*1 BETTER FOR COMMITTEE ALL COLORA- HEALTH CARE FOR CITIZENS, by SCHRIER Robert W.
DO Bartecchi, Plaintiff-Appel- E.
and Carl
lant, Secretary of MEYER as State
Natalie R. and Pat of Colorado State Defendants-Appellees.
Stealey,
No. 90SA440. Colorado,
Supreme Court of
En Banc.
April 1992.
Rehearing May Denied *3 Sternal, P.C., Sternal, Lee N.
Lee N. Pueblo, plaintiff-appellant. for Norton, Gen., Atty. Raymond T. A. Gale Gen., Deputy Atty. Timo- Slaughter, Chief Gen., Maurice G. thy Tymkovich, M. Sol. Gen., Denver, Knaizer, for Deputy Atty. Meyer. defendant-appellee Natalie Wilson, Jr., Wilson, Hays & James C. Denver, Beimford, Bender, James H. Mark Stealey. R. defendant-appellee Pat for KIRSHBAUM delivered Justice Opinion of the Court. Better Health Care for Committee), (the Citizens
for all Colorado the Dis- appeals judgment appellant, Judicial District for the Second trict Court administra- affirming a final of Colorado appellee the Sec- Colorado tive decision (the rejecting Secretary) retary of State support filed in numerous increase legislative initiative taxes levied on and local amounts of state products.1 The of tobacco sales alia, portions inter concluded, that certain -109, 1-40-106, -107, of sections (hereinafter the 1989 (1991 Supp.) policies amendments),2 administrative provided by electors at must be de- court reviewed 1. The district prescribes sign petitions; 24-4-106, they initiative time pursuant 10A C.R.S. § cision petition circulators particular information jurisdiction appellate is based Our affidavits; provide (1991 on notarized must l-40-109(2)(a), Supp.). IB C.R.S. warnings must be af- provides certain every page initiative each 2. The 1989 H.B. fixed to were contained in amendments Secretary. by prescribed in a form effective June which bill became 1-40-107, (1991 IB C.R.S. 1-17, pertinent part, § In Colo.Sess.Laws 319-29. Ch. secs. 1-40-106, petition sections shall Supp.), provides that pertinent part, prescribed printed on forms prescribes particular information Supp.), developed by Secretary pursuant Secretary’s staff, there- member of the inquire applicable to this applicability about the of the 1989 amend- appeal, On Committee contends that proceedings ments concerning Secretary arbitrarily capriciously inquired specifically initiative. Schrier applied portions certain amend- period whether the within which to that, if process; ments to this initiative review of contents of the ballot legislation applicable, contravenes title, summary submission clause and fixed provisions of article Con- V of the Colorado Setting the Initiative Title Board stitution; prohib- and that the fifteen-day period established one estoppel equitable ited the doctrine of the 1989 amendments rather thir- than the relying legislation. from on such We af- ty-day period provided by prior parallel part, part, firm in reverse and remand statutory provision. replied Davidson *4 the case the district court directions with opinion thirty-day period her the would Secretary to remand to the further for control that matter and advised Schrier proceedings. legal regarding obtain applicabil- advice the ity legislation of the new to other matters I associated the with initiative. 5,May 1989, On the filed its Committee 30, 1989, On June Davidson met with legislative proposed initiative with the representative Schrier and another the of legislative legal and the office of council Committee; requested the Committee to comment, pursuant for services review and representatives, designate required two as 1-40-101(1), to section IB C.R.S. amendments; by of provision one A Supp.). conference was on conducted gave copies gov- and them of the statutes 1989, 18, May and the final version the erning process the and of was Secretary then filed with the amendments, a set of in- circulator 1-40-101(2), pursuant to section IB C.R.S. containing on structions information based (1991 Supp.). 7, 1989, On June Initia- the amendments, and a affi- circulator Setting tive Title Board met and estab- davit form on of the 1989 based title, lished the submission clause and a July In late amendments. Schrier 1-40-101(2), pursuant summary, to section an initiative instruction manual received (1991 Supp.). IB C.R.S. Secretary, which con- from the manual also transpired, those events Gener- While tained the documents. above-described Assembly adopted al considered and sever- obtaining early August In after portions al amendments to various of sec- approval sample peti- -119, (1980), Secretary’s tions 1-40-101 to tion, began Committee regulating scheme initia- ini- collecting support signatures process. The 1989 be- tive amendments 7, 1989, December the Com- Shortly on tiative.3 On came effective June 1989. 1,955 ap- petitions containing Schrier, date Commit- mittee filed after that Robert a 73,600 signatures proximately the Sec- representative, telephoned tee Colorado Davidson, retary. Officer Donetta a Elections legislative hereby permitted power by people by reserved and circulated direction, The first initiative, prohibits disassembly signatures sec- and is the sepa- separation is to
tions if effect of such equal five an amount to at least electors in signatures, prescribes affidavits from rate and for percent total number of cast votes petitions in which to be filed the manner are secretary of for the office all candidates Secretary. pertinent part, § 1-40- with the previous general election shall state at the (1991 Supp.), eviden- establishes peti- propose required measure tiary presumptions, procedures time limits and tion. ... sufficiency of for administrative review of the 1(2) (1991 Supp.). The Colo. Const. art. filing Secretary, petitions 50,688 signatures were parties agree that valid protests final administrative determination of satisfy necessary the constitutional formula review, judicial to that initial re- directed proposals initiated agency such final decision. view provides that: Constitution 3. The Colorado tures, Secretary’s rejec- conducting peti-
After a review but overruled pursuant to the standards established petitions containing tions tion of on amendments, by the staple holes. additional 50,283 accepted signatures. Stealey excep- filed remaining signatures, primari- rejected the tions to the initial decision. The signatures by ly following grounds: on the 31, 1990, May issued final decision on signers circulators who were affirming rulings except for the AU’s deemed to be electors be- on con- conclusion they cause two residence addresses listed taining staple holes al- should have been or because the residence addresses listed lowed, which conclusion reversed. from the on the differed residence sought judicial The Committee review of voting set a master list addresses forth on decision, final and the dis- Secretary; maintained circulator af- subsequently judg- trict court entered petitions containing incomplete fidavits and affirming ment that decision. information; which petitions to were af- fixed affidavits on dates appearing different from the dates on II statements; corresponding notarization important relatively It is to note the petitions containing staple extra holes. *5 scope appeal limited of this and the stan 11, 1990, Committee, January in On applicable dards of review thereto. It is provisions reliance on the curative of sec- any appellate proceeding that in axiomatic 1-40-109(2), (1980),4 tion filed may consider issues that court 2,200 petitions containing approximately actually by have been another determined signatures support ini- additional agency properly court and or have been 12, Secretary. January tiative with On presented Dempsey for our consideration. 