Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/ballot-initiative/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:15:57+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #156 on Tuesday, July 5, 2016.
Initiative #156 seeks to restrict the sale of certain “intoxicants” at retail food stores, including full strength beer, liquor, marijuana, and marijuana products. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the title was confusing because it could invoke voter speculation as to whether the initiative sought to prevent current holders of licenses of those “intoxicants” from renewing their licenses, to revoke the licenses of current holders, or to prevent new licenses from issuing. The court remanded to the title board.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #89 on Monday, June 30, 2014.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that Initiative #89 contains a single subject and that the title clearly expresses the single subject. The Court thus affirmed the action of the Title Board.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #76: Hayes v. Spalding and Staiert on Monday, June 23, 2014.
Single Subject Violation—Second Subject has an Independent Purpose.
Initiative #76 would repeal existing Colorado Constitution Article XXI in its entirety. Currently, Article XXI sets forth provisions for recalling state and local elected officers. Initiative #76 proposes to comprehensively revamp the recall provisions of Article XXI, for the purpose of altering the manner in which state and local recall elections are triggered and conducted.
Initiative #76 has a second purpose: to establish a new constitutional right to recall non-elected state and local officers. Historically, Colorado law has provided only for the recall of elected officers. The initiative’s second subject has a distinct and separate purpose from its first subject.
The Supreme Court concluded that Initiative #76 proposes more than a single subject, in violation of Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5), because the second subject has a purpose that is not dependent on or necessarily and properly connected to the first. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Title Board’s action. The matter was returned to the Title Board with directions to strike the title and return the initiative to its proponents.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #129: Milo v. Coulter and Staiert on Monday, June 23, 2014.
The Supreme Court held that Initiative #129 contains a single subject: the definition of a “fee.” The Court also held that the title clearly expresses the single subject of Initiative #129. The Court thus affirmed the action of the Title Board.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiatives 2001-2012 Nos. 67, 68, and 69; Hayes v. Ottke; In the Matter of Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiatives 2011-2012 Nos. 94 and 95; Walter v. Staelin on Monday, January 7, 2013.
Ballot Title—Statutory Interpretation—CRS §1-40-106—Public Meeting—Designated Representatives.
Petitioners filed original proceedings pursuant to CRS §1-40-107(2), asserting that the Title Board lacked authority to take action with respect to challenged titles because fewer than both of the designated representatives of the Initiative’s proponents appeared at the rehearings. CRS §1-40-106(4)(a) requires “[e]ach designated representative” to appear at “any title board meeting at which the designated representative’s ballot issue is considered,” and CRS §1-40-106(4)(d) states that “[t]he title board shall not set a title for a ballot issue if either designated representative of the proponents fails to appear at a title board meeting.” Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Title Board lacks authority to set title or take action with respect to challenged titles where fewer than both designated representatives appear at a rehearing. Therefore, the Court reversed the actions of the Title Board in these cases.

References: v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 §1
 §1
 §1