Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause, Summary for 1997-98 No. 30, Matter of, 97SA319
| Decision Date | 16 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97SA319,97SA319 |
| Citation | 959 P.2d 822 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE, AND SUMMARY FOR 1997-98 #30 John S. OUTCELT, Petitioner, v. Douglas BRUCE and Jeffrey Wright, Respondents, and Rebecca Lennahan and Richard Westfall, Title Board. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Susan E. Burch, Denver, for Petitioner.
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Martha Phillips Allbright, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General, Maurice G. Knaizer, Deputy Attorney General, State Services Section, Denver, for Title Board.
Douglas Bruce, pro se., Colorado Springs.
Petitioner, John S. Outcelt (Outcelt), brought this original proceeding under section 1-40-107(2), 1 C.R.S. (1997), to review the August 20, 1997, action of the Title Board (Board), in fixing a title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary (titles and summary) for a ballot initiative (Initiative # 30) for the 1998 general election. Outcelt contends that the Board lacked jurisdiction to act after the third Wednesday in May. Outcelt also argues that Initiative # 30 addresses multiple subjects, that the titles and summary do not fairly or accurately describe the subject matter, and that the fiscal impact statement is insufficient. We hold that the title Board had jurisdiction to act on Initiative # 30 in August of 1997. However, the proposed initiative contains more than one subject in violation of the Colorado Constitution, and the Board should have refused to fix the titles and summary. Accordingly, we reverse the title Board's action.
Initiative # 30 would add a new paragraph (d) to subsection (8) of section 20 of article X of the Colorado Constitution, generally known as Amendment 1. Subsection (8) of Amendment 1 is entitled "Revenue limits." The new paragraph would read as follows:
(8)(d) A $25 tax cut, increased $25 the next year and then $50 yearly (to $100, $150 ...), shall lower each tax bill for each 1999 and later district: utility customer tax and franchise charge; vehicle ownership tax; yearly income tax; property tax spent on human and health services, district attorney and assessor offices, libraries, courts, schools, economic development, enterprises, and authorities combined; property tax equal to yearly payments for lease-purchases and school debt; remaining business personal property tax; property tax equal to yearly tax amounts from property or other tax rates that are increased after November 3, 1992, except for fixed maximum tax rates with a fixed maximum number of dollars that are voter-approved since 1992, stated in the ballot title, and subject to increase by later voter approval only; and property tax equal to yearly amounts from exceeding either local spending limit percentage, computed since 1992, except for a fixed maximum number of dollars as described above. The state shall replace affected local revenue monthly within all tax and spending limits, and audit each limit yearly; legal fees and costs shall mandatorily be awarded to successful plaintiffs only; and once a year, the general assembly may delay for one year all or part of the next year's increase in one or more tax cuts, but only if further tax cut or replacement amounts in that next year will leave total remaining state revenue from all sources growing less than $200 million. 1
Thus, Initiative # 30 proposes to effectuate an annually increasing reduction in tax revenue which municipalities, school districts, and various special districts depend upon to fund local programs. Revenues affected include those from utility customer and franchise charges, vehicle ownership taxes, and property taxes that fund human and health services, district attorney and assessors offices, libraries, courts, schools, economic development, enterprises, and authorities. The shortfall in local programs caused by the tax cuts would be funded by the transfer of state revenues to local governments.
Under a separate provision, Initiative # 30 proposes to add new criteria to Amendment 1 providing that voter-approved revenue and spending increases enacted since 1992 are to specify a maximum tax rate with a fixed maximum number of dollars in the ballot title of those measures. The initiative also addresses annual compliance audits which must be funded by the state, and payment of costs and legal fees to successful plaintiffs.
The secretary of state's office received proposed Initiative # 30 on August 1, 1997. The Board met and fixed the titles and summary on August 20, 1997. On September 3, 1997, upon request by Outcelt, the Board held a rehearing, as required by statute. On rehearing, the Board partially reworded the title, ballot title and submission clause. Outcelt then sought review in this court.
We hold that the Board had jurisdiction to meet and take action on Initiative # 30 in August of 1997. However, because the initiative contains more than one subject in violation of the Colorado Constitution, the Board should have refused to set the titles and summary.
In In re Proposed Initiative # 26 Concerning School Impact Fees, 954 P.2d 586, 591 (Colo.1998), we held that the Board has jurisdiction under section 1-40-106(1), 1 C.R.S. (1997), to meet between June and a November election to act on proposed initiatives which will not be considered for the ballot in that same year.
