Yost v. Coffin

943 P.2d 897, 1997 Colo. LEXIS 632, 1997 WL 418442
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJuly 28, 1997
DocketNo. 97SA191
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 943 P.2d 897 (Yost v. Coffin) 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
Yost v. Coffin, 943 P.2d 897, 1997 Colo. LEXIS 632, 1997 WL 418442 (Colo. 1997).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners, Maynard K. Yost and Dan Ainsworth, are registered electors of Colorado who bring this original proceeding pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), IB C.R.S. (1996 Supp.), to review the action taken by the initiative title setting board (title board) in fixing a title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary (titles and summary) for a proposed statutory amendment designated “1997-98 # 10” (the Initiative).1 We hold that the titles and summary fairly express the intent and meaning of the initiative and that the fiscal impact statement is adequate. We do not reach the issues related to whether the titles and summary or the Initiative itself violate Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 1) because these issues are outside the scope of our review in this proceeding. Finally, we hold that because the amendments to the Initiative made by the proponents after the legislative hearing were made in direct response to the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services (the directors), it was not necessary to resubmit the amended Initiative to the directors. We therefore affirm the action of the title board.

I.

The Initiative seeks to add a new part 6 to article 4 of title 43 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, entitled the “Colorado Statewide Long Term Transportation Needs Act of 1997.” The Initiative specifies that it is intended to provide the financing for the transportation needs of Colorado as identified in the Strategic Project Investment Program (SPIP), which was approved by the Colorado Transportation Commission (transportation commission) on August 15, 1996, and as de- ' termined by the counties and municipalities.

[?]*?The Initiative would impose an additional fuel excise tax, an additional motor vehicle registration fee, and a new wheels tax on the initial registration of any motor vehicle in the state, with certain exceptions. The fuel excise tax, additional registration fee, and the new wheels tax would be imposed until December 31, 2010, or until the completion of the projects described in the SPIP, whichever is earlier.

The Initiative would create the Colorado Long Term Highway Needs Account within the highway users tax fund. The additional fuel taxes and registration fees would be deposited in this account, and the General Assembly would be prohibited from making any annual appropriation from this account except for specified purposes.

The Colorado Long Term Multi-Modál Transportation Needs Account within the highway users tax fund would also be created for the deposit of the new wheels tax revenues. The General Assembly may make annual appropriations from this account only for the purposes specified in the Initiative.

The revenues deposited in both accounts would be allocated and appropriated in the following manner: 22% to the counties; 18% to the cities and incorporated towns; and the balance to the department of transportation.

The Initiative also provides that its adoption constitutes a voter-approved revenue change for purposes of Amendment 1. Therefore, the revenues derived as a result of the adoption of the Initiative are to be collected and expended by the state, counties, and municipalities without regard to the spending or revenue limits of Amendment 1.

Finally, “[t]he Colorado Transportation Commission shall study and implement, if feasible, toll roads to the extent that the revenues available under this part 6 are insufficient for the purposes of this part 6.” Initiative, sec. 43-4-609.

II.

The petitioners assert that (1) the title board violated Amendment 1 by setting a title for a measure with unlimited revenue increase provisions; (2) the titles and summary fail to comply with the specific revenue gain disclosure requirement of Amendment 1; (3) the statement of fiscal impact is inadequate; (4) the titles and summary do not fairly express the intent and meaning of the Initiative; and (5) the proponents’ amended petition should have been resubmitted to the directors.2 These issues will be addressed in order.

A.

In their first two issues, the petitioners claim that the title board violated Amendment 1 in two ways. First, they claim that the title board violated Amendment 1 by setting a title and summary for a measure “which seeks to remove an unlimited amount of revenue from the revenue and spending limits set by Amendment 1 in contravention of the mandate of Amendment 1 to interpret its terms to ‘restrain most the growth of government.’ ” Second, petitioners claim that the title and summary set by the title board fails to comply with the specific revenue gain disclosure requirements of Amendment 1 because it does not provide any estimate of the extent to which tolls will be used as a source of revenue to state, county, and local governments.

These questions are premature. Our review in these proceedings is circumscribed by statute:

The scope of our review of action taken by the Board is limited to ensuring that “the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary fairly reflect the proposed initiative so that petition signers and voters will not be misled into support for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed by the Board.” In re Proposed Initiative on Sch. Pilot Program, 874 P.2d [1066,] 1070 [ (Colo.1994) ] (citations omit[900]*900ted). In conducting such review we will engage in all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board’s actions. In re Proposed Initiative “Auto. Ins. Coverage”, 877 P.2d 853, 856 (Colo.1994). We do not address the merits of a proposed initiative, nor do we interpret its language or predict its application if adopted by the electorate. In re Petition on Campaign and Political Fin., 877 P.2d 311, 313 (Colo.1994).

In re Proposed Petitions, 907 P.2d 586, 590 (Colo.1995) (emphasis added). A determination of whether the Initiative violates Amendment 1 would necessarily require us to “interpret its language or predict its application if adopted by the electorate” and this we will not do. We therefore do not address the petitioners’ first two issues at this time.

B.

The petitioners next claim that the statement of fiscal impact, which is attached as Appendix 2, is inadequate. We disagree.

The summary must ordinarily include a fiscal impact statement in order to inform the electorate of the fiscal implications of the proposal. The Board is vested with discretion regarding how to best describe the fiscal impact without creating prejudice for or against the proposal. Explanation of the fiscal impact of a measure is not required when such impact cannot be determined from materials submitted to the Board due to uncertainties or variables inherent in the particular issue. If the Board has sufficient information to assess the fiscal impact of only certain provisions, it must provide fiscal information with regard to those provisions in isolation and should state which provisions have indeterminate fiscal impacts.

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

Related

Blake v. King
184 P.3d 52 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2008)
In Re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Cl.
184 P.3d 52 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2008)
Stoner v. Mahoney
774 So. 2d 397 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2000)
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20
774 So. 2d 397 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2000)
In Re Ballot Title 1999-2000 No. 255
4 P.3d 485 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
Elizabeth Stoner v. Robert Mahoney
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1999
Percy v. Hayes
954 P.2d 1063 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
943 P.2d 897, 1997 Colo. LEXIS 632, 1997 WL 418442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yost-v-coffin-colo-1997.