1990, Secretary rejected the additional Romer, (Colo.1992); v. P.2d 57 n. 13 825 ground on that curative Heath, Corp. Ortho v. Pharmaceutical 1-40-109(2) provisions of had section been (Colo.1986); Colgan 722 n. 3 P.2d by repealed one of the 1989 amendments. Department Revenue, Div. Motor of of appellee and Pat R. Committee Stea- Vehicles, (Colo.1981);see protests ley filed to the deci- Stores, Hy-vee v. Iowa Civil Food Inc. sion,5 assigned an and the case was to Comm’n, Rights 453 N.W.2d (AU) hearing, judge administrative law (Iowa 1990). is the Our standard of review 24-4-105, pursuant section 10A C.R.S. applicable to initial district court standard (1988). lengthy hearings, conducting After agency review action set forth in section affirming AU decision issued an initial 24-4-106, (1988), 10A C.R.S. which statute part reversing part the Secre- part pertinent states in as follows: rulings. tary’s The AU concluded that agency If finds ac- [the court] applicable to activi- 1989 amendments were capricious, arbitrary tion or a denial is relating place that ties to the initiative took contrary right, to constitutional statutory setting and that after title the Secre- immunity, in right, power, privilege, or
tary by the doctrine of not barred jurisdiction, authori- excess of applying equitable estoppel from those limitations, ty, in accord 10, 1989, purposes, or amendments their June ef- after procedural or limita- basically procedures with the date. AU affirmed fective re- signa- tions article or as otherwise Secretary’s rulings rejecting of this 1-40-109(2), (1980). following pertinent 4. That statute contained the language: sig- asserted most of the 5. The Committee that In case the is declared insufficient .., by in fact rejected natures may it be form or number of and, Stealey im- asserted that the days valid. fifteen withdrawn after, within there- ... 10,000 signa- approximately may properly names be amended or additional allowed in the first instance thereto as tures. original petition.... as refiled law, by equitable the doctrine clearly estoppel an abuse or unwar- barred quired discretion, applying based ranted exercise from of the 1989 clearly errone- findings of fact are amendments. record, unsupported on the whole ous complaint Committee’s also chal- is evidence the record substantial when lenged validity of the 1989amendments whole, a con- as or otherwise considered grounds. alleged on constitutional It law, then hold trary to the court shall 1989 amendments violated article Y of agency and set aside the action unlawful by placing the Colorado Constitution shall restrain enforcement of the proof proponents burden of on of initiative review, compel any under order or rule secretary requiring the “to has agency action be taken which been adversarily review all sections unlawfully unduly delayed, withheld or detail”; great the 1989 amendments proceedings, remand the case for further article V of violated the Colorado Constitu- may and afford such other relief as requiring tion to “matters of adherence appropriate.... purposes conflicted form” that with the 24-4-106(7), Thus, 10A C.R.S. article; that constitutional and that agency ac- this court determine that “meaningful Committee was denied due capricious, tion violative of by provisions law” rights, constitutes an constitutional establishing particular amendments time However, right abuse of discretion. agency lodging periods for and the action sitting a appeal a decision of district court protests Although thereto. Commit- reviewing pursuant court conclusionary tee’s trial brief contained right appeal 24-10-106 is not a de novo. statements effect complaint In its for review filed produced chilling on amendments effect court, the asserted that district petition, contained no its the brief capriciously arbitrarily *6 authority argument di- citations and no (1) authority abused the of that office First rectly requiring interpretation of the staple declaring that the existence extra Constitu- Amendment United States pre- holes in certain created a tion. requiring sig- sumption rejection the of the here, (2) opening In its brief the Committee in petitions;
natures contained
re-
following
requests
the
consideration
jecting petitions on
basis that the circu-
electors;
issues:
lators
were not
three
thereof
respecting residence addresses
tained in the
the 1989
tations of
view that
tee further asserted
signatures because the dates of circulator
(3) rejecting signatures
cause circulators and
residence;
one address as their declared
10,1989,
apply
'supply all of
to this initiative
amendments;
those
disallowing signatures be-
(4) differed from the dates con-
signers
process
corresponding
Secretary erroneously
of section
signatures.
had
in
petition signers
in
provisions regulating
detailed information
effect
because
supplied
its
process,
1-40-109(2), IB
notarized
petition for re-
The Commit-
prior
(5) rejecting
required by
circulators
more than
places
including
to June
failed
failed
attes-
II.
I.
subject to
the ballot
clause had
Tobacco
Has the
erly
face?
alternative,
forcement
and state constitutions
ments unconstitutional
ments ...
operated to
chilling
Has the
... which became
Rights protected by
determined
burden
Tax Initiative
Secretary of State’s en-
against
the
[1989]
already
place
title and
are
the
the 1989
of State
[the
been
effective
improper and
amendments
both
Committee]
Appellant’s
submission
upon their
Petition is
or, in the
accepted?
exercise
Amend-
Amend-
improp-
federal
after
Secretary of State be
(1980),permitting
filing of cura-
III. Should
enforcing
equitably estopped from
and that
petitions,
tive
[1989]
amendments ...
against
has not been asserted here. References
appellate
trial and
First
its
briefs to
[the Committee]....
rights
in conclu-
Amendment
were stated
conclusionary state-
The brief also contains
form,
sionary
accompanied by
ci-
not
the effect
1989 amend-
ments to
that the
impermissibly
appeared
sole-
authority,
ments
chill
Committee’s
tations
rights to
exercise of First Amendment
relating
ly
arguments
in the context of
re-
government for
peaceably
rights
afforded the
article V
grievances,6
dress of
but summarizes
of the Colorado Constitution.7 In these
position respecting constitu-
Committee’s
circumstances,
questions
we conclude that
tional issues
follows:
concerning
applicability
of federal First
I. THE 1989 AMENDMENTS ... CRE-
process
Amendment and due
are
standards
ATE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
properly presented
appeal.
this
See
HINDRANCE
THE EXERCISE
TO
BQP Indus.,
Equaliza-
Inc. v.
Bd.
State
THE
RIGHT
OF
CONSTITUTIONAL
tion,
In
(Colo.App.1984).
