Opinion ID: 1401746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedure for Removal Election

Text: Petitioner next alleges that the titles and summary are unclear with respect to the procedure used to remove a judge. We agree. The language of the Initiative states that a judge may be removed after a petition to remove a judge is signed by registered electors in that court district not to exceed 5% of the general election votes last cast in that district for all secretary of state candidates. (Emphasis added.) This aspect of the Initiative is not discussed in the title or submission clause, but is repeated verbatim in the summary section. The plain language of this section suggests that one or more voters (any amount less than 5%) may sign the removal petition and thus put the removal petition on the ballot. However, if more than 5% of the voters sign a removal petition, the petition would not be placed on the ballot. The not to exceed language is unclear when compared to the language used in other Colorado recall or removal statutes. Sections 1-12-101 to -123, 1 C.R.S. (1999), provide for the recall from office of various selected officers. Each of these statutes clearly states the number of signatures that are necessary before a petition may be placed on the ballot. For example, section 1-12-104, which governs the recall of state and county officers, provides that the petition shall be signed by eligible electors equal in number to twenty-five percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding general election. (Emphasis added.) Petitions to recall school district officers, on the other hand, are governed by section 1-12-105, which states that the petition shall be signed by eligible electors of the school district equal in number to at least forty percent of those electors who voted in such district. (Emphasis added.) Finally, in order to recall nonpartisan officers, a petition shall be signed by three hundred eligible electors of the political subdivision. (Emphasis added.) In each of these statutes, a set percentage or number of signatures is required, with no upper limit set for the collection of signatures. As noted above, the Title Board repeated the language not to exceed 5% in its summary, without further explaining that the Initiative sets an upper limit on the number of signatures which need to be collected, but no lower limit. The summary does not explain that the result of this Initiative wouldbe to allow a recall petition to be put on the ballot if only one voter signs the petition. We have previously held that the mere repetition of language from the initiative to the titles and summary does not necessarily ensure that the voters will be apprised of the true intent and purpose of the initiative. While it is true that the title and submission clause read, virtually word for word, the same as the Initiative, this fact does not establish that the title and submission clause fairly and accurately set forth the major tenets of the Initiative. The pertinent question is whether the general understanding of the effect of a `yes' or `no' vote will be unclear from reading the title. There may be situations, therefore, where the title and submission clause likely would create public confusion or ambiguity about the effect of an Initiative even though they merely repeat the language contained in the Initiative itself. In re Proposed Initiative on Obscenity, 877 P.2d 848, 850 (Colo. 1994) (citations omitted) In the instant case, the not to exceed language of the Initiative, which was repeated without explanation or analysis in the summary, creates confusion and ambiguity.