CO Code § 1-40-106 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 1 - Elections|Article 40 - Initiative and Referendum|§ 1-40-106. Title Board - Meetings - Ballot Title - Initiative and Referendum - Definitions

  For ballot issues, beginning with the first submission of a draft after an election, the secretary of state shall convene a title board consisting of the secretary of state, the attorney general, and the director of the office of legislative legal services or their designees. The title board, by majority vote, shall proceed to designate and fix a proper fair title for each proposed law or constitutional amendment, together with a submission clause, at public meetings to be held at the hour determined by the title board on the first and third Wednesdays of each month in which a draft or a motion for reconsideration has been submitted to the secretary of state. To be considered at such meeting, a draft shall be submitted to the secretary of state no later than 3 p.m. on the twelfth day before the meeting at which the draft is to be considered by the title board, and the designated representatives of the proponents must comply with the requirements of subsection (4) of this section. The first meeting of the title board shall be held no sooner than the first Wednesday in December after an election, and the last meeting shall be held no later than the third Wednesday in April in the year in which the measure is to be voted on.    (Deleted by amendment,L. 95, p. 431, § 4, effective May 8, 1995.)      (Deleted by amendment,L. 2000, p. 1620, § 1, effective August 2, 2000.)    In 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. The title for the proposed law or constitutional amendment, which shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning thereof, together with the ballot title and submission clause, shall be completed, except as otherwise required by section 1-40-107, within two weeks after the first meeting of the title board. Immediately upon completion, the secretary of state shall deliver the same with the original to the designated representatives of the proponents, keeping the copy with a record of the action taken thereon. Ballot titles shall be brief, shall not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election, and, shall be in the form of a question which may be answered “yes/for” (to vote in favor of the proposed law or constitutional amendment) or “no/against” (to vote against the proposed law or constitutional amendment) and which shall unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added, amended, or repealed.    In order to avoid confusion between a proposition and an amendment, as such terms are used in section 1-5-407 (5)(b), the title board shall describe a proposition in a ballot title as a “change to the Colorado Revised Statutes” and an amendment as an “amendment to the Colorado constitution”.    A ballot title for a statewide referred measure must be in the same form as a ballot title for an initiative as required by paragraph (c) of this subsection (3).    For measures that reduce state tax revenue through a tax change, the ballot title must begin “Shall there be a reduction to the (description of tax) by (the percentage by which the tax is reduced in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue) thereby reducing state revenue, which will reduce funding for state expenditures that include but are not limited to (the three largest areas of program expenditure) by an estimated (projected dollar figure of revenue reduction to the state in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue) in tax revenue...?”. If the ballot measure specifies the public services or programs that are to be reduced by the tax change, those public services or programs must be stated in the ballot title. If the public services or programs identified in the measure are insufficient to account for the full dollar value of the tax change in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue, then the three largest areas of program expenditure must be stated in the bill title along with the public services or programs identified in the measure. The estimates reflected in the ballot title shall not be interpreted as restrictions of the state's budgeting process.    For measures that reduce local district property tax revenue through a tax change, the ballot title must begin “Shall funding available for counties, school districts, water districts, fire districts, and other districts funded, at least in part, by property taxes be impacted by a reduction of (projected dollar figure of property tax revenue reduction to all districts in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue) in property tax revenue...?”. The title board shall exclude any districts whose property tax revenue would not be reduced by the measure from the measure's ballot title. The estimates reflected in the ballot title shall not be interpreted as restrictions of a local district's budgeting process.    For measures that increase tax revenue for any district through a tax change and specify the public services to be funded by the increased revenue, after the language required by section 20 (3)(c) of article X of the state constitution, the ballot title shall state “in order to increase or improve levels of public services, including, but not limited to (the public service specified in the measure)...”. For measures that increase tax revenue for any district through a tax change and do not specify the public services to be funded by the increased revenue, after the language required by section 20 (3)(c) of article X of the state constitution, the ballot title shall state “in order to increase or improve levels of public services...”. The estimates reflected in the ballot title shall not be interpreted as restrictions of a district's budgeting process.    In determining whether a ballot title qualifies as brief for purposes of sections 1-40-102 (10) and 1-40-106 (3)(b), the language required by subsection (3)(e), (3)(f), or (3)(g) of this section may not be considered.    As used in this subsection (3), unless the context otherwise requires:   “Areas of program expenditure” means categories of spending by issue area. For state expenditures, “the three largest areas of program expenditure” refers to the three program types listed as receiving the largest general fund operating appropriations in the joint budget committee's annual appropriations report for the most recent fiscal year.    “Tax change” means any initiated ballot issue or initiated ballot question that has a primary purpose of lowering or increasing tax revenues collected by a district, including a reduction or increase of tax rates, mill levies, assessment ratios, or other measures, including matters pertaining to tax classification, definitions, credits, exemptions, monetary thresholds, qualifications for taxation, or any combination thereof, that reduce or increase a district's tax collections. “Tax change” does not mean an initiated ballot issue or initiated ballot question that results in a decrease or increase in revenue to a district in which such decrease or increase is incidental to the primary purpose of the initiated ballot issue or initiated ballot question. (3.5) For every proposed constitutional amendment, the title board shall determine whether the proposed constitutional amendment only repeals in whole or in part a provision of the state constitution for purposes of section 1 (4)(b) of article V of the state constitution. The secretary of state shall keep a record of the determination made by the title board.            Each designated representative of the proponents shall appear at any title board meeting at which the designated representative's ballot issue is considered.    Each designated representative of the proponents shall certify by a notarized affidavit that the designated representative is familiar with the provisions of this article, including but not limited to the prohibition on circulators' use of false addresses in completing circulator affidavits and the summary prepared by the secretary of state pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subsection (4). The affidavit shall include a physical address at which process may be served on the designated representative. The designated representative shall sign and file the affidavit with the secretary of state at the first title board meeting at which the designated representative's ballot issue is considered.    The secretary of state shall prepare a summary of the designated representatives of the proponents' responsibilities that are set forth in this article.    The 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 or file the affidavit as required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (4). The title board may consider the ballot issue at its next meeting, but the requirements of this subsection (4) shall continue to apply.    The secretary of state shall provide a notary public for the designated representatives at the title board meeting.        History. Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 679, § 1, effective May 4. L. 95: (1), (2), and (3)(a) amended, p. 431, § 4, effective May 8. L. 2000: (3) amended, p. 1620, § 1, effective August 2. L. 2004: (1) amended, p. 756, § 1, effective May 12. L. 2009: (1) amended, (HB 09-1326), ch. 258, p. 1170, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2011: (1) and (3)(b) amended and (4) added, (HB 11-1072), ch. 255, p. 1102, § 3, effective August 10. L. 2012: (1) and (3)(b) amended, (HB 12-1313), ch. 141, p. 510, § 1, effective April 26; (3)(c) and (3)(d) added, (HB 12-1089), ch. 70, p. 241, § 2, effective May 1; (3)(b) amended, (HB 12-1089), ch. 70, p. 241, § 2, effective January 1, 2013. L. 2017: (3.5) added, (SB 17-152), ch. 169, p. 616, § 1, effective August 9. L. 2021: (3)(e), (3)(f), (3)(g), (3)(h), and (3)(i) added, (HB 21-1321), ch. 474, p. 3395, § 3, effective July 7.    Editor's note:    This section is similar to former § 1-40-101 as it existed prior to 1993, and the former § 1-40-106 was relocated. For a detailed comparison, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index.    Amendments to subsection (3)(b) by House Bill 12-1089 and House Bill 12-1313 were harmonized.     