THE PEOPLE TO INITIATE
OF
then,
challenges,
terms of constitutional
THEIR OWN LAWS....
requires
appeal
this
us to determine
A.
Statutory
The 1989
Amendments
certain of
amendments
whether
facilitate,
hinder rather
the ex-
than
on their face violate article
of the Colora-
V
ercise
Initiative.
do Constitution.
peti-
necessary
B.
It is not
to have
appeal
In its brief submitted on
the Com-
protect
tion sections notarized to
argues
following
mittee also
acts
against fraud.
constitute
Aurora,
The decision
C.
in Clark
(1)
capricious conduct:
the determination
d[is]positive....
is not
apply
the 1989 amendments
This
articu
review of the issues
efforts; (2)
adop-
Committee’s initiative
filed in the
lated
for review
rigor-
tion of an administrative
court and
brief
district
Committee’s
ously examining
compli-
all petitions for
in that
filed here and
court reveals that
requirements
ance with all
of the 1989
questions
constitutional
to be resolved
amendments;
(3)
pre-
adoption
limited
appeal
are few in number and
staple
sumption that
extra
scope.
complaint
its
for review filed
have been
and are
holes
disassembled
con-,
with the district court the Committee’s
*7
invalid; (4)
adoption
poli-
of a
therefore
challenges
stitutional
to the 1989 amend
cy or standard that disallows a
on
ments were based
article V of the Colo
appearing on
the date of
because
process”
rado Constitution and on “due
from the
the circulator affidavit differs
However,
argu
concerns.
the Committee’s
signature appearing
of
on the corre-
date
district
the time
ment to the
court that
(5)
statement;
sponding
notarization
constraints contained in the 1989 amend
protections
presumption
that a circu-
process”
adoption
ments violate “due
narrowly
reply
legislation
closely
its
brief the
states that this
are to be
scrutinized and
6. In
Committee
Grant,
[the
court "could well hold that the net effect of
Meyer
U.S.
v.
486
construed....'"
414, 421,
rights guaran-
1886, 1891,
amendments]
1989
to violate
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 425
108
100
by
First
the United
teed
Amendment
Woodward,
(1988) (quoting
667 P.2d
Urevich v.
States Constitution.”
(Colo.1983));
County
Montgomery
760
Ficker v.
618,
Elections,
(D.Md.
F.Supp.
670
620
Bd. of
right
is no federal
7. There
constitutional
Heinrich,
1985); Clean-Up
F.Supp.
'84 v.
590
County
Kelly
initiative
v. Macon-Bibb
928,
(M.D.Fla.1984), aff'd,
F.2d 1511
759
930
Elections,
1036,
(D.Ga.
F.Supp.
Bd.
608
1039
Cir.1985);
(11th
Connolly,
Henry
see
910 F.2d
v.
However,
1985).
adopted
right
to initiative
1000,
(1st Cir.1990).
Committee has
1004
by
by
right,
be tested
a state is
fundamental
any
scrutiny analysis
to strict
not referred
scrutiny.
application of the standard of strict
any judicial
proceeding;
briefs filed in
review
of ne
its
accordingly,
"The circulation
cessity
an initiative
Stealey
expression
both
a desire
neither
nor
involves
change
political
and a discussion of
Amendment issues
has considered
First
proposed change....
‘[Statutes
merits of
corresponding
their
briefs.
power
people to initiate
limit the
891
petition signer
multiple
lator or
who lists
application
must demonstrate that such
impaired
addresses or whose address as listed on a
abolished or
rights
vested
ac
person’s
quired
differs from that
address
prior legislation.
under
See Hi
Secretary’s
as recorded on the
master vot- melgrin
Denver,
v.
County
ing
1006,
list is not a
elector. Our
(Colo.App.1986).
717 P.2d
propriety
review of the
argues
The Committee
that it had
conduct is limited to those issues.
rights in
procedural
vested
and remedi
al measures available to it under the statu
Ill
tory
regulating
scheme
the initiative
applica
asserts
process
as it existed
prior
June
1989.
tion of the 1989 amendments to its initia Rights to
particular proce
the benefit of
impermissible
tive efforts constitutes
retro
particular
dures or to invoke
remedies do
application
statutory provi
active
of those
rights,
constitute vested
however. Jef
disagree.
sions. We
Dep’t
County
Social Servs. v.
ferson
provides
The Colorado Constitution
that D.A.G.,
(1980);
199 Colo.
P.2d
law,
post
ex
facto
nor law ...
retro-
“[n]o
Kardoley v. Colorado State Personnel
spective in
operation
passed
its
shall
...
Bd.,
(Colo.App.1987).
estopped applied must know the facts and either ments would not be to this initiative on process. intend the conduct be acted or so act suggests The Committee that it party asserting estoppel must justifiably be assumption relied on that be- facts, ignorant party of true cause forms circulated asserting estoppel rely must on the other Secretary “invited error” and because the party’s injury. conduct with resultant De- circulators’ instructions distributed Donohue, partment Health v. 690 P.2d Secretary failed to inform circulators that (Colo.1984). 243, 247 The reliance of the of the 1989 amendments party seeking to benefit from the doctrine applied process.8 would be to this initiative equitable estoppel must be reasonable. developed by forms the Sec- 67; Orsinger, Regents 752 P.2d at Fritz v. retary and distributed to the Committee Colorado, 335, Univ. Colo. incorporated requirements of detailed 23, 586 P.2d The doctrine residence address information contained may against governmental be asserted the 1989 amendments. The notarization agencies. Advertising National Co. v. De- forms contained those documents ex- partment Highways, 751 P.2d 638- pressly reflected the that the (Colo.1988); Quality Colorado Water required circulator was to execute cir- Frederick, Control Comm’n v. Town of presence culator affidavit in the of the no- (Colo.1982). tary. The circulator instructions were also case, In this ALJ found that Donetta requirements on modeled established Davidson, employee Secretary, of the the 1989 amendments. The fact that the Schrier, rep- informed Robert Committee forms the information distrib- resentative, opinion that he should seek the express uted to circulators contained no legal regard applica- counsel with to the reference to the 1989 amendments does bility of the 1989 amendments to events in misleading. render the documents In view process taking place after of Donetta Davidson’s recommendation June 1989. The record of the adminis- legal that the Committee obtain advice con- hearings fully supports finding. trative cerning applicability of the 1989amend- addition, Secretary provided occurring ments to activities after June copy with a sections 1-40- 10, 1989, any placed by the reliance Com- -119, (1991 Supp.), as mittee on her statements or on the conduct amendments; reflected a set of assumption of the for an instructions based on those inapplicable 1989 amendments were to this amendments; and other documents devel- initiative effort cannot deemed reason- be oped by Secretary pursuant to the 1989 able. circumstances, amendments. In these it is
clear that neither Donetta Davidson nor the V Secretary intended for the Committee to A any representations act on or conduct of regard applicability that office with to the express The Colorado Constitution of the 1989 amendments to this initiative ly People reserves to the of this state “the power propose laws ... and to enact ... polls independent did Donetta Davidson inform Schrier that the same at the opinion questions relating general assembly,” in her directs that “[initiative title, fixing legislation in such ballot submission clause for state ... law, prescribed pursuant to summary proposed form as *9 governed by not be amend- shall be addressed to and filed with the would 1989 [Secretary] three before ments. Schrier testified at the administra- at least months they are hearing general tive that he assumed on the basis election at which to be upon” provides of that statement that the 1989 amend- voted that the Secre- implies cifically provisions the curative 1-40- § 8. The Committee that the documents that (1980), 109(2), repealed. language stating spe- IB C.R.S. had been should also have contained
893
Clark,
777;
Brownlow
initiated
al soil.
