Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the 

public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at 

http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the 

Colorado Bar Association’s homepage at http://www.cobar.org.

ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE

December 23, 2019

2019 CO 107

No. 19SA183, In re Proposed Ballot Initiative 2019–2020 #3 “State Fiscal 

Policy”—Title Setting—Ballot Initiatives—Clear Title Requirement—Fiscal 

Impact Statement Abstract.

In this case, the Title Board set a title for Proposed Ballot Initiative 

2019–2020 #3 (“Proposed Initiative”) that reads, in pertinent part, “An amendment 

to the Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights 

(TABOR), Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution.” The Board also 

ultimately adopted an abstract addressing the economic impact of the Proposed 

Initiative if passed.

The supreme court is now asked to determine whether (1) the title is clear 

and not misleading; (2) the use of the phrase “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” in the title 

constitutes an impermissible catch phrase; and (3) the abstract is misleading. The 

court concludes that the title and abstract are clear and not misleading and that 

the phrase “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” as used in this title, is not an impermissible 

catch phrase.

Accordingly, the court affirms the decision of the Title Board.
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado

2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203

2019 CO 107

Supreme Court Case No. 19SA183

Original Proceeding Pursuant to § 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2019)

Appeal from the Ballot Title Setting Board

In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #3

“State Fiscal Policy”

Petitioners:

Douglas Bruce and William Banta,

v.

Respondents:

Carol Hedges and Steve Briggs, 

and

Title Board:

Jason Gelender, Melissa Polk, and David Powell,

and 

Petitioners:

Carol Hedges and Steve Briggs

v.

Respondent:

William Banta
2

and 

Title Board:

Jason Gelender, Melissa Polk, and David Powell. 

Title Board Action Affirmed

en banc

December 23, 2019

Douglas Bruce, pro se

Colorado Springs, Colorado

William M. Banta, pro se

Englewood, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondents/Petitioners Steve Briggs and Carol Hedges:

Tierney Lawrence LLC

Edward T. Ramey

Martha M. Tierney

Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Title Board:

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General

Emily B. Buckley, Assistant Attorney General

Denver, Colorado

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court.

JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ concurs in part and dissents in part, and JUSTICE 

BOATRIGHT joins in the partial concurrence and partial dissent.
3

¶1 In this case, the Title Board set a title for Proposed Ballot Initiative 

2019–2020 #3 (“Proposed Initiative”) that reads, in pertinent part, “An amendment 

to the Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights 

(TABOR), Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution.” The Board also 

ultimately adopted an abstract that states, regarding the economic impact of the 

Proposed Initiative:

The measure is expected to increase revenue and spending for state 

and local governments over the long term, shifting a portion of the 

state’s economy from the private sector to the public sector. If 

government spending for public goods and services, including for 

example health care, education, social services, infrastructure, and 

public safety, increases, as expected, household and business 

spending or saving will be correspondingly reduced.

¶2 We must now determine whether (1) the title is clear and not misleading; 

(2) the use of the phrase “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” in the title constitutes an 

impermissible catch phrase; and (3) the abstract is misleading. We conclude that 

the title and abstract are clear and not misleading and that the phrase “Taxpayer’s

Bill of Rights,” as used in the title before us, is not an impermissible catch phrase.

¶3 Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Title Board.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

¶4 Pursuant to section 1-40-106, C.R.S. (2019), Steve Briggs and Carol Hedges, 

as designated representatives of the proponents of the Proposed Initiative

(“Proponents”), submitted the Proposed Initiative to the Title Board for the setting 
4

of a title and ballot title and submission clause. The Board held a hearing and 

declined to set a title, concluding that the measure did not constitute a single 

subject. Proponents filed a motion for rehearing, requesting that the Board 

reconsider that determination, but the Board denied that motion.

¶5 Proponents then petitioned this court for review pursuant to section 

1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2019). This court subsequently reversed the Title Board, 

concluding that the Proposed Initiative constituted a single subject, and we 

returned the Proposed Initiative to the Board for the purpose of setting a title and

ballot title and submission clause. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 

2019–2020 #3, 2019 CO 57, ¶ 40, 442 P.3d 867, 873.

¶6 The Board conducted a remand hearing and set a title and ballot title and 

submission clause for the Proposed Initiative. The title provided, “An amendment 

to the Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights 

(TABOR), Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution.”

¶7 The Board also adopted an abstract, which initially provided:

The measure is expected to increase revenue and spending for state 

and local governments over the long term, shifting a portion of the 

state’s economy from the private sector to the public sector. 

Government spending for public goods and services, including for 

example health care, education, social services, infrastructure, and 

public safety, will increase. Household and business spending or 

saving will be correspondingly reduced.
5

¶8 Thereafter, the Board received three motions for rehearing. Petitioners 

Douglas Bruce and William Banta separately objected to the title on the grounds 

that it is unfair and does not provide to voters the complete, correct, and true 

meaning of the Proposed Initiative. Proponents objected on the grounds that 

(1) the title did not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the Proposed 

Initiative and contained an impermissible catch phrase and (2) the abstract was 

misleading because its commentary regarding the Proposed Initiative’s expected

economic impact was “wholly speculative.”

