In the MATTER OF the TITLE, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #3 "State Fiscal Policy" Douglas Bruce and William Banta, Petitioners,
v.
Carol Hedges and Steve Briggs, Respondents and Jason Gelender, Melissa Polk, and David Powell, Title Board and Carol Hedges and Steve Briggs, Petitioners,
v.
William Banta, Respondent, and Jason Gelender, Melissa Polk, and David Powell, Title Board
Page 1057
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 1058
Original Proceeding Pursuant to § 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2019)
. Appeal from the Ballot Title Setting Board
Douglas Bruce, pro se, Colorado Springs, Colorado
William M. Banta, pro se, Englewood, Colorado
Attorneys
for Respondents/Petitioners Steve Briggs and Carol Hedges:
Tierney Lawrence LLC, Edward T. Ramey, Martha M. Tierney,
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys
for Title Board: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Emily B.
Buckley, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
OPINION
GABRIEL,
JUSTICE
[¶1]
In this case, the Title Board set a title for Proposed Ballot
Initiative 2019-2020 #3 ("Proposed Initiative")
that reads, in pertinent part, "An amendment to the
Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of the Taxpayers
Bill of Rights (TABOR), Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado
constitution." The Board also ultimately adopted an
abstract that states, regarding the economic impact of the
Proposed Initiative:
The measure is expected to increase revenue and spending for
state and local governments over the long term, shifting a
portion of the states economy from the private sector to the
public sector. If government spending for public goods and
services, including for example health care, education,
social services, infrastructure, and public safety,
increases, as expected, household and business spending or
saving will be correspondingly reduced.
[¶2]
We must now determine whether (1) the title is clear and not
misleading; (2) the use of the phrase "Taxpayers Bill
of Rights" in the title constitutes an impermissible
catch phrase; and (3) the abstract is misleading. We conclude
that the title and abstract are clear and not misleading and
that the phrase "Taxpayers Bill of Rights," as
used in the title before us, is not an impermissible catch
phrase.
[¶3]
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Title Board.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
[¶4]
Pursuant to section 1-40-106, C.R.S. (2019), Steve Briggs and
Carol Hedges, as designated representatives of the proponents
of the Proposed Initiative ("Proponents"),
submitted the Proposed Initiative to the Title Board for the
setting of a title and ballot title and submission clause.
The Board held a hearing and declined to set a title,
concluding that the measure did not constitute a single
subject. Proponents filed a motion for rehearing, requesting
that the Board reconsider that determination, but the Board
denied that motion.
[¶5]
Proponents then petitioned this court for review pursuant to
section 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2019). This court subsequently
reversed the Title Board, concluding that the Proposed
Initiative constituted a single subject, and we returned the
Proposed Initiative to the Board for the purpose of setting a
title and ballot title and submission clause. In re
Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019-2020
#3, 2019 CO 57, ¶ 40, 442 P.3d 867, 873.
[¶6]
The Board conducted a remand hearing and set a title and
ballot title and submission clause for the Proposed
Initiative. The title provided, "An amendment to the
Colorado constitution concerning the repeal of the Taxpayers
Page 1059
Bill of Rights (TABOR), Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado
constitution."
[¶7]
The Board also adopted an abstract, which initially provided:
The measure is expected to increase revenue and spending for
state and local governments over the long term, shifting a
portion of the states economy from the private sector to the
public sector. Government spending for public goods and
services, including for example health care, education,
social services, infrastructure, and public safety, will
increase. Household and business spending or saving will be
correspondingly reduced.
[¶8]
Thereafter, the Board received three motions for rehearing.
Petitioners Douglas Bruce and William Banta separately
objected to the title on the grounds that it is unfair and
does not provide to voters the complete, correct, and true
meaning of the Proposed Initiative. Proponents objected on
the grounds that (1) the title did not fairly express the
true meaning and intent of the Proposed Initiative and
contained an impermissible catch phrase and (2) the abstract
was misleading because its commentary regarding the Proposed
Initiatives expected economic impact was "wholly
speculative."
[¶9]
The Board ultimately denied Bruces and Bantas motions for
rehearing but granted in part Proponents motion for
rehearing, modifying the abstract to read, in pertinent part:
The measure is expected to increase revenue and spending for
state and local governments over the long term, shifting a
portion of the states economy from the private sector to the
public sector. If government spending for public
goods and services, including for example health care,
education, social services, infrastructure, and public
safety, increases, as expected, household and
business spending or saving will be correspondingly reduced.
(Emphases added.)
[¶10]
Bruce, Banta, and Proponents now each petition for review
pursuant to section 1-40-107(2).
II. Analysis
[¶11]
We begin by discussing the applicable standard of review. We
then consider whether the title set by the Board complies
with the clear title requirement of article V, section 1(5.5)
of the Colorado Constitution. Concluding that it does, we
proceed to consider whether "Taxpayers Bill of
Rights," as that phrase is used in the title, is an
impermissible catch phrase, and we conclude that it is not.
Finally, we review and reject Proponents contention that the
abstract is misleading.
A. Standard of Review
[¶12]
"The Title Board is vested with considerable discretion
in setting the title and the ballot title and submission
clause," and we will reverse the Boards decision only
when a title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In
re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2013-2014
#90, 2014 CO 63, ¶ 8, 328 P.3d 155, 159. In reviewing
Title Board title settings, "we employ all legitimate
presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Boards
actions." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission
Clause for 2009-2010 #45, 234 P.3d 642, 645 (Colo.
2010).
[¶13]
This court also has the authority to review abstracts
proposed by the Title Board. In re Title, Ballot Title &
Submission Clause for 2017-2018 #4, 2017 CO 57, ¶ 19,
395 P.3d 318, 323. The abstract that is included in the
fiscal impact statement is final "unless modified in
accordance with section 1-40-107." § 1-40-105.5(2)(a),
C.R.S. (2019). In reviewing an abstract, we apply the same
standard of review as we do for single subject and clear
title findings, drawing all legitimate presumptions in favor
of the propriety of the Title Boards decision and
overturning the Boards decision only in a clear case. In
re 2017-2018 #4, ¶ 20, 395 P.3d at 323.
[¶14]
In our limited review of the Title Boards actions, we do not
address the merits of the proposed initiative. In re
2013-2014 #90, ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at 159. Nor do we suggest
how it might be applied if enacted. Id. Rather, we
examine the initiatives wording to determine whether it and
its title comport with the constitutional single subject and
clear title requirements, and we review the fiscal impact
statement to ensure that it complies with the applicable
statutory requirements. See
Page 1060
In re 2017-2018 #4, ¶¶ 19, 23-24, 395 P.3d at
323-24; In re 2013-2014 #90, ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at
159. In conducting this limited inquiry, we employ
the general rules of statutory construction, and we give
words and phrases their plain and ordinary meanings. In
re 2013-2014 #90, ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at 159.
B. ...