782 P.2d at
tary “shall submit all measures
Wunsch,
people
adoption
rejection
120, 123,
775,
for
or
at
v.
...
103
Colo.
83 P.2d
polls,
compliance
(1938);
with this section.”
Interrogatories
see In re
H.B.
777
V,
1078,
Const. art.
1. These
1, 8,
Colo.
308,
189
§
Colo.
536 P.2d
314
reserving
people
right
to exer
(1975).
adopted by
Measures
the General
process
are self-execu
cise the
abuse, mistake,
Assembly
prevent
to
or
1,
V,
ting,
Const. art.
and therefore
Colo.
§
process may
fraud in the initiative
not un
liberally
must be
construed to effectuate
duly
rights
process,
diminish the
to that
Aurora,
City
Clark v.
purposes.
their
Clark,
777; Billings
however.
the course of an initiative shall be l-40-106(2)(b), Section as amended “in filed with the such form as amendments, requires circu- each prescribed pursuant to law.” Colo. petition sign, date and have lator of a 1(2). Const. art. The General Assem § containing informa- notarized an affidavit bly constitutionally is also authorized to the circulator’s address and sta- tion about adopt legislation purity “to secure the registered tus as a elector.9 Section 1-40- elections, guard against abuses of the Const, 106(2)(a), amended, requires per- all VII, as so franchise.” Colo. art. elective provide designed sign petitions sons who detailed legislation prevent 11. Thus fraud, their residence address- mistake or other abuses in the initia information about argues these firmly tive rooted constitution es.10 l-40-106(2)(b) pertinent part that no other has so 9. Section states in he believes directly indirectly, any paid pay, as follows: or or will signer thing petition money To each section shall be attached a or other of value notarized, signed, causing inducing and dated affidavit exe- purpose or for the registered cuted elector who circulated signer signature petition. his to such to affix section, petition said which shall include his accept secretary shall not of state name, resides, printed the address at which he filing any which does not number, including the street name and notarized affidavit have attached thereto the town, city county, the date he Any signature required by added this section. affidavit; registered that he was a said affida- to a section of a after the the section of the elector at the time invalid. vit been executed shall be has signed by was circulated and electors; the listed l-40-106(2)(b), Supp.). circulated the said section of that he signature petition; that each thereon was 10. Section l-40-106(2)(a) pertinent states in presence; signature that each affixed in his part as follows: signature person whose thereon is the sign his own Each elector shall be; purports name it knowledge that to the best of his name, print the ad- and shall his persons and belief each of the resides, including the street he was, dress at which signing petition section at the time said town, name, city elector; number and signing, and that he signing.... county, paid pay and the date of not in the future has not will *10 im- culators to particularized statutory requirements obtain official authentication of initia- permissibly signatures, to the their restrict and thus to some extent V, 1(2),of by article section impede process. tive established would the initiative disagree. the Colorado Constitution.11 We language find nothing We of sec- that a cir- requirement The constitutional l-40-106(2)(b) suggest tion that the Gen- execute an “affidavit” is of course culator Assembly prohibit eral intended to circula- if circulator obtains authenti- satisfied obtaining signa- tors from authentication of signature notary from a cation of her or his tures affixed to circulator affidavits from may also be authenti- public. An affidavit duly persons authorized to administer by any person to adminis- cated authorized oaths, contrary permitted by procedures oaths, judges, magistrates, ref- ter such V, 1(6), article of the Con- Colorado erees, deputy court clerks. court clerks and Rather, stitution. we construe the statu- 24-12-103, (1991 Supp.). 10A See C.R.S. § tory gener- references to notarization to be implies that the notariza- nature, requiring ic rather than technical in l-40-106(2)(b) requirement tion of section only signatures that circulators’ be authen- impermissibly requires circulators to obtain by persons ticated authorized administer signature authentications from nota- fully implements oaths. Such construction public. ries legislative intent to ensure that circula- tors, possess degrees who various of inter- Statutory terms are to be con initiative, spe- potential particular est in a exercise strued a manner avoids mistake, fraud, prevent infirmities. v. or constitutional Renteria cial care Personnel, process obtaining 811 P.2d Dep’t thou- State abuse (Colo.1991); of S.O., only registered In re Petition sands (Colo.1990); throughout P.2d Parrish electors the state. So con- Lamm, (Colo.1988). A strued, the statute does not alter the au- third-party authentication process cir- thentication for verification of justified as a of circulator culator affidavits established the Colora- designed integrity protect measure do Constitution. it em of the initiative insofar as require The 1989amendments each phasizes significance personal of the identify circulator to the street name and responsibility circulators must assume to number, town, city county compris irregularities prevent residence; ing indicate the the circulator's provision The constitutional ac signed; date which the affidavit was validity only cording prima facie to verified state, alia, the circulator inter petitions recognizes that fact. We can dis registered was a elector at the time integ heightened protection cern no l-40-106(2)(b), petition was circulated.
