Opinion ID: 2629155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Districts Are Political Subdivisions of the State

Text: Having concluded that a district attorney is a nonjudicial elected official, we must also determine whether judicial districts are political subdivisions of the state. [6] The sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary defines political subdivision as [a] division of the state ... for purposes of carrying out a portion of those functions of a state which by long usage and inherent necessities of government have always been regarded as public. Black's Law Dictionary 1159 (6th ed.1991). Judicial districts and district attorneys undoubtedly carry out functions which have always been regarded as public. A more recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary defines political subdivision more narrowly: A division of a state that exists primarily to discharge some function of local government. Black's Law Dictionary 1179 (7th ed.1999). We hold that by its plain meaning under either definition, any other political subdivision encompasses judicial districts. Each judicial district represents a finite geographical area, and exists to provide judicial services to residents of that district or those who have transacted business in that district. Colo. Const. art. VI, §§ 9-10. A district attorney is empowered to appear in behalf of the state and the several counties of his district in any proceeding in district court  in any county within his district wherein the state or the people thereof or any county of his district may be a party. § 20-1-102(1)(a), 6 C.R.S. (2003) (emphasis added). A district attorney is also empowered to advise and represent county officers within his district. See § 20-1-105, 6 C.R.S. (2003). Although district attorneys are state officers charged with prosecuting violations of state law, see Beacom v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 657 P.2d 440, 445 (Colo. 1983); § 20-1-102, 6 C.R.S. (2003), they are elected solely by the voters of their judicial district. Colo. Const. art. VI, § 13. Other than impeachment and removal by the General Assembly, see People v. Losavio, 199 Colo. 212, 606 P.2d 856, 858 (1980), district attorneys answer only to the voters in their judicial district. Thus, they exhibit a fundamental characteristic of a political subdivision-political control by some community other than the state as a whole. Sturdevant v. Paulsen, 218 F.3d 1160, 1170 (10th Cir.2000). We therefore hold that the plain meaning of any other political subdivision in section 11 encompasses judicial districts. Sandstrom argues that judicial districts are not included under the phrase any other political subdivision in section 11. To support his conclusion, Sandstrom relies on the maxim of ejusdem generis. This rule of construction provides that when a general word or phrase follows a list of specific persons or things, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only persons or things of the same type as those listed. Black's Law Dictionary 535 (7th ed.1999). Applying this rule, Sandstrom claims that any other political subdivision of the State of Colorado, the general words, must belong to the same general kind as the specific words, any county, city and county, city, town, school district, [or] service authority. Because the specific words enumerate governmental entities which have governing boards and the power to tax or the power to incur debt, Sandstrom believes that any other political subdivision must contain the same characteristics. Again, Sandstrom's argument calls for a narrow or technical construction that would contravene the intent of the electorate. Zaner v. City of Brighton, 917 P.2d 280, 283 (Colo.1996). Such a construction may not be used to defeat the plain meaning of language in the amendment. Thus, Sandstrom's use of ejusdem generis is inapposite. See People v. San Emerterio, 839 P.2d 1161, 1166 (Colo.1992) ( ejusdem generis may not be used to defeat the obvious purpose of legislation) (internal quotations omitted); S.A.S. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 58, 62 (Colo.1981) (noting that ejusdem generis should not be applied in a manner that hinders the attainment of the objectives contemplated by the statutory scheme). Moreover, our conclusions here today are bolstered by the history of the drafting of section 11, which indicates precisely the opposite of what Sandstrom claims. While the intent of the drafters is not relevant, see In re Interrogatories Relating to the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, 913 P.2d 533, 540 (Colo.1996), the history of an amendment's drafting may be relevant because [t]he legislative council's interpretation, while not binding, provides important insight into the electorate's understanding of the amendment when it was passed. Carrara Place, Ltd. v. Arapahoe County Bd. Of Equalization, 761 P.2d 197, 203 (Colo.1988). A draft of every initiative petition for a proposed amendment to the constitution must be submitted to the Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services for review and comment. § 1-40-105(1), 1 C.R.S. (2003). The purpose of this review is to ensure that the proposed amendment is written in plain, nontechnical language and in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and everyday meaning which are understandable to the average reader. Id. This process also permits the proponents to benefit from the experience of experts in constitutional and legislative drafting, and allows the public to understand the implications of a proposed initiative at an early stage in the process. In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1999-00 # 256, 12 P.3d 246, 251 (Colo. 2000). The supporters of the proposed Amendment 17, ultimately codified in the constitution as section 11, submitted their draft for review and comment on two occasions. The pertinent part of the first submission read as follows: [N]o nonjudicial elected official of any county, city and county, city, town, school district, service authority or any other political subdivision of the state of Colorado shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office.... Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2000-2 (Feb. 9, 2000). The Legislative Council commented on the language as follows: If this measure passes, it appears that the only elected officials in Colorado not subject to term limits would be members of the board of regents of the University of Colorado and members of the state board of education.... Is this the intent of the proponents? Id. In response to these comments, the proponents submitted a revised amendment that added board of regents of any state university. Id. The Legislative Council replied: If this measure passes, it appears that the only elected officials in Colorado not subject to term limits would be members of the state board of education.... Is this the intent of the proponents? Id. The proponents again changed the amendment, adding no member of the state board of education. [7] Id. Thus, contrary to Sandstrom's interpretations, it appears that the drafters of section 11 believed that the proposed amendment would cover every elected official in Colorado not already term-limited. More importantly, the Legislative Council also believed that every elected official in Colorado would be term-limited. Although the intent of the drafters is not relevant to our inquiry, see Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, 913 P.2d at 540, the Legislative Council's position is quite relevant. See Carrara Place, 761 P.2d at 203. Therefore, even if we deemed the terms nonjudicial elected official and any other political subdivision to be ambiguous, the intent of the voters who enacted section 11 was clear. In enacting the amendment, they intended every elected official in Colorado to be covered by term limits. We therefore hold that district attorneys are subject to term limits under section 11.