2016 CO 55
Colo.
2016

In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #132 and #133

No. 16SA153

Supreme Court of the State of Colorado

July 5, 2016

2016 CO 55

Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203

2016 CO 55

Supreme Court Case No. 16SA153
Original Proceeding Pursuant to § 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2015)
Appeal from the Ballot Title Board

In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #132 and #133

Petitioners:
Vickie L. Armstrong and Bob Hagedorn,
v.
Respondents:
Bruce Mason and Karen Dike,
and
Title Board:
Suzanne Staiert, Sharon Eubanks, and Frederick Yarger.

Title Board Action Affirmed
en banc
July 5, 2016

Attorneys for Petitioners:
Fairfield and Woods, P.C.
Thomas P. Howard
Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondents:
Tierney Lawrence LLC
Martha M. Tierney
Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Title Board:
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General
Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General
Matthew D. Grove, Assistant Attorney General
Denver, Colorado

JUSTICE COATS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Petitioners Vickie L. Armstrong and Bob Hagedorn seek review of the Title Board‘s action in setting titles for Initiative 2015-2016 #132 and Initiative 2015-2016 #133. Both initiatives propose to amend the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes to, among other things, increase the setback for new oil and gas development from 500 feet to 2,500 feet. The Title Board concluded that both initiatives contain a single subject and set titles for both. Armstrong and Hagedorn contend that the initiatives contain multiple subjects and that the titles as set are unfair and fail to express the true meaning of the initiatives. We affirm the Title Board.

I.

¶2 Proposed Initiatives 2015-2016 #132 and #133 are identical except that #133 contains a “safety clause” declaring that the initiative‘s “provisions are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.” Both initiatives would add a new article to the state constitution and make several changes to the Colorado Revised Statutes. The proposed constitutional article, to be titled “Local Government Control of Oil and Gas Development,” contains four sections. Section 1, “Purposes and findings,” states that because oil and gas development, including hydraulic fracturing, can be “disruptive to the life of a community” and can have “significant impacts” on “public health, safety, welfare, and the environment,” it is “appropriate” for “local governments to have the authority to regulate oil and gas development.” Section 2, “Definitions,” defines the terms “oil and gas development” and “local government.” Section 3, “Local government authority,” states that local governments have the “authority to limit or prohibit oil and gas development” and that “any local government law or regulation that is more restrictive and protective of a community‘s health, safety, welfare and environment shall govern and shall not be preempted by state law.” Finally, Section 4, “Self-executing,” provides that the article is “self-executing” and “supersedes” any “conflicting state or local constitutional or statutory provision.”

¶3 In addition to the proposed constitutional amendment, the initiatives would amend section 34-60-102, C.R.S. (2015), of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act to describe the “public interest” as being “to foster the responsible development” of oil and gas “in a manner that is consistent with the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources.” The initiatives would also add a new section, 34-60-131, to the Colorado Revised Statutes, titled “Setback from occupied structures and areas.” This section would provide that the “statewide minimum distance” for “new oil and gas development” from “occupied structures and areas” must be “at least 2,500 feet.” The section defines “occupied structures” to include “homes, schools and hospitals,” and it defines “areas” to include “public open space, recreation areas, and drinking water sources.” It also allows a local government to require a setback distance “greater than 2,500 feet.”

¶4 The Title Board conducted a hearing on the initiatives on April 20, 2016, and concluded that they both contain a single subject. It then proceeded to set titles for the initiatives. Armstrong and Hagedorn filed motions for rehearing, arguing that the initiatives violate the single-subject requirement and that the titles as set are unfair and misleading. At the rehearing on April 28, 2016, the Title Board denied the motions as to the single-subject requirement but made several changes to the titles. Petitioners then filed this petition for review of the Title Board‘s action.

II.

¶5 When reviewing the Title Board‘s action in setting a title, “we employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board‘s actions.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90, 2014 CO 63, ¶ 8, 328 P.3d 155, 159. We “do not address the merits of the proposed initiative” or “interpret the meaning of proposed language or predict its future application if adopted by the electorate.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45, 234 P.3d 642, 645 (Colo. 2010).

¶6 Armstrong and Hagedorn first argue that the initiatives contain multiple subjects because the proposal to increase the setback for oil and gas development is not “dependent upon and connected to” the proposal to increase local government control over oil and gas development. See Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5); § 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2015). We disagree. The initiatives relate to the single subject of increasing local and state authority to regulate oil and gas development for the purpose of protecting public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. All the provisions of the initiatives are “directly tied” to this central focus. See In re #90, 328 P.3d at 160 (concluding that an initiative authorizing “local governments to regulate oil and gas development” and “limit[ing] the effect of state preemption” contained a single subject). Specifically, the provision increasing the mandatory minimum setback for new oil and gas development is one way in which the initiatives seek to protect public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. The Title Board correctly determined that the initiatives contain a single subject.

¶7 Armstrong and Hagedorn also argue that the titles are unfair and fail to express the true meaning of the initiatives. They maintain that the titles are misleading because they fail to mention that the 2,500-foot setback would apply to “drinking water sources” and “public open space” in addition to “occupied structures.” Again, we disagree. The Title Board‘s duty is to set titles that “correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning” of the initiative and “unambiguously state the principle of the provision” without being “misleading.” § 1-40-106(3)(b), C.R.S. (2015). The titles for both initiatives specify that they would “establish[] a statewide minimum distance of 2,500 feet between new oil and gas development and occupied structures and areas.” By including the term “areas,” the titles alert the voters that the setback applies to more than just “occupied structures.” The Title Board is not required to list every specific type of structure or area to which the setback would apply. See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 1999-2000 #258A, 4 P.3d 1094, 1099 (Colo. 2000) (noting that the Title Board‘s “brief summary of the initiative” need not “list every detail“). The titles as set are not misleading and clearly express the initiatives’ true meaning.

III.

¶8 Because Proposed Initiatives 2015-2016 #132 and #133 contain a single subject and the titles set by the Title Board fairly and accurately express the meaning of the initiatives, we affirm the Title Board‘s action.