Opinion ID: 2595483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Titles and Summary

Text: The petitioners allege that the titles and the summary are misleading and do not correctly and fairly express the Initiative's true intent and meaning. Section 1-40-106(3)(b), 1 C.R.S. (1999) provides: (b) In setting a title, the title board shall consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles and shall, whenever practicable, avoid titles for which the general understanding of the effect of a yes or no vote will be unclear. The title for the proposed law or constitutional amendment, which shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning thereof, together with the ballot title, submission clause, and summary, shall be completed within two weeks after the first meeting of the title board. . . . Ballot titles shall be brief, shall not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election, and shall be in the form of a question which may be answered yes (to vote in favor of the proposed law or constitutional amendment) or no (to vote against the proposed law or constitutional amendment) and which shall unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added, amended, or repealed. (emphasis added.) The standards that we use when we review the titles and summary are well settled. As we said in In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d 1127 (Colo.1996), In reviewing the actions of the Board, we grant `great deference to the board's broad discretion in the exercise of its drafting authority.' Id. at 1131. (quoting In re Proposed Initiative Concerning State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d 1121, 1125 (Colo.1984)). It is not our function to rewrite the titles and summary to achieve the best possible statement of the proposed measure's intent. See In re Mineral Prod. Tax Initiative, 644 P.2d 20, 25 (Colo.1982). We will reverse the Board's action in setting the titles only when the language chosen is clearly misleading. See In re State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d at 1125. Moreover, the summary is not intended to fully educate people on all aspects of the proposed law, and it need not set out in detail every aspect of the initiative. In re Proposed Initiative Under the Designation Tax Reform, 797 P.2d 1283, 1289 (Colo. 1990). All of the petitioners claim that the Board's titles and summary are misleading for many reasons. In an attempt to make the petitioners' objections and our analysis understandable, we address their objections in order.
Herpin first claims that the titles do not reflect the true intent of the Initiative because they do not define gun show. According to Herpin, this was error because gun show as it is used in the Initiative is broader (it encompasses virtually any place where firearms transactions might occur) than its traditional meaning (events put on by promoters who charge both an admission fee and a fee to persons selling firearms). The summary contains a definition of gun show, however. The titles are not required to include definitions of terms unless the terms adopt a new or controversial legal standard which would be of significance to all concerned with the Initiative. In re Proposed Election Reform Amend., 852 P.2d 28, 34 (Colo.1993). Section 1-40-106(3)(b) requires ballot titles to be brief. The Board was within its discretion when it defined gun show in the summary but not the titles. In his answer brief, Herpin also alleges that the definition of gun show vendor in the titles and summary is incomplete and omits parts of the definition found in the Initiative. The titles and summary define a `gun show vendor' as any person who exhibits, offers for sale, or transfers a firearm at a gun show. Section 12-26.1-106(5) of the Initiative states: `Gun show vendor' means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm. In order to satisfy the requirement of brevity, the Board condensed the definition of gun show vendor in the titles. The definition they retained is not clearly misleading and thus was within their discretion in setting the titles. See In re State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d at 1125. Herpin also complains that the titles and summary are misleading because they do not define firearm, although, in his view, the Initiative defines the term in the broadest possible way. He asserts that while the Initiative excludes antique firearms from background checks, these firearms would still be used to define a gun show. The proponents contend that firearm is not a new or technical term. They also point out that the definition of firearm is taken verbatim from section 18-1-901(3)(h), 6 C.R.S. (1997) (provisions applicable to offenses generally). In response, Herpin points out that firearm is defined in two additional provisions of the state statutes: section 12-26-101(1)(a), 4 C.R.S. (1999) (regulating firearms dealers), and section 30-15-301(1), 9 C.R.S. (1999) (prohibiting the discharge of firearms in unincorporated areas). The three definitions are similar, however. In this case, the Board was within its discretion when it declined to define firearm in the titles and summary. Herpin's next objection is that nothing in the titles and summary mentions that the Initiative requires a background check on sales of firearms by unlicensed persons to licensed gun dealers, which is the opposite of current federal law. This misconceives the purpose of the titles and summary. The titles and summary are intended to alert the electorate to the salient characteristics of the proposed measure. They are not intended to address every conceivable hypothetical effect the Initiative may have if adopted by the electorate. See Tax Reform, 797 P.2d at 1289. As the proponents point out, the shorter version in the titles is adequate because (1) the commonly understood meaning of transfers includes both sells and exchanges, and the summary includes both sells and exchanges in the definition of gun show vendor; and (2) the omission of fixed location from the definition in the titles and summary is unnecessary  the titles and summary reflect the essential concept. Cf. In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d 321, 327 (Colo.1994) (omission of strong from strong public trust doctrine in titles although phrase was contained in initiative itself was not error; the term was not defined in the initiative and voters would be informed of the essential concept of the proposed amendment).
