Opinion ID: 1161019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fair and Correct Titles and Summary

Text: Under section 1-40-106(3)(b), 1 C.R.S. (1997), the Board must fix a title that shall be brief and that shall correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning of the proposed initiative. Under section 1-40-106(3)(a), 1 C.R.S. (1997), the Board is required to prepare a clear, concise summary of the proposed law or constitutional amendment, which should be true and impartial and shall not be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, either for or against the measure. Outcelt asserts that the titles and submission clause fixed by the Board in this case do not (1) correctly and fairly inform the public of the `priorities' created by the proposed initiative, and (2) correctly and fairly inform the public of the limitations on funding from the `Educational Opportunity Fund.' When reviewing the Board's action, [w]e do not consider whether the Board set the best possible title, ballot title and submission clause and summary. Rather, our duty is to ensure that the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary fairly reflect the proposed initiative so that petition signers and voters will not be misled into support for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed by the board. In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning the Fair Treatment of Injured Workers Amendment, 873 P.2d 718, 719 (Colo.1994). In other words, we will not rewrite the titles or submission clause for the Board, and we will reverse the Board's action in preparing them only if they contain a material and significant omission, misstatement, or misrepresentation. In making this analysis, we do not construe the legal effect of the proposal as if it had been adopted. See In re Proposed Initiative #26 Concerning Sch. Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586, 592-93 (Colo.1998). Rather, we characterize the proposal only insofar as necessary to conduct review for compliance with the constitutional and statutory provisions which apply to the initiative process. See In re Ballot Title 1997-98 # 30, 959 P.2d 822, 825 (Colo.1998). Initiative # 62 sets forth the following priorities for the tax refund: (4) The tax credit shall be made available to eligible persons in a time and manner determined by law. Eligibility for the tax credit shall be prioritized as follows: (a) The first priority for distribution shall be parents or legal guardians of any student who hereafter transfers to a non-public school from a public school district that is below the state average in student performance as measured by assessments approved by the state board of education, and parents or legal guardians of any special needs student as defined by law. (b) The remaining funds in the Educational Opportunity Fund shall then be applied to the next priority, parents or legal guardians of any student who hereafter transfers to a non-public school from any other public school district. (c) The remaining funds in the Educational Opportunity Fund shall then be applied to the next priority, low income parents or legal guardians of students in non-public schools. (d) The remaining funds in the Educational Opportunity Fund shall then be applied to the next priority, all other parents or legal guardians of students in non-public schools. (e) The remaining funds in the Educational Opportunity Fund shall then be applied to the next priority, parents or legal guardians of public school students and parents or legal guardians of any student who is participating in a non-public home-based educational program. Outcelt contends that the language establishing priorities for eligibility for such credit in the titles and submission clause does not accurately summarize this passage. He asserts that the mere passing reference to `priorities' fails to give notice to the public that parents of non-public school students have a much greater priority, and are much more likely to benefit from the initiative, than parents of public school students. Outcelt would prefer to see the titles and submission clause reworded to reflect that the initiative establishes five priorities, primarily among parents of non-public school students. Outcelt's suggested wording, however, could confuse voters into believing that all non-public school parents would have priority over all public school parents. This is not the case, however, as the list of priorities makes clear that the benefit of the credit primarily but not exclusively would inure to non-public school parents whose children have transferred from a below average public school into a private school and to parents of special needs students. The Board need not specifically delineate this distinction. It is sufficient that the Board informs voters of the fact that not all parents will necessarily be eligible for the tax credit. This alerts concerned voters that they should read the complete language of the summary or of the initiative in order to determine what these priorities are. The Board need not and often cannot describe every feature of a proposed initiative in a title or ballot title and submission clause and simultaneously heed the mandate that such documents be concise. In re Proposed Initiative on Sch. Pilot Program, 874 P.2d at 1071. To require such would be to transform what the General Assembly intendeda relatively brief and plain statement by the Board setting forth the central features of the initiative for the votersinto an item-by-item paraphrase of the proposed constitutional amendment or statutory provision. Outcelt's second contention refers to the Educational Opportunity Fund that the amendment would create to fund the tax credit. Under the initiative, taxpayer money which would ordinarily go back to the state when a public school student transfers to a non-public school is instead placed in the fund. This money is then dispersed in the form of a tax credit according to the priorities listed in the initiative. The amount of the tax credit is to be determined by the General Assembly, pursuant to limitations created by the initiative, and there is no guarantee that all the parents on the priority list will receive a tax credit. Outcelt asserts that while the proposed initiative makes it clear that the availability of the tax credit will depend upon the amount of money that is in the fund, the title and the submission clause state only that the fund will offset the entire costs of such credit, without mentioning this limitation. Outcelt would delete the word entire and instead say that the fund will be used to fund, in order of the established priorities, the costs of such credit. This rewording is not essential. The fund would, in fact, offset the entire costs of such credit as the titles and submission clause state, because the credit would be applied only insofar as funds are available. In addition, the mere existence of priorities for applying the tax credit makes it apparent that the fund is limited; if everybody that is eligible for the credit would automatically receive it, a list of priorities would be superfluous. The Board is not required in the titles and summary to restate the obvious or set forth every detail. The aim is to capture, in short form, the proposal in plain, understandable, accurate language enabling informed voter choice in pursuit of the initiative rights of Colorado citizens. The titles and summary which the Board set for Initiative # 62 are not misleading, nor do they contain a material omission or misrepresentation.