¶9 The Board ultimately denied Bruce’s and Banta’s motions for rehearing but 

granted in part Proponents’ motion for rehearing, modifying the abstract to read, 

in pertinent part:

The measure is expected to increase revenue and spending for state 

and local governments over the long term, shifting a portion of the 

state’s economy from the private sector to the public sector. If

government spending for public goods and services, including for 

example health care, education, social services, infrastructure, and 

public safety, increases, as expected, household and business spending 

or saving will be correspondingly reduced.

(Emphases added.)

¶10 Bruce, Banta, and Proponents now each petition for review pursuant to 

section 1-40-107(2).
6

II. Analysis

¶11 We begin by discussing the applicable standard of review. We then consider 

whether the title set by the Board complies with the clear title requirement of 

article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution. Concluding that it does, we 

proceed to consider whether “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” as that phrase is used in 

the title, is an impermissible catch phrase, and we conclude that it is not. Finally, 

we review and reject Proponents’ contention that the abstract is misleading.

A. Standard of Review

¶12 “The Title Board is vested with considerable discretion in setting the title 

and the ballot title and submission clause,” and we will reverse the Board’s 

decision only when a title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In re Title, Ballot 

Title & Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #90, 2014 CO 63, ¶ 8, 328 P.3d 155, 159. In 

reviewing Title Board title settings, “we employ all legitimate presumptions in 

favor of the propriety of the Board’s actions.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission 

Clause for 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d 642, 645 (Colo. 2010).

¶13 This court also has the authority to review abstracts proposed by the Title 

Board. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2017–2018 #4, 2017 CO 57, 

¶ 19, 395 P.3d 318, 323. The abstract that is included in the fiscal impact statement 

is final “unless modified in accordance with section 1-40-107.” § 1-40-105.5(2)(a), 

C.R.S. (2019). In reviewing an abstract, we apply the same standard of review as 
7

we do for single subject and clear title findings, drawing all legitimate 

presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Title Board’s decision and 

overturning the Board’s decision only in a clear case. In re 2017–2018 #4, ¶ 20, 

395 P.3d at 323.

¶14 In our limited review of the Title Board’s actions, we do not address the 

merits of the proposed initiative. In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at 159. Nor do 

we suggest how it might be applied if enacted. Id. Rather, we examine the 

initiative’s wording to determine whether it and its title comport with the 

constitutional single subject and clear title requirements, and we review the fiscal 

impact statement to ensure that it complies with the applicable statutory 

requirements. See In re 2017–2018 #4, ¶¶ 19, 23–24, 395 P.3d at 323–24; In re 

2013–2014 #90, ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at 159. In conducting this limited inquiry, we employ 

the general rules of statutory construction, and we give words and phrases their 

plain and ordinary meanings. In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at 159.

B. Clear Title

¶15 As pertinent here, the Colorado Constitution requires that an initiative

contain only one subject and that the subject be clearly expressed in its title. Colo. 

Const. art. V, § 1(5.5). The title and submission clause should allow voters, 

whether or not they are familiar with the subject matter of a particular proposal, 

to determine intelligently whether to support or oppose the proposal. In re 
8

2013–2014 #90, ¶ 23, 328 P.3d at 162. Thus, “[i]n setting a title, the title board shall 

consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles and shall, 

whenever practicable, avoid titles for which the general understanding of the 

effect of a ‘yes/for’ or ‘no/against’ vote will be unclear.” § 1-40-106(3)(b). In 

addition, the title must “correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning” 

of the initiative. Id.

¶16 The Board’s duty in setting a title is to summarize the central features of a 

proposed initiative. In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 24, 328 P.3d at 162. In doing so, the 

Board need not explain the meaning or potential effects of the proposed initiative 

on the current statutory scheme. Id. Nor must the Board include a description of 

every feature of a proposed measure. In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause & 

Summary Clause of Proposed Initiative for an Amendment to Article XVI, Section 6, Colo. 

Const., Entitled “W.A.T.E.R.,” 875 P.2d 861, 864 (Colo. 1994). Rather, the Board

“must use its discretion to determine whether it can fairly delineate or describe the 

law or constitutional provision to be repealed without unduly expanding the title

[and] ballot title and submission clause . . . and without jeopardizing the 

impartiality of the designations that ultimately will be placed before the 

electorate.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary of Proposed 

Constitutional Amendment Under the Designation “Pregnancy,” 757 P.2d 132, 137 

(Colo. 1988).
9

¶17 In determining whether a title is clear, we do not consider whether the Title 

Board set the best possible title. In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 25, 328 P.3d at 162. Instead, 

our role is to ensure that the title fairly reflects the proposed initiative such that 

voters will not be misled into supporting or opposing the initiative because of the 

words that the Title Board employed. Id.