rity process by legislative § of the a (1991 Supp.). The amendments C.R.S. permitting authentication of determination signs provide person who further that each signatures only by registered no name; person’s 12-55-119, petition print a must public. 5B taries See § person indicate the address at which the legislative determination Such resides, would, however, including the street name and num- ability restrict the of cir- signature l-40-106(2)(a),* Supp.). elector that each some person is the whose thereon provision as follows: 11. The constitutional states that, purports it to be and to the best name having petition shall consist of sheets affiant, knowledge each and belief of the general printed or written at the such form was, signing persons at the said designated top pre- as shall be thereof signing, elector. Such time of state; secretary scribed such prima shall be facie evi- so verified signed by registered electors in their shall be genuine signatures thereon are dence that the persons only, proper to which shall be own signing persons and true and the residence address of such attached registered electors. same are signing the same. To each of date of Const, 1(6). Colo. art. of one or petitions, which consist sheets, be attached an affidavit of shall more
895 ber, town, city county; days petitions and and after the are filed. Section l-40-109(l)(b)(II) date which requires indicate the the Secretary to l-40-106(2)(a), petition. public file specifying IB document the num- § (1991 Supp.). The Committee ar- ber of signa- C.R.S. sufficient and insufficient tures, gues requirements unduly identify that these to signatures, re- all insufficient participation citizen and to grounds any strict describe the for deter- process. insufficiency. mination of Section 1-40- 109(l)(c) any registered authorizes elector argument challenges This in essence protest to file a Secretary’s findings degree of detailed information about resi- thirty days within of issuance of the dence addresses deemed the General Secretary’s statement. Assembly reasonably necessary to be to petition signers ensure that circulators and Only properly petitions verified are sub- While, registered in fact are electors. as ject prima to the of presumption facie valid- observes, requirements the Committee ity V, 1(6), established article section of may detailed information increase the the Colorado Constitution. That same con- error, potential for scrivener formal provision stitutional authorizes the Secre- requirements potential. introduce tary designate general form of all view the constitutional mandate that petitions that and directs must be only registered electors circulate or signed by registered electors. The Secre- petitions, find sign particu- we do not these tary’s responsibility determine that sig- requirements unduly restrictive larized and signers natures of circulators We reached a sim- signatures genuine registered are fact Aurora, v. City ilar conclusion Clark voters, Assembly’s as well as the General (Colo.1989), P.2d 782 779-81 authority exercise to direct the of that re- requirements imposed by context of a mu- sponsibility, directly are on based these nicipal code on referendum citizen efforts. See Landrum safeguards. constitutional Earner, v. 85-86, 4 64 Colo. P.
C
Hill,
See also Adams
P.2d
argues
(Colo.App.1989).13
also
that
incorporated
the 1989 amendments
in sub
amendments
(b)(II),
l-40-109(l)(b)(I),
(c),
and
IB
sections
relating to the
examination of
(1991 Supp.),
provi
C.R.S.
contravene
require
filed
simply
V,
1(6),
sions of article
of the Colo
signatures
to ascertain that the
of circula-
assuring
properly
Constitution
that a
rado
petition signers
tors and
meet the formal
prima
verified
“shall be
facie evi
requirements
by the
established
General
gen
dence that the
thereon are
office. The
Assembly
that
persons signing
and true and
uine
that
thorough
speedy
ensures a
initial ad-
same are
electors.”
We
analysis
signa-
of submitted
ministrative
agree.
do not
tures,
required by
Colorado Consti-
(1991 tution;
40—109(l)(b)(I),
exploration
of all admin-
a detailed
Section 1—
respect
requires
istrative
made with
Supp.),
to determine
decisions
signatures,
invalidity
particular
all
are
for the
signers
vot-
ers,
potential oppo-
validity
signa-
proponents
of all
benefit of
consider the
nents;
proponents
requirements
opportunity for both
light
estab-
tures
1-40-106,
opponents
protest
those administra-
by section
and to issue the
lished
determinations;
judicial
review of
analysis
twenty-one
of such
within
tive
results
proof
the extent the Committee
supra
are invalid. To
See
note 11.
12.
statutory provision
suggests
violates
suggests
point
Committee at one
Constitution,
1(6),
we
art.
of the Colorado
l-40-109(2)(a),
provisions of
requires any party disagree-
disagree. merely
It
Supp.), requiring
party protesting the Secre-
ing with an initial
determination
administrative
tary’s
sufficiency
determination of
or insuffi-
justify
party’s protest.
ciency
the burden of
to assume
*12
Contrary
provisions safeguarding
rulings.
tional
all final administrative
conclusions,
Committee,
process.
this
In view of those
to
assertions
simply
Secretary’s application
benefit
of and adherence to
legislative scheme does not
in
opponents
proposed initiatives.
the standards contained
the 1989 amend-
potential
of
and’necessary.
parties to an initiative ments was both reasonable
It assures all
process complies with con-
process that the
that
Committee asserts
statutory provisions
and
de-
stitutional
Secretary’s adoption
presumption
that
partic-
citizen
both to facilitate
petitions
staple
extra
with
holes are invalid
ipation therein and to ensure that
arbitrary
capricious
constitutes
and
con
process is neither abused nor subverted
agree
We
this assertion.
duct.
view,
by design.
In our
inadvertence or
1-40-107(2),
Section
this
furthers rather than frustrates
scheme
Supp.),
“Any
states as follows:
disassem-
1(6),
of article
of
petition
bly of a section of the
which has
the Colorado Constitution.
separating
the effect of
the affidavits from
shall render that section of
VI
petition
invalid and of no force and
finally
The Committee
contends
Thus a
has
di-
effect.”
that
been
conduct of the
that certain
disqualified.
sassembled must be
Elkins v.
the' 1989 amendments
administration of
Milliken,
138-39,
249 P.
80 Colo.
arbitrary
capricious.
Administra
(1928);
Buchanan,
Billings
see
v.
that reflects a conscientious
tive conduct
(1976).
Colo.