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.    For the legislative declaration in the 2011 act amending subsections (1) and (3)(b) and adding subsection (4), see section 1 of chapter 255, Session Laws of Colorado 2011. For the legislative declaration in the 2012 act amending subsection (3)(b) and adding subsections (3)(c) and (3)(d), see section 1 of chapter 70, Session Laws of Colorado 2012.    For the short title (“Ballot Measure Fiscal Transparency Act of 2021”) in HB 21-1321, see section 1 of chapter 474, Session Laws of Colorado 2021.     ANNOTATION   Analysis     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.    II. FILING.    III. STATUTORY BOARD.    IV. TITLE; BALLOT TITLE ANDSUBMISSION CLAUSE.    V. SUMMARY AND FISCALIMPACT STATEMENT.      In General.    Titles Held Sufficient.    Titles Held Insufficient.     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 cases concerning the people's right to enact their own legislation, see the annotations under § 1-40-105 .   (3) For additional cases concerning the initiative and referendum power, see the annotations under § 1 of article V of the state constitution.   Flexible level of scrutiny applies to challenge of § 1 (5.5) of article V of the state constitution and the statutory title-setting procedures implementing it. Under this standard, courts must weigh the “character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the first and fourteenth amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate” against the “precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule”, taking into consideration “the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights”. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 103 S. Ct. 1564, 75 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1983); Campbell v. Buckley, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (D. Colo. 1998 ).   Single-subject requirement in § 1 (5.5) of article V of the constitution and the statutory title-setting procedures implementing it do not violate initiative proponents' free speech or associational rights under the first amendment nor do they discriminate against proponents in violation of the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause. Campbell v. Buckley, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (D. Colo. 1998 ), aff'd, 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2000).   The summary, single subject and title requirements serve to prevent voter confusion and promote informed decisions by narrowing the initiative to a single matter and providing information on that single subject. Campbell v. Buckley, 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2000).   The requirements serve to prevent a provision that would not otherwise pass from becoming law by “piggybacking” it on a more popular proposal or concealing it in a long and complex initiative. Campbell v. Buckley, 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2000).   The 12-day notice requirement in subsection (1) only governs the time requirement for submitting a draft of the text of the initiative. Subsection (1) does not require that any proposed amendments or modifications to the title or submission clause be submitted to the board at least twelve days prior to the hearing. Proposed additions or deletions from the title and submission clause may be offered by any registered elector during the public hearing or rehearing before the board. In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 877 P.2d 329 (Colo. 1994).   “Substantial compliance” is the standard by which to judge compliance with the fiscal impact information filing requirements of subsection (3)(a). Invalidation of the board's actions when the fiscal impact information was filed five minutes late, then refiled three hours later to correct a calculation error, would impermissibly infringe on the fundamental right of initiative. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000) (decided under law in effect prior to 2000 amendment).   The purpose of the title setting process is to ensure that person reviewing the initiative petition and voters are fairly advised of the import of the proposed amendment. In re Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause, 910 P.2d 21 (Colo. 1996).   Applied in Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   II. FILING.   The filing of a petition to initiate a measure under the initiative and referendum statute is a ministerial act, and the secretary of state has discretion in the first instance to determine its sufficiency to entitle it to be filed. Brownlow v. Wunch, 102 Colo. 447 , 80 P.2d 444 (1938) (decided under former law).   III. STATUTORY BOARD.   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. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   But the action of the statutory board empowered to fix a ballot title and submission clause is presumptively valid. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958); In re Proposed Initiative “Automobile Insurance Coverage,” 877 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1994); In re Proposed Initiative 1997-1998 No. 75, 960 P.2d 672 (Colo. 1998); Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999).   And the supreme court employs all legitimate presumptions in favor of the title board's actions, gives great deference to the title board in the exercise of its drafting authority, and will reverse its decision only if a title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In re Title, Ballot Title, Sub. Cl. for 2009-2010 No. 45; In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause for 2015-2016 No. 63, 2016 CO 34, 370 P.3d 628; In re Ballot Title 2019-2020 No. 3, 2019 CO 57, 442 P.3d 867.   And those who contend to the contrary must show wherein the assigned title does not meet the statutory requirement. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   The reason being that, under our system of government, the resolution of these questions, when the formalities for submission have been met, rests with the electorate. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   Title board had discretion to set the titles and summary of proposed initiative despite proponents' failure to indicate all of the differences between the original and final versions of the measure submitted to the secretary of state. Matter of Prop. Init. Const. Amend. 1996-3, 917 P.2d 1274 (Colo. 1996).   Title board lacks jurisdiction to set a title if any designated representative of the proponents of a proposed initiative fails to appear at a title board meeting at which the proposed initiative is considered. Subsection (4) reflects the general assembly's clear and unambiguous intent to require both designated representatives to appear at any title board hearing, including a rehearing, at which the proposed initiative is being considered. Hayes v. Ottke, 2013 CO 1, 293 P.3d 551.   Substitution of a third party for one of the designated representatives divests the title board of jurisdiction to act in any meeting at which either of the original designated representatives is not present. In re Ballot Title 2013-2014 No. 103, 2014 CO 61, 328 P.3d 127.   Requirements of this section concerning designated representatives are no longer merely procedural requirements promoting efficient notification, but are instead substantive requirements designed to promote the purpose of the title setting process by ensuring that the title board has access to the information that it needs to resolve the substantive issues raised at any meeting concerning a proposed initiative. Hayes v. Ottke, 2013 CO 1, 293 P.3d 551 (overruling Matter of the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1994)).   Board was created by statute to assist the people in the implementation of their right to initiate laws. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age, 691 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1984).   Deputy attorney general. Because the title board is created by statute, the attorney general may designate, pursuant to § 24-31-103 , a deputy to serve in her place. Amendment to Const. Section 2 to Art. VII, 900 P.2d 104 (Colo. 1995).   Delegation. Because the title board is created by statute, the attorney general, pursuant to § 24-31-103 , and the secretary of state, pursuant to § 24-21-105 , may designate deputies to serve in their place. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Cl., 900 P.2d 121 (Colo. 1995).   The provisions of this statute, rather than those of the State Administrative Procedure Act, govern the Board's action in designating and fixing the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary of a proposed initiative measure. In re Proposed Initiative Entitled W.A.T.E.R., 831 P.2d 1301 (Colo. 1992).   Plaintiff has a liberty right to challenge the decision of the title board. This section and § 1-40-101 insufficiently provide for the notice required by the United States Constitution to protect this liberty interest, thereby depriving plaintiff of her constitutional rights. Montero v. Meyer, 790 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Colo. 1992 ).   As to all initiatives and referenda hearings governed by this section occurring after April 27, 1992, defendants are ordered to publish pre-hearing and post-hearing notices to electors at least sufficient to meet the fair notice requirements of due process of law under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.Montero v. Meyer, 790 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Colo. 1992 ).   Neither the secretary of state nor any reviewing court should be concerned with the merit or lack of merit of a proposed constitutional amendment. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   And a board acts wisely in refusing to use words in a title which would tend to color the merit of the proposal on one side or the other. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   The burden of proving procedural noncompliance rests with the petitioner, not with the proponents of the initiative. A presumption exists that the secretary of state properly determined the sufficiency of the filing of a petition to initiate a measure. Because the petitioner has not shown any defect in the proceeding that would destroy the board's jurisdiction in the matter, the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge is rejected. In re Petition on Campaign & Political Fin., 877 P.2d 311 (Colo. 1994).   