Opinion ID: 2511830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Catch Phrase Prohibition

Text: The Title Board must avoid using catch phrases or slogans when formulating a title and ballot title and submission clause. In re # 258(A), 4 P.3d at 1100. Catch phrases are words that work in favor of a proposal without contributing to voter understanding. In re # 62, 184 P.3d at 60; In re # 258(A), 4 P.3d at 1100. By drawing attention to themselves and triggering a favorable response, catch phrases generate support for a proposal that hinges not on the content itself, but merely on the wording of the catch phrase. In re # 62, 184 P.3d at 60; In re # 258(A), 4 P.3d at 1100. Slogans are brief, striking phrases designed for use in advertising or promotion that encourage prejudice in favor of the proposal, impermissibly distracting voters from the merits of the proposal. In re # 258(A), 4 P.3d at 1100. The purpose of the rule prohibiting catch phrases is to prevent prejudicing voters in favor of the proposed initiative merely by virtue of those words' appeal to emotion and to avoid distracting voters from consideration of the proposed initiative's merits. Id. Our task is not to prevent voters from making a choice, but rather to guard against inflammatory catch words or phrases that promote prejudice in place of understanding what is really being proposed. Accordingly, phrases that merely describe the proposal are not impermissible catch phrases, while phrases that provoke emotion such that they distract from the merits of the proposal are catch phrases. See id. Petitioners must offer evidence beyond the bare assertion that political disagreement currently exists regarding the challenged phrase. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 # 227 & # 228, 3 P.3d 1, 7 (Colo.2000) (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for Proposed Petition (Amend Tabor No. 32), 908 P.2d 125, 130 (Colo.1995)). Accordingly, despite arguments to the contrary, we have approved the use of the phrases just cause and mediation, In re # 62, 184 P.3d at 61; criminal conduct, Blake v. King, 185 P.3d 142, 147 (Colo.2008); term limits, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 2005-2006 # 75, 138 P.3d 267, 269-70 (Colo.2006); preserve ... the social institution of marriage, In re #227 & #228, 3 P.3d at 7; management of growth, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1999-00 # 256, 12 P.3d 246, 257 (Colo.2000); refund to taxpayers, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997-1998 # 105 (Payments by Conservation Dist. to Pub. Sch. Fund & Sch. Dists.), 961 P.2d 1092, 1100 (Colo.1998); protect the environment and human health, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997-98 # 112 (Livestock Operations), 962 P.2d 255, 256 (Colo.1998); and public's interests in state waters, In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, & Summary for Proposed Initiative 1996-6, 917 P.2d 1277, 1281 (Colo.1996). On the other hand, we have held improper the phrase as rapidly and effectively as possible in the context of an English-immersion education initiative because the phrase masked the basic policy question underlying the initiative, that is, whether English-immersion programs are the best way to teach English to non-English speakers. In re # 258(A), 4 P.3d at 1100. In that context, the phrase unfairly tip[ped] the substantive debate surrounding the issue to be submitted to the electorate. Id.
The petitioners argue that the title's phrase right of health care choice [4] is a politically-charged catch phrase. To support this argument, the petitioners presented to the Title Board evidence that advocacy groups opposing national health care reform legislation recommend emphasizing choice when discussing health care to garner public support. We disagree with the petitioners. The standard cannot be that a phrase becomes a catch phrase if the petitioner proves that it polls with the public better than other phrases. Surely the same could be said about the phrases management of growth, preserve the social institution of marriage, and protect the environment and human healthphrases we have held are not improper catch phrases. The purpose of the catch-phrase prohibition is to prevent prejudice and voter confusion, see id., not to forbid the use of language that proponents of the initiative might also use in their campaigns. [5] Instead, the petitioners must prove that, rather than describing the initiative, the phrase provokes emotion such that it impermissibly distracts voters from consideration of the initiative's merits. Id. Here, the phrase right of health care choice is a descriptive term that straight-forwardly presents the issue to voters: shall the Colorado Constitution contain a provision protecting the rights of individuals to choose their own health care arrangements? Though the phrase right of health care choice is somewhat generic, it is followed directly by language in the title that clarifies and narrows its meaning. The risk of the phrase distracting from the proposal's merits or confusing voters is low, and what the initiative proposes is clear. [6] Accordingly, we hold that the phrase right of health care choice is not an impermissible catch phrase.