Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 3 v. Hamilton
2012 CO 25
| Colo. | 2012Background
- Respondents Hamilton and Doe proposed Initiative 3 to adopt a Colorado public trust doctrine, elevating public rights in waters of natural streams and redefining property and water rights.
- Provisions would subordinate contracts, property rights, and appropriative rights to a public water estate and grant public access along wetted stream banks to the high water mark.
- The Ballot Title Setting Board designated a single-subject title and ballot title reflective of a purported single subject concerning the public's rights in waters of natural streams.
- Petitioner Kemper challenged the Board under the single-subject rule (Const. art. V, §1(5.5)) and sought rehearing; the Board denied the challenge.
- The Supreme Court reviewed under section 1-40-107(2), focusing on whether Initiative 3 and its Titles satisfy the single-subject requirement.
- The majority affirmed the Title Board, holding that the initiative and its Titles state a single subject and comply with constitutional and statutory single-subject requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Initiative 3 present a single subject? | Kemper argues multiple subjects under Sours test. | Hamilton contends all provisions relate to the public's rights in waters of natural streams. | Yes, single subject |
| Do the Titles fairly and clearly express the single subject? | Kemper contends Titles misstate or fail to clearly express the subject. | Board's Titles accurately reflect the single subject and are not misleading. | Yes, titles fairly express the single subject |
| Are there any omissions or distortions in the ballot language that would mislead voters? | Omissions about land ownership and public-private implications render the ballot misleading. | Board's language conveys the subject and impact without misrepresentation. | No, ballot language not misleading; Board's action affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pub. Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d 1076 (Colo.1995) (single subject dangers of omnibus initiatives; public trust doctrine analysis)
- In re Proposed Initiative 2001-02 No. 43, 46 P.3d 441 (Colo.2009) (Sours test; multi-subject risks; unity required)
- In re Proposed Initiative 2009-2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d 649 (Colo.2010) (single-subject and title sufficiency standards)
- In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause for 2007-2008 No. 17, 172 P.3d 871 (Colo.2007) (board discretion; fairness and clarity of titles)
- Park County Sportsmen's Ranch, LLP v. Park County, 45 P.3d 693 (Colo.2002) (water as public resource; Park County analysis of public trust and water doctrine)
- Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139 (Colo.2001) (water rights and public ownership concepts in Colorado doctrine)
- People v. Emmert, 198 Colo. 137 (Colo.1979) (land under non-navigable streams; distinctions between land and water doctrine)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 132 S. Ct. 1215 (S. Ct. 2012) (federalism; public trust scope vs. riverbed title; state regulation)