Board is not required to give opinion regarding ambiguity of a proposed initiative, nor is it necessary for the board to be concerned with legal issues which the proposed initiative may create. Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Etc., 797 P.2d 1275 (Colo. 1990).   Task of the board is to provide a concise summary of the proposed initiative, focusing on the most critical aspects of the proposal, not simply to restate all of the provisions of the proposed initiative. Board not required to include every aspect of a proposal in the title and submission clause. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 235(a), 3 P.3d 1219 (Colo. 2000).   Board may be challenged when misleading summary of amendment prejudicial. A misleading summary of the fiscal impact of a proposed amendment is likely to create an unfair prejudice against the measure and is a sufficient basis, under this section, for challenging the board's action. In re An Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 199 Colo. 409 , 609 P.2d 631 (1980).   Request for agency assistance at board's discretion. The decision of whether and from which of the two state agencies to request information is within the discretion of the board. Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   Technical correction of proposed initiative permitted. Allowing a technical correction of the proposed initiative to conform with the intent of the proponents does not frustrate the purpose of the statute. Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   Purpose of statutory time table for meetings of initiative title setting review board is to assure that the titles, submission clause, and summary of an initiated measure are considered promptly by the board well in advance of the date by which the signed petitions must be filed with the secretary of state. In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141 , 613 P.2d 867 (1980); Matter of Title Concerning Sch. Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1998).   Section not frustrated by next-day continuance of statutory date for last meeting. A continuance to the next day following the statutory date for the last meeting in order to comply fully with other statutory requirements does not frustrate the purpose of this section. In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141 , 613 P.2d 867 (1980).   Initiative did not qualify for November 1997 election. The requisite signatures had to be filed in the first week of August, but the title setting was not until the third week in that month and the board could not meet to consider the initiative before the third Wednesday in May of 1998. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 30, 959 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1998).   Board had the authority to set a title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary for the proposed constitutional amendment at issue, but the question of the board's jurisdiction to set titles for a ballot issue in an odd-numbered year was premature, as the secretary of state, not the board, has the authority to place measures on the ballot. Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   Board had the authority to set the titles and summary of an initiative filed June 20, 1997, because the measure was eligible, at the earliest, for placement on the ballot in the November 1998 general election. In re Initiative #25A Concerning Hous. Unit Construction Limits, 954 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1998).   Hearings on motions to reconsider. Even in odd numbered years, hearings on motions to reconsider decisions entered during the last meeting in May must be held within 48 hours of filing of the motion. Byrne v. Title Bd., 907 P.2d 570 (Colo. 1995); Matter of Title Concerning Sch. Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1998).   When board may hold meetings. Under this section, the title setting board is subject to two specific prohibitions with regard to the timing of its meetings: (1) The board may not meet between an election and the first Wednesday in December in any year in which an election is held, and (2) the board may not meet after the third Wednesday in May to consider measures that will be voted on in the upcoming November election. Matter of Title Concerning Sch. Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1998).   Meetings in July and August are proper when considering titles for a measure that will not be placed on the ballot until November of the following year. Matter of Title Concerning Sch. Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1998).   Actions of state officers under this statute upheld. Bauch v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 308 , 497 P.2d 698 (1972).   The board did not intrude on the jurisdiction of the supreme court by correcting two transcription errors in the summary after the matter was on appeal before the court. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   IV. TITLE; BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE.    1. In General.   The purpose of the title-setting process is to ensure that both the persons reviewing an initiative petition and the voters are fairly and succinctly advised of the import of the proposed law. In re Proposed Initiative on Educ. Tax Refund, 823 P.2d 1353 (Colo. 1991); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   The clear title requirement seeks to accomplish the two overarching goals of preventing voter confusion and ensuring that the title of a proposed initiative adequately expresses the intended purpose of the initiative so that the voters, even if they are not familiar with the subject matter, can intelligently determine whether to support or oppose the proposed initiative. Robinson v. Dierking, 2016 CO 56, 413 P.3d 151.   A sufficiently clear title enables the electorate, whether familiar or unfamiliar with the subject matter of a particular proposal, to determine intelligently whether to support or oppose the proposal. In re Ballot Title 2011-2012 No. 45, 2012 CO 26, 274 P.3d 576.   Initiated measure's title, as set by review board, must be proper and fair and must correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the proposed measure. In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141 , 613 P.2d 867 (1980); In re Proposed Initiative on Parental Notification of Abortions for Minors, 794 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1990).   Ballot title shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the proposed measure and shall unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added, amended, or repealed. In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 No. 29, 972 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1999); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999).   The titles must be fair, clear, accurate, and complete, but they need not set out every detail of the initiative. Court reviews titles set by the board with great deference and will only reverse the board's decision if the titles are insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In re Ballot Title 2005-2006 No. 73, 135 P.3d 736 (Colo. 2006).   In fixing titles and summaries, the board's duty is to capture, in short form, the proposal in plain, understandable, accurate language enabling informed voter choice. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 29, 972 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1999); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Cl., & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 37, 977 P.2d 845 (Colo. 1999); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Cl., & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 38, 977 P.2d 849 (Colo. 1999).   It is not the court's function to write the best possible titles. Only if the Board's chosen language is clearly inaccurate or misleading will the court reverse it. Nor is it the court's function to speculate on the future effects the initiative may have if it is adopted. Whether the initiative will indeed have the effect claimed by petitioners is beyond the scope of the court's review. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 256, 12 P.3d 246 (Colo. 2000).   Title must clearly express the single subject of an initiative, correctly and fairly express the true meaning and intent of the initiative, enable the electorate, whether familiar or unfamiliar with the subject matter of a particular proposal, to determine intelligently whether to support or oppose the proposal, and be brief. The title board is given discretion in resolving interrelated problems of length, complexity, and clarity in designating a title and must summarize the central features of a proposed initiative fairly. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #315, 2020 CO 61, __ P.3d __.   Title board has considerable discretion in setting the title for a proposed initiative, the supreme court will employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the board's actions, and, when reviewing a title set by the board for clarity and accuracy, the court will reverse the board's actions only if the title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. Robinson v. Dierking, 2016 CO 56, 413 P.3d 151; In re Proposed Ballot Initiative 2019-2020 No. 3 “State Fiscal Policy”, 2019 CO 107, 454 P.3d 1056.   Title and summary fail to convey to voters the initiative's likely impact on state spending on state programs, therefore, they may not be presented to voters as currently written. Title and summary are not clear perhaps because the original text of the proposed initiative is difficult to comprehend. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Cl., & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 37, 977 P.2d 845 (Colo. 1999).   In approaching the question as to whether a title is a proper one, all legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of the propriety of an attorney general's actions. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958); Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Etc., 850 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1993).   