Court Opinion

ID: 9963885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 15:01:21.540487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:02.866140
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1282     Document: 010111038764       Date Filed: 04/26/2024        Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                        PUBLISH                                Tenth Circuit

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         April 26, 2024

                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           Clerk of Court
                          _________________________________

  ADVANCE COLORADO, a Colorado
  non-profit; GEORGE HANKS “HANK”
  BROWN, an individual; STEVEN WARD,
  an individual; CODY DAVIS, an
  individual; JERRY SONNENBERG, an
  individual; CARRIE GEITNER, an
  individual,

        Plaintiffs - Appellants,

  v.                                                           No. 23-1282

  JENA GRISWOLD, in her official capacity
  as Secretary of State of Colorado,

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Colorado
                         (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01999-PAB-SKC)
                        _________________________________

 Jennifer H. Weddle (Troy A. Eid and Harriett McConnell Retford with her on the briefs),
 Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs – Appellants.

 Michael Kotlarczyk, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Philip J. Weiser, Attorney
 General, and J. Greg Whitehair, Assistant Attorney General, with him on the brief),
 Colorado Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant – Appellee.
                        _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

 MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
                     _________________________________
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764         Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 2

       I.     Introduction

       In 2021, the Colorado state legislature passed The Ballot Measure Fiscal

 Transparency Act (“HB 21-1321”), which requires certain language be included in

 state-imposed titles of citizen-initiated ballot measures. Specifically, if the proposal

 contains a tax change affecting state or local revenues, the measure’s title must

 incorporate a phrase stating the change’s impact on state and district funding

 priorities. In 2023, Appellants (collectively, “Advance Colorado”) proposed two tax

 reduction measures subject to the provisions of HB 21-1321. After Colorado’s Ballot

 Title Setting Board (the “Title Board”) included the mandated transparency language

 in each initiative’s title, Advance Colorado filed suit challenging HB 21-1321 as

 unconstitutionally compelling its political speech. The district court denied the

 corresponding request for a preliminary injunction, concluding the titling process

 qualified as government speech and, therefore, Advance Colorado was not likely to

 succeed on the merits of its claims. We agree that HB 21-1321’s requirements do not

 result in improperly compelled speech under the First Amendment of the United

 States Constitution. Thus, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, this

 court affirms the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction.

       II.    Background

              a. Factual History

       Colorado law offers citizens the opportunity to propose their own laws or

 constitutional amendments through citizen-initiated ballot measures. Colo. Const.

 art. V, § 1(1). Qualifying proposals under this process must complete a comment and

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-1282     Document: 010111038764          Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 3

 review period before being delivered to the Secretary of State’s office for titling.

 Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 1-40-105(1), 106(1). Colorado’s Title Board is responsible for

 ensuring each proposal receives a clear and direct title. Id. § 1-40-106(3)(b). Ballot

 titles are entirely crafted by the Title Board and proposal sponsors do not submit any

 title language for consideration. Id. §§ 1-40-105(4), 106(1). Once set, titles may

 appear in three places: (a) the petition form used by advocates to gather signatures;1

 (b) an official non-partisan voter information booklet; and (c) the ballot itself. Id.

 at § 1-40-102(2), 110(2); Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(7.5).

       After the Title Board deliberates and sets a title, dissatisfied proponents may

 file a motion for rehearing with the Secretary of State. Colo. Rev. Stat.

 § 1-40-107(1)(a)(I). If advocates disagree with the Title Board’s rehearing outcome,

 they may further petition the Colorado Supreme Court for review. Id. § 1-40-107(2).

 Generally, however, “[t]he Title Board is vested with considerable discretion in

 setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause.” Cordero v. Leahy (In re

 Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90), 328 P.3d 155, 159

 (Colo. 2014).

       HB 21-1321 implemented several rules regarding the contents of citizen-

 initiated ballot titles involving “tax change[s].” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-106.

