clear title requirement in Colorado

2016So general a title does not allow a voter to understand the effect of a "yes/for" or "no/against" vote and thus does not satisfy the clear title requirement, See § 1-40-106@8)(b). 133 In this regard, In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause & Summary by the Title Board Pertaining to a Proposed Initiative on "Obscenity", 877 P.2d 848, 850-51 (Colo.1994), is "instructive.

2016See § 1-40-106(3)(b). ¶33 In this regard, In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause & Summary by the Title Board Pertaining to a Proposed Initiative on “Obscenity ”, 877 P.2d 848 , 850–51 (Colo. 1994), is instructive.

2016Instead, its task is to present straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative titles and summaries.”); In re Proposed Initiative Amendment to Article XXIV of Constitution , 187 P.2d 930, 931 (Colo. 1947) (concluding that the title setting board had erred in not including in the title language to which the parties stipulated, ordering that the stipulation be filed, and approving the title as amended by the stipulation); see also § 1-40-106(3)(b) (requiring ballot titles to be “brief”). ¶37 Accordingly, we conclude that the title as set by the Title Board does not satisfy the clear title requi

2016Instead, its task is to present straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative titles and summaries.”); In re Proposed Initiative Amendment to Article XXIV of Constitution , 187 P.2d 930, 931 (Colo. 1947) (concluding that the title setting board had erred in not including in the title language to which the parties stipulated, ordering that the stipulation be filed, and approving the title as amended by the stipulation); see also § 1-40-106(3)(b) (requiring ballot titles to be “brief”). ¶37 Accordingly, we conclude that the title as set by the Title Board does not satisfy the clear title requi

2016A perfect title is not necessary, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999–2000 #29, 972 P.2d 257, 266 (Colo. 1999), but the Title Board must, in the process of setting a title, “consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles,” “avoid titles for which the general understanding of the effect of a ‘yes/for’ or ‘no/against’ vote will be unclear,” and “correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning” of the initiative in the title, § 1-40-106(3)(b); In re 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d at 648. ¶11 In sum, the clear title requirement seeks to accom

2016A perfect title is not necessary, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999-2000 #29 , 972 P.2d 257 , 266 (Colo.1999), but the Title Board must, in the process of setting a title, "consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles," "avoid titles for which the general understanding of the effect of a 'yes/for' or 'no/against' vote will be unclear," and "correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning" of the initiative in the title, § 1-40-106(3)(b); In re 2009-2010 #45 , 234 P.3d at 648 . ¶11 In sum, the clear title requirement seeks to ac

2010We do not consider whether the Title Board set the best possible title; rather, our duty is to ensure that the title "fairly reflect[s] the proposed initiative so that petition signers and voters will not be misled into support for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed by the Board." In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2007-2008 # 62, 184 P.3d 52 , 58 (Colo.2008) (quoting In re Proposed Initiative Concerning the Fair Treatment of Injured Workers Amendment, 873 P.2d 718, 719 (Colo.1994)) (emphasis omitted).

2010We do not consider whether the Title Board set the best possible title; rather, our duty is to ensure that the title "fairly reflect[s] the proposed initiative so that petition signers and voters will not be misled into support for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed by the Board." In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2007-2008 # 62, 184 P.3d 52, 58 (Colo.2008) (quoting In re Proposed Initiative Concerning the Fair Treatment of Injured Workers Amendment, 873 P.2d 718, 719 (Colo.1994)) (emphasis omitted).

2008Section 1-40-106(3)(b), mandates that "[b]allot titles . . . shall not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election." We have held that such a conflict exists where the titles fail to accurately reflect the distinctions between the measures, and "voters comparing the titles . . . would [not] be able to distinguish between the two proposed measures." In re the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning the "Fair Treatment II ", 877 P.2d 329, 333 (Colo.1994).

2008Section 1-40-106(8)(b), mandates that "[blal-lot titles ... shall not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election." We have held that such a conflict exists where the titles fail to accurately reflect the distinctions between the measures, and "voters comparing the titles . would [not] be able to distinguish between the two proposed measures." In re the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning the "Fair Treatment II", 877 P.2d 329, 333 (Colo.1994).

