Robinson v. Dierking (In Re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 156)
2016 CO 56
| Colo. | 2016Background
- Initiative #156 would add a statute prohibiting state and local licensing authorities from issuing licenses to "food stores" (≥15% food sales) to sell in sealed containers off‑premises: marijuana (and products), spirituous/vinous/malt liquor. It also criminalized such sales at food stores.
- The Title Board found the initiative contained a single subject and set a title closely tracking the initiative language: it would prohibit a licensing authority from granting a liquor license to a food store that offers for sale, in sealed containers for off‑premises consumption, full‑strength beer, wine, liquor, marijuana, or marijuana products.
- Petitioner Robinson moved for rehearing, arguing the title was unclear and the initiative violated the single‑subject rule; the Board denied rehearing.
- Robinson filed an original proceeding in the Colorado Supreme Court under § 1‑40‑107(2), C.R.S., seeking reversal of the Title Board's title setting.
- The Court held the title violated the Colorado Constitution’s clear‑title requirement because the title’s language was illogical and inherently confusing, reversing the Board and remanding the initiative for a new title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Title Board's title satisfied the Colorado Constitution's clear‑title requirement | Robinson: The title is confusing and does not clearly express the initiative's purpose, preventing voters from determining the effect of a yes/no vote | Title Board: The title tracks the initiative language and fairly expresses its purpose; Board has discretion and presumptions in its favor | Court: Title fails clear‑title requirement because it is illogical and inherently confusing; reversed and returned to Board |
| Whether the initiative violates the single‑subject requirement | Robinson: Initiative contains multiple subjects (argument raised but not detailed) | Title Board: Initiative contains a single subject | Court: Did not reach single‑subject issue because it reversed on clear‑title grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #73, 369 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2016) (deference to Title Board; clarity standard)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90, 328 P.3d 155 (Colo. 2014) (Title Board discretion)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #89, 328 P.3d 172 (Colo. 2014) (presumptions favoring Board)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45, 234 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2010) (clear‑title standards; reversal only if titles are insufficient, unfair, or misleading)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3, 274 P.3d 562 (Colo. 2012) (court’s limited role: ensure constitutional requirements for titles)
- In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 1999-2000 #29, 972 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1999) (title language drawn from initiative can nonetheless cause voter confusion)