AFFIDAVIT 0 CIRCULATOR I, Colorado; [Circulator Printed swear my Name] that I am a elector of the State of address is:
Street Number and Name County Zip Code foregoing petition signature and I have circulated my presence; and each thereon was affixed in be, signature signature person each purports thereon is the whose name it and to the best of my knowledge persons signing and belief each of the said section was at the time of such Colorado; signing registered pay elector of the State of I have I not nor will in the future and I believe paid pay, directly indirectly, any money thing that no other has so or will or other of value to any signer purpose inducing causing signer petition. for the to affix his to such Signature Signing of Circulator Date of STATE OF COLORADO OF_ COUNTY this_ of_ day
Subscribed and sworn to me before Public) (Notary My expires_:_ commission (SEAL) addition, require personally general notarization affirmed authorized before oath- 1-40-106(2)(b)refers to the takers. The central ment of section feature of an affidavit assurance, oath, Secretary’s authority prescribe pursuant forms. is its are, contents of a requirement personal authentication subscribed document oath, personal judge, knowledge under whether before a court the subscriber’s or be- lief, Court, notary public, reasonably clerk or calcu true. Otani v. District (Colo.1983). emphasize importance of the P.2d lated to The circulator personally developed by that circulators ob form affidavit petition signers petitions. preserves execute this feature. serve Secretary’s decision We conclude that While the selection of a prescribe a circulator affidavit form re requiring personal circulator affidavit form quiring personal signature affirmation affirmation presence circulator in the of an authorized adoption of an policy administrative autho capri nor oath taker is neither *14 rizing rejection initial of affidavits reveal unduly restrict the ini cious and does not ing discrepancies between the dates of cir- process. tiative culator execution and the dates of official appearing form on circu- The affirmation reasonable, particular authentication are requires that the document lator affidavits this, peculiar difficulties the first initia personally by be subscribed and sworn subject amendments, tive effort to the 1989 presence notary in the of a the circulator responding must be considered in to the public Correspondence on a date certain. argument. example, Committee’s For of the dates on a circulator affidavit'and on adopted circulator by affidavit form prescribed provides affirmation form a Secretary limited the class of authorized strong sig- basis for the conclusion that a public. oath takers notaries The instruc purporting nature to be that of a circulator promulgated tions for use and distributed in is fact circulator’s and by contained similar limita the circulator in fact witnessed tions. While forms and instructions petitioners’ corresponding execution of the amended, the documents to the available Co., petition. Farm Bur. Fin. See Inc. in this initiative 745, 750, Carney, 100 Idaho overly restrictive. (1980). Conversely, discrepancy in addition, single-page In in- circulator those two dates establishes that the circula- developed by struction sheet sign in tor did not the circulator affidavit ambiguous is somewhat in its directions presence notary, presenting thus respecting the execution of circulator affi- irregularity process. in the initiative davits and authentication forms.16 The in- irregularity Such would most circum- provides struction that the circulator sheet amply justify initial stances administrative appear personally notary “should” before rejection question. The public, “shall” then fill in the affidavit availability procedural per- mechanism presence notary, and should proponents mitting to introduce evidence to “[tjake care that this is done after all validity of such establish signatures have been collected.” The di- sufficient to assure that the rection to take circulator affidavits to a unduly by initiative is not burdened notary only after col- have been policy. 1-40- administrative See by a lected is followed statement 109(l)(c), Supp.). public notary will “then” execute the affi- requirement note that of davit. The instructions also warn that
We also incomplete” signature lines “faulty circulator affidavits established will verified 1(6), and that if an affidavit is article of the Colorado Con- not be counted the entire Secretary’s completed properly, is furthered “not stitution determination that circulator affidavits be is void.” precise
16. The circulator instructions contained are far more in this promulgated respect. manual more inclusive instruction not, however, The instructions do personally indi- circulators witnessed the execu- any cate in manner that the date of nota- petitions by petitioner tion of signers. correspond rization must to the date the view of the deficiencies of Secretary’s affidavit is discrepancies or that instructions, Bartecchi’s testimo- automatically the two dates will result in ny constituted sufficient evidence in this rejection of the affidavit and corre- case to overcome initial administrative sponding petition. Furthermore, the com- determination rejecting those circulator af- bination of the that an affida- fidavits. In the absence of other evidence notary only vit be taken to a after all suggesting that Bartecchi’s affidavits were signatures have been obtained with the invalid, rejection of those affidavits and notary statement that the will “then” au- to which they were attached suggests thenticate the affidavit that au- capricious unduly might thentication occur at a later date. particular restricted this circumstances, In view of these we con- finally The Committee asserts that clude that in one additional area the Secre- administrative determina tary’s application poli- of the administrative tion that a multiple circulator who lists adopted pursuant cies to the 1989 amend- addresses on an petition sig affidavit or a unduly ments was overly mechanical and ner whose address as listed on a restrictive. One set of circulator affidavits differs from the address recorded on the by appellant executed Carl E. Bartecchi voting master list maintained the Secre *15 discrepancies contained in sig- the dates of tary registered will not be a deemed elector natures set on ap- forth the affidavit and capricious.18 is and disagree. We pearing on the notarization form.17 At the undisputed It is peti- that circulators and hearing, administrative Bartecchi testified signers registered tion must be electors. A that he petitioner subscrip- did witness the registered qualified elector is one who is tions appearing petitions, on the that he actually vote and who has registered to personally notary public, knew the and that 1-2-201, (1980). vote. IB reg- C.R.S. A § he personally executed the notarization istered elector legal have one forms. While acknowledging that Bartec- place 1-2-203, of residence. IB C.R.S. testimony chi’s constituted evidence in ex- (1980). registered A elector who moves planation dates, discrepancies of the county precinct from one to another judge the administrative law concluded permanent intent to make a the notarization was invalid and af- change in residence is considered to have Secretary’s rejection firmed the peti- of the county abandoned his residence in the tions associated with the affidavits. precinct in formerly which the elector resid- application This mechanistic of adminis- l-2-102(l)(e), ed. IB C.R.S. policies trative in our unduly view re- l-40-106(2)(a) (b), Subsections and strictive in the circumstances of this case. (1991Supp.), require petition signers The constitutional of verified affidavits, and circulators to indicate their residence legislative requirement generic petitions addresses on and circulator