In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2017–2018 4
2017 CO 57
Colo.2017Background
- Proposed Initiative 2017–2018 #4 ("Initiative #4") would add a constitutional section allowing local electors to limit privately owned residential housing growth and (for specified jurisdictions) cap annual housing growth at 1% for 2019–2020 and bar issuing new permits until Jan 1, 2019.
- Title Board initially denied title on single‑subject grounds for an earlier draft; it later approved a revised initiative, set title and submission clause, and approved an initial fiscal impact statement and abstract prepared under § 1‑40‑105.5.
- Petitioners Smith and Kopp petitioned for rehearing, arguing Initiative #4 contains multiple subjects and that the legislative council’s abstract failed to satisfy statutory requirements.
- Title Board denied rehearing except to amend the title; Petitioners sought Colorado Supreme Court review under § 1‑40‑107(2).
- The Supreme Court addressed (1) whether Initiative #4 violates the constitutional single‑subject rule and (2) whether it has authority to review the statutorily required abstract and what standard applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Initiative #4 violates Colorado’s single‑subject requirement | Smith/Kopp: multiple subjects — (a) subsection 1 creates a new county elective right and constrains home‑rule authority distinct from the 1% growth cap in subsection 2; (b) subsection 4 changes initiative procedures | Proponents/Title Board: all provisions are interrelated and implement the single objective of limiting housing growth | Court: Initiative #4 contains a single subject (limiting housing growth); implementing provisions and designation of who may act are properly connected and not separate subjects |
| Whether the Colorado Supreme Court has authority to review an abstract prepared under § 1‑40‑105.5 | Smith/Kopp: (implicitly) challengeable via § 1‑40‑107 rehearing and review | Title Board/Proponents: § 1‑40‑107 allows rehearing and appellate review of Title Board actions including abstracts | Court: § 1‑40‑107(1)–(2) authorizes Supreme Court review of abstracts submitted under § 1‑40‑105.5 |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of the abstract | Smith/Kopp: abstract is misleading/insufficient because it lacks quantitative estimates required by § 1‑40‑105.5(3) | Title Board/Legislative Council: qualitative/indeterminate statements are appropriate where quantitative estimates are not possible; Title Board entitled to deference | Court: apply same deferential standard used for single‑subject and clear‑title (presume propriety; overturn only in a clear case); affirmed Title Board’s approval because the legislative council explained inability to produce numeric estimates and Title Board reasonably accepted qualitative abstract |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #90, 2014 CO 63 (articulates deference to Title Board; only overturn single‑subject finding in a clear case)
- In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2011–2012 #3, 2012 CO 25 (discusses single‑subject rule and purpose of preventing logrolling and voter surprise)
- In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d 642 (implementing provisions directly tied to initiative’s focus are not separate subjects)
- In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1999–00 #256, 12 P.3d 246 (initiative presenting one general objective constitutes single subject)
- In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1999–2000 #25, 974 P.2d 458 (same principle regarding single subject and implementing provisions)
- In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #76, 2014 CO 52 (example of an initiative that violated single‑subject rule by simultaneously altering multiple constitutional/statutory regimes)