Opinion ID: 1185847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voting by Unqualified and Unregistered Voters

Text: Where the cause of contest is that illegal votes have been received, the statute mandates factual specificity. Section 1-10-110(6), C.R.S. 1973, requires that [w]hen the reception of illegal votes or the rejection of legal votes is alleged as the cause of the contest, a list of the number of persons who so voted, or offered to vote, shall be set forth in the statement of contestor .... This provision requires a list of the names of persons whose votes were received illegally. Graham v. Swift, supra ; Schwarz v. County Court , 14 Colo. 44, 23 P. 84 (1890). Because the contestors did not comply with the statute, the trial court could not consider the challenge. Id. [7] C. Failure to Divide the Measure into Separate Questions The trial court also rejected the contestors' contention that the bond issue constituted two distinct proposals which should have been submitted separately to the voters. Article XI, § 6, of the Colorado Constitution provides that no political subdivision of the state shall contract any general obligation debt by loan in any form unless the question of incurring the same be submitted to and approved by a majority of the qualified taxpaying electors [8] voting thereon, with certain exceptions not applicable here. We have construed a similar prior constitutional provision with respect to creation of municipal debts [9] to require that each purpose for which a debt is to be created must be separately stated and submitted to the electors. In City of Denver v. Hayes , 28 Colo. 110, 63 P. 311 (1900), we said: The purpose of the framers of the constitution, which they expressed in the section under consideration, and the object of the general assembly which is embodied in the city charter, were to prohibit municipal authorities from creating a debt for municipal purposes and from issuing bonds unless a majority of the legal electors of the city gave their consent thereto. By the proceedings under review no opportunity was given by the city council to the electors to express their will as to incurring a debt for any particular purpose, and the voice of the electors has never been heard. Neither the constitutional limitation nor the statutory provisions expressly declare that only one purpose may be submitted at the same election, nor that, if more than one purpose may thus be submitted, each shall be separately stated. But the object of neither can be attained, and effect to the language in which they are expressed cannot be given, unless such purposes be separately stated, and the amount proposed to be applied to each particular purpose designated. This must be done, not only in the ordinance which provides for the submission, but in the election notice; and the ballots must be so prepared that every elector may declare his choice as to each purpose, and the amount proposed to be applied thereto must, also, be stated. 28 Colo. at 114, 115, 63 P. at 313. The difficulty lies in determining what constitutes more than one purpose. In City of Denver v. Hayes, supra , the factual circumstances made the constitutional violation rather clear. There, the city had proposed to incur a lump sum indebtedness for eleven distinct and independent projects, ranging from constructing a new auditorium to paying or refunding bonded indebtedness. Here, the purpose is acquiring and improving school grounds and constructing and furnishing school buildings. Whether multiple purposes are present in a proposal to construct and furnish more than one structure in more than one location in a school district is a question as to which City of Denver v. Hayes, supra , offers only general guidance. The requirement that each bond election question be limited to a single purpose exists in many other jurisdictions. The test applied to determine the validity of a bond issue having more than one object or funding more than one structure is whether there exists a natural relationship between the various structures or objects united in one proposition so that they form but one rounded whole. See Aylmore v. Hamilton , 74 Wash. 433, 133 P. 1027 (1913); Annot., 4 A.L.R.2d 617, § 6 (1949), and cases cited therein. We have used a similar test in slightly different contexts. See People ex rel. Moore v. Perkins , 56 Colo. 17, 137 P. 55 (1913) (municipal charter amendment does not combine distinct and separate questions if the provisions thereof are naturally related and connected with one subject); People ex rel. Elder v. Sours , 31 Colo. 369, 74 P. 167 (1903) (proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution which embraces more than one subject is not objectionable on that ground if the subjects contained therein are germane to the general subject of the amendment). The contestors do not contend that a bond issue may not include both the construction and the furnishing of a single school building. The thrust of their argument is that the issuance of bonds to finance construction of two new school buildings in different communities within the district cannot be submitted to the voters as a single proposition unless it can be factually established that there is a natural relationship between them. We conclude that no additional facts are necessary to establish that the school bond measure in question involves naturally related uses and has but one purpose. See City of Denver v. Hayes, supra . Objects for which an indebtedness is to be incurred are more likely to be naturally related where the governmental entity proposing the indebtedness performs a limited function. For example, a school district has a relatively limited sphere of responsibility. The only objectives for which a school district may seek bond financing, except for funding floating indebtedness, involve acquisition, construction, equipping, and improving school facilities. Section 22-42-102, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Supp.). Such objectives are necessarily related in that they all concern the structures, furnishings, and equipment needed to serve school children in the district. The purpose may be characterized as providing proper school facilities; the fact that multiple facilities are required does not mean that a project has more than one purpose. See Kimsey v. Board of Education , 211 Kan. 618, 507 P.2d 180 (1973). States which have considered this question have concluded that a school bond election may relate to acquisition, construction, and equipping of separate school facilities without offending requirements that the submission of such matters to the voters be limited to a single proposition or purpose. Parks v. School District , 22 Ariz. 18, 193 P. 838 (1920) (school bond proposal for building a ward school, an addition to another school, and additional rooms on the ground of a third school or elsewhere, and for the supplying of the same with furniture and apparatus, was a single proposition); Lilly v. Crisp County School System , 117 Ga.App. 868, 162 S.E.2d 456 (1968) (issuance of bonds to finance construction and equipment of school buildings and for improving, renovating, repairing, and equipping existing educational facilities of a particular county school system was a single proposition to provide additions and improvements to school facilities in the county); Miles v. State , 96 Ga.App. 610, 101 S.E.2d 173 (1957) (bond election to provide funds to construct and equip school buildings, libraries, auditoriums, cafeterias, gymnasiums, athletic fields and buildings related to the single purpose of improving school facilities); King v. Independent School District , 46 Idaho 800, 272 P. 507 (1928) (school bond election for a building; addition and improvement of another school; moving bungalows and improving a third school site; and furnishings and repairs held to state only one purpose, specifically, providing schools and equipment for the district); Howard v. Independent School District , 17 Idaho 537, 106 P. 692 (1910) (bond election to purchase three school sites and erect three separate school buildings in different sections of the school district and furnishing each of the buildings held to constitute one common purpose, namely, the equipment and maintenance of public schools in the district); Roll v. Carrollton Community School District , 3 Ill.2d 148, 121 N.E.2d 1 (1954) (proposition for bond issue to purchase site and build high school, to build attendance center, and to construct addition to existing school embodied one general purpose); Kimsey v. Board of Education, supra (proposition to issue bonds for construction of a building or buildings for junior high school purposes and for senior high school purposes was not invalid as involving more than one proposition); Buhl v. Joint Independent Consolidated School District , 249 Minn. 480, 82 N.W.2d 836 (1957) (proposal for bond issue for purpose of acquisition and betterment of schoolhouses in the district was a single proposition); Becker v. Smith , 335 Mo. 1046, 75 S.W.2d 574 (1934) (proposition to vote bonds to erect and furnish two schoolhouses, each on a different site of an existing school, held to constitute a single proposition); Johnston v. Board of Education , 65 N.M. 147, 333 P.2d 1051 (1958) (proposition for erecting school buildings and purchasing school sites comprised a single proposition); see Annot., 4 A.L.R.2d 617 (1949). We conclude that the cited cases reflect the appropriate resolution of the issue and that the question submitted to the voters in the present case is limited to a single purpose.