affida- signa- notarization circulator tures, and the ini- vits. form and the instruc- policy administrative tially declaring prepared by invalid tions for the use thereof circulator affidavits revealing clearly discrepancies Secretary petition sign- date those indicate that as addresses, presented by jus- Bartecchi’s affidavits are ers must list their residence and steps tifiable as reasonable to assure that the instruction manual for initiative efforts 40—109(l)(b)(I) pertinent Bartecchi testified that sixteen or seventeen 18. Section states in 1— part follows: were disallowed and they percentage constituted a small A shall be deemed a elector appear the master if his name voting address on total number of he submitted. The kept by [Secretary] at the time list protest lodged by Stealey challenges contains signing petition. the section of the eighteen petitions circulated Bartecchi. (1991 40—109(l)(b)(I), Supp.). IB C.R.S. § 1— in- expressly opinion. respects, judg- In all other prepared by they must list their ment of the district court is affirmed. circulators that forms circulator affida- residence addresses on ERICKSON, J., part concurs in and dis- l-40-109(l)(b)(I), IB C.R.S. vits.19 Section part. sents in person will be (1991 that a Supp.), provides MULLARKEY, J., part in concurs if the registered elector deemed to be a part. dissents in appears on the person’s and address name by the voting maintained Secre- master list ROVIRA, C.J., VOLLACK,J., do not signing tary the time of at participate. signer present lists a petition. If a ap- from the address address that differs concurring part Justice ERICKSON list, voting master it is pearing on the dissenting part: signatory to conclude reasonable respectfully part I concur in and dissent the latter address and has abandoned part. I would affirm the district court. longer registered elector. is no a therefore If circulator lists two addresses on appellant, Committee for Better affidavit, such information does (Com- Health Care for all Colorado Citizens single residence address mittee), establish filed an action the District requisite purposes elector Court, (district City County of Denver standard devel- court), status. The administrative appealing a final decision of the Secretary is reasonable in view oped (Secretary). In the deci- State important particularized sion, Secretary rejected petitions sub- requirements which it is based. See mitted for the Products Tax Initia- Tobacco Aurora, (Initiative), pursuant 1-40- Clark v. tive section (1980 (Colo.1989). statutory provi- 101(1), Supp.). view of & 1991 authorizing pursuant circulators and the case sions district court reviewed 24-4-106, signers reject- have been 10A C.R.S. & 1991 whose *16 fi- they reg- Supp.), permits judicial review of ed to are fact which establish court, electors, agency The district after nal action. istered such administrative stan- record, reviewing the affirmed the Secre- impermissibly dard does not restrict the appeal and this followed tary’s decision right of access to the initiative l-40-109(2)(a), IB pursuant to section l-40-109(l)(c), (1991 See § (1980 autho- Supp.), & 1991 which C.R.S. Supp.). appeal rizes a direct to this court. an admin reviewing A court reverse VII if determination the court istrative reasons, foregoing For the we reverse agency exceeded its constitu finds that the judgment the court insofar the district statutory authority, made an erro tional or decisions to law, as it affirms in an interpretation of acted neous unexplained reject manner, because of five capricious or made a reject petitions staple holes and to circulat- unsupported by the determination that is discrepancies 24-4-106(7), ed Bartecchi that contain in the record. evidence See § Supp.). the dates the circulator affidavits The dis between 10A C.R.S. & 1991 signed and the dates contained examination of the record were trict court’s statutory grounds for corresponding notarization forms. With none of the found petitions, is re- the function of the Secre respect to those the case reversal. It is judge, tary directions the administrative law to the district court with manded court, weigh evidence reviewing Secretary for to return the matter to the credibility of witnesses. and determine proceedings consistent with further However, ad- must list his or her residence nor a a circulator neither the affidavit form prepared one-page instruction sheet circulator affidavits. dress on Secretary a clear statement contains
QQl ruling Appeals Secretary v. Arl of the See Board Assessment should be af- (Colo.1988). 762 P.2d berg, firmed. constitution, The as well as the statute concurring part Justice MULLARKEY governing the initiative and referendum dissenting part: process, provide a critical role for the Sec- majority gives a broad construction l-40-109(l)(b)(I) retary of State. Section to the notarization which the provides, part, that: legislature imposed on initiative “Upon petition, submission of the amendments, and, secretary of state shall examine each construed, addition, upholds so it. In petition.... name on the majority also affirms the lower court’s or- secretary shall assure that the informa- der approved Secretary which required by tion section 1-40-106 is com- (Secretary’s) rejection State’s pe- of several plete, signa- that the information on each grounds titions on the that the circulators person ture line was written mak- sign did not on the affidavits ing signature, signatures that no day they same were notarized. Because I have been added to sections of the Secretary’s rejection peti- believe the required by after the affidavit erroneous, respectfully tions was I dissent l-40-106(2)(b) executed, section has been part majority opinion. from that that such is a elector.” for Better Health for all l-40-109(l)(b)(I), (1991 Supp.). (Committee), Colorado Citizens a volunteer Similarly, the Colorado Constitution re organization, filed the Products Tobacco quires Secretary prepare Tax Initiative with the of State place forms and to on the ballot all mea placement on the November 1990 bal- requirements sures that meet the of article 73,600 Approximately lot. V, 1(6), of the Colorado Constitu originally submitted to the 1(6) tion. Colo. Const. art. & rejection by Upon State. 23,300 signatures, peti- approximately Aurora, In Clark the re- tion fell 385 short of
(Colo.1989), municipal we addressed a ordi- 50,688 quired qualify for the ballot. granting nance to referendum light Secretary’s arbitrary capri- requirements that had similar to the con- 23,300 rejection many of those cious trolling statute in this case. We held signatures, this court should reverse charges the “the Colorado Constitution the initiative to be lower court and order Assembly responsibility *17 General with the placed on the pass purity to secure the of elec- ballot.1 to laws guard against the of the tions and abuses added The 1989 amendments in elective franchise.” Id. at 777. Also (2)(b) requirement in of sec- the subsection Clark, requirements held that the we 1-40-106, (1991 Supp.), that tion governing ref- the statute the initiative and nota- petition affidavit be the circulator’s with that erendum were consistent recognizes majority rized and dated. The charge. constitutional Id. constitution, that, circulator’s under the anyone who is may by be taken Secretary’s enforcement and inter- affidavit oath. by pretation in the instant case authorized law to administer of the statute Thus, personnel de- granted judges un- and other court powers is consistent with the 24-12-103, 10A C.R.S. in section der the statute and the Colorado Constitu- scribed public, Supp.), as as notaries finding a that the well tion. Absent Maj. oath. may the circulator’s capricious or administer decision was majority con- Accordingly, op. at 894. that the acted in violation of affi- law, “notarized” constitution, statute, the reference to a or our case strues brief, differed from opening dates complaint that the circulator affidavit 1. The Committee’s court, notarization. This amount that over the date of submitted to the district stated briefs. signatures rejected grounds disputed in either of the defense on the 4000 were 902 l-40-106(2)(b) “gener- carrying in to for into immediate
