Opinion ID: 1175967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Multiple Subjects

Text: Outcelt's next contention is that Initiative # 30 contains multiple subjects in violation of the Colorado Constitution. We agree. The constitution prohibits initiatives containing more than one subject such that a title cannot be fixed to clearly express the single subject: No measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in any measure which shall not be expressed in the title, such measure shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed. If a measure contains more than one subject, such that a ballot title cannot be fixed that clearly expresses a single subject, no title shall be set and the measure shall not be submitted to the people for adoption or rejection at the polls. Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5) (emphasis added); see also § 1-40-106.5, 1 C.R.S. (1997). While we may not address the merits of a proposed initiative or suggest how an initiative might be applied if enacted, see School Impact Fees, 954 P.2d at 592, we must sufficiently examine an initiative to determine whether or not the constitutional prohibition against initiative proposals containing multiple subjects has been violated. [2] In construing an initiative for this limited purpose, we employ the usual rules of statutory construction. See § 2-4-101, 1 C.R.S. (1997) (Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.); Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215, 228 n. 10 (Colo.1994) (general rules of statutory construction apply to interpretation of citizen-initiated measures). One concern which led to voter enactment in 1994 of the multiple subject ban is that proponents would combine different proposals in the hopes of getting unrelated subjects passed by enlisting support for the entire initiative from advocates of the separate subjectsthereby securing the enactment of subjects that could not be enacted on their merits alone. In re Parental Choice in Education, 917 P.2d 292, 294 (Colo.1996); see also In re Proposed Initiative Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d 1076, 1079 (Colo.1995) (the single subject requirement precludes the joining together of multiple subjects into a single initiative in the hope of attracting support from various factions). Another purpose of this prohibition on multiple subjects is to protect the voters from fraud and surprise. In re Parental Choice in Education, 917 P.2d at 294. An initiative impermissibly contains more than one subject if its text relates to more than one subject and if the measure has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other. In re Proposed Petition, 907 P.2d 586, 590 (Colo.1995). The risk of uninformed voting caused by items concealed within a lengthy or complex proposal is what the single subject requirement seeks to avoid. Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1079. In Public Rights in Waters II, the fact that all the provisions of a proposed initiative involved water was not sufficient to meet the single subject requirement. That initiative would have (1) mandated the adoption and defense of a strong public trust doctrine regarding Colorado waters, and (2) set new election and boundary requirements for water conservancy and conservation districts. We concluded that these two provisions were separate and discrete and had no unifying or common objective although both topics related to Colorado water. Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1080. [3] Similarly, in Amend Tabor 25, 900 P.2d 121, 125 (Colo.1995), we determined that the common characteristic revenue did not create a necessary or proper connection between the establishment of specific tax credits and procedures for future ballot title initiative measures. Here, the Board contends that the proposal has a single subject: tax cuts. The proponents of Initiative # 30 argue that the single subject is a $25 tax cut. We disagree. Although a tax cut is one of the purposes of this initiative, the initiative also proposes to subject voter-approved local revenue and spending increases enacted since 1992 to a new Amendment 1 requirement that a fixed tax rate/maximum dollar amount must be stated in the ballot title of those measures. To place Initiative # 30 in context, it is necessary to briefly review Amendment 1 which Initiative # 30 would amend. Amendment 1, enacted by the voters in 1992, places revenue limitations, see Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4) & (8), and spending limitations, see Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(7), on state and local governments. See Havens v. Board of County Comm'rs, 924 P.2d 517, 520 (Colo.1996). These provisions operate separately and independently. The first is a limitation on receipt of revenue by governmental entities, described in Amendment 1 as districts, while the second is a limitation on district spending of lawfully derived revenues. Revenues in excess of the spending cap must be refunded unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset. Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(7)(d). In Amend Tabor 25, 900 P.2d at 126, we observed that the Legislative Council cited Amendment 1 as an example of a multiple subject measure the enactment of which led to the proposal and adoption of the single subject matter constitutional provision in 1994. See also In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528, 533 (Colo.1996) (holding that an initiative proposing to repeal Amendment 1 necessarily involved multiple subjects). We find at least two subject matters in Initiative # 30. In addition to a tax cut, Initiative # 30 impacts previous voter-approved revenue and spending increases.
It is clear from the language of Initiative # 30 that one purpose of the proposal is to apply a $25 tax cut, increased $25 the next year and then $50 yearly (to $100, $150 ...) to the taxes described in the initiative. This, according to the proponents and the Board, is the single and primary subject matter of Initiative # 30. Although this is the most apparent subject, at least one other unrelated subject exists in the language of this proposal.
In addition to creating a tax cut, the initiative proposes to add new criteria to subsection (8) of Amendment 1 applicable to revenue and spending increases approved by the voters since 1992. These criteria are that the ballot title of those measures must be specific in setting forth fixed maximum tax rates with a fixed maximum number of dollars. Amendment 1, as enacted by the voters in 1992, does not require such specificity in the tax rate or the number of dollars involved in order for the voters to exempt increases from Amendment 1's revenue and spending limits. See Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215, 233-34 (Colo.1994) (initiative seeking tax increase where rate was without limitation complied with Amendment 1's requirements; voter approval of each individual increase in the tax rate is not necessary under Amendment 1). According to the comments which the Office of State Planning and Budgeting filed with the Board pursuant to section 1-40-106(3)(a), 1 C.R.S. (1997), 244 election outcomes that approved increases of $1,265,308,790 are potentially affected by Initiative # 30. [4] Although we cannot reach the merits of Initiative # 30 at this stage, our examination for compliance with the single-subject requirement reveals, in addition to a tax cut, new requirements for Amendment 1 revenue and spending increases approved by the voters since 1992. As we pointed out in Havens v. Board of County Comm'rs, 924 P.2d 517, 522 (Colo.1996), voter approval of tax increases and governmental retention and spending of revenues which might otherwise be subject to refund under Amendment 1, is a prerogative of the electorate. At the time voters approved Amendment 1, there was an expectation that the provisions of that initiative would defer to citizen approval or disapproval [of] certain proposed tax, revenue, and spending measures that varied from Amendment 1 limitations. Id. Under the applicable precedent, we also examine Initiative # 30 to ascertain whether the multiple subject matters are combined in a manner that could result in voter surprise or fraud. See In re Parental Choice on Education, 917 P.2d at 294. The language regarding voter-Approved revenue and spending increases is buried within the tax cut language. When considering Initiative # 30, voters could be enticed to vote for the measure in order to enact the tax cut while not realizing that passage of the measure would simultaneously achieve a purpose not necessarily related to a tax cut. Because the initiative contains two subject matters, a tax cut and new criteria for voter approval of revenue and spending increases under Amendment 1, the Board should not have fixed the titles and summary.