Hayes v. Lidley

11 Citing cases

  1. In Matter of the Title

    234 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2010)   Cited 26 times
    Finding provisions "seek[ing] to achieve the central purpose of the initiative" to be "directly connected and related" to the initiative's single purpose

    When reviewing a challenge to the Title Board's setting of a title and ballot title and submission clause of an initiative, we employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board's actions. In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause for 2009-2010, # 24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo. 2009). We do not determine the initiative's efficacy, construction, or future application, which is properly determined if and after the voters approve the proposal.

  2. Submission Clause for 2009-2010 No. 91

    235 P.3d 1071 (Colo. 2010)   Cited 23 times
    Reversing the Title Board's decision on one basis and declining to address the petitioner's other argument for reversal

    When reviewing a challenge to the Title Board's setting of an initiative's title and ballot title and submission clause, we employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board's actions. In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause for 2009-2010, # 24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo. 2009). We do not determine the initiative's efficacy, construction, or future application, which is properly determined if and after the voters approve the proposal.

  3. Bentley v. Mason

    370 P.3d 628 (Colo. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 14 While Petitioners' objection arguably overstates the initiative's reach, our inquiry at this juncture avoids interpretation beyond that necessary to determine whether there is a single subject and clear title. SeeIn re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #24, 218 P.3d 350, 355 (Colo.2009). In answering the question immediately before us, it suffices for us to observe that an expansive definition of the governmental entities here is necessarily and properly connected to the initiative's purpose, which is to establish and broadly effectuate the right to a healthy environment for all Coloradans.

  4. Bentley v. Mason (In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015–2016 # 63)

    370 P.3d 628 (Colo. 2016)

    ¶ 14 While Petitioners' objection arguably overstates the initiative's reach, our inquiry at this juncture avoids interpretation beyond that necessary to determine whether there is a single subject and clear title. See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 # 24, 218 P.3d 350, 355 (Colo.2009). In answering the question immediately before us, it suffices for us to observe that an expansive definition of the governmental entities here is necessarily and properly connected to the initiative's purpose, which is to establish and broadly effectuate the right to a healthy environment for all Coloradans.

  5. Cordero v. Leahy (In re Title)

    328 P.3d 136 (Colo. 2014)

    We also liberally construe the single subject requirement to “avoid unduly restricting the initiative process.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 No. 24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo.2009). 1. The Titles Satisfy the Single Subject Requirement

  6. Cordero v. Leahy (In re Title)

    328 P.3d 155 (Colo. 2014)   Cited 15 times
    Noting title must enable voters to "determine intelligently whether to support or oppose proposal"

    We also liberally construe the single subject requirement to “avoid unduly restricting the initiative process.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 No. 24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo.2009). 1. The Titles Satisfy the Single Subject Requirement

  7. Milo v. Coulter (In re Title)

    333 P.3d 101 (Colo. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    We liberally construe the single-subject requirement to “avoid unduly restricting the initiative process.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo.2009). ¶ 9 In addition, the Title Board has considerable discretion to set the title, and the ballot title and submission clause.

  8. Title, Ballot Title v. Hamilton

    274 P.3d 576 (Colo. 2012)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the initiative would not lead to voter surprise where the plain language of the proposal explained the initiative's effects

    In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 # 91, 235 P.3d 1071, 1079 (Colo.2010); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010, # 24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo.2009). It also violates the requirements that an initiative must not potentially mislead voters, that its title must not misrepresent or insufficiently inform voters so as to create confusion, and that it convey the initiative's likely impact so as to enable voter choice.

  9. Title, Ballot Title v. Hamilton

    274 P.3d 562 (Colo. 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining that "the single subject rule helps avoid ‘voter surprise and fraud occasioned by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision "coiled up in the folds" of a complex initiative’ " (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001–02 #43 , 46 P.3d 438, 442 (Colo. 2002) )

    In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 # 91, 235 P.3d 1071, 1079 (Colo.2010); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010, # 24, 218 P.3d 350, 353 (Colo.2009). It also violates the requirements that an initiative must not potentially mislead voters, that its title must not misrepresent or insufficiently inform voters so as to create confusion, and that it convey the initiative's likely impact so as to enable voter choice.

  10. McLaughlin v. Bennett

    225 Ariz. 351 (Ariz. 2010)   Cited 23 times
    Assuming that provisions regarding elections for public office and union elections were topically related because each pertained to secret ballots

    State AFLCIO v. SOS Ballot Nev., No. 09-OC-00562 IB (Nev. 1st Dist. Feb. 25, 2010) (unpublished order). Cf. In re Title, Ballot Title. and Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #24, 218 P.3d 350, 352 (Colo. 2009) (finding other initiatives securing the right to secret ballots in employee representation elections only did not violate the state's single subject requirement).