       1
         When placed on the petition for signatures, each title is preceded by the
 following disclaimer: “The Ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed
 by the Initiative Title Setting Review Board is as follows: . . .”.
                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764         Date Filed: 04/26/2024        Page: 4

 HB 21-1321 includes two language requirements for initiatives implicating

 reductions in tax revenue:

       (e) For measures that reduce state tax revenue through a tax change, the
       ballot title must begin “Shall there be a reduction to the (description of
       tax) by (the percentage by which the tax is reduced in the first full
       fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue) thereby reducing state
       revenue, which will reduce funding for state expenditures that include
       but are not limited to (the three largest areas of program expenditure)
       by an estimated (projected dollar figure of revenue reduction to the
       state in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue) in
       tax revenue․․․?”. If the ballot measure specifies the public services or
       programs that are to be reduced by the tax change, those public services
       or programs must be stated in the ballot title. If the public services or
       programs identified in the measure are insufficient to account for the
       full dollar value of the tax change in the first full fiscal year that the
       measure reduces revenue, then the three largest areas of program
       expenditure must be stated in the bill title along with the public services
       or programs identified in the measure. The estimates reflected in the
       ballot title shall not be interpreted as restrictions of the state's budgeting
       process.

       (f) For measures that reduce local district property tax revenue through
       a tax change, the ballot title must begin “Shall funding available for
       counties, school districts, water districts, fire districts, and other
       districts funded, at least in part, by property taxes be impacted by a
       reduction of (projected dollar figure of property tax revenue reduction
       to all districts in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces
       revenue) in property tax revenue․․․?”. The title board shall exclude any
       districts whose property tax revenue would not be reduced by the
       measure from the measure's ballot title. The estimates reflected in the
       ballot title shall not be interpreted as restrictions of a local district's
       budgeting process.

 Id. § 1-40-106(3)(e)–(f) (emphasis added).

       Advance Colorado sponsored two initiatives for the 2024 statewide ballot that

 proposed tax changes: Colorado Proposed Initiative 2023–2024 #21 (“Initiative 21”),

 which includes a limit on property tax increases; and Colorado Proposed Initiative

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764         Date Filed: 04/26/2024       Page: 5

 2023–2024 #22 (“Initiative 22”), which includes a reduction in sales and use tax

 rates. In April 2023, the Title Board determined both measures triggered the language

 requirements of HB 21-1321 and set titles accordingly. Initiative 21’s title was stated

 as follows:

       Shall funding available for counties, school districts, water districts, fire
       districts, and other districts funded, at least in part, by property taxes
       shall be impacted by a reduction of $2.2 billion in property tax revenue
       by an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the
       Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a 3% annual limit on property tax
       increases, and, in connection therewith, creating an exception to the
       limit if a property’s use changes or its square footage increases by more
       than 10%, in which case, the property is reappraised, and, beginning in
       fiscal year 2024–2025, allowing the state to annually retain and spend
       up to $100 million of excess state revenue, if any, as a voter-approved
       revenue change to offset reduced property tax revenue and to reimburse
       local governments for fire protection?

 Likewise, the Title Board set Initiative 22’s title as the following:

       Shall there be a reduction to the state sales and use tax rate by 0.61
       percent, thereby reducing state revenue, which will reduce funding for
       state expenditures that include but are not limited to education, health
       care policy and financing, and higher education by an estimated $101.9
       million in tax revenue, by a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes
       concerning a reduction in state sales and use taxes, and, in connection
       therewith, reducing the state sales and use tax rate from 2.90 percent to
       2.89 percent from July 1, 2024, through June 29, 2025, and eliminating
       the state sales and use tax for one day on June 30, 2025?

       In accordance with policy, the Colorado Legislature Council Staff released

 fiscal summaries analyzing the respective economic impact of each proposal.

 Importantly, both measures implicate the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights

 (“TABOR”). Colo. Const. art. X, § 20. Among its many mandates, TABOR requires

 state and local governments to refund taxpayers any revenues appropriated in excess

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764         Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 6

 of the prior year’s spending. Id. art. X, § 20(7). Based on then-current forecasts, the

 Legislature Council’s fiscal summary for Initiative 22 concluded the measure would

 not likely impact the state’s overall budget. Rather, given the probability of a state

 revenue surplus, the measure was projected only to reduce the amount available for

 taxpayer refunds under TABOR. The fiscal summary for Initiative 21 identified that

 the measure would decrease local property tax revenue and influence school

 financing. It further determined the measure would increase the amount of revenue

 the state could retain and, in turn, decrease the amount used for TABOR refunds.

