CO Code § 1-40-105 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 1 - Elections|Article 40 - Initiative and Referendum|§ 1-40-105. Filing Procedure - Review and Comment Meeting - Amendments - Filing With Secretary of State

  The original typewritten draft of every initiative petition for a proposed law or amendment to the state constitution to be enacted by the people, before it is signed by any elector, shall be submitted by the proponents of the petition to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services for review and comment. Proponents are encouraged to write such drafts in plain, nontechnical language and in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and everyday meaning that are understandable to the average reader. Upon request, any agency in the executive department shall assist in reviewing and preparing comments on the petition. No later than two weeks after the date of submission of the original draft, unless it is withdrawn by the proponents, the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, or their designees, shall render their comments to the proponents of the petition concerning the format or contents of the petition at a review and comment meeting that is open to the public. Where appropriate, such comments shall also contain suggested editorial changes to promote compliance with the plain language provisions of this section. Except with the permission of the proponents, the comments shall not be disclosed to any person other than the proponents prior to the review and comment meeting. (1.5) Both designated representatives of the proponents must appear at all review and comment meetings. If either designated representative fails to attend a meeting, the measure is considered withdrawn by the proponents. If one of the two designated representatives fails to attend the review and comment meeting, the petition is deemed to be automatically resubmitted to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services for review and comment, unless the designated representative present objects to the automatic resubmission. No later than five business days after the resubmission, the directors shall conduct a review and comment meeting in accordance with the requirements of this section. If both designated representatives fail to attend the review and comment meeting or if the designated representative present objects to the automatic resubmission, the proponents may thereafter resubmit the initiative petition in accordance with subsection (1) of this section.    After the review and comment meeting but before submission to the secretary of state for title setting, the proponents may amend the petition in response to some or all of the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, or their designees. If any substantial amendment is made to the petition, other than an amendment in direct response to the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, the amended petition must be resubmitted to the directors for comment in accordance with subsection (1) of this section prior to submittal to the secretary of state as provided in subsection (4) of this section. If the directors have no additional comments concerning the amended petition, they may so notify the proponents in writing, and, in such case, a review and comment meeting on the amended petition pursuant to subsection (1) of this section is not required.    To the extent possible, drafts shall be worded with simplicity and clarity and so that the effect of the measure will not be misleading or likely to cause confusion among voters. The draft shall not present the issue to be decided in such manner that a vote for the measure would be a vote against the proposition or viewpoint that the voter believes that he or she is casting a vote for or, conversely, that a vote against the measure would be a vote for a proposition or viewpoint that the voter is against.    After the review and comment meeting provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a copy of the original typewritten draft submitted to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services; a copy of the amended draft with changes highlighted or otherwise indicated, if any amendments were made following the last review and comment meeting conducted pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section; and an original final draft that gives the final language for printing shall be submitted to the secretary of state without any title, submission clause, or ballot title providing the designation by which the voters shall express their choice for or against the proposed law or constitutional amendment.     History. Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 677, § 1, effective May 4; (1) amended, p. 994, § 1, effective June 2. L. 2000: (4) amended, p. 1622, § 4, effective August 2. L. 2015: (1), (2), and (4) amended and (1.5) added, (HB 15-1057), ch. 198, p. 674, § 2, effective March 26, 2016.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 1-40-101 as it existed prior to 1993, and the former § 1-40-105 was relocated to § 1-40-109 .   Cross references:   For the general assembly, powers, and initiative and referendum reserved to the people, see also § 1 of art. V, Colo. Const.; for recall from office, see art. XXI, Colo. Const.   ANNOTATION   Analysis     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.    II. PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO ENACTOWN LEGISLATION.    III. REVIEW AND COMMENT BY LEGISLATIVE AGENCIES.     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.   Law reviews. For article, “Popular Law-Making in Colorado”, see 26 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 439 (1954).   Annotator's note. (1) The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   (2) For additional cases concerning the initiative and referendum power, see the annotations under § 1 of article V of the state constitution.   