Aisenberg v. Campbell

975 P.2d 180, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1607, 1999 Colo. LEXIS 321
Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided March 29, 1999·No. Nos. 99SA13, 99SA33·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these original proceedings brought pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), 1 C.R.S. (1998), the petitioner, Bennett S. Aisenberg, challenges the action of the initiative title setting board (“Title Board”) in setting a title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary for Proposed Initiative “1999-2000 # 41” and Proposed Initiative “1999-2000 # 42” (“Proposed Initiatives #41 and # 42”). The texts, titles and summaries of Proposed Initiatives # 41 and # 42 are attached as Appendices A and B, respectively. Aisenberg contends that each proposed initiative contains multiple subjects, that the titles and summary do not fairly and accurately describe the subject matter, and that the fiscal impact statements do not conform to applicable requirements. Because the relevant language is identical in the two initiatives, we have consolidated the cases for this opinion.

The initiatives propose, among other things, to alter the selection, retention, and removal process for judicial officers in Colorado. Multiple versions of these initiatives have come before this court in the recent past. In the earliest version to come before us we found that, in addition to the subject of selection, retention, and removal of judicial officers, the proposed initiative contained several other subjects, thus violating article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution. See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997-98 # 64, 960 P.2d 1192,1200 (Colo.1998) [hereinafter In re Proposed Initiative “1997-98 # 64”].

We also recently reviewed two other versions of this initiative. See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 # 33, 975 P.2d 175 (Colo.1999) [hereinafter In re Proposed Initiative “1999-2000 #33”\, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 # 29, 972 P.2d 257 (Colo.1999) [hereinafter In re Proposed Initiative “1999-2000 #29”]. In each of those cases, we found that the proposed initiative contained multiple subjects. Specifically, each initiative would have (1) changed the qualifications to serve as a state judge or justice, (2) changed the qualifications to serve as a member of the judicial discipline commission, and (3) changed the jurisdiction of county judges for the City and County of Denver. See In re Proposed Initiative “1999-2000 #33”, 975 P.2d at 176; In re Proposed Initiative “1999-2000 # 29” 972 P.2d at 259-268.

Proposed Initiatives # 41 and # 42 contain the same language that created multiple subjects in Proposed Initiatives “1999-2000 #29” and “1999-2000 #33.”1 Because these prior rulings are controlling, we conclude that the Title Board erred when it set titles for the current versions. Therefore, we reverse the actions of the Title Board and remand each case with directions to strike [182]*182the titles and return Initiatives #41 and # 42 to their proponents.

APPENDIX A

Proposed Initiative “1999-2000 # 41”1

The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows:

AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING JUDICIAL PERSONNEL, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, LIMITING FUTURE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR CERTAIN STATE COURT JUDGES AND JUSTICES; PROVIDING THAT THE GOVERNOR NOMINATE ALL STATE COURT JUDGES AND JUSTICES, SUBJECT TO SENATE AND VOTER APPROVAL; ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR THE REMOVAL ELECTIONS; REQUIRING ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE WHO IS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES, RECEIVES A NEGATIVE DISCIPLINARY FINDING, OR IS THE SUBJECT OF A REMOVAL PETITION TO STAND FOR ELECTION; PROVIDING THAT ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE RECEIVING A MAJORITY LESS THAN 60% IS RETAINED OR NOT REMOVED FOR ONE YEAR ONLY; PROVIDING THAT FUTURE DISCIPLINE COMMISSION MEMBERS SHALL BE NOMINATED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO SENATE APPROVAL AND SHALL NOT BE LAWYERS, JUDGES, OR JUSTICES; REQUIRING RECORDS AND REPORTS ON EACH JUDGE AND JUSTICE TO BE PUBLIC AND COMPUTER ACCESSIBLE; REQUIRING THAT VOTERS RECEIVE SPECIFIED INFORMATION ON EACH JUDGE AND JUSTICE STANDING FOR ELECTION; PROHIBITING CERTAIN PERSONS FROM SERVING AS ACTIVE OR SENIOR JUDGES OR IN OTHER JUDICIAL POSITIONS; PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; AND REPEALING CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO CONFORM WITH THIS AMENDMENT.

The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows:

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING JUDICIAL PERSONNEL, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, LIMITING FUTURE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR CERTAIN STATE COURT JUDGES AND JUSTICES; PROVIDING THAT THE GOVERNOR NOMINATE ALL STATE COURT JUDGES AND JUSTICES, SUBJECT TO SENATE AND VOTER APPROVAL; ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR THE REMOVAL ELECTIONS; REQUIRING ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE WHO IS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES, RECEIVES A NEGATIVE DISCIPLINARY FINDING, OR IS THE SUBJECT OF A REMOVAL PETITION TO STAND FOR ELECTION; PROVIDING THAT ANY JUDGE OR JUSTICE RECEIVING A MAJORITY LESS THAN 60% IS RETAINED OR NOT REMOVED FOR ONE YEAR ONLY; PROVIDING THAT FUTURE DISCIPLINE COMMISSION MEMBERS SHALL BE NOMINATED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO SENATE APPROVAL AND SHALL NOT BE LAWYERS, JUDGES, OR JUSTICES; REQUIRING RECORDS AND REPORTS ON EACH JUDGE AND JUSTICE TO BE PUBLIC AND COMPUTER ACCESSIBLE; REQUIRING THAT VOTERS RECEIVE SPECIFIED INFORMATION ON EACH JUDGE AND JUSTICE STANDING FOR ELECTION; PROHIBITING CERTAIN PERSONS FROM SERVING AS ACTIVE OR SENIOR JUDGES OR IN OTHER JUDICIAL POSITIONS; PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; AND REPEALING CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO CONFORM WITH THIS AMENDMENT?

The summary prepared by the Board is as follows:

This measure amends the Colorado constitution and would affect all county and district court judges, the probate and juvenile court judges in the City and County of Denver, [183]*183judges of the court of appeals, and justices of the supreme court. It would limit future terms of certain judges and justices to four years and prohibit certain judges and justices from serving more than three future terms at each court level. The measure provides that any future partial term constitutes a full term. The measure prohibits term-limited, mandatorily retired, removed from office, or defeated judges and justices from serving as active or senior judges. The measure requires the written consent of all parties for a senior judge to serve.

The measure changes the manner in which all state court judges and justices are selected by allowing the governor to nominate any qualified elector who resides in the court district even if the person were not recommended by a judicial nominating commission. The measure would prohibit any state court judge or justice from taking office until approved by the senate following a public hearing held after at least ten days’ notice. It requires all state court judges and justices to face a retention election in the first annual state election at least 90 days following approval by the senate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aisenberg v. Campbell, 975 P.2d 180, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1607, 1999 Colo. LEXIS 321 (Colo. 1999).

975 P.2d 180 (Aisenberg v. Campbell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Case
Washington Supreme Court, 2016