              b. Procedural History

       Following the Title Board’s determinations, Advance Colorado filed motions

 for rehearing on both Initiative 21 and 22. The Title Board denied the motions, and

 Advance Colorado elected not to appeal either decision to the Colorado Supreme

 Court.2 Initiative 22 became final on April 19, 2023, and after an unrelated challenge,

 Initiative 21 became final on May 19, 2023. Advance Colorado refused, however, to

 circulate any petition to gather signatures without a preliminary injunction

 prohibiting HB 21-1321’s application.

       In August 2023, Advance Colorado commenced this action, alleging

 HB 21-1321 unconstitutionally compelled its political speech in violation of the First

       2
          Advance Colorado argues it already appealed a substantively similar proposal
 to Initiative 22 to the Colorado Supreme Court during the 2021–2022 ballot cycle.
 The court summarily affirmed the Title Board’s determination without discussion of
 HB 21-1321’s language requirements. As a result, Advance Colorado asserts it has
 functionally exhausted its state court remedies.
                                             6
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764        Date Filed: 04/26/2024      Page: 7

 Amendment.3 One week later, it filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief,

 requesting that the Secretary of State convene the Title Board to reauthorize the

 initiatives’ titles without the language mandated by HB 21-1321. Advance Colorado

 argued the law’s requirements improperly foist oppositional political viewpoints on

 citizen-led ballot measures and are specifically misleading regarding Initiatives 21

 and 22. Contrary to their assigned titles, Advance Colorado asserted that Initiative 21

 proposes only a property tax cap, not a tax reduction; and Initiative 22 would only

 result in smaller TABOR refunds, not funding decreases to popular healthcare and

 education programming.

       Following a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion, the district court

 concluded Advance Colorado could not show the requisite likelihood of success on

 the merits to grant the motion. In its analysis, the court considered the factors used

 for determining the boundary between government and private speech as outlined in

 Shurtleff v. City of Bos., 596 U.S. 243, 252 (2022). Namely, it concluded the history

 of the expression; the public’s likely perception as to who is speaking; and the extent

 to which the government has shaped the expression all indicated Colorado’s titling

 system was government speech not subject to a First Amendment compelled speech

       3
          In addition to facial and as-applied challenges under the U.S. Constitution,
 Advance Colorado’s complaint included a third claim arising under Article V of the
 Colorado Constitution. It alleged HB 21-1321 violated the state’s requirement that
 ballot titles be clear and direct. Advance Colorado failed to raise this claim in its
 appellate briefing, thereby rendering the issue waived. SCO Grp., Inc. v. Novell, Inc.,
 578 F.3d 1201, 1226 (10th Cir. 2009) (“An issue or argument insufficiently raised in
 a party’s opening brief is deemed waived.”).
                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764            Date Filed: 04/26/2024   Page: 8

 claim. In making this determination, the court particularly pointed to the decades-

 long history of the Title Board’s practices in Colorado; the heavy regulation of the

 initiative process by the state government; and limited evidence voters perceive

 ballot title language to be the Appellants’ own, particularly in light of the disclaimer

 stating otherwise on petition forms. See supra n. 1.

       III.   Analysis

              a. Standard of Review

       This court reviews the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of

 discretion. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC, 500 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir.

 2007). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court commits an error of law

 or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.” Att’y Gen. of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods,

 Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 775 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). In conducting this

 analysis, “we examine the district court’s legal determinations de novo, and its

 underlying factual findings for clear error.” Id. at 776.

       To succeed on a motion for preliminary injunction, the moving party must

 establish “(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) irreparable

 harm unless the injunction is issued; (3) [that] the threatened injury outweighs the

 harm that the preliminary injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) [that] the

 injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest.” Davis v. Mineta,

 302 F.3d 1104, 1111 (10th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted), abrogated on other

 grounds by Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276

 (10th Cir. 2016). Preliminary injunctive relief is considered an “extraordinary

                                             8
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764        Date Filed: 04/26/2024   Page: 9

 remedy” that requires the moving party make a “clear and unequivocal showing it is

 entitled to such relief.” Colorado v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 989 F.3d 874, 883 (10th

 Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted).4

              b. First Amendment Framework

       To state a compelled-speech claim under the First Amendment, “a party must

 establish (1) speech; (2) to which [it] objects; that is (3) compelled by some

 governmental action.” Cressman v. Thompson, 798 F.3d 938, 951 (10th Cir. 2015).

