In Re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2019-2020 3, 2019 CO 57

Petitioners (Hedges and Briggs) submitted Initiative 2019–2020 #3 proposing to repeal Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution (TABOR) in its entirety: “Section 1. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 20 of article X.”
The Title Board declined to set a title, concluding the initiative violated Colorado’s single-subject requirement for initiatives (Art. V, §1(5.5)).
Petitioners sought review in the Colorado Supreme Court under §1-40-107(2), C.R.S.
The core legal question: whether a one-sentence initiative that repeals an entire preexisting constitutional provision that itself addresses multiple subjects satisfies the single-subject rule.
The Court majority reversed the Title Board, holding Initiative #3 presents a single subject (repeal of TABOR) and directing the Board to set a title; the Court disapproved prior decisions suggesting wholesale repeal of a multi-subject provision necessarily violates the single-subject rule.
Justice Márquez (joined by Justice Boatright) dissented, arguing the decision conflicts with the constitutional text, the purpose of the single-subject rule (adopted in response to TABOR), and decades of precedent treating repeal-of-multi-subject measures as multiplicitous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Initiative #3 (full repeal of TABOR) violates the single-subject requirement	Initiative #3 has one general objective — repeal TABOR — so it is a single subject	Title Board: TABOR contains multiple subjects; wholesale repeal thus presents multiple subjects and cannot be a single initiative	Court: Repeal initiative asks one question and effectuates one general purpose; it satisfies the single-subject requirement — reversal of Title Board
Whether prior statements that a full repeal of a multi-subject constitutional provision is necessarily multi-subject are controlling	Proponents: Those prior statements were dicta or not analytically sound and should not bar a straightforward repeal initiative	Title Board: Prior cases (and their reasoning) bind and require refusal to set title for wholesale repeal of a multi-subject provision	Court: Statements in In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4 and cited decisions were dicta or unanalyzed; the Court disapproves those statements and declines to adopt a categorical rule that wholesale repeal of a multi-subject provision is per se multiple subjects

In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528 (Colo. 1996) (upheld Title Board refusal for a measure that repealed and reenacted portions of TABOR; contains language about repeal initiatives that Court treats as dicta)
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #76, 333 P.3d 76 (Colo. 2014) (addressed repeal/reenact initiatives and discussed TABOR as a multi-subject measure)
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90, 328 P.3d 155 (Colo. 2014) (describes standard of review and limits of Title Board review)
In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 #43, 46 P.3d 438 (Colo. 2002) (considered initiative language preventing TABOR repeal and treated that provision as presenting separate subjects)
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999-2000 #104, 987 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1999) (recognized that proposed initiatives can violate single-subject rule by proposing repeal of multiple subjects)
In re Amend Tabor 25, 900 P.2d 121 (Colo. 1995) (earlier opinion describing TABOR as a multiple-subject measure)