¶18 Here, the title set by the Board makes clear that the purpose of the Proposed 

Initiative is to repeal in its entirety the section of the Colorado Constitution known 

as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Colo. Const. art. X, § 20. See In re 2019–2020 #3, 

¶ 17, 442 P.3d at 870 (“The initiative effectuates one and only one general objective 

or purpose, namely, the repeal of TABOR.”). In our view, this title comports with 

the requirement that a title should allow voters, whether or not they are familiar 

with the subject matter of the proposal, to determine intelligently whether to 

support the proposal. In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 23, 328 P.3d at 162. Moreover, we 

cannot discern how voters could be confused by this title or how the effect of a 

yes/for or no/against vote would be unclear. § 1-40-106(3)(b); cf. In re Title, Ballot 

Title & Submission Clause for 2015–2016 #156, 2016 CO 56, ¶ 14, 413 P.3d 151, 

153–54 (concluding that because voters reading the title at issue would be forced 

to speculate whether the initiative would do any of four different things, the voters 

would not be able to ascertain the initiative’s intent and therefore would be unable 

to choose intelligently whether to vote for or against it). And we perceive no 
10

grounds on which to argue that the title would jeopardize the impartiality of the 

designation to be placed before the voters or would mislead voters into supporting 

or opposing the initiative because of the words that the Title Board employed. In 

re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 25, 328 P.3d at 162; In re Proposed Constitutional Amendment 

Under the Designation “Pregnancy,” 757 P.2d at 137.

¶19 Accordingly, we conclude that the title at issue satisfies our constitution’s 

clear title requirements.

¶20 In reaching this conclusion, we are not persuaded by Bruce’s and Banta’s

contentions that the title fails to satisfy the clear title requirement because it does 

not inform voters of the basic features of the measure, i.e., the “main features” of 

TABOR that would be repealed were the measure to pass. Bruce and Banta would 

have the Title Board list in the title a substantial number of TABOR’s provisions, 

noting that the Proposed Initiative, if passed, would end the rights, powers, and 

limits provided in each of those provisions. In Bruce’s and Banta’s views, without 

such a list, voters will be denied the complete, correct, and true meaning of the 

Proposed Initiative.

¶21 As noted above, the Board is not required to include a description of every 

feature of the provision to be repealed. In re Proposed Initiative for an Amendment to 

Article XVI, Section 6, Colo. Const., Entitled “W.A.T.E.R.,” 875 P.2d at 864. 

Moreover, listing in the title a substantial number of TABOR’s provisions, as Bruce 
11

and Banta request, would make the title excessively long and difficult to read, and 

it likely would confuse rather than assist voters. See In re Proposed Constitutional 

Amendment Under the Designation “Pregnancy,” 757 P.2d at 137 (noting that the 

Board must use its discretion to determine whether it can fairly delineate or 

describe the provision at issue without unduly expanding the title). Picking and 

choosing the provisions to include in the title would also likely result in 

contentions that the title is not impartial because what was included would tend 

to influence voters one way or the other. See id. (requiring the Board to describe 

the provision at issue without jeopardizing the impartiality of the designations to 

be placed before the voters). Lastly, Bruce and Banta seek a title that is apparently 

designed to show that the repeal of TABOR necessarily comprises multiple 

subjects because TABOR itself constitutes multiple subjects. We, however, only 

recently rejected that contention, In re 2019–2020 #3, ¶ 40, 442 P.3d at 873, and we 

decline to revisit that issue here.

¶22 We likewise are unpersuaded by Proponents’ and Banta’s contentions that 

the title violates section 1-40-106(3)(b)’s requirement that the title express the true 

intent and meaning of the proposal. Proponents contend that the purpose of the 

Proposed Initiative is to restore the people’s ability to determine the source and 

amount of public revenues and expenditures and that the repeal of TABOR is 

merely the mechanism for achieving that intended purpose. Banta, in contrast,
12

contends that the purpose of the title is to repeal TABOR but that the title as 

drafted is ambiguous and arguably misleading because it is phrased as “[a]n 

amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of the Taxpayer’s 

Bill of Rights (TABOR).” (Emphasis added.) In Banta’s view, a voter would not 

be able to tell from this language whether or not the Proposed Initiative would 

repeal TABOR. In addition, Banta contends, contrary to Proponents, that the title 

would result in the surrender of a number of Coloradans’ constitutional rights, 

powers, and policies, not the restoration of such rights, as Proponents argue.