davit be sions effect the require only enjoyment rights to that a therein ic” and not intended established notary public af- legislative authenticate a circulator’s without action.” Yenter v. Bak- 236, er, 232, 311, fidavit. 126 Colo. 248 P.2d 314 (1952). simple affidavit is agree prohibits I the constitution one of the detailed in the initia- limiting perform the affidavit function to tive amendment which was intended to be notary public. a its enact ance Since carrying petition for into im- sufficient ment, V, section has been amend article ap- effect. the time mediate From it was 1980, changed ed once. voters 1910, proved this constitutional amend- process primarily require to required ment has that the of an affidavit only “registered rather than a elector” petition verify elector be attached to the “qualified may sign petition. a elector” a peti- contained within the V, 1, Compare 1A Const. art. Colo. § 3, 2, tion. Ch. Sec. 1910 Colo.Ex.Sess.Laws 1, (1980) art. with Colo. Const. times, all 13. At the amendment also has (1991 Supp.). Significantly, 1A C.R.S. petition “so is provided a verified” case, however, purposes of this the affida sig- prima facie evidence that the attached required petition was not vit circulators genuine natures thereon are and true. changed amend by the 1980 constitutional provision provides ment. The at issue used Constitution are “[WJords part: relevant popular meaning given the natural and be petition usually people shall hav- consist of sheets understood who ing printed Lamm, general adopted such form them.” v. 761 P.2d written Urbish (Colo.1988) designated 756, (citing A-B top at thereof shall be Co. Cattle state; U.S., (1978)). prescribed by secretary Colo. by reg- “affidavit,” by itself, such shall be The term does not proper per- public. istered in their a require notary electors own notarization writing only, sons to which shall attached “An affidavit an oath reduced to is person authority residence address of such and the attested him who has signing date of the same. To each v. Peo administer same....” Walker petitions, 415, 418, ple, which consist of one 22 Colo. 45 P. officer, sheets, Thus, any or more shall be an affi- attached authorized not necessar notary public, may ily davit of some elector authenticate signature provision. each thereon under constitutional affidavit purports long manner whose name it Affidavits taken have that, knowledge purpose protecting be and exercise best served fraud, affiant, against and belief of the each of the mis was, persons signing at the said take and abuse. signing, elector. time Notary laws at the existence prima Such so verified shall be provision time that the initiative was added facie that the there- evidence Ch. constitution. See are genuine on true and *18 supporters If of the initia- R.S. registered persons signing the same are by a no- tive had considered authentication electors. necessary guard against tary public V, 1(6). Also un Const. art. Colo. mistake, abuse, fraud, requirement or original changed 1910 amend from have notarized could that affidavits be ment, continues the initiative amendment Instead, place time. put in at that been provide rights of initiative affidavit, required only an provision respects “in all self-execu referendum are a “so verified” was to stated that 1(10).
ting.” art. Colo. Const. prima facie evidence that be considered In genuine. light of this constitu- recognized that this We have framework, fact, agree I notarization provision not a “is mere tional interpreted require necessary provi- requirement must be detailed but contains the nothing However, more than affidavit authenticat- has not inter- preted the requirement notarization as a by any person ed who is authorized law “generic” requirement. affidavit The Sec- to administer oaths and affirmations. retary has adopted a form for the circula-
tor’s affidavit which states: AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR I,-, swear that (Circulator Name) Printed I Colorado; am a elector of the State of my address is:
Street Number and Name County Zip Code I and have circulated the foregoing petition signature and each my thereon was affixed in presence; purports signature and each signature thereon is the person whose name it be, my knowledge and to the best of and belief each persons signing said section was at the time of signing such a elector of the State of Colorado; I pay have not nor will I in the future and I believe that no other has so paid the pay, directly indirectly, any money or will thing or other any signer value to for purpose inducing causing signer to affix his petition. to such
Signature of Circulator Date of Signing STATE OF COLORADO _ COUNTY OF this_ of_,
Subscribed and sworn to day before me Public)
(Notary My expires commission (SEAL) -107, only
Sections 1-40-106 and IB requirement C.R.S. reference to a date (1991 Supp.), require circulator affidavit is found in sec- a circulator to use the l-40-106(2)(b), Supp.), tion Secretary’s form and under section 1-40- which states that each “[t]o 107(2), (1991Supp.), signed, shall be attached a notarized and would invalid if the circulator substitut- by” dated affidavit executed the circulator. ed his light own form of affidavit. Secretary apparently interpreted has case, holding our the dated affidavit to mean misleading form is inaccurate and because the circulator both officer notary public if refers to a as authen- administering separately the oath must ticating Clearly the affidavit. it must be adoption date the Her of dual affidavit. changed in the future. dating requirement compelled by is not Further, question and, language I whether the Secre- of the statute as this case indicates, trap plainly it creates a for the tary properly peti- invalidated number of unwary. tions because the date on which the circula- *19 signed
tor
was not the same as the date on
us,
majority correctly
reminds
As
notary
signed.
public
my
which the
right, maj. op.
initiative is a fundamental
at
view,
erred and acted arbi- 890,
7,
implementing
n.
and
laws must be
trarily
capriciously
she
liberally
promote
when
invalidat-
the exercise
construed
initiative,
petitions.
maj. op. at 893. Consist-
ed such
of the
notary public
interpret
peared
I
before a
and acknowl
principles, would
ent with these
signature
mean
requirement
edged
notary.
his
to the
at
the dated affidavit
Id.
administering
1089-90,
the oath
only that
officer
2.
n.
The district court held
basis, I
date
must
the affidavit. On
valid
the document
not a
affidavit of
was
Secretary’s disapproval
acknowledge
would reverse
mere
indigency but
awas
discrepancy
of
in
any petitions
a
of
because
rejected that
ment. We
distinction
by the circulator and
the dates shown
said:
affidavit.
person who administered the
misperceives
This conclusion
the nature
required
if
can
Even
the circulator
writings.
the two
An affidavit is a
affidavit,
date dis-
separately
a
date
statement,
signed,
under
written
made
rejecting
crepancy
basis for
is not a valid
officer,
in
oath before an authorized
in article
petitions.
The constitution
the affiant vouches that what is
which
1(6) requires the circulator to sub-
Giannopou
true.
said is
Re Estate of
indicating
persons
an
mit
affidavit
los, 89
oath. similar problem
We confronted a Ota (Colo. Court,
ni v. District
1983), question whether where per indigency was sufficient
affidavit proceed in
mit a criminal defendant to for- appeal. The defendant pauperis on ma he
signed a statement which written ap indigent. He then
swore that he was