In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015

Background

Two ballot initiatives (#132 and #133) proposed amending Article V to replace/restructure Colorado’s reapportionment commission with an independent redistricting commission (12 members) and to add procedures/criteria (e.g., competitiveness, open meetings, two‑thirds voting threshold, nonpartisan staff).
Initiative #132 would transfer congressional redistricting from the General Assembly to the new commission; #133 would address only state legislative redistricting.
Both initiatives require the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission to solicit applicants and forward ten finalists for four seats (minor‑party or unaffiliated) to the redistricting commission appointees.
Petitioner Donna R. Johnson challenged the Title Board’s setting of titles, arguing the initiatives violate Colorado’s single‑subject rule (art. V, § 1(5.5) and § 1‑40‑106.5, C.R.S.).
The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the Title Board decision and reversed, holding both initiatives contain multiple subjects; it remanded with directions to strike the titles. Justice Boatright (joined by Coats and Eid) dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson)	Defendant's Argument (Proponents / Title Board)	Held
Whether initiatives violate the constitutional single‑subject requirement	Initiatives contain multiple distinct subjects: (1) restructure redistricting commission/processes; (2) change the mission/role of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission; (3) ban lobbyists from commission service; and (4 in #132) transfer congressional redistricting power to the commission	All provisions relate to the single subject of “redistricting in Colorado” (depoliticizing/redistricting reform); implementation details (appointments, use of nominating commission, including congressional plans) are integral to that subject	Court: Reversed Title Board; both initiatives violate single‑subject rule because they alter the nominating commission’s constitutional role; Initiative #132 also constitutes a separate subject by reallocating congressional redistricting authority to the commission (remanded to strike titles)
Whether changing the role of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission is permissible as implementation detail	Such a change is a separate subject because the Nominating Commission is an independent constitutional body created under Article VI with a judicial/merit‑selection mission unrelated to redistricting; voters would be surprised because titles omit this shift	Proponents characterize the nominating commission role as an implementation detail necessary to fill the new commission’s seats and thus germane to redistricting reform	Court: The proposed new role fundamentally alters an independent constitutional commission and is not properly tied to the single objective of redistricting; separate subject invalidates initiatives
Whether transferring congressional redistricting from General Assembly to commission is part of same subject	Transfer reallocates constitutional authority (distinct objective) and risks log‑rolling because voters may support restructuring state redistricting but oppose moving congressional authority	Proponents: federal and state redistricting are practically similar; unitary reform of both fits within a single “redistricting in Colorado” subject	Court: Transfer of congressional redistricting is a separate, discrete subject (different constitutional sources and criteria); prohibits inclusion in same initiative (#132 invalid on that basis)
Whether the Title Board’s setting of titles met legal standards / should be overturned	Johnson argued no clear single subject so titles should not have been set	Title Board set concise titles referencing redistricting reforms; Proponents urged deference to Board and that provisions are connected	Court: Applying deference, still concluded a clear case of multi‑subject violation; reversed and ordered titles struck. (Court declined to decide lobbyist‑ban as separate subject because other holdings dispositive.)

Key Cases Cited

In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3, 274 P.3d 562 (Colo. 2012) (standard of review: courts apply all legitimate presumptions favoring Title Board; overturn only in a clear case)
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45, 284 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2012) (review initiative wording to test single‑subject and clear‑title requirements)
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90, 328 P.3d 155 (Colo. 2014) (initiative violates single‑subject when it advances separate, distinct purposes)
In re Proposed Initiative on Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1995) (single‑subject requirement ensures proposals stand or fall on their own merits)
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1997-1998 #64, 960 P.2d 1192 (Colo. 1998) (altering an independent constitutional commission’s role may present a separate subject)
Hall v. Moreno, 270 P.3d 961 (Colo. 2012) (recognizing redistricting as an inherently political and complex process)