Opinion ID: 2629155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Board's Authority to Refer a Term Limits Measure to the Voters of the Tenth Judicial District

Text: Section 11(2) allows for the voters of any political subdivision to lengthen, shorten or eliminate the limitation on terms of office imposed by this Section 11. Thus, the voters of the Tenth Judicial District unquestionably had the power to eliminate term limits for the office of district attorney. However, that is not the question before us today. Section 11 is silent as to how the voters of a political subdivision may exercise this power. Thus, the question before us is whether section 11 is self-executing, requiring no further action by the legislature to implement its provisions. If it is self-executing, we must also answer how section 11(2) is to be implemented with respect to district attorneys. In other words, we must decide whether the Board had the authority to refer a measure on term limits to the voters of the Tenth Judicial District. Determination of this issue is further complicated by the fact that most judicial districts are not comprised of a single county. Thus, if the Board had the authority to refer such a measure, we must also determine the mechanism by which multi-county judicial districts may vote on similar measures. [8] We hold that section 11 is entirely self-executing, and that the Board had the implied authority to refer a term limits measure to the voters of the Tenth Judicial District. We further hold that for a term limits measure in a multi-county judicial district, the board of county commissioners for each county comprising the judicial district must refer a measure to their voters. A constitutional provision is self-executing when the provision appears to take immediate effect and no further action by the legislature is required to implement the right given. Town of Lyons v. City of Longmont, 54 Colo. 112, 117, 129 P. 198, 200 (1913). Thus, we have said that if a constitutional provision is complete in itself, it executes itself. Id. Other states have applied similar tests. E.g., Chesney v. Byram, 15 Cal.2d 460, 101 P.2d 1106, 1107 (1940) ([T]he constitutional provision ... is self-executing;... it required no legislative enactment to put it into effect.); State ex rel. Russell v. Bliss, 156 Ohio St. 147, 101 N.E.2d 289, 291 (1951) ([A] constitutional provision is self-executing if there is nothing to be done by the legislature to put it in operation.). Ultimately, the question of whether a constitutional provision is self-executing is one of intent. E.g., Rockefeller v. Hogue, 244 Ark. 1029, 429 S.W.2d 85, 90 (1968) (noting that the controlling [test] is whether the people, in adopting this section, intended that it be self-executing); Wolverine Golf Club v. Hare, 24 Mich.App. 711, 180 N.W.2d 820, 827 (1970) (declaring that [t]he question whether a constitutional provision is self-executing is ultimately one of intention of the framers of the constitution), aff'd, 384 Mich. 461, 185 N.W.2d 392 (1971). Constitutional provisions are presumed to be self-executing. E.g., Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960) (noting that the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating); Russell, 101 N.E.2d at 291 (stating that the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing); Beatty v. Wittekamp, 171 S.C. 326, 172 S.E. 122, 125 (1933) (declaring that [t]he general presumption of law is that all constitutional provisions are self-executing); see generally 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 100 (1998). This presumption is even more appropriate when considering initiated amendments. Rockefeller, 429 S.W.2d at 88 (The impact of this presumption should be especially great where the provision in question was initiated by the people.). The provision in question may still be self-executing even though further legislation may clarify or facilitate the execution of the provision. [9] See Yenter v. Baker, 126 Colo. 232, 237, 248 P.2d 311, 314 (1952) (noting that legislation is permissible if it furthers the purpose or facilitates the enforcement of a self-executing constitutional provision). A provision that is self-executing must be obeyed unless obedience is impossible. People v. Bradley, 66 Colo. 186, 188, 179 P. 871, 872 (1919) (emphasis added). Section 11(2) states that [t]he voters of any such political subdivision may lengthen, shorten or eliminate the limitations on terms of office imposed by this Section 11. The provision does not call for any further action by the legislature. Cf. People v. Lindsley, 37 Colo. 476, 479-80, 86 P. 352, 352-53 (1906) (finding that further action was required by the legislature because while the amendment in question created the office of county attorney, it indicated that the office may be elected or appointed, as shall be provided by law ) (emphasis added). Indeed, nothing in the language of the amendment or in the history of term limits in general in Colorado indicates an intent on the part of the voters to require further action by the legislature for implementation of section 11(2). Thus, the presumption in favor of self-execution is not overcome. The people of Colorado clearly intended to grant themselves the power to modify the term limits of those officials covered under section 11(1) without further action by the legislature. We therefore hold that the powers granted under section 11(2) are intended to be self-executing. However, our inquiry does not end here. Section 11(2) expresses no mechanism by which it may be implemented. We must therefore determine precisely how section 11(2) executes itself with respect to district attorneys. Only if implementation is impossible will we find that it is not self-executing. Bradley, 66 Colo. at 188, 179 P. at 872. We hold that implementation of 11(2) is not impossible, and that in the absence of more explicit statutory procedures, the voters of Colorado impliedly authorized the boards