¶23 In these circumstances, in which the parties themselves cannot agree on the 

purpose of the title, we perceive no error in the Title Board’s adoption of the words 

“concerning the repeal of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).” Such a 

description is neutral and, in our view, fairly and accurately indicates the 

Proposed Initiative’s intent and meaning. Indeed, in In re 2019–2020 #3, ¶ 17, 

442 P.3d at 870, we stated that this Proposed Initiative “effectuates one and only 

one general objective or purpose, namely, the repeal of TABOR.” Although we 

were there discussing whether the title contains a single subject, the purpose does 

not change in the context of the question of clear title. In any event, as we see it, 

Proponents’ and Banta’s arguments essentially ask us to consider whether the Title 

Board set the best possible title. As noted above, however, this is not our proper 

role. See In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 25, 328 P.3d at 162. Instead, we must employ all 
13

legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board’s actions. In re 

2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d at 645.

¶24 Accordingly, we conclude that the title satisfies the constitutional clear title 

requirement.

C. Catch Phrase

¶25 We next consider Proponents’ contention that “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,”

as used in the title at issue, is an impermissible catch phrase. We are not 

persuaded.

¶26 The Title Board must avoid using catch phrases or slogans when adopting 

a title and ballot title and submission clause. In re 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d at 649. 

“Catch phrases are terms that work in favor of a proposal without contributing to 

voter understanding; they trigger a favorable response to the proposal based not 

on its content but on its wording.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 

2015–2016 #63, 2016 CO 34, ¶ 24, 370 P.3d 628, 634. Such phrases are prohibited 

in order “to prevent prejudicing voters in favor of the proposed initiative merely 

by virtue of those words’ appeal to emotion and to avoid distracting voters from 

consideration of the proposed initiative’s merits.” In re 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d at 

649.

¶27 Applying these principles, in In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & 

Summary for 1999–2000 #258(A), 4 P.3d 1094, 1100 (Colo. 2000), we concluded that 
14

the phrase “as rapidly and effectively as possible” was a catch phrase when 

contained in a ballot measure to require that all public school students in Colorado 

be taught in English. We reasoned that this phrase masked the policy question of 

whether an English immersion program was the most rapid and effective way to 

teach English to non-English speaking children, a question that was the subject of 

great debate at the time. Id. We thus noted that by including the phrase “as 

rapidly and effectively as possible” in the title, the Board had tipped the 

substantive debate surrounding the issue to be submitted to the voters. Id.

¶28 In contrast, we have observed that a phrase is not an impermissible catch 

phrase when it “is descriptive and informative based on the common 

understanding of the words it contains” and when it “contributes to a voter’s 

rational comprehension and does not promote impulsive choices based on false 

assumptions about the initiative’s purpose and its effects if enacted.” In re 

2015–2016 #63, ¶ 25, 370 P.3d at 634. Applying this standard, in In re 2015–2016 

#63, we concluded that the use of the phrase “healthy environment,” in the title 

for a proposed initiative to amend the Colorado Constitution to establish a right 

to a healthy environment, was not an impermissible catch phrase because it 

satisfied each of the above-quoted criteria and did not improperly distract voters 

or appeal to their emotions. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 27, 370 P.3d at 634.
15

¶29 Here, we conclude that the phrase “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” as used in the 

title at issue, is not an impermissible catch phrase. The phrase is descriptive and 

informative based on the common understanding of the words used. Id. at ¶ 25, 

370 P.3d at 634. Indeed, the constitutional provision at issue is expressly called 

“The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.” Colo. Const. art. X, § 20. In our view, using the 

name of this provision contributes to a voter’s rational comprehension of the 

Proposed Initiative and does not trigger a favorable response, or bias voters, based 

on the words employed. In re 2015–2016 #63, ¶ 24, 370 P.3d at 634.

¶30 Moreover, notwithstanding Proponents’ assertion to the contrary, the 

phrase “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” is not “emotionally laden” or suggestive of 

comparisons to the federal Bill of Rights. Nor does the title’s use of that phrase

improperly imply that taxpayers would be surrendering their “rights”—indeed an 

entire “bill of rights”—by approving the Proposed Initiative. Again, the phrase 

“Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” does no more than invoke the name of the 

constitutional provision to which the Proposed Initiative is directed. The 

Proposed Initiative, if passed, would repeal article X, section 20 of the Colorado 

Constitution in its entirety. That provision is universally known as the Taxpayer’s 

Bill of Rights or TABOR. As a result, using that language in the title properly and 

impartially explains to voters what the title seeks to achieve.
16

¶31 For these reasons, we conclude that the phrase “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,”

as used in the title before us, is not an impermissible catch phrase.

D. The Abstract

¶32 Finally, we turn to Proponents’ contention that the abstract is misleading. 

Again, we are unpersuaded.

¶33 Under section 1-40-105.5(2)(a), the Title Board is required to “prepare an 

initial fiscal impact statement” for every initiated measure properly submitted to 

the Board. This initial fiscal impact statement must include an abstract. 

