colorado's single-subject requirement and that the use of the term “guaranteed” was not misleading. It also upheld the Board's decision not to include the initiative's detailed definition of “political subdivision” in the title for Initiative No. 24.

Holdings

1. The initiatives complied with article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution because, read as a whole and in context, they pursued one general purpose: protecting secret-ballot voting in employee representation elections.
2. The use of "guaranteed" did not mislead voters as to the initiatives' purpose or fundamental operation, and the court would not interpret the legal scope of that term in advance of implementation.
3. The Board acted within its discretion by omitting Initiative No. 24's definition of "political subdivision" from the title, ballot title, and submission clause because the definition was neither new nor contentious and its omission did not obscure the initiative's content.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Initiatives 2009-2010 Nos. 22, 23, and 24 violated article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution by containing more than one subject.
2. Whether the use of the term "guaranteed" in the initiatives and their titles was misleading to voters.
3. Whether Initiative No. 24's definition of "political subdivision" was sufficiently novel or contentious that it had to be included in the title, ballot title, or submission clause.

Disposition

affirmed