Hayes v. Spalding
369 P.3d 565
Colo.2016Background
- Proponents (Spalding & Ottke) submitted Initiative #78 to amend Colorado Constitution Article XXI to change how recall elections are triggered and conducted for state and local elective officials.
- The Title Board initially found the initiative to contain a single subject and set a title; Phillip Hayes moved for rehearing arguing multiple subjects and a misleading/inadequate title.
- On rehearing the Board revised the title to state the measure concerns recall and successor procedures, a six‑year ineligibility for recalled officials, limits on repeat recall for officials who defeated a recall, public disclosure of opposition spending, and prohibitions on identification/reporting/limitation of donations to recall campaigns and circulator payments.
- Hayes petitioned this Court under § 1‑40‑107(2), C.R.S., challenging the Board’s single‑subject finding and the clear title requirement.
- The Court reviewed de novo whether the initiative complies with the constitutional single subject and clear title requirements, giving deference to the Title Board but reversing for insufficient, unfair, or misleading titles.
- The Court concluded the initiative satisfies the single‑subject rule but the Board’s title fails the clear‑title requirement and remanded for a new title that alerts voters to central features and omits unnecessary restatements of existing law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hayes) | Defendant's Argument (Title Board / Proponents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single‑subject compliance | Initiative contains multiple distinct subjects (recall triggers/procedures; petition signature rules; multiple officials per petition; qualification changes; home‑rule authority changes) | The provisions all relate to one general objective: how recall elections are triggered and conducted; prior precedent supports single subject | Court held initiative satisfies the single‑subject requirement (deference to Board; similar to prior recall cases) |
| Clear‑title sufficiency — omission of significant procedural changes | Title is too general and omits key changes (reduced trigger signature threshold to 5% capped at 100,000; successor candidate signature rule 0.25% capped at 5,000; limits on petition review; six‑year ban extending to officials who resign during recall) | Title broadly describes recall/successor procedures and mentions some elements; Board has discretion on length/complexity | Court held title fails clear‑title requirement because it does not alert voters to central, substantive changes and is therefore misleading |
| Clear‑title sufficiency — misleading/partial statements | Title misleadingly mentions only recalled officials barred for six years but omits that those who resign during recalls are similarly barred | Board argued the statement is true as written and need not include every detail | Court held the omission rendered the title misleading and required correction |
| Inclusion of existing law in title | Hayes (and proponents) argued the title unnecessarily restates existing campaign‑finance disclosure law and should omit it | Board included phrase about continuing disclosure of opposition donations/spending | Court agreed the unnecessary recitation of existing law should be deleted from the title on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013‑2014 # 90, 328 P.3d 155 (Colo. 2014) (standard for reviewing Title Board actions; clear‑title/single‑subject guidance)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013‑2014 # 76, 333 P.3d 76 (Colo. 2014) (recall‑related initiative previously held single subject; instructive on scope)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009‑2010 # 45, 234 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2010) (deference to Title Board; limits of court review)
- In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause & Summary Pertaining to a Proposed Initiative on "Obscenity", 877 P.2d 848 (Colo. 1994) (title can be misleading even if language tracks initiative; must disclose significant effects)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiatives 2001‑2002 # 21 & # 22, 44 P.3d 213 (Colo. 2002) (titles must inform voter of major import though not every detail)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999‑2000 # 104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999) (misleading omission in title renders it unclear)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999‑2000 # 246(e), 8 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2000) (titles should be straightforward, succinct, nonargumentative)
- In re Proposed Initiative Amendment to Article XXIV of Constitution, 187 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1947) (historical authority requiring accurate title wording when parties stipulate changes)
Outcome: Single subject upheld; title invalidated for failing clear‑title requirement and remanded to Title Board to craft a new, nonmisleading title that includes central procedural changes and omits unnecessary restatements of existing law.