Opinion ID: 2521384
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ballot Issue Ambiguity

Text: Cacioppo next argues that by asking voters if taxes should be increased $3,115,827 ANNUALLY, the ballot issue was susceptible to two different interpretations: (1) that the District may increase taxes by $3,115,827 the first year and thereafter by statutorily calculated increments or (2) that the District may increase taxes by $3,115,827 each year indefinitely. He bases his argument on the ambiguity of the word annually in the ballot title. Cacioppo does not allege a constitutional or statutory bar to that interpretation; he claims instead that if the District did interpret the ballot issue to allow an indefinite year-by-year $3,115,827 increaseand did levy such an increasethat they misled voters into believing that there would only be an initial increase of $3,115,827, since interpretation (1), above, he claims, is the more reasonable one. Because there is no claim that the District has levied a tax in accordance with interpretation (2), and because Cacioppo does not claim that the mere susceptibility to this interpretation alone renders the ballot issue illegal, we presume he seeks declaratory relief only on this claim. [12] The trial court refused to address this issue, ruling that the claim was not ripe for decision. We similarly decline to address this issue for two reasons. First, because the District has not applied any interpretation to the mill levy increase other than the one it purported to, this claim asks this court to answer a hypothetical question about possible future interpretations to the law, which we cannot do. Second, article X, section 20, clause 3(c) of the Colorado Constitution required the ballot title to be worded as it was, including use of the term annually immediately following the tax increase figure. Because Cacioppo has not filed a facial challenge to that constitutional provision, we decline to address the constitutionality of the ballot titles wording.
Cacioppo asks us to declare that the tax increase at issue in this case cannot be interpreted to permit a year-by-year increase by the District of $3,115,827. Importantly, actions for declaratory judgment are meant to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations. XX-XX-XXX, 5 C.R.S. (2003). A court's jurisdiction exists in such actions only if the case contains a currently justiciable issue or an existing legal controversy, rather than the mere possibility of a future claim. Bd. of County Comm'rs. v. Park County Sportsmen's Ranch, LLP, 45 P.3d 693, 698 (Colo. 2002). A declaratory judgment action requires the plaintiff to assert present and cognizable rights and calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Dist. Court, 862 P.2d 944, 947 (Colo.1993). No court can appropriately adjudicate a mattereven one for declaratory judgmentin the absence of a showing that a judgment, if entered, would afford the plaintiff present relief. Id. Above all, there must be a present and actual legal controversy and not a mere possibility of a future legal dispute over some issue. Id. at 948; see also Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215, 234 (Colo.1994) (holding, in a case involving possibly future illegal action permitted by a bond initiative, that this court is not empowered to give advisory opinions based on hypothetical fact situations) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, there is no allegation that the District has attempted to increase the mill levy beyond the initial $3,115,827 in the first full fiscal year. Cacioppo was fearful of this possible interpretation even before the election and wrote to Strakbein, the District's Finance Director, who assured him that the District had no intention to raise taxes over $3 million each year, despite any alternative interpretation of the ballot issue. Moreover, the District insists in this appeal that the tax increase is not susceptible to the alleged interpretation and that it has no designs to raise taxes by over $3 million each year. Thus, Cacioppo asks us to interpret and declare the limits of the tax increase based on the hypothesis that the District may at some future point attempt to raise taxes by over $3 million each year indefinitely. Because there is no existing controversy regarding the limits of the tax increase, we conclude that this issue is not justiciable and we decline to address it. See In re Proposed Initiatives, English Language Education, 44 P.3d 213, 215-16 (Colo.2002) (We have only a limited role in ballot-title proceedings. In general we will not interpret or construe the future legal effects of a proposed initiative.).
Additionally, we note that the language to which Cacioppo objects is mandated by clause 3(c) of article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The ballot issue pertinently reads: SHALL [THE DISTRICT] TAXES BE INCREASED $3,115,827 ANNUALLY... ? Clause 3(c) requires that: Ballot titles for tax or bonded debt increases shall begin, SHALL (DISTRICT) TAXES BE INCREASED (first ... full fiscal year dollar increase) ANNUALLY ... ? Thus, the ballot issues diction is constrained by the very provision Cacioppo seeks to enforce. Because Cacioppo chose not to challenge the requirements of clause 3(c), we decline to address the matter further.