Opinion
Case No. 03SA206, 03SA207; Consolidated Cases.
October 6, 2003.
Two East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, Original Proceeding Pursuant to, § 1-40-107(2), 1 C.R.S. (2003), Appeal from the Title Board.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
No. 03SA206, 03SA207 In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for #51, #52, #53, #54: Ballot Title Multiple Subjects
Our decision, In the Matter of the Title, Ballot, and Submission Clause for 2003-2004 #32 #33 and Failure to Set Title for 2003-2004 #21 #22, 2003 WL 22073054 (Colo. 2003), controls in this case. Therefore, we find that petitions 2003-2004 #51, #52, #53, and #54 violate the single subject requirement. Accordingly, the supreme court affirms the title board's refusal to set titles for #53 and #54 and reverses the board's decision to set titles for #51 and #52.
Donald J. Ryan, pro se.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Douglas Campbell and Dennis Polhill, pro se, Arvada, Colorado, Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Maurice G. Knaizer, Deputy Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for the Title Board.
These appeals pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), 1 C.R.S. (2002), challenge the actions of the title board ("the board") setting the title, ballot title, submission clause, and summary (collectively, "the title") for proposed initiatives 2003-04 #51 ("#51") and 2003-04 #52 ("#52"); and refusing to set titles for proposed initiatives 2003-04 #53 ("#53") and 2003-04 #54 ("#54").
Our decision, In the Matter of the Title, Ballot, and Submission Clause for 2003-2004 #32 #33 and Failure to Set Title for 2003-2004 #21 #22, 2003 WL 22073054 (Colo. 2003), controls in this case. Accordingly, we hold that #51, #52, #53, and #54 all contain multiple subjects in violation of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution.
With respect to #51 and #52, we affirm the action of the board refusing to set the titles. With respect to #53 and #54, we reverse the action of the board and remand this matter to the board with directions to strike the titles and return the initiatives to the proponents. Because we find that all four measures contain multiple subjects, we do not consider whether the titles set by the board conform to the requirements of section 1-40-106(3).
JUSTICE COATS dissents, and JUSTICE KOURLIS joins in the dissent.