In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause Approved September 4, 1991

826 P.2d 1241, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 133, 1992 Colo. LEXIS 53, 1992 WL 10646
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJanuary 27, 1992
DocketNo. 91SA359
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 826 P.2d 1241 (In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause Approved September 4, 1991) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause Approved September 4, 1991, 826 P.2d 1241, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 133, 1992 Colo. LEXIS 53, 1992 WL 10646 (Colo. 1992).

Opinion

Justice QUINN

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this statutory proceeding filed pursuant to section 1-40-102(3)(a), 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), the petitioner, Kathy Verio, a registered elector of the State of Colorado, challenges the title, as well as the ballot title and submission clause, prepared by the Title Setting Review Board (Board) for a proposed constitutional amendment concerning limited gaming in Manitou Springs, Fairplay, and public airports. Verio asserts that neither the title nor the ballot title and submission clause clearly expresses the true meaning and intent of the proposed constitutional amendment. We affirm the action of the Board.

I.

The proposed constitutional amendment, which would amend section (9)(4)(b) and (5)(a) of article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution, and would add a new section (10) to article XVIII, was submitted to the Board so that the Board could fix a title, a ballot title and submission clause, and a summary of the measure before submitting it to the voters for approval or rejection. The proposed amendment, which is set [1243]*1243forth in its entirety in an appendix to this opinion, contains detailed provisions designed to legalize limited gaming in the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay, to allow airport authorities to place slot machines in public airports, to reduce the allowable tax on the proceeds of limited gaming, to limit state license fees or taxes on any limited gaming device, to allocate the tax and fee revenues to various governmental funds or entities, and to add the games of keno, roulette, and craps to those presently allowed in communities where limited gaming is permitted.

On September 4, 1991, the Board fixed the following title for the proposed measure:

AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVIII OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO LEGALIZE LIMITED GAMING IN THE CITIES OF MANI-TOU SPRINGS AND FAIRPLAY AND TO ALLOW AIRPORT AUTHORITIES TO PLACE SLOT MACHINES IN PUBLIC AIRPORTS, TO REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE TAX ON THE PROCEEDS OF LIMITED GAMING FROM 40% to 10%, TO LIMIT STATE LICENSE FEES OR TAXES ON ANY LIMITED GAMING DEVICE TO $25 ANNUALLY, TO ALLOCATE TAX AND FEE REVENUES, AND TO ADD KENO, ROULETTE AND CRAPS TO THE TYPES OF GAMES WHICH MAY BE CONDUCTED IN COMMUNITIES WHERE LIMITED GAMING IS PERMITTED.

The ballot title and submission clause, as determined by the Board, was as follows:

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVIII OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO LEGALIZE LIMITED GAMING IN THE CITIES OF MANITOU SPRINGS AND FAIRPLAY AND TO ALLOW AIRPORT AUTHORITIES TO PLACE SLOT MACHINES IN PUBLIC AIRPORTS, TO REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE TAX ON THE PROCEEDS OF LIMITED GAMING FROM 40% to 10%, TO LIMIT STATE LICENSE FEES OR TAXES ON ANY LIMITED GAMING DEVICE TO $25 ANNUALLY, TO ALLOCATE TAX AND FEE REVENUES, AND TO ADD KENO, ROULETTE, AND CRAPS TO THE TYPES OF GAMES WHICH MAY BE CONDUCTED IN COMMUNITIES WHERE LIMITED GAMING IS PERMITTED?

The Board also prepared the following summary for the proposed amendment:

This measure provides that limited gaming shall be lawful in certain districts in the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay. The measure allows airport authorities to place slot machines in public airports. All gaming under this measure is subject to regulations by the Colorado limited gaming control commission. The measure adds keno, roulette, and craps to the limited gaming activities which may be conducted in communities where limited gaming is permitted, reduces the maximum tax on the proceeds of limited gaming to 10%, and limits to $25 the amount of any state tax or fee imposed on any limited gaming device or table. The measure also specifies how the resulting tax revenues shall be spent, setting aside percentages for the state, public school districts, mined land reclamation, the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay, municipal business improvement in the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay, the counties of El Paso and Park, and other purposes, and sets forth limits on the hours, methods, and conditions under which the limited gaming control commission may permit limited gaming and slot machine operations to be conducted.
Limited gaming in Manitou Springs and Fairplay, additional types of games, and the placement of slot machines in public airports are expected to increase revenues to state and local governments. However, placing new limits on taxes and fees applicable to existing gaming is expected to reduce revenues to state and local governments. Furthermore, state and local governments are expected to incur increased costs of administration, law enforcement, roads, and infrastructure as a result of this measure. The amounts of these revenues and costs are indeterminate.

[1244]*1244After the Board fixed the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary, Verlo filed a motion for a rehearing with the Secretary of State in which Verlo challenged the accuracy and fairness of the title and the ballot title and submission clause. Verio asserted that the title and the ballot title and submission clause are misleading because they merely state that the proposed constitutional amendment will “legalize limited gaming in the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay,” thereby suggesting that the citizens of those cities will have a choice as to whether they will permit limited gaming, when in fact the intent of the proposed constitutional amendment is to mandate that these cities enact ordinances necessary to implement the proposed constitutional amendment. Following a rehearing on Verio’s motion, the Board refused to substitute the word “mandate” or “require” in the title and in the ballot title and submission clause because, in the Board’s opinion, such a change might mislead the public into thinking that the cities would be required to set up gaming establishments rather than enacting ordinances permitting private entities to engage in limited gaming operations. The Board, however, added the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the summary: “The measure provides that the cities of Manitou Springs and Fairplay are required to enact certain ordinances to implement limited gaming.” Verio thereafter filed a petition for review in this court, again claiming that the word “legalize” in the title and in the ballot title and submission clause does not represent the true intent and meaning of the proposed measure. Before addressing the merits of Verio’s claim, we briefly summarize the operative principles for resolving the propriety of the Board’s action.

II.

The statutory scheme for an initiated constitutional amendment requires the Board, which consists of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Office of Legislative Legal Services or the director’s designee, to fix a title, a ballot title and submission clause, and a summary for any proposed constitutional amendment. § 1-40-101(2), 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). The “title” is defined as “a brief statement that fairly and accurately represents the true intent and meaning of the proposed text of the initiative.” § 1-40-100.3(6), 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). The “submission clause” refers to “the language which is attached to the title to form a question which can be answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ” § 1-40-100.3(4), 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). The “ballot title” is “the language which is printed on the ballot which is comprised of the submission clause and the title.” § 1-40-100.3(1), 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.).

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

Related

Schulte v. Long
2004 SD 102 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2004)
Matter of Title, Ballot Title for No. 80
961 P.2d 1120 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1998)
Kelley v. Tancredo
913 P.2d 1127 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1996)
In Re Proposed Ballot Initiative
913 P.2d 1127 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1996)
In Re Prop. Init." Fair Fishing"
877 P.2d 1355 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1994)
Matter of Pet. on Campaign and Pol. Fin.
877 P.2d 311 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1994)
Matter of Proposed Initiated Const. Amend.
873 P.2d 733 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1994)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause
872 P.2d 689 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1994)
Matter of Election Reform Amendment
852 P.2d 28 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1993)
Van Westrum v. Smith
834 P.2d 261 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1992)
Bruce v. State
832 P.2d 937 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1992)
Matter of Proposed I. Const. Amendment
830 P.2d 1023 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
826 P.2d 1241, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 133, 1992 Colo. LEXIS 53, 1992 WL 10646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-title-ballot-title-submission-clause-approved-september-4-colo-1992.