Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment 1996-3 Adopted on April 3, 1996, and Motion for Rehearing Denied on April 17, 1996, Matter of

• Decision Date: 03 April 1996
• Citation: 917 P.2d 1274
• Parties: In the Matter of the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE, AND SUMMARY FOR THE PROPOSED INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT "1996-3" ADOPTED ON
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1274

917 P.2d 1274

In the Matter of the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE, AND SUMMARY FOR THE PROPOSED INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT "1996-3" ADOPTED ON APRIL 3, 1996 AND MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED ON APRIL 17, 1996 Vickie ARMSTRONG, Petitioner, v. Neil O'TOOLE, Marshall Fogel, and Roman Garcia, Respondents and Carol Poole, Rebecca Lennahan, and Richard Westfall, Title Setting Board, Respondents.

No. 96SA153.

Supreme Court of Colorado,

En Banc.

June 10, 1996.

Berry & Singer, John Berry, Denver, for Petitioner.

Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, Maurice G. Knaizer, Deputy Attorney General, State Services Section, Denver, for Respondent Title Setting Board.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, a registered elector of Colorado, appeals the action of the Title Setting Board (the "Board"), in setting a title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary ("titles and summary") for a proposed constitutional amendment designated "1996-3." The petitioner's sole objection is that the Board lacked jurisdiction to set the titles and summary because the proponents of the proposed initiative (the "Initiative" or measure "1996-3") failed to highlight or otherwise indicate all of the changes made to the amended original draft of the Initiative as required by section 1-40-105(4), 1B C.R.S. (1995 Supp.). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under section 1-40-107(2), 1B C.R.S. (1995 Supp.), and we now approve the action of the Board.

I.

On or about January 29, 1996, the directors of the legislative counsel and the office of legislative legal services held a comment hearing on the proposed Initiative. § 1-40-105(1), 1B C.R.S. (1995 Supp.). On March 20, 1996, the proponents submitted proposed measure 1996-3 to the secretary of state. § 1-40-105(4), 1B C.R.S. (1995 Supp.). ¹

In the submission to the secretary of state, the proponents highlighted some, but not all, of the textual changes made following the last meeting of the directors. As the Board asserts, "[t]he changes that were not highlighted were technical or grammatical, but not substantive." The original measure provided as follows:

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING SUITS AGAINST NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS WHO KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY, OR THROUGH GROSS NEGLIGENCE, MAINTAIN AN UNSAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PROVIDE THAT SUCH EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY A WORKER WHO IS INJURED OR DIES AS A RESULT OF THAT UNSAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND REQUIRING THAT DAMAGES AND LOSSES RECOVERED IN SUCH SUITS BE REDUCED BY BENEFITS PAID UNDER THE "WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT OF COLORADO?"

The final proposed version submitted to the secretary of state provided:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO THAT THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT ANY NON- GOVERNMENTAL

EMPLOYER WHO KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY, OR THROUGH GROSS NEGLIGENCE, MAINTAINS AN UNSAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT, SHALL NOT BE IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY A WORKER WHO IS INJURED OR DIES AS A RESULT OF THAT UNSAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND THAT DAMAGES AND LOSSES RECOVERED IN SUCH SUITS BE REDUCED BY BENEFITS PAID UNDER THE "WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT OF COLORADO."

The petitioner asserts that when the proponents submitted the original version of the measure, the revision with interlineation, and the final version of the measure to the secretary of state, as required by section 1-40-105(4), they failed to highlight or otherwise indicate all of the differences between the original and final version of the measure in the revision with interlineation. The portions of the revision that were highlighted were the first few lines through the word "provide" in the final version above. The petitioner alleges that the failure to indicate all of the changes divested the Board of jurisdiction to set the titles and summary. We disagree.

The standard of compliance in a case involving an initiative is that of "substantial compliance." As we said in Loonan v. Woodley, 882 P.2d 1380 (Colo.1994):

The right of initiative and referendum, like the right to vote, is a fundamental right under the Colorado Constitution. Likewise both the right to vote and right of initiative have in common the guarantee of participation in the political process. In light of the nature and seriousness of these rights, we have held that constitutional and statutory provisions governing the initiative process should be "liberally construed" so that "the constitutional right...