The purpose of the initiative and referendum embodied in the constitution was to expeditiously permit the free exercise of legislative powers by the people, and the procedural statutes enacted in connection therewith were adopted to facilitate the execution of the law. Brownlow v. Wunch, 103 Colo. 120 , 83 P.2d 775 (1938); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   Provisions relating to the initiative should be liberally construed to permit, if possible, the exercise by the electors of this most important privilege. Brownlow v. Wunch, 103 Colo. 120 , 83 P.2d 775 (1938); Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   Citizen held not to have an “interest in the matter in litigation” in mandamus proceedings. Where on protest the secretary of state refused to file or refile a tendered petition to initiate a measure under the initiative and referendum act, and mandamus is brought to compel him to file, a citizen who feels he will be injured by the measure has not such an “interest in the matter in litigation” or “in the success of either of the parties to the action”, as gives him the right to intervene in the mandamus proceeding. Brownlow v. Wunch, 102 Colo. 447 , 80 P.2d 444 (1938).   II. PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO ENACT OWN LEGISLATION.    People have reserved to themselves right of initiative in § 1 of art. V, Colo. Const. In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141 , 613 P.2d 867 (1980).   No discretion rests with administrative officials to pass upon the validity of an act proposed by the people. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   The people then undertake to legislate for themselves. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   And the initiative and referendum laws, where invoked by the people, supplant the city council or representative body. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   And in the exercise of their right to vote upon such proposal, wisely adopt or reject it. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   And the town or city clerk is required to perform certain statutory duties in connection therewith, for failure of which he is subject to penalties. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   Because it is not within the discretion of the clerk and city council to question the acts of their principal, the people. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   The people express their sanction and approval of the ordinance by their vote, and its enforcement is attempted by one whose rights are affected, then the courts are open to pass upon the question of its validity. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   But a proposed ordinance is clothed with the presumption of validity and its constitutionality will not be considered by the courts by means of a hypothetical question, but only after enactment. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   And neither the supreme court nor any other court may be called upon to construe or pass upon a legislative act until it has been adopted. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   The only exception to this rule is the constitutional provision authorizing the general assembly to propound interrogatories to the supreme court upon important questions upon solemn occasions (§ 3 of art. VI, Colo. Const.). City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   Therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the initiative and referendum act and the penalties provided thereby that the legislature has been careful and diligent to safeguard the primary right of the people to propose and enact their own legislation. City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262 , 293 P.2d 974 (1956).   III. REVIEW AND COMMENT BY LEGISLATIVE AGENCIES.   Any proposed initiative must be submitted to the legislative research office and the legislative drafting office before it is submitted to the initiative title-setting board regardless of whether it is substantially similar to a previously proposed initiative. Without such submittal, the board lacks jurisdiction to set a title. In re Title Pertaining to “Tax Reform”, 797 P.2d 1283 (Colo. 1990); In re Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the Town of Idaho Springs, 830 P.2d 963 (Colo. 1992).   But where legislative service agencies indicate that they have no additional comments beyond those made on first version of essentially the same proposal, it is not necessary to convene a second review and comment hearing. In re Second Proposed Initiative Concerning Uninterrupted Serv. by Pers. Employees, 613 P.2d 867 (Colo. 1980).   And where one feature of a proposal is not specifically pointed out by legislative service agencies, but is included in titles and summary, the measure needs not be remanded. Matter of Proposed Initiative for an Amendment Entitled “W.A.T.E.R.”, 875 P.2d 861 (Colo. 1994).   No resubmission of the amended proposed initiative was required by subsection (2) since the amendments made by the proponents to the original proposed initiative were made in response to the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 10, 943 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1997).   Where changes in final version of initiative submitted to secretary of state were in direct response to substantive questions and comments raised by directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, the proponents of the initiative were not required to resubmit the initiative to the directors. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 256, 12 P.3d 246 (Colo. 2000).   While particular change was not made in direct response to the directors' questions, court concludes that, in the context of the amendment as a whole, it was a clarification and not a substantive change. Accordingly, change did not require resubmission to the directors. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 256, 12 P.3d 246 (Colo. 2000).   Change made in response to director's comment about a suggested grammatical change and comment regarding the overlap of terms used in the proposed initiative did not require proponents to resubmit initiative. In re Ballot Title 2007-2008 No. 57, 185 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2008).   Proponents' failure to indicate changes as specified in subsection (4) justified board's refusal to set a title. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 109, 962 P.2d 252 (Colo. 1998).