Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2003-2004 #53 #54, Petitioners, Donald Ryan, v. Douglas Campbell and Dennis Polhill, and William Hobbs, Alan J. Gilbert and Charles Pike, Title Board, Respondents.

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.

CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE BALLOT TITLE v. CAMPBELL
(Oct 6, 2003)