Hayes v. Spalding
2014 CO 52
Colo.2014Background
- Proposed Initiative for 2013-2014 #76 would repeal and replace Colorado Constitution art. XXI (recall provisions), revamping recall petition, election, vacancy, and enforcement rules and preempting conflicting state, statutory, and home-rule provisions.
- The initiative also would create a new constitutional right to recall certain non-elected state and local officers (broadly defined heads, board members, judicial officers, and other appointees who exercise governmental power or handle public funds).
- The Title Board set a title and submission clause describing the measure broadly as concerning "the recall of government officers." Registered elector Philip Hayes objected, arguing the initiative violates the single-subject requirement of Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5).
- The Colorado Supreme Court reviews Title Board title-setting under a deferential standard but must determine whether the initiative combines distinct subjects that are not necessarily and properly connected.
- The majority concluded Initiative #76 contains at least two distinct subjects: (1) comprehensive changes to recall procedures (petition thresholds, timelines, ballot content, vacancy rules, campaign finance preemption, enforcement) and (2) expansion of recall to non-elected officers—subjects not dependent on each other—so the Title Board erred in setting a single title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hayes) | Defendant's Argument (Proponents/Title Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Initiative #76 violates Colorado's single-subject requirement for initiatives | Initiative combines multiple distinct subjects (revamping recall procedures AND creating a new right to recall non-elected officers), which are not necessarily or properly connected | Initiative concerns a single umbrella subject: "recall of government officers," so procedural rules and definitions of who is subject are connected | Court held the initiative violates the single-subject rule—contains at least two distinct, improper subjects; reversed Title Board and struck title |
| Whether art. XXI already authorizes recall of non-elected officers (affecting unity argument) | Hayes: art. XXI limits recall to elective officers; expanding to non-elected officers is a separate substantive change | Proponents/Title Board: assert art. XXI contemplates recall broadly, so definitions are part of the same subject | Court held art. XXI (sections 1 and 4) historically and textually limits recall to elective officers; Groditsky did not modify that; expansion to non-elective officers is a separate subject |
| Whether changes to recall petition/election mechanics and preemption of local/state rules form a single subject | Hayes: combining procedural overhaul with expansion of who may be recalled is logrolling; the two can attract different constituencies | Proponents: procedural changes and coverage definitions are interrelated parts of a single recall reform | Court held procedural changes (signature thresholds, timelines, ballot content, vacancy/appointment rules, campaign finance preemption, enforcement) constitute one subject; expanding coverage to appointed/non-elective officials is a separate, independent subject |
| Whether Title Board's umbrella title ("recall of government officers") suffices to justify a single ballot title | Hayes: umbrella title masks multiple distinct subjects and facilitates logrolling | Proponents/Title Board: broad title accurately describes overall theme and is permissible | Court held an overarching umbrella phrase cannot rescue an initiative that combines multiple distinct subjects; Title Board erred and title must be struck |
Key Cases Cited
- Groditsky v. Pinckney, 661 P.2d 279 (Colo. 1983) (interpreting recall enabling legislation in context of art. XXI and involving elected special district directors)
- In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 #104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999) (initiative may contain multiple subjects when it proposes to repeal multiple subjects)
- In re Proposed Initiative for 2001-2002 #43, 46 P.3d 438 (Colo. 2002) (single-subject rule prevents logrolling; subjects must stand on their own merits)
- In re Proposed Initiative for 2011-2012 #45, 274 P.3d 576 (Colo. 2012) (deferential standard to Title Board: overturn only in a clear case; subjects must be necessarily and properly connected)