Cordero v. Leahy

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the Title Board’s titles and ballot title and submission clauses for Initiatives 2018-2014 #85, #86, and #87, which proposed statewide setback requirements for new oil and gas wells. The court held that the initiatives contained a single subject and that the titles fairly reflected their purposes without misleading voters. The court affirmed the Title Board’s actions and rejected challenges concerning takings provisions, geographic scope, the phrase “statewide setback,” title conflicts, and omission of “hydraulic fracturing.”

Holdings

1. The proposed initiatives contain one subject: the creation of a statewide setback from occupied structures for new oil and gas wells.
2. The titles set by the Title Board satisfy the clear-title requirement because they fairly reflect the purpose of the proposed initiatives and are not misleading.
3. The titles were not misleading because they did not state that the initiatives would not bar federal takings claims.
4. The titles were not misleading because the proposed initiatives were not limited to oil and gas resources owned by the State of Colorado.
5. The phrase "statewide setback" was not an impermissible catch phrase and did not make the titles misleading.
6. The titles for Initiatives 85, 86, and 87 did not conflict because they expressly identified the different setback distances and therefore allowed voters to distinguish the measures.
7. The titles for Initiatives 86 and 87 were not incomplete or misleading because they omitted the phrase "including those using hydraulic fracturing."

Questions Presented

1. Whether Initiatives 2013-2014 Nos. 85, 86, and 87 violated Colorado's constitutional and statutory single-subject requirement.
2. Whether the provisions stating that the setback was not a taking under the Colorado Constitution were necessarily and properly connected to the initiatives' setback requirements.
3. Whether the titles were misleading because they did not address potential federal takings claims or allegedly limited the measures to state-owned oil and gas resources.
4. Whether the phrase "statewide setback" was an impermissible catch phrase.
5. Whether the titles for Initiatives 86 and 87 conflicted with the title for Initiative 85.
6. Whether the titles for Initiatives 86 and 87 were incomplete or misleading because they omitted the phrase "including those using hydraulic fracturing."

Disposition

affirmed