 The First Amendment, therefore, works to “restrict[] government regulation of

 private speech.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467 (2009). Similar

 to citizens, however, the government has a right to “speak for itself.” Bd. of Regents

 of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 229 (2000). In turn, purely

 government speech is generally “exempt from First Amendment scrutiny.” Johanns v.

 Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550, 553 (2005).

       “The boundary between government speech and private expression can blur

 when . . . a government invites the people to participate in a program.” Shurtleff, 596

       4
          Certain requests for preliminary injunctions are disfavored, including those
 that are mandatory, “alter the status quo,” or “afford the movant all the relief that it
 could recover at the conclusion of a full trial on the merits.” U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency,
 989 F.3d at 883–84. When reviewing a disfavored preliminary injunction request, this
 court requires the moving party to “make a heightened showing of the four factors.”
 RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir. 2009). Given that
 Advance Colorado’s request aims to alter the status quo by affirmatively requiring
 the Secretary of State to reconvene the Title Board, the district court determined the
 motion was disfavored. We conclude Advance Colorado fails to show a substantial
 likelihood of success on the merits under the normal standard, see infra § III.b, and
 therefore need not determine whether the specific injunction requested was
 disfavored. See U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 989 F.3d at 884.
                                            9
Appellate Case: 23-1282     Document: 010111038764        Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 10

  U.S. at 252. Under such circumstances, it becomes difficult to discern when

  “government-public engagement” transmits the government’s own message or the

  message of its citizen-participants. Id. In analyzing which side of the watershed

  government engagement falls, “we conduct a holistic inquiry designed to determine

  whether the government intends to speak for itself or to regulate private expression.”

  Id. This analysis is not a mechanical “application of rigid factors,” but rather looks to

  “a case’s context.” Id. Evidence typically used in drawing such conclusions includes

  “the history of the expression at issue; the public’s likely perception as to who (the

  government or a private person) is speaking; and the extent to which the government

  has actively shaped or controlled the expression.” Id.; see also Walker v. Texas Div.,

  Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 208–14 (2015) (holding specialty

  license plate designs constitute government speech); VDARE Found. v. City of

  Colorado Springs, 11 F.4th 1151, 1170 (10th Cir. 2021) (holding public mayoral

  announcement to be government speech).

               c. Government Speech Analysis

        To receive a preliminary injunction, the moving party must first demonstrate a

  substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency,

  989 F.3d at 883. Considering the evidence presented and the First Amendment

  framework set out in Shurtleff, Advance Colorado has failed to meet this standard.

  596 U.S. at 252. The first and third Shurtleff factors—history and government control

  of expression—work in tandem to underscore Colorado’s ballot titling qualifies as

  government speech. The Colorado Title Board has existed and set ballot titles in a

                                             10
Appellate Case: 23-1282     Document: 010111038764         Date Filed: 04/26/2024        Page: 11

  similar manner for over eighty years. See An Act Relating to the Initiative and

  Referendum, ch. 147, § 1, 1941 Colo. Sess. Laws 480, 480. As is the case today,

  when it was first formed the Title Board was solely responsible for setting a

  measure’s title without the influence of proposal advocates. Compare id. with Colo.

  Rev. Stat. § 1-40-105(4). The long history of the Title Board’s practices reflects the

  substantial control the government asserts over initiative titles and its legitimate

  interest in providing a standardized process for presenting measures to voters. Titling

  is statutorily separated and preserved as an express function of the government under

  Colorado law. See id. § 1-40-106. Despite the catalytic role played by citizens in the

  initiative process, ballot titles are fully and exclusively crafted by the government

  through the Secretary of State’s office. Indeed, “[t]he fact that private parties take

  part in the design and propagation of a message does not extinguish the governmental

  nature of the message or transform the government’s role into that of a mere forum-

  provider.” Walker, 576 U.S. at 217. Advance Colorado has failed to offer any

  evidence refuting this history of substantial government control.

