Opinion ID: 1401746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: single-subject/clear titles requirement

Text: Petitioner argues that this Initiative is unconstitutional because: (1) the Initiative contains more than one subject in violation of Subsection 5.5 of Section 1 of Article V of the Colorado Constitution, and (2) the titles set by the Board do not clearly and correctly express the subject of the Initiative. We agree; therefore, we now reverse the Board's action. We noted in our recent analysis of an unrelated initiative in In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 # 25, 974 P.2d 458, 460-61 (Colo.1999), that two closely interdependent inquiries are germane to our review of a proposed initiative: one commanding that the subject treated in the body of the proposed initiative be clearly expressed in its titles and the other forbidding the union of separate and distinct subjects in the same proposed initiative. The duality of this requirement is illustrated by the following statement this court made over 100 years ago in In re Breene, 14 Colo. 401, 404, 24 P. 3, 3-4 (1890): [8] [The constitutional provision] embraces two mandates, viz.: one forbidding the union in the same legislative bill of separate and distinct subjects, and the other commanding that the subject treated in the body of the [proposal] shall be clearly expressed in its title. Each of these mandates is designed to obviate flagrant evils connected with the adoption of laws. The former prevents joining in the same [proposal] disconnected and incongruous matters. The purpose of the latter is ... to prevent the passage of unknown and alien subjects, which might be coiled up in the folds of the [proposal]. Id. Accordingly, we examine the interrelated clear titles and single-subject requirement in turn.
The Colorado Constitution provides that the Board may not set the titles of a proposed Initiative, or submit it to the voters, if the Initiative contains multiple subjects. See In re Proposed Initiative Petitions, 907 P.2d 586, 588 (Colo.1995). Article V, Section 1(5.5), which sets forth the single-subject requirement for initiatives, provides, in pertinent part: 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. Id. (emphasis added). A proposal that has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other violates the foregoing single-subject requirement. In re Public Rights in Waters II., 898 P.2d 1076, 1078-79 (Colo.1995); see, e.g., In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 # 64, 960 P.2d 1192, 1196 (Colo.1998); In re Amend TABOR 25, 900 P.2d 121, 125 (Colo.1995); People ex rel. Elder v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369, 403, 74 P. 167, 177 (1903); In re Breene, 14 Colo. at 404, 24 P. at 3 (interpreting single-subject requirement as prohibiting a legislative act from addressing disconnected and incongruous matters). Furthermore, a proposed initiative contains multiple subjects not only when it proposes new provisions constituting multiple subjects, but also when it proposes to repeal multiple subjects. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 # 64, 960 P.2d at 1196; In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528, 533 (Colo.1996).
The statutes governing the initiative process established the following standard for clear titles: 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. § 1-40-106(3)(b), 1 C.R.S. (1999). This statutory section further provides that the ballot titles shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the constitutional amendment, and shall unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added, amended or repealed. Id.; see also In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 No. 29, 972 P.2d 257, 266 (Colo.1999). In 1994, Article V, Section 1(5.5) incorporated the clear titles requirement for initiatives into the Colorado Constitution, stating that [n]o measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5).
In order to facilitate the initiative process, the General Assembly assigned duties to the Title Board which include: (1) designat[ing] and fix[ing] a proper fair title for each proposed law or constitutional amendment, together with a submission clause, § 1-40-106(1); (2) prepar[ing] a clear, concise summary of the proposed law or constitutional amendment which shall be true and impartial and shall not be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, either for or against the measure, § 1-40-106(3)(a); (3) consider[ing] the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles and . . . whenever practicable, avoid[ing] titles for which the general understanding of the effect of a `yes' or `no' vote will be unclear, § 1-40-106(3)(b); (4) not permitting the treatment of incongruous subjects in the same measure, § 1-40-106.5(1)(3)(I); and (5) acting to prevent surreptitious measures and appris[ing] the people of the subject of each measure by the title in order to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters, § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II). See In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 No. 29, 972 P.2d at 260. Thus, the General Assembly has squarely placed the responsibility for carrying out the dual mandate of Article V, Section 1(5.5) on the Title Board. The Board's function is extremely important in light of this court's limited scope of review of the Board's actions. We will not address the merits of a proposed initiative, interpret its language, or predict its application. See In re Petition on Campaign & Political Fin., 877 P.2d 311, 313 (Colo.1994); In re Proposed Initiative on Fair Treatment of Injured Workers, 873 P.2d 718, 719-20 (Colo.1994); In re Proposed Election Reform Amend., 852 P.2d 28, 31-32 (Colo.1993). In conducting such a review, the actions of the Board are presumptively valid. See Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155, 159, 322 P.2d 317, 319 (1958); see also In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 No. 105, 961 P.2d 1092, 1097 (Colo.1998); In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 No. 75, 960 P.2d 672, 673 (Colo.1998); In re Proposed Initiative Automobile Insurance Coverage, 877 P.2d 853, 856 (Colo.1994) (noting that reviewing court is required to engage all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board's actions).
Three prior versions of this Initiative have been presented to us for review. On June 22, 1998, we issued an opinion regarding Initiative # 64, one of the first versions of the instant Initiative. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 # 64, 960 P.2d 1192 (Colo.1998). Therein, we held that Initiative # 64 violated the single-subject requirement because it pertained not only to the qualifications of persons for judicial office, but also repealed the constitutional requirement that each judicial district have at least one district court judge, deprived the City and County of Denver of control over Denver County court judgeships, immunized persons who criticize a judicial officer regarding his or her qualifications from any liability, and altered the composition and powers of the Judicial Discipline Commission. See id. at 1192-2000. One week later, we reviewed and rejected on single-subject grounds one of the proponents' several redrafted versions of the Initiative, entitled Initiative # 95. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 No. 95, 960 P.2d 1204 (Colo.1998). In addition to the aforementioned subjects that we found in Initiative # 64, Initiative # 95 proposed to eliminate the power of home rule cities to control the election, appointment, and retention of municipal court judges within their jurisdiction, and proposed to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Discipline. See id. at 1206-09. On February 16, 1999, we held that yet another of the proponents' redrafted versions of the proposal, entitled Initiative # 29, violated the single-subject/clear titles requirement. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 No. 29, 972 P.2d at 268. Specifically, we found that the titles of Initiative # 29 failed to fairly, clearly, and accurately reflect the meaning of the term limits proposal therein, because its stated application to certain state court judges and justices was misleading and promoted voter confusion. Id. at 267-68. Moreover, we found that Initiative # 29 contained two impermissible multiple subjects: the proposal not only would have changed the qualifications to serve as a member of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, but also would have changed the jurisdiction of county judges for the City and County of Denver. See id. at 262-65.