Cordero v. Leahy, 2014 CO 63

Background

Proponents filed Initiatives 2013-2014 #90 and #98 seeking to amend Colorado Constitution Article XXX to allow local governments to regulate oil and gas development more restrictively than state law.
The initiatives' central subject is expanded local regulatory authority over oil and gas development within Colorado’s borders; Initiative #90 adds “prohibitions or limits,” while #98 adds “limits.”
The Title Board set similar titles for both initiatives, later removing the word “prohibit” from #98 at rehearing after proponents’ objections.
Petitioners challenged the titles as misleading and asserted multiple subjects in the measures; the Board and court conducted a single-subject and clear-title review.
The majority affirmed the Board’s single-subject finding and determined the titles fairly reflect the initiatives’ central purpose; the Chief Justice dissented.
The text includes a “not a taking” provision for regulations enacted under the initiatives, which the dissent argues creates a separate subject and could raise federal takings concerns.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the initiatives violate the single-subject rule?	Petitioners contend two subjects exist: local oil/gas regulation and takings exemption.	Board held the initiatives have a single subject—the expansion of local regulatory authority over oil and gas development.	No; the initiatives have one subject, and any takings clause is tied to that subject.
Are the titles clear and not misleading under the clear-title requirement?	Petitioners argue titles omit the scope of “oil and gas development” and misstate takings implications.	Board provided titles fair to reflect central purpose; deference to proponents’ intent.	Yes; titles not misleading and fairly reflect the measures’ language and purpose.
Does removal of ‘hydraulic fracturing’ or omission of ‘prohibit’ create a misleading or improper title?	Proponents claim the Board erred in removing terms; Petitioners argue it could mislead.	Board permissibly edited to reflect the text and avoid confusion; not required to define every term.	No; adjustments were appropriate to align titles with texts and preserve clarity.
Does the ‘not a taking’ clause create a separate subject or mislead voters about federal takings implications?	Dissent argues the clause could be read as a broader federal takings exemption, creating a separate subject.	Not a taking provision is connected to regulatory authority under the initiatives and does not create a separate subject.	No; the clause is tied to the central purpose and does not render titles misleading.

Key Cases Cited

In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 3, 274 P.3d 562 (Colo. 2012) (liberal single-subject construction for initiatives (narrow review))
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 No. 45, 284 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2010) (reaffirmed standard for determining sufficiency of title and protection against misleading titles)
In re 1999-2000 No. 256, 12 P.3d 246 (Colo. 2000) (single-subject analysis; text and provisions are proper within one subject)
Elder v. Sours, 74 P. 167 (Colo. 1903) (early test for multiple subjects in initiative measures)
Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1995) (subject-matter connectedness requirement for single-subject rule)