§ 1-40-105.5(2)(c)(III). The abstract, in turn, must include, as pertinent here:

(a) An estimate of the effect the measure will have on state and local 

government revenues, expenditures, taxes, and fiscal liabilities if the 

measure is enacted;

(b) A statement of the measure’s economic benefits for all Coloradans;

(c) An estimate of the amount of any state and local government 

recurring expenditures or fiscal liabilities if the measure is enacted;

[and]

(d) For any initiated measure that modifies the state tax laws, an 

estimate, if feasible, of the impact to the average taxpayer if the 

measure is enacted.

§ 1-40-105.5(3).

¶34 The abstract, however, need not contain “hard numbers or other

quantitative data” regarding an initiative’s expected economic impact when

precise estimates of fiscal or other impacts cannot be determined. In re 2017–2018 
17

#4, ¶¶ 23–24, 395 P.3d at 324–25. In such situations, we have approved the Board’s 

use of indeterminate qualitative impact statements. Id.

¶35 Here, Proponents challenge the portion of the abstract providing:

The measure is expected to increase revenue and spending for state 

and local governments over the long term, shifting a portion of the 

state’s economy from the private sector to the public sector. If 

government spending for public goods and services, including for 

example health care, education, social services, infrastructure, and 

public safety, increases, as expected, household and business 

spending or saving will be correspondingly reduced.

¶36 In Proponents’ view, this portion of the abstract is necessarily dependent on 

fiscal policy decisions that will be made by future lawmakers and voters and that 

are therefore unknowable. Moreover, Proponents contend that the abstract does 

not really present the statutorily required “estimate,” nor is it supportable by any 

evidence, testimony, or information. Accordingly, Proponents assert that the 

abstract amounts to “pure speculation” and is thus misleading and unfair. We

disagree.

¶37 As an initial matter, we note that Proponents’ argument appears to be 

directed to the prior version of the abstract, which provided, in pertinent part, 

“Government spending for public goods and services, including for example 

health care, education, social services, infrastructure, and public safety, will 

increase. Household and business spending or saving will be correspondingly 

reduced.” The Title Board, however, amended this version of the abstract to reflect 
18

the indeterminacy that Proponents identified in their motion for rehearing before 

the Board.

¶38 As for the version of the abstract before us, the economic impacts section of 

that abstract properly sets out the Proposed Initiative’s expected impact on 

government revenue and spending, as well as the economic impact expected to 

result, as section 1-40-105.5(3)(a) requires. Moreover, the abstract is not deficient, 

as Proponents contend, because it contains no evidence, testimony, or information. 

In In re 2017–2018 #4, ¶¶ 23–24, 395 P.3d at 324–25, we rejected a similar argument, 

noting that when the legislative council cannot provide quantitative estimates, 

indeterminate qualitative impact statements are permissible. The Board has 

complied with that directive here.

¶39 Accordingly, we conclude that the abstract at issue satisfies the applicable 

statutory requirements and is not misleading.

III. Conclusion

¶40 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Proposed Initiative’s title 

and abstract are clear and not misleading, and we further conclude that the phrase 

“Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” as used in the title before us, is not an impermissible

catch phrase.

¶41 Accordingly, we affirm the Title Board’s determination.

JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ concurs in part and dissents in part, and JUSTICE 

BOATRIGHT joins in the partial concurrence and partial dissent.
1

JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶42 The clear title requirement seeks to “prevent voter confusion and ensure 

that the title adequately expresses the initiative’s intended purpose,” In re Title, 

Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015–2016 #156, 2016 CO 56, ¶ 11, 413 P.3d 151, 

153, such that even voters who are not familiar with the subject matter of an 

initiative can “determine intelligently whether to support or oppose the proposal,” 

id. (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015–2016 #73, 2016 CO 

24, ¶ 22, 369 P.3d 565, 568). Partly for the reasons stated in my previous dissent in 

this matter, see In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019–2020 #3, 2019 CO

57, ¶¶ 41–75, 442 P.3d 867, 873–79 (Márquez, J., dissenting), I would reverse the 

Title Board’s setting of title. As an initial matter, because TABOR contains 

multiple subjects, the proposed repeal of TABOR necessarily also contains 

multiple subjects. Consequently, it is not possible for the title of Initiative #3 to 

convey “a single subject,” as article V, section 1(5.5) of our constitution requires. 

But even putting the single subject problem aside, the title approved by the 

majority (“An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of 

the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado 

constitution.”) fails to reflect the “central features” of the measure as our case law 

requires. Indeed, the title approved by the majority fails to describe any of the 

myriad features of TABOR such that a voter can intelligently determine whether 
2

to support or oppose its repeal. Under Colorado’s longstanding clear title 

requirement, any title for the proposed repeal of TABOR should be at least as 

descriptive as the title presented to voters in 1992 when TABOR was first adopted. 

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part.1

¶43 First, I explain how the single subject and clear title requirements are linked 

by their history and shared purposes. Next, I describe how the majority’s approval 

of this multi-subject initiative in In re 2019–2020 #3 has led to the present clear title 

problem. I then explain why the title fails to convey the central features of the 

initiative to an ordinary voter unfamiliar with its subject in violation of the 

constitution’s clear title requirement. Finally, I offer the title of the 1992 ballot 

initiative enacting TABOR as a model of an adequate title for its proposed repeal. 