         Advance Colorado is also unable to demonstrate that, under the second

  Shurtleff factor, the general public perceives initiative titles to be the speech of

  private citizen-advocates. Appellants focused their argument regarding voter

  confusion on signature petitions and offered limited testimonial evidence indicating

  citizens do not always understand the origin of title language. As the district court

  noted, however, Advance Colorado fails to address the disclaimer shown

  immediately above the ballot title indicating the language is “designated and fixed”

                                              11
Appellate Case: 23-1282    Document: 010111038764         Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 12

  by the Title Board. See supra n.1. This statement plainly communicates to voters that

  the title is drafted by the government and does not represent the proponents’

  expression. Advance Colorado provides no additional evidence calling into question

  the public’s perception of who writes the title. Given this minimal support, the robust

  history of titles being government expression, and the near total control the

  government asserts over titling, our holistic review clearly demonstrates Colorado’s

  titling process qualifies as government speech. Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 252.5

        Advance Colorado urges this court to conclude the mandatory and misleading

  effect of HB 21-1321 renders the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

  HB 21-1321’s requirements, it argues, inevitably mischaracterize an initiative’s

  purpose and, as a result, compel the speech of advocates by association. Nonetheless,

  whether the content of the expression may be misleading does not bear on the

  underlying question of who owns the speech. Colorado law provides a separate,

  statutorily protected appeal process for proponents who believe the Title Board has

        5
           Instead of using Shurtleff to analyze whether Colorado ballot titles are private
  speech or government speech, Advance Colorado urges this court to analogize the
  issue to government regulations on political speech or limitations on commercial
  disclosures. The authority it provides, however, is of limited use because these cases
  contemplate clearly private or commercial speech. See, e.g., Cal. Democratic Party v.
  Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (considering government regulation of political
  association on ballots); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
  (analyzing distribution of anonymous political literature); Zauderer v. Off. of
  Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme Ct., 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985) (reviewing
  government disclosure requirements imposed on commercial entities). Here, we
  confront purely government speech, not government regulation of private speech.
  Thus, this court finds Advance Colorado’s private political speech and commercial
  disclosure authority unavailing.
                                             12
Appellate Case: 23-1282     Document: 010111038764         Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 13

  provided a substantively unfair title. See, e.g., Bruce v. Hedges (In re Ballot Title &

  Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #3 “State Fiscal Policy”), 454 P.3d 1056, 1060

  (Colo. 2019) (considering whether a ballot measure aiming to repeal TABOR was

  clear). The Free Speech Clause, however, typically “does not regulate government

  speech.” Summum, 555 U.S. at 467. Under Shurtleff, the Colorado initiative titling

  system squarely qualifies as government speech and Advance Colorado has not

  otherwise shown its own speech was improperly compelled by the government

  speech.6 Accordingly, it cannot demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the

  merits of its claims and, therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

  denying the preliminary injunction.

         IV.    Conclusion

         The order denying Advance Colorado’s request for a preliminary injunction by

  the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is hereby affirmed.7

         6
           Indeed, even if speech is the government’s own, it may still violate the First
  Amendment if it “compel[s] private persons to convey the government’s speech.”
  Cressman, 798 F.3d at 949 (quotation omitted); see also Semple v. Griswold,
  934 F.3d 1134, 1143 (10th Cir. 2019) (holding government measures are improperly
  compulsory when they punish or threaten to punish protected speech through
  regulatory or proscriptive acts). With the exception of limited discussion in its reply
  briefing, Advance Colorado has consistently asserted that the ballot titles are its own
  private speech and has not argued, in the alternative, that they are improperly
  compulsory government speech. Given this lack of argument, this court treats the
  issue as waived. See SCO Grp., Inc., 578 F.3d at 1226; Star Fuel Marts, LLC v.
  Sam’s E., Inc., 362 F.3d 639, 647 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Generally, arguments raised for
  the first time on appeal in an appellant’s reply brief are waived.”).
         7
         Given the disposition of this appeal, Advance Colorado’s Motion to Expedite
  Review of this case is denied as moot.
                                              13