Haynes v. Vondruska
| Citation | 500 P.3d 363 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 20SA154 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR 2019-2020 #315 Anna Jo Haynes, Petitioner, v. Monica Vondruska and Jon Caldara, Respondents, Theresa Conley, David Powell, and Jason Gelender, Title Board. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Attorneys for Petitioner: Recht Kornfeld, P.C., Mark G. Grueskin, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondents: Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe, PC, Benjamin J. Larson, William A. Hobbs, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Title Board: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Grant T. Sullivan, Assistant Solicitor General, Denver, Colorado
En Banc
¶1 In this opinion, we review the actions of the Title Board in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause for Initiative 2019–2020 #315 ("Initiative #315"). Initiative #315 proposes to add section 22 to article X of the Colorado Constitution and to amend certain statutory provisions in Titles 24 and 39 of the Colorado Revised Statutes in order to create a new preschool program. This program would be created by reallocating revenue generated by existing state taxes on tobacco products and tobacco litigation settlements and by levying a new sales tax on tobacco-derived nicotine vapor products.1
¶2 We conclude that the title that the Title Board set for Initiative #315 presents a single subject, namely, the creation and administration of a Colorado preschool program funded by state taxes on nicotine and tobacco products. We further conclude that the title satisfies the clear title requirement because it describes Initiative #315's central features succinctly, accurately, and fairly and in a manner that will not mislead voters. Accordingly, we affirm the Title Board's actions in setting the title for Initiative #315.
¶3 Pursuant to section 1-40-106, C.R.S. (2019), proponents-respondents Monica Vondruska and Jon Caldara submitted proposed Initiative #315 to the Title Board for the setting of a title and submission clause. The Board conducted an initial public hearing and, concluding that Initiative #315 contained a single subject, proceeded to set the following title:
Shall state taxes be increased $6,300,000 annually by an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a new preschool program that is funded with revenue generated by state taxes on tobacco and nicotine products, and, in connection therewith, requiring the state to create and administer the new preschool program, which must supplement existing preschool programs and funding, and paying for the program by: 1) imposing a new tax on tobacco-derived nicotine vapor products; and 2) reallocating from certain health-related programs and other state purposes portions of the existing revenue from taxes on tobacco and nicotine products and money the state receives from tobacco litigation settlements?
¶4 Petitioner Anna Jo Haynes then filed a motion for rehearing, asserting that the title did not satisfy either the single subject or clear title requirement. The Board conducted a rehearing and denied petitioner's motion for rehearing in its entirety.
¶5 Petitioner now petitions for review pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2019).
¶6 "The Title Board is vested with considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause," and we will reverse the Board's decision only when a title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #90 , 2014 CO 63, ¶ 8, 328 P.3d 155, 159.
¶7 In reviewing Title Board title settings, "we employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board's actions." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #45 , 234 P.3d 642, 645 (Colo. 2010).
¶8 In addition, in our limited review of the Title Board's actions, we do not address the merits of the proposed initiative. In re 2013–2014 #90 , ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at 159. Nor do we suggest how it might be applied if enacted. Id. Rather, as pertinent here, we must examine the initiative's wording to determine whether it comports with the constitutional requirements. See id. In conducting this limited inquiry, we employ the general rules of statutory construction, giving words and phrases their plain and ordinary meanings. Id.
¶9 Petitioner contends that Initiative #315 violates both the Colorado Constitution's single subject and clear title requirements for ballot titles. We address these arguments in turn.
¶10 Article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution 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.
See also § 1-40-106.5(1)(a), C.R.S. (2019) ().
¶11 The single subject requirement serves two functions.
¶13 Accordingly, "an initiative's subject matter must be necessarily and properly connected rather than disconnected or incongruous, and the initiative will be held to violate the single subject requirement when it relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015–2016 #73 , 2016 CO 24, ¶ 14, 369 P.3d 565, 568. Such a requirement "prevents the proponents from combining multiple subjects to attract a ‘yes’ vote from voters who might vote ‘no’ on one or more of the subjects if they were proposed separately." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #76 , 2014 CO 52, ¶ 8, 333 P.3d 76, 79.
¶14 Second, the single subject requirement seeks "[t]o prevent surreptitious measures and apprise the people of the subject of each measure by the title, that is, to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters." § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II).
¶15 When an initiative tends to effectuate one general objective or purpose, then the initiative presents only one subject. In re 2015–2016 #73 , ¶ 17, 369 P.3d at 568. Accordingly, an initiative will not be deemed to violate the single subject requirement merely because it spells out details relating to its implementation. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1997–1998 No. 74 , 962 P.2d 927, 929 (Colo. 1998). Nor will an initiative be deemed to violate the single subject requirement because it may have different effects on other provisions of Colorado law. In re 2013–2014 #90 , ¶ 17, 328 P.3d at 160. Such effects are not relevant to whether the proposed initiative contains a single subject. Id.
¶16 The breadth of the initiative's objective, however, is not without limits. For example, "[a] proponent's attempt to characterize an initiative under some general theme will not save the initiative from violating the single-subject rule if the initiative contains multiple subjects." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #91 , 235 P.3d 1071, 1076 (Colo. 2010).
¶17 We liberally construe the single subject requirement both because of the Title Board's considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause and in order to avoid unduly restricting the initiative process. In re 2013–2014 #90 , ¶ 12, 328 P.3d at 159–60. We will therefore overturn the Board's finding that an initiative contains a single subject only in a "clear case." In re 2013–2014 #76 , ¶ 8, 333 P.3d at 79.
¶18 Here, petitioner contends that the title set by the Board for Initiative #315 violates the Colorado Constitution's single subject requirement because it both expands preschool programs and penalizes local policy makers who ban any form of tobacco or nicotine products. Specifically, petitioner argues that the title improperly forces voters to choose between enhanced preschool programming, which the voters may be inclined to support, and forsaking legislative prerogatives that could be used in pursuit of other policy goals. Petitioner further asserts that the "financial penalties" that would result were a local legislature to ban tobacco and nicotine products would not be apparent to voters who thought that they were voting to fund a preschool program. We are not persuaded by any of these arguments.
¶19 Initiative #315 raises $6.3 million through a new sales tax on vaping products. The measure further reallocates certain existing state cigarette and tobacco tax revenue from local governments that ban sales of tobacco and nicotine products to the preschool program that Initiative #315 creates. And the measure reallocates a portion of the cigarette and tax revenue generated by article X, section 21 of the Colorado Constitution that currently funds tobacco education, health, and cessation programs, redirecting a portion of these tax funds to the new preschool program.
¶20 In our view, the foregoing provisions are all implementing provisions that are necessarily and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fine v. Ward (In re Titles)
...#16, 2021 CO 55, ¶ 8, 489 P.3d 1217, 1220 (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #315, 2020 CO 61, ¶ 17, 500 P.3d 363, 367). We therefore overturn the Board's determination of a single subject only in a "clear case," In re 2019-2020 #315, ¶ 17, 500 P.3d at 367 ......