A. The Single Subject and Clear Title Requirements 

Are Linked by History and Shared Purposes.

¶44 Colorado’s constitution forbids submitting to voters a measure lacking a 

title that “clearly expresses a single subject.” Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5) (“If a 

measure contains more than one subject, such that a ballot title cannot be fixed that 

 

1 I agree with the majority that the phrase “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” or “TABOR”

is not an impermissible catchphrase, maj. op. ¶¶ 2, 25–31, and that the abstract is 

not misleading, id. at ¶¶ 2, 32–39. 
3

clearly expresses a single subject, no title shall be set and the measure shall not be 

submitted to the people for adoption or rejection at the polls.”). 

¶45 As this language makes clear, Colorado’s single subject and clear title 

requirements for initiated measures are linked. This is no surprise, because they 

derive from identical, longstanding requirements in our state constitution 

pertaining to legislative bills. See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 

Proposed Initiative 2001–2002 #43, 46 P.3d 438, 440 (Colo. 2002) (describing the 

history of the single subject requirement for bills in the General Assembly and for 

initiatives). Since 1876, our constitution has provided that, except for general 

appropriation bills, “[n]o [legislative] bill . . . shall be passed containing more than 

one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” Colo. Const. art. V, § 21. 

The single subject and clear title requirements for initiatives both derive from this 

constitutional requirement for legislation. 

¶46 Nearly 130 years ago, we observed that the single subject and clear title

requirements for legislative bills serve the dual purposes of informing the public 

of the content of proposed legislation and preventing the passage of “unknown 

and alien subjects . . . coiled up in the folds of the bill”:

[Article V, section 21] embraces two mandates . . . one forbidding the 

union in the same legislative bill of separate and distinct subjects, and 

the other commanding that the subject treated in the body of the bill 

shall be clearly expressed in its title. Each of these mandates is designed 

to obviate flagrant evils connected with the adoption of laws. The former 

prevents joining in the same act disconnected and incongruous matters. The 
4

purpose of the latter is . . . “to give information to the members, or others 

interested, by the title of the bill, of the contemplated legislation; and thereby 

to prevent the passage of unknown and alien subjects, which might be coiled 

up in the folds of the bill.” The provision undoubtedly deals with 

legislative procedure; but obedience thereto directly results in advising the 

people of the contents of bills that have become laws. 

In re Breene, 24 P. 3, 3–4 (Colo. 1890) (emphases added) (quoting Appeal of Dorsey, 

72 Pa. 192, 195 (1872)). 

¶47 Over time, Coloradans chose to adopt these same requirements for voterinitiated measures. First, through a referendum in 1910, Colorado amended its

constitution to reserve the powers of initiative and referendum to the people. 

Ch. 3, Colo. Const. art. V, § 1, 1910 Colo. Sess. Laws 11, 11–14. Three years later, 

in 1913, the General Assembly enacted legislation providing the original clear title

requirement for initiatives. Ch. 97, sec. 4, 1913 Colo. Sess. Laws 310, 312 (“Each 

petition shall designate such ballot-title, which . . . may be enjoined from 

appearing upon the ballot, if misleading or unreasonably long . . . .”). The titlesetting process was amended in 1919 to create a title board and establish judicial 

review for compliance with the statutory fair-title requirement. Ch. 131, 1919 Colo. 

Sess. Laws 431, 431–32. 

¶48 Thus, when TABOR was passed by Colorado voters in 1992, it was subject 

to the clear title requirement. Only later—indeed, partly in response to TABOR—

did voters enact the single subject requirement for initiatives found in article V, 

section 1(5.5) of our constitution. See In re 2019–2020 #3, ¶¶ 51–54, 442 P.3d at
5

875–76 (Márquez, J., dissenting) (describing the history of the single subject 

requirement); In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #76, 

2014 CO 52, ¶ 31, 333 P.3d 76, 84–85 (same).

¶49 That said, like their counterparts for legislative bills, the single subject and 

clear title requirements for initiatives serve shared purposes, namely, to (1) inform 

voters about the subject of a proposed measure and (2) prevent the passage of 

surprise or surreptitious measures. See § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II), C.R.S. (2019)

(declaring that article V, section 1(5.5) is intended “[t]o prevent surreptitious 

measures and apprise the people of the subject of each measure by the title, that is, to 

prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters” (emphases added)); 

In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d 642, 648 (Colo. 

2010) (“The purpose of reviewing an initiative title for clarity parallels that of the 

single subject requirement: voter protection through reasonably ascertainable 

expression of the initiative’s purpose.”). 

