Opinion ID: 2633618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Allegedly misleading signature-gathering

Text: The initiative's opponents maintain that, when gathering signatures for the proposed measure, its proponents misinformed voters about what types of bars and taverns would be covered because, according to them, the meaning of the phrase stand-alone bar is not self-evident but instead is buried in the measure's text. [31] The opponents' argument is based on language in Stumpf. In that case, the initiative's opponents argued that because the petition contained no enacting language, a signer could not determine what type of initiative was being proposed, i.e., a statute or a constitutional amendment. While some promotional materials indicated that a constitutional amendment was intended, the initiative itself never mentioned the constitution. Stumpf determined that absent such language, signers were not adequately informed of the nature and purpose of the initiative, and thus the measure should be removed from the ballot. [32] Here, the opponents' argument strains Stumpf 's language. In contrast to the Stumpf initiative, the NCIAA's title clearly states that the measure's purpose is to prohibit smoking in most public places, with the exception of casinos and stand-alone bars. If a signer questioned the phrase's meaning, he or she had only to read the one-and-a-half page initiative itself to find the definition, which was set forth in the text. Also, the imprecision in Stumpf concerned the fundamental matter of whether a statute or a constitutional amendment was proposed; here, the initiative's primary purpose of enacting a statute to prohibit smoking in most public places is clear. In this regard, the Colorado Supreme Court has opined that a ballot measure's summary and title need not be the best possible statement of a proposed measure's intent or address every aspect of a proposal. [33] Rather, the purpose is to `present straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative titles and summaries.' [34] In order to clarify the NCIAA's coverage with respect to bars, we direct the Secretary of State to clearly indicate that the measure covers all bars with food-handling licenses in his explanation and condensation, which will accompany the initiative. [35] Additionally, the opposition committee preparing the arguments and rebuttal against the initiative, which will also accompany the measure on the ballot, may point out its broad coverage of bars. Amici curiae make a similar argument based on the district court's conclusion that the measure would encompass hotel and motel rooms. Specifically, amici curiae contend that since the initiative's proponents consistently indicated that hotel and motel rooms were not included in the smoking ban, the measure's title is unconstitutionally misleading in light of the district court's conclusion that these rooms are included. We need not consider amici curiae's hotel/motel room argument, however, because the district court lacked authority at the preelection stage to interpret the proposal to include hotel and motel rooms. Just as substantive constitutional arguments, which generally must be evaluated in the context of a concrete factual situation, are improperly considered before an initiative becomes law, so did the district court improperly attempt to apply the measure to a hypothetical set of facts. Essentially, the district court's determination was an improper advisory opinion. [36] Thus, it is void. If the measure passes, then it may be applied and interpreted according to well-settled rules of statutory construction. [37]