2016The “purpose of reviewing an initiative title for clarity . . . [is] voter protection through reasonably ascertainable expression of the initiative’s purpose.” Id. ¶21 The majority concludes the title set for Initiative #156 violates the clear title requirement because it is “illogical and inherently confusing.” Maj. op. ¶ 13.

2016The "purpose of reviewing an initiative title for clarity ... [is] voter protection through reasonably ascertainable expression of the initiative's purpose." Id. ¶21 The majority concludes the title set for Initiative #156 violates the clear title requirement because it is "illogical and inherently confusing." Maj. op. ¶ 13.

2016A perfect title is not necessary, In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary for 1999–2000 #29, 972 P.2d 257, 266 (Colo. 1999), but the Title Board must, in the process of setting a title, “consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles,” “avoid titles for which the general understanding of the effect of a ‘yes/for’ or ‘no/against’ vote will be unclear,” and “correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning” of the initiative in the title, § 1-40-106(3)(b); In re 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d at 648. ¶11 In sum, the clear title requirement seeks to accom

2016When reviewing a title for clarity and accuracy, we will reverse the Title Board’s decision only if the title is “insufficient, unfair, or misleading.” In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #45, 234 P.3d 642 , 648 (Colo. 2010). ¶20 Our review of an initiative’s title is limited not only by the deference we give to the Title Board’s authority, but also by the narrow scope of the clear title inquiry.

2020Coverage, 877 P.2d 853, 857 (Colo. 1994). ¶27 In deciding whether a title complies with the constitution’s clear title requirement, “we do not consider whether the Title Board set the best possible title.” In re 2015–2016 #73, ¶ 24, 369 P.3d at 569 .

2019In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 25, 328 P.3d at 162 ; In re Proposed Constitutional Amendment Under the Designation “Pregnancy,” 757 P.2d at 137. ¶19 Accordingly, we conclude that the title at issue satisfies our constitution’s clear title requirements. ¶20 In reaching this conclusion, we are not persuaded by Bruce’s and Banta’s contentions that the title fails to satisfy the clear title requirement because it does not inform voters of the basic features of the measure, i.e., the “main features” of TABOR that would be repealed were the measure to pass.

2019Gaming, 830 P.2d at 966 (“This court’s primary function is to ensure that the documents prepared by the Board fairly, accurately and concisely reflect the central features of the initiated measure.” (emphases added)). ¶58 To the extent the majority reasons that “[p]icking and choosing” among TABOR’s multiple features would lead to problems or voter confusion, maj. op. ¶ 21, its argument simply highlights that the measure contains multiple subjects— so many, apparently, that it is not possible (according to the majority) to concisely convey all its features in the title, see id. ¶59 I fear that

2019Gaming, 830 P.2d at 966 (“This court’s primary function is to ensure that the documents prepared by the Board fairly, accurately and concisely reflect the central features of the initiated measure.” (emphases added)). ¶58 To the extent the majority reasons that “[p]icking and choosing” among TABOR’s multiple features would lead to problems or voter confusion, maj. op. ¶ 21, its argument simply highlights that the measure contains multiple subjects— so many, apparently, that it is not possible (according to the majority) to concisely convey all its features in the title, see id. ¶59 I fear that

2019Partly for the reasons stated in my previous dissent in this matter, see In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019–2020 #3, 2019 CO 57 , ¶¶ 41–75, 442 P.3d 867 , 873–79 (Márquez, J., dissenting), I would reverse the Title Board’s setting of title.

2019Partly for the reasons stated in my previous dissent in this matter, see In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019–2020 #3, 2019 CO 57 , ¶¶ 41–75, 442 P.3d 867 , 873–79 (Márquez, J., dissenting), I would reverse the Title Board’s setting of title.

2016See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009–2010 #91, 235 P.3d 1071, 1074 (Colo. 2010) (reversing the Title Board’s decision on one basis and declining to address the petitioner’s other argument for reversal). 3 ¶4 The Title Board conducted a hearing, concluded that the proposed initiative contained a single subject, and set a title for the initiative using much of the same language as the initiative itself.

2016See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #91, 235 P.3d 1071 , 1074 (Colo.2010) (reversing the Title Board's decision on one basis and declining to address the petitioner's other argument for reversal).