Title: Say v. Baker
Citation: 322 P.2d 317
Docket Number: 18566
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 1958

322 P.2d 317 (1958) Arthur R. SAY, Lyman G. Linger, and Emily G. Bogert, Petitioners, v. The Honorable George J. BAKER, Secretary of State, The Honorable Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, and The Honorable Floyd F. Miles, Reporter of the Supreme Court, Respondents. No. 18566. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 28, 1958. Bozeman &amp; Longway, Denver, for petitioners. Charles A. Graham, Wayne D. Williams, Robert F. May, Denver, amici curiae. MOORE, Justice. In this original proceeding petitioners seek review of the action of the secretary of state, the attorney general and the reporter of the Supreme Court in fixing the ballot title and submission clause to a proposed initiative amendment to the Constitution of Colorado. *318 The amendment which petitioners propose to submit to the people by way of initiated petition is as follows: Pursuant to the pertinent statute the secretary of state, the attorney general and the reporter of the Supreme Court prepared a ballot title and submission clause, to which petitioners made objection. Upon hearing the objection the ballot title and submission clause was duly amended to read as follows: They urge the assignment of a ballot title and submission clause as follows: Pertinent parts of the statute relating to the question are to be found in C.R.S. 1953, 70-1-1, as follows: "If any persons presenting such initiative petition are not satisfied with the titles and submission clause thus provided and claim them to be unfair or that they do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed law or constitutional amendment, within forty-eight hours after its return, *319 they may file a motion with the secretary of state for a rehearing, which shall be passed upon by said board within forty-eight hours thereafter, and if overruled, upon request, a certified copy of said petition with the titles and submission clause of such proposed law or constitutional amendment, together with a certified copy of such motion for rehearing and of the ruling thereon, shall be furnished them by the secretary of state, and, if filed with the clerk of the supreme court within five days thereafter, shall be docketed as a cause there pending, which shall be placed at the head of the calendar and disposed of summarily, either affirming the action of said board or reversing it, in which case the court shall remand it with instructions, pointing out wherein said board is in error." Does the ballot title and submission clause as finally prepared by the secretary of state, the attorney general and the Supreme Court reporter, fairly express the true intent and meaning of the proposed constitutional amendment? The question is answered in the affirmative. In Brownlow v. Wunsch, 103 Colo. 120, 83 P.2d 775, 777, this court stated, inter alia: It is the duty of those to whom the duty is assigned to prepare a title to an initiated measure, to use such language as shall "correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning" of the proposal to be submitted to the voters. The action of the statutory board empowered to fix the ballot title and submission clause is presumptively valid, and those who contend to the contrary must show wherein the assigned title does not meet the statutory requirement. No such showing is made in the instant case. In a carefully considered opinion written for a unanimous court, the Supreme Court of California had occasion to consider a title fixed by the attorney general pursuant to a statute, and expresed this principle in clear language as follows: From this principle it further follows, as the Oregan court remarked in Wieder v. Hoss, 143 Or. 122, 21 P.2d 780, 781, that: "The mere fact that after an appeal has been taken and we have had the benefit of the additional labor bestowed upon the ballot title by counsel we may be able to write a better ballot title than the one prepared by the Attorney General constitutes no reason for discarding his title. The purpose of the appeal is not to secure for the bill the best possible ballot title, but to eliminate one that is `insufficient or *320 unfair,' if it should develop that the one submitted by the Attorney General is of that kind." We are satisfied that the board acted wisely in refusing to use words in the title which would tend to color the merit of the proposal on one side or the other. Catch phrases or words which could form the basis of a slogan for use by those who expect to carry on a campaign for or against an initiated constitutional amendment should be carefully avoided by the board in writing the ballot title and submission clause. In the instant case the assigned ballot title is adequate, and fully complies with the mandate of the statute. The action of the respondents is affirmed and the ballot title and submission clause is approved as finally written. SUTTON and HALL, JJ., not participating.