¶50 To safeguard these purposes, this court has required an initiative’s title to 

provide enough information that a voter, “whether familiar or unfamiliar with the 

subject matter of a particular proposal, [can] determine intelligently whether to 

support or oppose such a proposal.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 

2013–2014 #90, 2014 CO 63, ¶ 23, 328 P.3d 155, 162; see also maj. op. ¶¶ 15, 18. 

Importantly, although an initiative’s title need not describe every feature of the 
6

measure, it must convey its “central features.” Maj. op. ¶ 16; In re Proposed 

Initiative for an Amendment to Article XVI, Section 6, Colo. Const., Entitled 

“W.A.T.E.R.”, 875 P.2d 861, 864 (Colo. 1994) (“[T]he Board’s language must ‘clearly 

and concisely reflect the central features of a proposed initiative.’” (quoting In re

Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Ltd. Gaming in the Town of 

Idaho Springs, 830 P.2d 963, 970 (Colo. 1992))); see also In re Title, Ballot Title & 

Submission Clause, & Summary for “Petitions”, 907 P.2d 586, 590 (Colo. 1995) (“The 

language employed by the Board will be rejected where such language is 

misleading, inaccurate, or fails to reflect the central features of the proposed initiative.” 

(emphasis added)). 

B. The Title’s Core Flaw Stems from the 

Initiative’s Multiple Subjects.

¶51 Because TABOR contains multiple subjects, and because Initiative #3 seeks 

to repeal all of TABOR, no title can be drafted for this initiative “clearly 

express[ing] a single subject” as required by our constitution. Colo. Const. art. V, 

§ 1(5.5) (emphasis added). 

¶52 We have acknowledged on several occasions that TABOR contains multiple 

subjects. In re 2019–2020 #3, ¶ 31, 442 P.3d at 872 (majority opinion) (noting “the 

multiple subjects enacted by TABOR”); In re 2013–2014 #76, ¶ 31, 333 P.3d at 85 

(calling TABOR a “multiple subject measure”); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission 

Clause, & Summary with Regard to Amend Tabor 25, 900 P.2d 121, 126 (Colo. 1995) 
7

(noting that TABOR “contains multiple subjects”). These multiple subjects include 

voter approval of tax increases and debt; state and local government spending 

limits; local revenue limits; prohibited taxes; taxpayer refunds; emergency taxes 

and emergency reserves; election procedures and required ballot information; 

state mandates; and requirements related to the assessment of property. In re

2019–2020 #3, ¶¶ 47–50, 442 P.3d at 874–75 (Márquez, J., dissenting) (describing 

TABOR’s multiple subjects).

¶53 Despite acknowledging that TABOR contains multiple subjects, the majority 

concluded in In re 2019–2020 #3 that the proposed repeal of this complex provision 

constitutes a single subject. I have already explained why I disagreed with that 

decision. Id. at ¶¶ 41–75, 442 P.3d at 873–79. In short, lumping several subjects 

under a single label (“TABOR”) and packaging the proposal as a repeal does not 

transform the proposal into a single subject. Id. at ¶ 67, 442 P.3d at 878; see also In 

re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #91, 235 P.3d 1071, 1076 

(Colo. 2010) (“[An] attempt to characterize an initiative under some general theme

will not save an initiative from violating the single subject rule if the initiative 

contains multiple subjects.”). The problem now, of course, is that because the 

repeal of TABOR encompasses numerous subjects affecting several areas of law at 

the state and local levels, it is impossible to draft a title for this repeal that “clearly 
8

expresses a single subject” as the constitution requires. See Colo. Const. art. V, 

§ 1(5.5). 

C. The Title as Drafted Wholly Fails to Communicate 

TABOR’s Central Features.

¶54 As a result of the majority’s earlier decision in this matter, the Title Board 

was required to draft a title that conveys to voters what the proposed repeal would 

accomplish. I do not envy the Title Board’s situation. Indeed, in a case decided 

before voters passed the single subject requirement, we acknowledged the Title 

Board’s “arduous task of summarizing both efficiently and sufficiently the 

essential purport of sometimes prolix proposals.” In re Proposed Initiative 

Concerning State Pers. Sys., 691 P.2d 1121, 1123 (Colo. 1984). Yet even putting aside 

the single subject problem discussed above, the title blessed by the majority today 

fails to satisfy the clear title requirement because it does nothing to inform voters 

what TABOR is or describe the “rights” that would be repealed.

¶55 The clarity of a title must be judged from the perspective of an ordinary 

voter. In re 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d at 647–48. How can ordinary voters, 

particularly those unfamiliar with TABOR, be empowered to “determine 

intelligently whether to support or oppose” the initiative knowing only that it 

concerns the repeal of something called TABOR? They cannot. To such voters, 

the title essentially reads, “An amendment to the Colorado constitution 
9

concerning the repeal of [some provision] of the Colorado constitution.” It is 

difficult to imagine a less informative title. 