Wagoner claims that the titles and summary fail to adequately and fairly state the true intent of the Initiative, which, according to him, is to regulate noncommercial firearm sales. In reading the proposed initiative in pari materia with state and federal laws covering the same subject matter, the true intent of the proposed initiative [to regulate noncommercial sales] is readily apparent. Wagoner asserts that the titles and summary should reflect this. Further, the ballot language is false and misleading because it erroneously presents that there are currently no background checks conducted at gun shows. However, as the proponents indicate, the titles and summary state that the background check applies to all prospective transferees if any part of the transaction occurs at a gun show. The Initiative states, If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, no firearm shall be transferred unless a background check has been obtained by a licensed gun dealer. § 12-26.1-101(3). The titles and summary therefore track the Initiative; all sales  commercial and noncommercial  are included in the Initiative's sweep. Thus, the titles are not misleading. Nor are they misleading because they do not refer to the Initiative's possible interplay with existing state and federal laws. See In re Branch Banking Initiative, 200 Colo. at 90, 612 P.2d at 99 (upholding Board's decision not to include the proposed initiative's possible conflict with federal banking law).
Armstrong and Collins list a number of terms they say should either have been defined in the titles and summary, or are defined wrongly in the titles. The first is gun show vendor, which we have already held was not defined misleadingly in the titles and summary. They also object that the titles and summary do not define gun show promoter. They claim that the commonsense meaning of promoter conflicts with the definition in the Initiative since a promoter would not automatically include a person who manages or operates an event. We disagree. The titles and summary outline the promoter's responsibilities under the Initiative  to arrange for the presence of a licensed gun dealer and to post notice of the background check requirement. This was sufficient. Armstrong and Collins next challenge the Board's decisions not to define background check and prospective firearms transferees, neither of which is defined in the Initiative. However, the Board is not usually required to define a term that is undefined in the proposed measure. See In re Proposed Initiative 1996-6, 917 P.2d 1277, 1281-82 (Colo.1996) (We held that the phrase `strong public trust doctrine' need not be defined in the title or submission clause since it was undefined in the initiative itself, In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d at 327, just as `public trust doctrine' is not defined in the present Initiative. However, while the Board could have stated that the phrase was undefined, its failure to do so is not fatal.); In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d at 327 (omitting strong from strong public trust doctrine in titles was not error even though phrase was contained in the initiative itself; the term was not defined in the initiative and voters would be informed of the essential concept of the proposed amendment). According to the petitioners, prospective firearms transferees is not a term of everyday usage, and is not easily understood except by lawyers. But, as the respondents point out, it is drawn directly from the Initiative, which does not further define the term. See In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d at 327. It was not error to not define the term in the titles. Armstrong and Collins contend that the titles hide the fact that licensed gun dealers who obtain the background checks will be required to keep records of the checks, and that this results from the Board's failure to refer to other state statutes in the titles and summary that contain the recordkeeping requirements. However, the Board is not required to explain the relationship between the Initiative and other statutes or constitutional provisions. See In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d at 1132. Finally, the petitioners allege that the titles are confusing because they state that the Initiative would prohibit transfer of a firearm if a background check has not been obtained by a licensed gun dealer, when, in fact, the measure would prohibit such a transfer if the background check was not obtained and the CBI did not approve the transfer. As we have stressed above, the General Assembly has directed that the titles be brief. The titles and summary are not required to address every provision of a proposed measure. In this case, however, any ambiguity is cured by the summary, which states: The measure provides that a gun show vendor, prior to the transfer or attempted transfer of a firearm at a gun show, shall require a background check on the prospective transferee and approval of the transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.  (emphasis added.) The Board was well within its discretion when it chose to place the requirement of CBI approval in the summary rather than the titles.