And if reasonable minds may differ as to the sufficiency of a title, the title should be held to be sufficient. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   Only in a clear case should a title so prepared be held insufficient. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958).   Burden for invalidating an amendment because of an alleged misleading ballot title, after adoption by the people in a general election, is heavy since the general assembly has provided procedures for challenging a ballot title prior to elections. Unless the challengers to the amendment can prove that so many voters were actually misled by the title that the result of the election might have been different, the challenge will fail. City of Glendale v. Buchanan, 195 Colo. 267 , 578 P.2d 221 (1978).   And under the provisions of this section to the effect that an initiative petition shall contain a “submission clause” before being signed by electors, a petition which contains a ballot title together with the words “yes” and “no” and blank spaces opposite thereto, may be deemed to comply with the requirements of this section concerning submission clauses. Noland v. Hayward, 69 Colo. 181 , 192 P. 657 (1920) (decided under former law).   The board need not and cannot describe every feature of a proposed measure in the titles and submission clause. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning State Pers. Sys., 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1984); In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   To require an item by item paraphrase of the proposed constitutional amendment or statutory provision would undermine the intended relatively short and plain statement of the board that sets forth the central features of the initiative. The aim is to capture, succinctly and accurately, the initiative's plain language to enable informed voter choice. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 62, 961 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1998).   Title board not required to include every aspect of a proposal in the title and submission clause, to discuss every possible effect, or provide specific explanations of the measure. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(b), 245(c), 245(d), & 245(e), 1 P.3d 720 (Colo. 2000); In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(f) & 245(g), 1 P.3d 739 (Colo. 2000).   Board has discretion in resolving interrelated problems of length, complexity, and clarity in designating a title and ballot title and submission clause. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   The board is charged with the duty to act with utmost dedication to the goal of producing documents which will enable the electorate, whether familiar or unfamiliar with the subject matter of a particular proposal, to determine intelligently whether to support or oppose such a proposal. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning “State Personnel System”, 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1984); Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   Duty to voters is paramount. Board should not resolve all ambiguities in favor of proponents when to do so would come at the expense of other, equally important duties. Board is statutorily required to exercise its authority to protect against public confusion and reject an initiative that cannot be understood clearly enough to allow the setting of a clear title. In re Proposed Initiative 1999-2000 No. 25, 974 P.2d 458 (Colo. 1999).   The board must avoid titles for which a general understanding of a “yes” or “no” vote would be unclear. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning “Automobile Insurance Coverage,” 877 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1994).   Explanation of effect on existing law permitted. The board is not precluded from adopting language which explains to the signers of a petition and the voter how the initiative fits in the context of existing law, even though the specific language is not found in the text of the proposed statute. In re Title Pertaining to Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores, 646 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1982).   Although every possible effect need not be included. There is no requirement that every possible effect be included within the title or the ballot title and submission clause. In re Title Pertaining to Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores, 646 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1982); Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   And the board is not required to explain the relationship between the initiative and other statutes or constitutional provisions. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   In considering whether the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary accurately reflect the intent of the proposed initiative, it is appropriate to consider the testimony of the proponent concerning the intent of the proposed initiative that was offered at the public meeting at which the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary were set. In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Unsafe Workplace Env't, 830 P.2d 1031 (Colo. 1992).   Initiated measure's title will be rejected only if it is misleading, inaccurate, or fails to reflect the central features of the proposed initiative. Matter of Ballot Title 1997-98 No. 74, 962 P.2d 927 (Colo. 1998).   It is well established that the titles and summary of a proposed initiative need not spell out every detail of a proposed initiative in order to convey its meaning accurately and fairly. Matter of Ballot Title 1997-98 No. 74, 962 P.2d 927 (Colo. 1998).   In setting titles, the board must correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the proposed initiative and must consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(b), 245(c), 245(d), & 245(e), 1 P.3d 720 (Colo. 2000); In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(f) & 245(g), 1 P.3d 739 (Colo. 2000).   Title and summary are sufficient if a voter would not be confused about the nature of the initiative or its provisions regarding election information. Where the summary for an initiative concerning the procedures to be used to provide the public with information about a judge standing for a retention or removal election fully sets forth the information that will be provided to the public and discloses that no judicial performance commission reviews will be published, a voter would not be confused about the initiative or the provisions regarding election information. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999).   2. Titles Held Sufficient.   The adoption of article X, section 20 of the Colorado constitution does not obligate the board to disclose every ramification of a proposed tax measure. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   There is no requirement that the board state the effect an initiative will have on other constitutional and statutory provisions or describe every feature of a proposed measure in the titles. In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the Town of Burlington, 830 P.2d 1023 (Colo. 1992); In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in Manitou Springs, 826 P.2d 1241 (Colo. 1992); Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994); In re Petition on Campaign & Political Fin., 877 P.2d 311 (Colo. 1994).   Title was sufficient where it conveyed proposed initiative's singular purpose of providing a uniform definition of “fee” by repeating the language of the proposed definition. It was not necessary for the title to list every context in which the proposed definition might apply. In re Ballot Title 2013-2014 No. 129, 2014 CO 53, 333 P.3d 101.   Failure to mention existing similar statute of no effect. The failure to mention the existence of a statute addressing the same or similar subject as that of a proposed amendment does not have any effect on the acceptability of the titles, summary, and submission clause. In re Proposed Initiative on Transf. of Real Estate, 200 Colo. 40 , 611 P.2d 981 (1980).   No requirement that provisions of section to be repealed must be set out in the ballot title and submission clause. Matter of Proposed Constitutional Amendment, 757 P.2d 132 (Colo. 1988).   Brief title for measure to repeal a single complex constitutional provision can satisfy the clear title requirement. Title set for a proposed measure to repeal the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights as “an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, article X, section 20, of the Colorado constitution” satisfies the clear title requirement. The title clearly specifies the purpose of the measure and allows voters to determine intelligently whether to support it. Listing specific features of the provision being repealed would have made the title longer and more difficult to read, and picking and choosing which provisions to list would likely have led to contentions that the title is not impartial. “Taxpayer's Bill of Rights” is not a prohibited catchphrase because it does no more than invoke the name of the constitutional provision that the measure would repeal and properly and impartially explains to voters what the measure seeks to achieve. In re Proposed Ballot Initiative 2019-2020 No. 3 “State Fiscal Policy”, 2019 CO 107, 454 P.3d 1056 .   Where an initiative includes language that states, “This section was adopted by a vote of the people at the general election in 1998”, the title board need not include this language in the summary or title. The general assembly may amend or repeal statutory provisions regardless of whether they are voter approved or not. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Board had no duty to reveal in the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary the alleged irrepealability of initiative during a certain period where initiative did not state anywhere that it was “irrepealable” and petitioner failed to provide any evidence of proponent's intent to effect an irrepealability clause. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   Reference does not have to be made in the ballot title to the purpose of the initiative. The fact that disability benefits were to be provided at a reasonable cost to employers was not essential for title setting purposes. The title setting board is not required to describe every feature of a proposed measure in the title or submission clause. Matter of Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning the Fair Treatment of Injured Workers Amendment, 873 P.2d 718 (Colo. 1994).   Subsection (3)(b) requires that conflicting ballot titles distinguish between overlapping or conflicting proposals. Petitioners' claim that the board had erred by not specifying that the proposed amendment conflicted with the Workers' Choice of Care Amendment was rejected. The court held that there was no “discernible conflict” between the two ballot titles. Matter of Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning the Fair Treatment of Injured Workers Amendment, 873 P.2d 718 (Colo. 1994).   Board was not required to interpret meaning of two conflicting provisions in initiative or indicate whether they would conflict where two conflicting amendments may be proposed or even adopted at same election and where board disclosed both provisions in the title and submission clause. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   Although the texts of two initiatives are similar, the titles and submission clauses set by the board accurately reflect an important distinction between them. Voters comparing the titles and submission clauses for the two measures would be able to distinguish between the measures and would not be misled into voting for or against either measure by reason of the words chosen by the board. In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 877 P.2d 329 (Colo. 1994).   Although the first clause of the title for two conflicting measures is the same, the subsequent clauses are different and reflect the distinctions between the two measures; therefore, the titles of the two measures do not conflict. In re Ballot Title 2007-2008 No. 61, 184 P.3d 747 (Colo. 2008).   The title board's failure to include a reference to other related proposed initiatives in title and summary of initiative do not make them misleading. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Not specifying where gambling would be lawful or which city ordinances would be applicable was not essential to nor fatal to the title. Matter of the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1994).   It is not the function of the Board to disclose every possible interpretation of the language of the initiative. In re Prop. Init. “Fair Fishing”, 877 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1994).   The title, submission clause, and summary must reflect the intent of the initiative as drafted. They need not reflect intentions of the proponents that are not expressed in the measure itself. In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1994).   Board is not required to give opinion regarding ambiguity of a proposed initiative, nor is it necessary for the board to be concerned with legal issues which the proposed initiative may create. Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Etc., 797 P.2d 1275 (Colo. 1990).   Board is not required to consider and resolve potential or theoretical disputes or determine the meaning or application of proposed amendment. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   Board's duty is merely to summarize central features of initiated measure in the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary in a clear and concise manner. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   There is no requirement that ballot title and submission clause identify any articles or sections which are amended. Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Etc., 797 P.2d 1275 (Colo. 1990).   No clear case presented for the invalidation of titles fixed by the board where the wording of the titles attributes a meaning to the text that is reasonable, although nor free from all doubt, and relates to a feature of the proposed law that is both peripheral to its central purpose and of limited temporal relevance. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age, 691 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1984).   Titles were not insufficient for failure to contain the general subject matter of the proposed constitutional amendment or because the provisions of the proposed amendment were listed chronologically rather than in order of significance. Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   The fact that the ballot title contains two separate paragraphs that are not identical does not make the ballot title ambiguous for purposes of this section. The relevant determination is whether the two paragraphs are sufficiently different such that a voter reasonably could vote in favor of the question as presented in one paragraph and yet decide to vote against the question as presented in the other paragraph. It is implausible to suggest that a voter reasonably could have considered voting in favor of one paragraph in the ballot title and against the other paragraph where the only difference between the two paragraphs is that one paragraph is slightly more detailed than the other. Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215 (Colo. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1155, 115 S. Ct. 1112, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1076 (1995).   All three of the main tax issues were set forth in the title, submission clause, and summary with sufficient particularity to apprise voters that the proposed amendment would increase taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   It was within the board's discretion to omit information from the title or submission clause regarding the creation of a citizen's commission on tobacco and health and that spending categories and required appropriations contained in the proposed amendment could only be changed by a subsequent constitutional amendment since neither were central features to the proposal. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   Absence of definitions was distinguishable from situation in In re Proposed Initiative on Parental Notification of Abortions for Minors, 794 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1990), since although the definitions may have been broader than common usage in some respects and narrower in others, they appeared to be included for sake of brevity and they would not adopt a new or controversial legal standard which would be of significance to all concerned with the issues surrounding election reform. Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   The titles are not required to include definitions of terms unless the terms adopt a new or controversial legal standard that would be of significance to all concerned with the initiative. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   And the board is not usually required to define a term that is undefined in the proposed measure. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   A title and summary that repeat or reword much of the language of the proposed initiative and contain complex clauses are not insufficient if they fairly express the intent and meaning of the proposed initiative. Percy v. Hayes, 954 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1998).   Titles are fair, sufficient, and clear. Titles track the language of the proposed initiative. By using general language suggesting initiative limited to “tax or debt campaigns”, titles fairly put public on notice that provision applies to any election that affects taxes or the creation of public debt. Although titles do not mention “pass-through” or “pooling” provisions of proposed initiative, these provisions are not central features of the measure. Finally, because titles state that any election that violates provisions of the initiative is void, titles that fail to disclose that district must refund moneys collected in violation of initiative are not confusing, and voters would not be misled. In re Ballot Title 2005-2006 No. 73, 135 P.3d 736 (Colo. 2006).   Title is fair, clear, and accurate and includes the central features of the proposed initiative. In re Ballot Title 2007-2008 No. 57, 185 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2008); In re Ballot Title 2013-2014 No. 89, 2014 CO 66, 328 P.3d 172; In re Ballot Title 2013-2014 Nos. 90 & 93, 2014 CO 63, 328 P.3d 155.   Title clearly and fairly expressed single subject of the public's rights in the water of natural streams. In re Ballot Title 2011-2012 No. 3, 2012 CO 25, 274 P.3d 562.   Title satisfied the clear title requirement, even though it necessarily contained several terms of art due to the technical nature of state water law, because it expressly stated a single subject of public control of water and summarized clarifying provisions of the proposed initiative so that the voters could understand the initiative's purpose and substance. In re Ballot Title 2011-2012 No. 45, 2012 CO 26, 274 P.3d 576.   Where a measure includes both constitutional amendments and statutory changes, the title need not specifically indicate that a provision establishing a new sales tax on tobacco-derived nicotine vapor products is statutory rather than constitutional. Where the measure would also reallocate existing funding from several programs to a new preschool program, it was sufficient for the title board to summarize generally the category of programs from which funding would be reallocated rather than listing all of the programs or “key” programs. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #315, 2020 CO 61, __ P.3d __.   Title of initiative is not likely to mislead voters as to initiative's purpose or effect and does not conceal hidden intent. Whether initiative prevents the legislature from enacting certain laws or prohibits their enforcement is immaterial since the effect is the same and is clearly expressed in the title: No Colorado law that requires an individual to participate in a health care plan or prevents an individual from paying directly for health care services will be permissible under the state constitution. In re Title, Ballot Title, Sub. Cl. for 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2010).   