Matter of Pet. on Campaign and Pol. Fin.

877 P.2d 311
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJuly 5, 1994
Docket94SA146
StatusPublished

This text of 877 P.2d 311 (Matter of Pet. on Campaign and Pol. Fin.) 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
Matter of Pet. on Campaign and Pol. Fin., 877 P.2d 311 (Colo. 1994).

Opinion

877 P.2d 311 (1994)

In the Matter of the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE, AND SUMMARY FOR A PETITION ON CAMPAIGN AND POLITICAL FINANCE.
Douglas Bruce, Petitioner, and
Richard K. Bainter and Patricia L. Johnson, Respondents, and
Title Setting Board, Merilyn Handley, Rebecca Lennahan, and Stephen Erkenbrack, Respondents.

No. 94SA146.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

July 5, 1994.

*312 Douglas Bruce, pro se.

Holland & Hart, Brooke Jackson, Dana Cephas, Denver, for respondents.

Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Maurice G. Knaizer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Gen. Legal Services Section, Denver, for respondents Title Setting Bd.

Justice SCOTT delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Petitioner Douglas Bruce, a registered elector for the State of Colorado, brings this original proceeding to challenge the action of the Initiative Title Setting Board (hereafter the Board) in setting the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary for a proposed initiated amendment to the Colorado Constitution. The proposed amendment, entitled "Campaign and Political Finance Initiative" (hereafter the Initiative), limits campaign contributions for state-wide office candidates, establishes civil and criminal sanctions for contribution limits violations, and bars from elective office any candidate who violates the terms of the campaign financing amendment.

Bruce argues that the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary set by the Board are invalid as a matter of law because they do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed constitutional amendment, and hence are misleading to voters. In all, Bruce asserts fifteen grounds in support of this claim. We address each of his challenges seriatim, and for the reasons discussed below, affirm the Board's action.

I

On March 4, 1994, respondents Richard K. Bainter and Patricia L. Johnson filed a draft of the Initiative with the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services.[1] The Board convened a hearing on March 16, 1994, to set the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary for the Initiative. Together with another registered elector, Bruce moved for a rehearing, contesting the validity of the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary. At the rehearing held on April 6, 1994, the Board made minor *313 revisions in the title and the ballot title and submission clause.[2]

Seeking further revisions to the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary, Bruce filed for review of the Board's action, pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), 1B C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).[3] Bruce now asserts that several ambiguities in the language adopted by the Board in setting out the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary obscure the true intent and meaning of the Initiative such that it fails to adequately inform the electorate of its effects.

II

The standards governing our review of a Board's title-setting actions are well established. As a rule, we do not address the merits of a proposed initiative, interpret the meaning of the language or suggest its probable application if adopted by the electorate. In re Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733, 739 (Colo. 1994). Furthermore, we will uphold the Board's choice of language if it "clearly and concisely reflects the central features of the initiative." Id. (citing In re Limited Gaming in the Town of Idaho Springs, 830 P.2d 963, 970 (Colo.1992) and In re Limited Gaming in Manitou Springs, 826 P.2d 1241, 1245 (Colo.1992)); see also In re Proposed Initiative Under the Designation Tax Reform, 797 P.2d 1283, 1288 (Colo.1990) (holding that unless clearly misleading, we will not interfere with the board's choice of language); In re Increase of Taxes on Tobacco Products Initiative, 756 P.2d 995, 999 (Colo.1988) (concluding it is not the function of the supreme court to rephrase the language adopted by the Board to obtain the most precise and exact ballot title or summary language possible). Thus we indulge all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board's action, and only in clear cases will we invalidate the title, ballot title and submission clause, or summary prepared by the Board. In re Casino Gaming Initiative, 649 P.2d 303, 306 (Colo.1982).

Certain tenets direct the Board's actions, and thus assist in our review of the propriety of its action in the present case. First, the language that the Board adopts must be brief, unambiguous and direct, see § 1-40-106(3)(a) (the title board for statewide ballot issues shall prepare a clear and concise summary of the proposed law or constitutional amendment), and as such, it should reference only the central points of the proposed measure. In re Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d at 739. Along these same lines, the Board is not required to include every aspect of a proposed measure in the title and submission clause, see In re Election Reform Amendment, 852 P.2d 28 (Colo.1993), provide specific explanations of a proposal, see In re State Personnel System, 691 P.2d 1121 (Colo.1984), or discuss every possible effect of an initiated measure, see In re Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores, 646 P.2d 916 (Colo.1982). Rather, the initiated measure's title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary need only fairly reflect the content of the measure. In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment, 200 Colo. 141, 613 P.2d 867 (1980).

Thus as a general rule we will reject the Board's action only where the language it has adopted is so inaccurate as to clearly mislead the electorate. Id.; see also In re State Personnel System, 691 P.2d at 1123. Bearing in mind this deferential standard of summary review governing challenges to the *314 Board's title setting decisions, we address each of petitioner Bruce's arguments in turn.

III

A

Initially, we note that some of Bruce's arguments constitute either challenges to the merits of the proposed measure or to its application, rather than protests to the accuracy and fairness of the language adopted by the Board. We decline to review such complaints. See In re Limited Gaming in the City of Antonito,

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

Related

In Re Proposed Initiative Concerning "State Personnel System"
691 P.2d 1121 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1984)
Brownlow v. Wunch
80 P.2d 444 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1938)
Spelts v. Klausing
649 P.2d 303 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
877 P.2d 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pet-on-campaign-and-pol-fin-colo-1994.