Opinion ID: 2609362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: effect of referendum c

Text: After we announced our decision in Reale, the people of the state voted to amend the Colorado Constitution to vest the General Assembly with authority to establish qualifications for the office of county sheriff. See Colo. Const. art. XIV, § 8.5 (1996) (Referendum C). The State argues that we should construe Referendum C to apply retroactively in order to cure the constitutional infirmities in the predecessor training statute. We decline to give Referendum C retroactive effect because its language does not indicate an intent to apply its provisions retroactively. As a general rule, retroactive application of the law is highly disfavored. See In re Great Outdoors Colo. Trust Fund, 913 P.2d 533, 539 (Colo.1996). Unless the language of a constitutional amendment manifests an intent to make its provisions retroactive in operation, we must presume that the amendment only has prospective application. See Bolt v. Arapahoe County Sch. Dist. No. Six, 898 P.2d 525, 533 (Colo.1995); People v. Elliott, 186 Colo. 65, 68, 525 P.2d 457, 458 (1974). We therefore examine the language of Referendum C to determine whether it manifests an intent to apply retroactively. In its entirety, Referendum C reads: The general assembly shall have the authority to establish by law qualifications for the office of county sheriff, including but not limited to, training and certification requirements. Colo. Const. art. XIV, § 8.5 (emphasis added). This language does not expressly refer to the predecessor training statute, nor does it indicate an intent that the reenacted training statute should apply retroactively. The term shall appears within the phrase vesting the General Assembly with authority to establish qualifications for county sheriffs. Absent words evincing a contrary intent, use of the word `shall' generally refers to future events. See Jones v. Stockgrowers' Nat'l Bank of Pueblo, 17 Colo. App. 79, 84, 67 P. 177, 179 (1901) (The word `shall,' in its common and ordinary usage, unless accompanied by qualifying words which show a contrary intent, always refers to the future.). By its own words, Referendum C vests the General Assembly with the authority to act prospectively. Thus, we hold that Referendum C does not retroactively remedy the constitutional infirmity of the predecessor training statute.