¶56 The majority acknowledges the correct standard, maj. op. ¶ 15, but fails to 

apply it. Instead, the majority appears to assume voter familiarity with TABOR’s 

myriad subjects and approves the title because it is not confusing. Maj. op. ¶ 18 

(“[W]e cannot discern how voters could be confused by this title or how the effect 

of a yes/for or no/against vote would be unclear.”). But this misses the point. It 

is not enough that a title avoid actively misleading voters—the constitution 

affirmatively requires the title to communicate the substance of the measure. See

§ 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II) (stating a purpose of article V, section 1(5.5) is to “apprise the 

people of the subject of each measure by the title”); In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 23, 

328 P.3d at 162 (noting title must enable voters to “determine intelligently whether 

to support or oppose [the] proposal”).

¶57 The majority also emphasizes that a title need not describe “every feature” 

in approving the proposed title. Maj. op. ¶¶ 20–21. True. But the problem is that 

the title approved by the majority fails to communicate any feature of TABOR, let 

alone TABOR’s “central features” as our case law requires. See In re Title, Ballot 

Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for Proposed Initiated Constitutional 

Amendment Concerning Suits Against Nongovernmental Emp’rs Who Knowingly & 

Recklessly Maintain an Unsafe Work Env’t, 898 P.2d 1071, 1073 (Colo. 1995) (“The 
10

Board’s duty is merely to summarize the central features . . . .”); In re Proposed 

Initiative Entitled “W.A.T.E.R.”, 875 P.2d at 864 (noting the title must communicate 

the initiative’s “central features”); In re Ltd. Gaming, 830 P.2d at 966 (“This court’s 

primary function is to ensure that the documents prepared by the Board fairly, 

accurately and concisely reflect the central features of the initiated measure.”

(emphases added)).

¶58 To the extent the majority reasons that “[p]icking and choosing” among 

TABOR’s multiple features would lead to problems or voter confusion, maj. op. 

¶ 21, its argument simply highlights that the measure contains multiple subjects—

so many, apparently, that it is not possible (according to the majority) to concisely 

convey all its features in the title, see id.

¶59 I fear that after weakening our single subject jurisprudence, the majority 

now also weakens the clear title requirement. The example I used in my past 

dissent is again apt: there, I noted that under the majority’s logic voters could 

repeal the entire Bill of Rights of our state constitution through a single initiative 

merely by packaging the measure as a “repeal.” In re 2019–2020 #3, ¶ 74, 442 P.3d 

at 879 (Márquez, J., dissenting). Under the majority’s ruling today, instead of 

requiring the title of such a measure to inform voters that the repeal would affect 

“religious freedom, free speech, protections against unreasonable searches and 

seizures, the right to bear arms, the prohibition against cruel and unusual 
11

punishment, and due process, among [others],” id., the title could simply read “An 

amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of [the Bill of 

Rights, Article II] of the Colorado constitution.” In my view, such a title fails to 

inform voters unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights of the consequences of their vote 

in violation of the constitution. That cannot be what voters intended in article V, 

section 1(5.5) when they required a clear title expressing a single subject.

D. The Title of TABOR’s Repeal Should Be At Least As 

Descriptive As the Title Presented to Voters When 

TABOR Was Enacted.

¶60 Although we defer to the Title Board’s drafting authority, In re 2009–2010

#45, 234 P.3d at 648 (noting we will reverse the Title Board only if the title is 

“insufficient, unfair, or misleading”), and will not rewrite an inadequate title, In re 

Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2007–2008 #62, 184 P.3d 52, 58 (Colo. 2008), 

it seems clear that the title here should be at least as descriptive as the title 

provided to voters in 1992 when TABOR was first enacted by voters. 

¶61 That title provided much more detail to voters about TABOR’s central 

features:

An amendment to the Colorado Constitution to require voter 

approval for certain state and local government tax revenue increases 

and debt; to restrict property, income, and other taxes; to limit the rate 

of increase in state and local government spending; to allow 

additional initiative and referendum elections; and to provide for the 

mailing of information to registered voters. 
12

Legislative Council, Colo. Gen. Assembly, Research Pub. No. 369, An Analysis of 

1992 Ballot Proposals 5 (1992). The title presented to voters in 1992 was, of course, 

subject to the century-old clear title requirement at issue here. Yet it informed

voters of TABOR’s substance in a way that the title approved by the majority today

does not. I would reverse the setting of title and remand to the Title Board to draft 

a title communicating the central features of the repeal, pointing to the 1992 title 

as a guide.

E. Conclusion

¶62 In my earlier dissent, I expressed concern that the majority weakened our 

single subject jurisprudence. In re 2019–2020 #3, ¶¶ 41–75, 442 P.3d at 873–79

(Márquez, J., dissenting). Today, I fear the majority also weakens the clear title 

requirement. Because the title approved by the majority fails to meaningfully 

convey any of the central features of TABOR that would be repealed by Initiative 

#3, I respectfully dissent.

I am authorized to state that JUSTICE BOATRIGHT joins in this partial 

concurrence and partial dissent.