of county commissioners to refer term limits measures regarding district attorneys to the voters of their respective judicial districts. [10] The voters of Colorado reserved to themselves the right to modify or abolish the term limits imposed under section 11(1), and the voters of the Tenth Judicial District voted to eliminate term limits for their district attorney. [T]he right to vote is a fundamental right of the first order. Erickson v. Blair, 670 P.2d 749, 754 (Colo.1983). Absent a showing of fraud, undue influence, or intentional wrongdoing, the court should be wary of invalidating election results: `The right to vote is the right to participate; it is also the right to speak, but more importantly the right to be heard. We must tread carefully on that right or we risk the unnecessary and unjustified muting of the public voice. By refusing to recognize an otherwise valid exercise of the right of a citizen to vote for the sake of sacred, unyielding adherence to statutory scripture, we would in effect nullify that right.' Id. (quoting Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So.2d 259, 263 (Fla.1975)). An election should not be enjoined or invalidated unless the true will of the voting public [is not] reflected, or... a statutory requirement has not been substantially complied with by those responsible for calling, scheduling, and conducting the election. Crowe v. Wheeler, 165 Colo. 289, 294, 439 P.2d 50, 52 (1968). It appears indisputable to us that the true will of the electors of the Tenth Judicial District is reflected in their vote to eliminate term limits for the district attorney of the Tenth Judicial District, a right they had reserved to themselves. Furthermore, no allegations of electoral impropriety have been made. Thus, we are left solely with the question of whether the Board is responsible for calling such an election. District attorneys and judicial districts do not have a clearly identified governing body explicitly authorized to call elections. Colo. Const. art. VI, §§ 10, 13; § 1-1-104(18), 1 C.R.S. (2003). Furthermore, district attorneys and their employees are not county employees. Anderson v. Adams County, 41 Colo.App. 441, 443, 592 P.2d 3, 4 (1978). However, the business of the district attorney is intertwined with the business of the county. [11] The counties of a judicial district are responsible for funding both the expenses of the district attorney's office and a portion of the district attorney's salary. §§ 20-1-302, 306, 6 C.R.S. (2003). The counties of a judicial district are also entirely responsible for funding any employees of the district attorney's office. §§ 20-1-208, 209, 6 C.R.S. (2003). The board of county commissioners retains the exclusive power to adopt an annual budget which is binding upon the district attorney and presumptively valid. Beacom v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 657 P.2d 440, 445 (Colo.1983). The board of county commissioners is thus the governing body of the district attorney for the limited purposes of adopting the district attorney's budget. See id.; §§ 29-1-102(13), 103, 104, 9 C.R.S. (2003); § 30-11-107(2), 9 C.R.S. (2003). The county is also required to provide a suitable courthouse and security for that courthouse. § 30-11-104(1)(a), 9 C.R.S. (2003); State v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 897 P.2d 788, 789 (Colo.1995). The county is given the power of eminent domain to acquire land or buildings necessary for the provision of court and district attorney facilities. § 30-11-104(2), 9 C.R.S. (2003). The district attorney is required to appear on behalf of the counties of his district, § 20-1-102, 6 C.R.S. (2003); to provide opinions on matters of law to county officers, § 20-1-105(1), 6 C.R.S. (2003); and to represent, upon request by the board of county commissioners, any county officer in any civil matter directly related to that officer's official duties, id. at § 105(2). Thus, in many respects, the business of the district attorney is the business of the county and the board of county commissioners, even if the board of county commissioners does not directly supervise the district attorney. A board of county commissioners has authority to refer measures to its electors as authorized by statute or the constitution. § 30-11-103.5, 9 C.R.S. (2003). Although some judicial districts span more than one county, the electors of a county are all electors of the same judicial district. See Colo. Const. art. VI, § 10(1). The voters of Colorado reserved to themselves the right to modify term limits for all officials covered under section 11(1), including term limits of district attorneys, and intended section 11(2) to be self-executing. However, no explicit statutory mechanism exists for the voters of a judicial district to modify term limits of district attorneys. In consideration of the importance of implementing the intent of the voters who initiated the amendment unless such implementation is impossible, and in the absence of an explicit statutory mechanism, we therefore hold that the voters impliedly authorized the boards of county commissioners to refer such term limits measures to the voters of their respective judicial districts. For judicial districts that span more than one county, the board of county commissioners of each county must refer a measure to their voters. We are mindful that our holding here today is one of first impression. However, any other holding would exalt form over substance, and would frustrate not only the intent of the voters of the Tenth Judicial District regarding the measure before us today, but also the intent of the people of Colorado in enacting section 11. The people of Colorado clearly intended to reserve the power to lengthen, shorten, or eliminate term limits for all officials covered under section 11(1), without the need for further legislative action. Our holding today serves to effectuate that intent. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.