Opinion ID: 2633149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Title for Initiative # 61

Text: Having concluded that the Board's action warrants a reversal, we now consider the title for Initiative # 61. Since the Board first set the title at the February 20 meeting and, upon rehearing, vacated it and declined to set a title for the Initiative, Proponents urge us to reinstate the title set originally. Corry maintains that the original title was misleading and argues that we should remand the case to the Board to exercise its responsibility to set the title. The initial responsibility for setting the title resides with the Board, and we review the Board's actions with great deference. See § 1-40-106, C.R.S. (2007); see also In re Proposed Initiative 2005-2006 # 55, 138 P.3d at 278. However, if we reverse the Board's action, section 1-40-107 mandates that we remand . . . with instructions, pointing out where the title board is in error. Thus, where the reversal requires the Board to set or amend title, we give the Board specific instructions as to the wording of the title. See In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito (Limited Gaming IV), 873 P.2d 733, 742 (Colo.1994) (directing the Board to include specific language in the title); In re Proposed Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28, 34 (Colo.1993) (same). Accordingly, we must remand Initiative # 61 to the Board and articulate the title to be set. Because we generally defer to the Board's choice of language, we first consider the title set by the Board at the February 20 meeting. At that meeting, the Board set the title as follows: An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and in connection therewith, prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting; preserving the state's authority to take actions regarding public employment, public education, and public contracting that are consistent with the United States constitution as interpreted by the United States supreme court. . . . (emphasis added). Corry argues that the title as originally set by the Board is misleading because it fails to inform the voters that the Initiative will allow the state to engage in discrimination and preferential treatment permitted under the United States Constitution. Additionally, she alleges that the title impermissibly conflicts with the title of Initiative # 31. Both arguments lack merit. While the title must correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of [the initiative], see § 1-40-106(3)(b), it is not our role to rephrase the language adopted by the Board to obtain the most precise and exact title. In re Increase of Taxes on Tobacco Prods. Initiative, 756 P.2d 995, 999 (Colo.1988). Rather, we will uphold the Board's choice of language if it clearly and concisely reflects the central features of the initiative. In re Proposed Initiative for a Petition on Campaign & Political Fin., 877 P.2d 311, 313 (Colo.1994). Accordingly, the Board is not required to provide specific explanations of the measure or discuss its every possible effect. Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, we will reject the Board's language only if it is so inaccurate as to clearly mislead the electorate. Id. Although Corry is correct that the title set at the February 20 meeting does not state that certain discrimination and preferential treatment may be permitted, the phrase, preserving the state's authority to take actions . . . consistent with the United States constitution, read in conjunction with the preceding clause of the title, obviously refers to actions that discriminate or grant preferential treatment. Thus the title clearly expresses that the United States Constitution limits the prohibition on both discrimination and preferential treatment. The suggestion that the title must specifically explain the extent of the limitation commands an unrealistic assessment of the future direction of complex issues of United States constitutional law. Therefore, the title fairly and correctly expresses the meaning of the Initiative. We also reject the argument that the title set at the February 20 meeting conflicts with the title of Initiative #31. [5] Section 1-40-106(3)(b) provides that ballot titles . . . shall not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election. Such a conflict exists where the titles fail to accurately reflect the distinctions between the measures, and voters comparing the titles . . . would [not] be able to distinguish between the two proposed measures. In re the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning the Fair Treatment II , 877 P.2d 329, 333 (Colo. 1994). Here, although the first clause of both titles is the same, the subsequent clauses are different. Moreover, any confusion between the two initiatives is caused by ambiguity in Initiative # 31 about limitations on its prohibition of discrimination and preferential treatment caused by the failure to express any limitation or state whether Colorado is permitted, by the terms of Initiative # 31, to act consistently with the United States Constitution. In contrast, Initiative # 61 clearly expresses that the United States Constitution limits its similar prohibition. In sum, we conclude that the title set at the February 20 meeting correctly and fairly expresses the true intent and meaning of Initiative # 61 and does not conflict with the title of Initiative #31. Accordingly, we direct the Board to set that title upon remand.