Title: In Re Proposed Initiated Const. Amend.

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

682 P.2d 480 (1984) In re PROPOSED INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OF EDUCATION, 1984. Colorado Education Association, Gordon E. Heaton, Harold R. Thyfault, Richard N. Lansford, Carolyn E. Sandeen, Arthur N. Palmer and Paul Aaker, Opponents, and Clint Bolick, Ron Pierce, Hugh C. Fowler and Donald Stewart, Proponents, and Natalie Meyer, Douglas G. Brown and Duane Woodard, Initiative Title Setting Board. No. 84SA231. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. June 11, 1984. *481 Brauer & Buescher, P.C., Joseph M. Goldhammer, Denver, for opponents. Hugh C. Fowler, pro se. L. Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Ruthanne Gartland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for Initiative Title Setting Bd. KIRSHBAUM, Justice. In this original proceeding petitioners[1] challenge the title the ballot title and submission clause and the summary prepared by the Initiative Title Setting Review Board (board) for a proposed constitutional amendment on education. Petitioners challenge the title and ballot title and submission clause on three grounds. They also assert that a fiscal impact statement contained in the summary is defective. We agree in part, and, therefore, remand the matter to the board with instructions. The proposed amendment and the board's summary thereof are set forth in Appendix A to this opinion. The proposed title states as follows: The proposed ballot title and submission clause states as follows: In reviewing such challenges to decisions of the board, the following standards apply: In Re: An Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Services by Public Employees, 199 Colo. 409, 410, 609 P.2d 631, 632 (1980) (quoting Bauch v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 308, 310, 497 P.2d 698, 699 (1972)). We must ensure that the documents presented to the public "fairly and succinctly advise the voters what is being submitted, so that in the haste of an election the voter will not be misled into voting for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed." Dye v. Baker, 143 Colo. 458, 460, 354 P.2d 498, 500 (1960). Our role is to determine whether the descriptive documents fairly reflect the purport of the proposed amendment. Petitioners first argue that the title and ballot title and submission clause impermissibly fail to reflect certain important limiting language contained in the actual proposed amendment. We agree. Section C of the proposed amendment authorizes legislative apportionment of funds appropriated for the support of general education in elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools among students "required by law to be educated therein." It further states that such apportionment should maximize opportunities for selection of educational services from such resources as public schools and non-public schools "which are not pervasively sectarian." Though included in the summary, the above-quoted phrases are absent from the title and the ballot title and submission clause prepared by the board. In view of the carefully articulated purport of this section and the importance of the two quoted phrases to the expression of such purpose, we conclude that the title and the ballot title and submission clause fail to describe the class of students and the character of the educational institutions which are the subject of the proposed amendment. In the absence of these brief but critical phrases, the two documents do not fairly reflect the contents of the proposed amendment. Dye v. Baker, supra. The addition of such phrases would cure such defect. Petitioners assert that the title and the ballot title and submission clause improperly fail to describe the administrative consequences of adoption of the core curriculum defined in Section A of the proposed amendment. As we have stated, however, the board must be given great deference in the exercise of its summarization authority. In Re: Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting the Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Services by Public Employees of 1980, 200 Colo. 141, 613 P.2d 867 (1980); Bauch v. Anderson, supra. While further elaboration of the effects of the adoption of a core curriculum might well be of interest to potential voters, we conclude that voters would not be misled by this portion of the title and ballot title and submission clause. We, therefore, reject this argument. We also reject petitioners' challenge to the summary statement's fiscal impact *483 comment. The testimony presented to the board concerning the infinite possibilities and attendant economic complexities any specific legislation might or might not create fully supports the board's conclusion that the fiscal impact of the proposed amendment cannot be determined. See In Re: An Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Services by Public Employees, 199 Colo. 409, 609 P.2d 631 (1980). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the action of the board and remand the matter with directions to revise the title and the ballot title and submission clause by adding to each the phrase "required by law to be educated therein" after the phrase "parents of students," and the phrase "which are not pervasively sectarian" after the term "non-public schools." 1. Text of proposed amendment: 2. Text of the summary of the proposed amendment as prepared by the Board: [1] Petitioners include the Colorado Education Association and six qualified electors and registered voters of Colorado; they bring this action pursuant to § 1-40-102(3), 1B C.R.S. (1980).