That statutory provision contains two bars, neither of which is applicable here. The first bar of section 1-40-106(1) prevents the Board from meeting between a November election and the first Wednesday in December: "The first meeting of the title Board shall be held no sooner than the first Wednesday in December after an election." With regard to a measure which could qualify for that same year's ballot, the second bar provides that the Board cannot meet, except for rehearing petitions heard within forty-eight hours, after "the third Wednesday in May in the year in which the measure is to be voted on." § 1-40-106(1), 1 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added).
Although tax, debt, and spending measures are eligible for placement on odd or even year ballots, see School Impact Fees, 954 P.2d at 590, there is no contention and no possibility in the case before us that Initiative # 30 could have qualified for the November 1997 election. The secretary of state's office received Initiative # 30 on August 1, 1997. To be considered by the Board at one of its regularly scheduled meetings, a proposed initiative must be submitted no less than twelve days prior to that meeting. See § 1-40-106(1). Accordingly, the Board met on August 20, 1997, that being the third Wednesday of August and the first regular meeting after the required twelve days had passed.
The requisite number of signatures for a valid petition requesting placement of an initiative on the ballot must be filed with the secretary of state at least three months prior to the election in which the initiative is to be voted on. See Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(2); School Impact Fees, 954 P.2d at 589. To place Initiative # 30 on the 1997 ballot, the needed signatures would have had to be filed with the secretary of state in the first week of August. Since the Board's title setting action did not occur until the third week in August, Initiative # 30 could not have qualified for the November 1997 election. The first election for which this initiative could be eligible is the 1998 general election. Consequently, under the statute, the Board could meet to consider Initiative # 30 before the third Wednesday in May of 1998, including during the summer of 1997, except that it could not have met between the November 1997 election and the first Wednesday in December of 1997.
Thus, we hold that the Board complied with the provisions of section 1-40-106(1) and had jurisdiction to meet and act on Initiative # 30 in August of 1997. See School Impact Fees, 954 P.2d at 590-591.
Outcelt's next contention is that Initiative # 30 contains multiple subjects in violation of the Colorado Constitution. We agree. The constitution prohibits initiatives containing more than one subject such that a title cannot be fixed to clearly express the single subject:
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.
Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5) (emphasis added); see also § 1-40-106.5, 1 C.R.S. (1997). While we may not address the merits of a proposed initiative or suggest how an initiative might be applied if enacted, see School Impact Fees, 954 P.2d at 592, we must sufficiently examine an initiative to determine whether or not the constitutional prohibition against initiative proposals containing multiple subjects has been violated. 2 In construing an initiative for this limited purpose, we employ the usual rules of statutory construction. See § 2-4-101, 1 C.R.S. (1997) ( ); Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215, 228 n. 10 (Colo.1994) ().
One concern which led to voter enactment in 1994 of the multiple subject ban is that proponents would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1999-2000 No. 25, In re, 98SA388
...April 1998, we issued an opinion regarding Initiative # 30, the first version of the instant initiatives. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-98 # 30, 959 P.2d 822 (Colo.1998). Therein, we held that Initiative # 30 was unconstitutional because it contained two subjects--a tax cut and new......
-
Title v. Leahy
...the fact that the initiative would also result in mandatory state spending reductions. SeeIn re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997–1998 No. 30, 959 P.2d 822, 827 (Colo.1998). Here, however, there is no serious risk that the voters will be unaware of the primary effec......
-
Kemper v. (In re Title), Supreme Court Case No. 14SA126
...would also result in mandatory state spending reductions. See In re Title, Ballot Title, SubmissionClause, & Summary for 1997–1998 No. 30,959 P.2d 822, 827 (Colo. 1998). Here, however, there is no serious risk that the voters will be unaware of the primary effects of Initiative #89 because ......
-
Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1997-98 No. 62, Matter of, 98SA132
...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 (4) The tax credit shall be made available to eli......
-
Courts as Watchdogs of the Washington State Initiative Process
...Summary for 1997-1998 No. 4, 961 P.2d 456 (Colo. 1998); In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1997-1998 No. 30, 959 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1998); In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1997-1998 No. 95, 960 P.2d 1204 (Colo. 1998); Matter of Titl......
-
The Single-subject Requirement for Initiatives
...830 P.2d 1031 (Colo. 1992). 19. Supra, note 15. 20. Amend TABOR No. 32, 908 P.2d 125 (Colo. 1995). 21. In Re Ballot Title 1997-98 #30, 959 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1998). For similar holdings concerning subsequent measures, see also In Re Ballot Title 1999-2000 #37, 977 P.2d 845 (Colo. 1999); Matter......