3. Titles Held Insufficient.   A title and submission clause do not fairly and accurately reflect the intent and purpose of an initiative if the voters are not informed that the intent is to prevent the state courts from adopting a definition of obscenity that is broader than under the U.S. constitution. In re Proposed Initiative on “Obscenity”, 877 P.2d 848 (Colo. 1994).   Titles set by board create confusion and are misleading because they do not sufficiently inform the voter of the parental-waiver process and its virtual elimination of bilingual education as a viable parental and school district option. In re Ballot Titles 2001-02 No. 21 & No. 22, 44 P.3d 213 (Colo. 2002).   Illogical and inherently confusing title does not satisfy clear title requirement even if it substantially tracks the actual language of a proposed initiative and thus may faithfully express its intent. Where ballot title language suggested that a proposed initiative would prohibit the issuance of liquor licenses only to food stores that already have such licenses, voters would be confused as to the intent of the initiative and would be prevented from intelligently choosing whether to vote for or against it. Robinson v. Dierking, 2016 CO 56, 413 P.3d 151.   Failure of title, ballot title, and submission clause to include definition of abortion which would impose a new legal standard which is likely to be controversial made title, ballot title, and submission clause deficient in that they did not fully inform signers of initiative petitions and voters and did not fairly reflect the contents of the proposed initiative. In re Proposed Initiative on Parental Notification of Abortions for Minors, 794 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1990); In re Proposed Initiative Concerning “Automobile Insurance Coverage”, 877 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1994).   Titles set by the board were insufficient in that they did not state that the proposal would impose mandatory fines for willful violations of the campaign contribution and election reforms, they did not state that the proposal would prohibit certain campaign contributions from certain sources, they did not state that the proposal would make both procedural and substantive changes to the petition process, and they did not specifically list the changes to the numbers of seats in the house of representatives and the senate. Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   Ballot title was misleading because of the order in which the material was presented. The court held that in order to correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the initiative all provisions concerning the city of Antonito must be grouped together. Further, the board could arrange the title to reflect the subject matter at issue. Matter of the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1994).   Repetition of the language from the initiative itself in the title and submission clause does not necessarily ensure that the voters will be apprised of the true intent and purpose of the initiative. In re Proposed Initiative on “Obscenity”, 877 P.2d 848 (Colo. 1994); In re Ballot Titles 2001-02 No. 21 & No. 22, 44 P.3d 213 (Colo. 2002).   Where the board deferred to the proponents' statements of intent and attempted to set a title reflective of such intent, but the record showed that the board itself did not fully understand the measure, title was not sufficiently clear and board was directed to strike the title and return the measure to the proponents. In re Proposed Initiative 1999-2000 No. 25, 974 P.2d 458 (Colo. 1999).   Ballot title found insufficient. The title “Petition Procedures” fails to convey the fact that the initiative would create numerous “fundamental rights” retroactively to 1990 unrelated to procedural changes. Amendment to Const. Section 2 to Art. VII, 900 P.2d 104 (Colo. 1995).   Title was so general that it did not contain sufficient information to enable voters to determine intelligently whether to support or oppose the initiative as required under subsection (3)(b). Additionally, the title was misleading because it included one category of persons barred from holding office, but omitted another category of such persons. Last, the title unnecessarily stated existing law. Matter of Title, Ballot Title, & Sub. Clause for 2015-2016 No. 73, 2016 CO 24, 369 P.3d 565.   Ballot title found insufficient and misleading. In re Tax Reform, 797 P.2d 1283 (Colo. 1990).   In a proceeding involving the sufficiency of a ballot title and submission clause for a proposed initiative amendment to the state constitution, it was held that the title as fixed by the statutory board was deficient as indicated, and the title was amended in conformity with a stipulation of the parties, and as amended, approved. Jennings v. Morrison, 117 Colo. 363 , 187 P.2d 930 (1947).   Title was misleading as to the true intent and meaning of the proposed initiative where the title and summary did not contain any indication that the geographic area affected would have been limited, and therefore there would be a significant risk that voters statewide would have misperceived the scope of the proposed initiative. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1996-17, 920 P.2d 798 (Colo. 1996).   Title was misleading because combination of language specifying that parents of non-English speaking children could opt out of an English immersion program in favor of a bilingual education program and lack of language specifying that school districts would be prohibited from requiring schools to offer bilingual education programs had the potential to mislead voters into thinking parents would have a choice between English immersion and bilingual education programs when bilingual programs actually might not be available in many instances. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 258(A), 4 P.3d 1094 (Colo. 2000).   Title board directed on remand to fix the ballot title and submission clause of proposed initiatives where the language of the designated titles is inconsistent with their summaries. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(b), 245(c), 245(d), & 245(e), 1 P.3d 720 (Colo. 2000).   The title and summary on an initiative concerning judicial personnel held unclear. Title and summary contain contradictory language regarding the definition of personnel, and a voter would not be able to determine which judicial personnel were included in the initiative. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999).   The title and summary on an initiative concerning the procedure used to remove a judge held unclear. Language in the summary, which was repeated verbatim from the language of the initiative but was not explained or analyzed in the summary, creates confusion and ambiguity and is therefore insufficient. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999).   B. Submission Clause.   To submit means to present and leave to the judgment of the qualified voters. Noland v. Hayward, 69 Colo. 181 , 192 P. 657 (1920).   The submission clause is the one that appears on the ballot at the election and upon which the electorate may vote for or against the proposed amendment. Dye v. Baker, 143 Colo. 458 , 354 P.2d 498 (1960); Henry v. Baker, 143 Colo. 461 , 354 P.2d 490 (1960).   But the expression “submission clause” was used in referring to a ballot title or to the matter which went upon the ballot and which was before the electors at the time they cast their respective votes for or against the initiated measure. In People ex rel. Moore v. Perkins, 56 Colo. 17 , 137 P. 55 (1913).   Nevertheless, it should 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 , 354 P.2d 498 (1960).   C. Catch Phrases.   “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 statutory board in writing a ballot title and submission clause. Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 (1958); Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   The title board should avoid the use of catch phrases or slogans in the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary of proposed initiatives. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 258(A), 4 P.3d 1094 (Colo. 2000).   “Catch phrases” are forbidden in ballot titles. Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   And where a catch phrase was used in the submission clause by the statutory board in fixing a submission clause and ballot title to a proposed constitutional amendment, the supreme court, on review, remanded the matter to the board with instruction to revise the submission clause by elimination of the catch phrase. Henry v. Baker, 143 Colo. 461 , 354 P.2d 490 (1960); Dye v. Baker, 143 Colo. 458 , 354 P.2d 498 (1960).   Words “rapidly and effectively as possible” are a prohibited “catch phrase” because they mask the policy question of whether the most rapid and effective way to teach English to non-English speaking children is through an English immersion program and tip the substantive debate surrounding the issue to be submitted to the electorate. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 258(A), 4 P.3d 1094 (Colo. 2000).   The words “adjusted net proceeds” and “adjusted gross proceeds” are not prohibited “catch phrases”. The fact that such phrases were not defined in the initiative reflected the proponent's intent that the legislature interpret their meaning. Matter of the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1994).   The phrase “be on” the water is not misleading and is sufficiently clear. In Re Prop. Init. “Fair Fishing”, 877 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1994).   Because the proposed amendment contains no definition of the term “strong public trust doctrine”, such a definition must await future judicial construction and cannot appropriately be included in the title or submission clause. In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1994).   The phrase “refund to taxpayers” is not an inherently prohibited catch phrase. The term “refund” may be characterized inaccurately when read in isolation. When read in the context in which the term is used in the titles and summary and in the proposed initiative, however, the special sense of “refund” is adequately clarified. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Deterioration of a group of terms into an impermissible catch phrase is an imprecise process. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Use of the phrase “to preserve . . . the social institution of marriage” in titles and summaries of measures to recognize marriage between a man and a woman as valid does not constitute an impermissible catch phrase that may create prejudice in violation of this section. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 227 & 228, 3 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2000).   The phrase “concerning the management of growth” is neutral, with none of the hallmarks that have characterized catch phrases in the past. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 256, 12 P.3d 246 (Colo. 2000).   “Term limits” is not a catch phrase. In re Ballot Title 2005-2006 No. 75, 138 P.3d 267 (Colo. 2006).   “Criminal conduct” is not a catch phrase. The phrase does not contain an appeal to emotion that would prejudice a vote; it is simply a descriptive term. In re Ballot Title 2007-2008 No. 57, 185 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2008).   “Right of health care choice” is not an impermissible catch phrase. The phrase is a descriptive term that presents the issue to voters in a straightforward manner, and though somewhat generic, the phrase is followed directly by language in the title that clarifies and narrows its meaning. In re Title, Ballot Title, Sub. Cl. for 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2010).   The phrase “statewide setback” is not an impermissible catch phrase. It tracks the language of the text of the proposed initiative, it is merely descriptive, and it neither evokes emotion nor engenders voter confusion. In re Ballot Title 2013-2014 Nos. 85, 86, 87, 2014 CO 62, 328 P.3d 136.   The terms “healthy environment” and “fundamental right” are not impermissible catch phrases because they accurately describe the right that the initiative seeks to create and do not improperly distract voters or appeal to their emotions. In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause for 2015-2016 No. 63, 2016 CO 34, 370 P.3d 628.   The phrase “Taxpayer's Bill of Rights” is not a prohibited catchphrase because it does no more than invoke the name of the constitutional provision that the measure would repeal and properly and impartially explains to voters what the measure seeks to achieve. In re Proposed Ballot Initiative 2019-2020 No. 3 “State Fiscal Policy”, 2019 CO 107, 454 P.3d 1056.   D. When Ballot Title and Submission Clause Fixed.    The titles and submission clause of an initiated measure were fixed and determined within the meaning of this section on the date that the three designated officials convened and fixed a title, ballot title and submission clause, and not on the date that the right of appeal from their decision expired. Baker v. Bosworth, 122 Colo. 356 , 222 P.2d 416 (1950).   E. Brevity Required.   Ballot title and submission clause of proposed initiative measure must be brief. In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141 , 613 P.2d 867 (1980).   The board is given considerable discretion in resolving the interrelated problems of length, complexity, and clarity in designating a title and submission clause. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1984); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   If a choice must be made between brevity and a fair description of essential features of a proposal, where a complex measure embracing many different topics is involved and the titles and summary cannot be abbreviated by omitting references to the measure's salient features, the decision must be made in favor of full disclosure to the registered electors. Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   Ballot title and submission clause did not comply with the brevity requirement where the ballot title and submission clause for proposed constitutional amendment, as fixed by the administrative board, contained 369 words while the proposed amendment itself contained but 505 words. Cook v. Baker, 121 Colo. 187 , 214 P.2d 787 (1950).   F. Scope of Review.   The court's scope of review is limited to ensuring that the title, ballot title and submission clause and summary fairly reflect the proposed initiative so that petition signers and voters will not be misled. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   There is a presumption in favor of decisions made by the title board. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Board's actions are presumptively valid, and this presumption precludes the court from second-guessing every decision the board makes in setting a title. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 235(a), 3 P.3d 1219 (Colo. 2000).   The court gives great deference to the board's drafting authority. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 80, 961 P.2d 1120 (Colo. 1998); In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   It is not the function of the court to rewrite the titles and summary to achieve the best possible statement of the proposed measure's intent, and the court will reverse the board's action in setting the titles only when the language chosen is clearly misleading. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   While subsection (3)(b) requires that the title “correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning” of the initiative, it is not the court's role to rephrase the language adopted by the board to obtain the most precise and exact title. Matter of Increase of Taxes on Tob. Prod. Initiative, 756 P.2d 995 (Colo. 1988); In re Ballot Title 2007-2008 No. 61, 184 P.3d 747 (Colo. 2008).   The title board's function is extremely important in light of the court's limited scope of review of the board's actions, and the court will not address the merits of a proposed initiative, interpret its language, or predict its application. In re Proposed Election Reform Amend., 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993); In re Proposed Initiative on Fair Treatment of Injured Workers, 873 P.2d 718 (Colo. 1994); In re Petition on Campaign & Political Fin., 877 P.2d 311 (Colo. 1994); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & Sub. Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 No. 104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999).   Court will not rewrite the titles or submission clause for the board. Also, the court will reverse the board's action in preparing the title or submission clause only if the title and submission clause contain a material omission, misstatement, or misrepresentation. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 62, 961 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1998); In re Ballot Title 1990-2000 No. 29, 972 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1999).   Not within the purview of the court to determine the efficacy, construction, or future application of an initiative in the process of reviewing the action of the title board in setting titles for a proposed initiative. Such matters are more appropriately addressed in a proper case if the voters approve the initiative. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 235(a), 3 P.3d 1219 (Colo. 2000).   Upon review, supreme court treats actions of board as presumptively valid. Supreme court will not address the merits of a proposed initiative, interpret its language, or predict its application. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(b), 245(c), 245(d), & 245(e), 1 P.3d 720 (Colo. 2000); In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(f) & 245(g), 1 P.3d 739 (Colo. 2000).   Title board has considerable discretion in setting the titles for a ballot initiative, the supreme court will employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the board's actions, and the board's designation of a title will only be reversed if the title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In re Ballot Title 2011-2012 No. 3, 2012 CO 25, 274 P.3d 562.   Presumption of validity precludes supreme court from second-guessing every decision board makes in setting titles. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(b), 245(c), 245(d), & 245(e), 1 P.3d 720 (Colo. 2000); In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 Nos. 245(f) & 245(g), 1 P.3d 739 (Colo. 2000).   The title board need not set the best possible title. The supreme court affords the title board great deference in the exercise of its drafting authority and will reverse the title board's decision in setting a title only if the title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In re Ballot Title 2011-2012 No. 45, 2012 CO 26, 274 P.3d 576.   Supreme court's review of title board's actions is limited, and the court will not address the merits of a proposed initiative or construe the future legal effects of an initiative. The court will, however, when necessary, characterize a proposal sufficiently to enable review of the board's actions and to determine whether the initiative contains incongruous or hidden purposes or bundles incongruous measures under a broad theme. In re Ballot Title 2005-2006 No. 55, 138 P.3d 273 (Colo. 2006).   V. SUMMARY AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT.    Impartiality required in summary. The summary prepared by the board must be true and impartial statement of intent of proposed law and must not be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the measure. In re Branch Banking Initiative, 200 Colo. 85 , 612 P.2d 96 (1980); In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141 , 613 P.2d 867 (1980); Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   And summary is to include estimate of any fiscal impact upon the state or any of its political subdivisions with an explanation thereof. In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141 , 613 P.2d 867 (1980); Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   Unless fiscal impact cannot be determined. Where the fiscal impact upon local government could not be determined because of the variables involved, a definitive statement concerning fiscal impact is not required. Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   School districts and school boards are “political subdivisions of the state” as to which fiscal impact is to be estimated. Matter of Title Concerning Sch. Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1998).   Purpose of including fiscal impact statement in the summary is to inform the electorate of fiscal implications of proposed measure. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   In formulating a fiscal impact statement, the board is not limited to information submitted by the department of local affairs or the office of state planning and budgeting. Nor is the board required to accept at face value the information provided to it. Percy v. Hayes, 954 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1998).   Faced with conflicting evidence regarding the fiscal impact, the board's determination that the proposed measure “may” have a negative fiscal impact on certain local governments was consistent with its statutory authority. Percy v. Hayes, 954 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1998).   The fiscal impact statement was adequate, and the title board was within its discretion in not speculating in that statement about whether the transportation commission would impose tolls. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 10, 943 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1997).   The fiscal impact statement adequately described impact because it estimated current costs, included a one time cost for a water pump prior to the effective date of the initiative, included no speculation of the water district's obligation to the department of wildlife for fish and wildlife expenses, and provided an estimate for possible litigation costs because of the measure. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Fiscal impact statement not incomplete or inaccurate because it did not include any long range estimate of the costs of elections through the year 2013. The title board was not required to provide a further elaboration of the costs through the year 2013, even though the department of local affairs presented an estimate in a letter. The board had discretion to omit the estimate from the fiscal impact statement. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   The board is not required to determine the exact fiscal impact of each proposed measure; if the board finds that the proposed initiative will have a fiscal impact on the state or any of its political subdivisions, the summary must include an estimate and explanation. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   The board may properly exercise its judgment in concluding that the fiscal impact upon local government cannot be determined because of the variables involved. In re Title Pertaining to Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores, 646 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1982); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   The board may properly find that certain costs are indeterminate because of the variables and uncertainties involved. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255, 4 P.3d 485 (Colo. 2000).   The title board is not required to spell out every detail of a proposed initiative in order to convey its meaning accurately and fairly. Only where the language chosen is clearly misleading will the court revise the title board's formulation. Matter of Ballot Title 1997-98 No. 74, 962 P.2d 927 (Colo. 1998).   Omission of a sentence describing the proposed initiative's legislative declaration does not render the summary clearly misleading to the electorate. In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 265, 3 P.3d 1210 (Colo. 2000).   A separate explanation of the fiscal impact of a measure is not required when the fiscal impact cannot be reasonably determined from the materials submitted to the board due to the variables or uncertainties inherent in the particular issue. In re Title Pertaining to Tax Reform, 797 P.2d 1283 (Colo. 1990); Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994); In re Proposed Initiative on “Trespass - Streams With Flowing Water”, 910 P.2d 21 (Colo. 1996); Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 10, 943 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1997).   Given the disparate conclusions regarding the fiscal impact of the measure, the board acted within its authority in making the decision to include in the summary the statement that the net effect of the changes on state or local governments was not known. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 872 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1994).   If provisions of measure do not produce a separate and conflicting impact and the aggregate impact is known, each provision of the proposed amendment need not be addressed individually in the statement of fiscal impact. Where the board cannot determine the aggregate fiscal impact of a proposed measure, but has adequate information to assess the impact of a particular provision, the board should state with specificity which provision will have fiscal impacts that are capable of being estimated and which are truly indeterminate. In re Petition on Campaign & Political Fin., 877 P.2d 311 (Colo. 1994).   Explanation of fiscal impact not required given the complexity of the issues and uncertainty expressed by the department of revenue. The board's conclusion that the fiscal impact was indeterminate was reasonable. Matter of the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1994).   Lack of specificity held justified. The Board has no independent fact-finding ability and its choice of language was judicious and within its authority. The fiscal impact could not reasonably be determined because of inherent uncertainties in the text of the amendment. In Re Prop. Init. “Fair Fishing”, 877 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1994).   Statement of fiscal impact was insufficient since, although the board was not required to include a definitive estimate of any fiscal impact on the state or its political subdivisions when that impact cannot be determined because of the variables involved, where the indeterminacy resulted from the multitude of provisions having separate and sometimes conflicting fiscal impacts producing an indeterminate aggregate impact and the board had sufficient information to assess the fiscal impact of each provision in isolation, the board should state with specificity which provisions will have fiscal impacts which are capable of being estimated, and which are truly indeterminate. Matter of Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).   Board has discretion in exercising its judgment in how to best communicate that a proposed measure will have a fiscal impact on government without creating prejudice for or against the measure. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   Statement of fiscal impact was insufficient where it did not include estimates of the initiative's impact on school boards. Matter of Title Concerning Sch. Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1998).   Fiscal impact statement was inaccurate description of the fiscal impact of initiative where the office of state planning and budgeting prepared two cost estimates based on two possible scenarios. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1996-17, 920 P.2d 798 (Colo. 1996).   Request for agency assistance at board's discretion. The decision of whether and from which of the two state agencies to request information is within the discretion of the board. Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).   Summary need not mention the effect of the amendment on an existing statute addressing the same or a similar subject as the proposed amendment. In re Mineral Prod. Tax Initiative, 644 P.2d 20 (Colo. 1982).   Board is not required to explain meaning or potential effects of proposed initiative on the present statutory scheme in the summary. Matter of Title, Ballot Title & S. Clause, 875 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).   The board is not required to provide lengthy explanations of every portion of a proposed constitutional amendment as overly detailed titles and submission clauses could by their very length confuse voters. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1984).   Mere ambiguity of a summary, if not clearly misleading, does not require disapproval by court. In re Proposed Initiative Concerning State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1984).   Board may be challenged when misleading summary of amendment prejudicial. A misleading summary of the fiscal impact of a proposed amendment is likely to create an unfair prejudice against the measure and is a sufficient basis, under this section, for challenging the board's action. In re An Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 199 Colo. 409 , 609 P.2d 631 (1980).   The titles and summary were not misleading since they tracked the language of the initiative, and any problems in the interpretation of the measure or its constitutionality were beyond the functions assigned to the title board and outside the scope of the court's review of the title board's actions. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 10, 943 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1997).   Proposed initiative violates the single-subject requirement because it (1) provides for tax cuts and (2) imposes mandatory reductions in state spending on state programs. Matter of Proposed Initiative 1997-98 No. 86, 962 P.2d 245 (Colo. 1998).   Use of the word “of” in the initiative summary instead of the word “by” does not create confusion on how directors of a board are selected. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Failure of title and summary to specify which taxpayers would receive a refund if one is necessary does not render the title or summary confusing. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).   Title summary not misleading because it identified uncertainties of the effect of the measure by noting that a surplus may be created by the payments under the initiative and any surplus may be refunded to the taxpayers under TABOR, article X, § 20, of the Colorado Constitution. Matter of Title, Ballot Title for 1997-98 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092 (Colo. 1998).