single-subject requirement in Colorado

2022A central purpose of the single-subject requirement is that it "precludes the joining together of multiple subjects into a single initiative in the hope of attracting support from various factions which may have different or even conflicting interest." In re Proposed Initiative "Public Rights in Waters II" , 898 P.2d 1076 , 1079 ( Colo. 1995 ) .

2022A central purpose of the single-subject requirement is that it "precludes the joining together of multiple subjects into a single initiative in the hope of attracting support from various factions which may have different or even conflicting interest." In re Proposed Initiative "Public Rights in Waters II" , 898 P.2d 1076 , 1079 ( Colo. 1995 ) .

2006The single-subject requirement is not violated if the “matters encompassed are necessarily or properly connected to each other rather than disconnected or incongruous.” In re Amend Tabor 25, 900 P.2d 121, 125 (Colo.1995); see In re “Public Rights in Waters II”, 898 P.2d 1076 , 1078-79 (Colo.1995).

1996To determine whether the single-subject requirement has been abrogated, we must determine if “the text of the measure relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.” In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Amend Tabor 25, 900 P.2d 121, 125 (Colo.1995); see also In re Proposed Initiative “Public Rights in Waters II”, 898 P.2d at 1078-79.

2022However, our deference here is not absolute; we have an obligation to "examine the initiative's wording to determine whether it comports with the constitutional requirements," In re 2019 - 2020 #315, ¶ 8 , 500 P.3d at 366 , and we have found clear violations of the single-subject requirement on review on multiple occasions, see, e.g., In re 2021 - 2022 #16, ¶ 42 , 489 P.3d at 1225 ( reversing the Board's title setting on a proposed initiative amending animal cruelty statutes in two distinct ways ) ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015 - 2016 #132, 2016 CO 55 , ¶ 36 , 374 P.3

2022See In re 1997-1998 #64 , 960 P.2d at 1198 ( holding that a measure that "indirectly affects" the central objective is inconsistent with the single-subject requirement ) . ¶23 The inclusion of both subjects in one initiative "is precisely the logrolling dilemma that the voters intended to avoid when they adopted the [single-subject] requirements." In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3 , 2012 CO 25 , ¶ 31 , 274 P.3d 562, 571 (Hobbs, J., dissenting) .

2022Specifically, it is designed to prevent "the practice of putting together in one measure subjects having no necessary or proper connection, for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits," § 1-40-106.5 (1) (e) (I) , and to "prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters" by ensuring that the title of the measure "apprise the people of the subject," § l-40-106.5 (l) (e) (II) . ¶13 To meet the single-subject requirement, we have previously explained that an

2022V, § 1 (5.5) ( stating that "no title shall be set" for a measure that "contains more than one subject" ) ; § 1-40-106.5 ( articulating the single-subject requirement for ballot initiatives ) . " We liberally construe the [single-subject] requirement both because of the Title Board 's considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause and in order to avoid unduly restricting the initiative process." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2021-2022 #16 , 2021 CO 55 , ¶ 8 , 489 P.3d 1217, 1220 (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause

2021"Said another way, the single-subject requirement is not violated unless the text of the measure ‘relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.’ " In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2005-2006 #74 , 136 P.3d 237, 239 ( Colo. 2006 ) ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary with Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Const. of State Adding Section 2 to Article VII (Petition Procs.) , 900 P.2d 104, 109 ( Colo. 1995 ) ) . ¶14 Accordingly, " [w] e

2006Said another way, the single-subject requirement is not violated unless the text of the measure “relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.” In re Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995); see People v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369, 405 , 74 P. 167 , 178 (1903).

2010First, it prevents the practice of putting together in one measure multiple subjects "for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits." In re No. 29, 972 P.2d at 261 (quoting § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I), C.R.S. (1998)); see also In re 2009-2010 #45, 284 P.3d at 646 (stating that the single-subject rule seeks "to prevent proponents from joining incongruous subjects in the same measure, thereby ensuring that each proposal depends on its own merits for passage" (quoting In re #4

2010First, it prevents the practice of putting together in one measure multiple subjects "for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits." In re No. 29, 972 P.2d at 261 (quoting § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I), C.R.S. (1998)); see also In re 2009-2010 # 45, 234 P.3d at 646 (stating that the single-subject rule seeks "to prevent proponents from joining incongruous subjects in the same measure, thereby ensuring that each proposal depends on its own merits for passage" (quoting In re #

2017Id.; In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3, 2012 CO 25, ¶ 8 , 274 P.3d 562, 565 . ¶7 The single-subject requirement functions to prevent two dangers: (1) “logrolling,” or the practice of “combining subjects with no necessary or proper connection for the purpose of garnering support for the initiative from various factions—that may have different or even conflicting interests— [in order to] lead to the enactment of measures that would fail on their own merits”; and (2) voter surprise and fraud caused by the “passage of a surreptitious provision ‘coiled up in the fold

2010The well-established purpose of the single-subject requirement is to prevent proponents from joining "incongruous subjects in the same measure," thereby ensuring that "each proposal depends on its own merits for passage." In re # 43, 46 P.3d at 441 (quoting In re Pub.

2012Multiple provisions fall under a single subject only if they have a "necessary and proper relationship." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, Summary Clouse for 1997-1998 No. 74, 962 P.2d 927, 929 (Colo.1998). 4 25 "[In order to pass the single-subject test, the subject of the initiative should be capable of being clearly expressed in the initiative's title." In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, Summary for 2005-2006 No. 78, 185 P.3d 786 , 788 (Colo.2006).

2012Multiple provisions fall under a single subject only if they have a "necessary and proper relationship." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, Summary Clause for 1997-1998 No. 74, 962 P.2d 927, 929 (Colo.1998). ¶ 25 "[I]n order to pass the single-subject test, the subject of the initiative should be capable of being clearly expressed in the initiative's title." In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, Summary for 2005-2006 No. 73, 135 P.3d 736, 738 (Colo.2006).

2002See In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 #200A, 992 P.2d 27, 30 (Colo.2000) ("An initiative does not satisfy the single-subject requirement if its provisions contain separate and unconnected purposes, despite the proponent's efforts to unite them under the same general area of the law."); In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528, 532 (Colo.1996) ("Grouping the provisions of a proposed initiative under a broad concept that potentially misleads voters will not satisfy the single subject requirement.") In the face of such subterfuge, we have not hesitated to strike down initiatives that

2002See In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 # 200A, 992 P.2d at 30-32 (holding that implementation details and enforcement measures that are "directly tied to the initiative's central focus do not constitute a separate subject" (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-98 # 74, 962 P.2d 927, 929 (Colo.1998) ("An initiative with a single, distinct purpose does not violate the single-subject requirement simply because it spells out details relating to its implementation.

1998See In re “Public Rights in Waters II”, 898 P.2d at 1080 (even when provisions share some common characteristic, they do not satisfy single subject requirement when they do not have a “unifying or common objective”); see also In re Petition “Amend Tabor No. 32”, 908 P.2d 125, 128 (Colo.1995) (“[I]f an initiative effects one general object or purpose, it will satisfy the single-subject requirement.”).

1998See In re "Public Rights in Waters II", 898 P.2d at 1080 (even when provisions share some common characteristic, they do not satisfy single subject requirement when they do not have a "unifying or common objective"); see also In re Petition "Amend Tabor No. 32", 908 P.2d 125, 128 (Colo.1995) ("[I]f an initiative effects one general object or purpose, it will satisfy the single-subject requirement.").

1996See In re Interrogatory Propounded by Govenor Roy Romer on House Bill No. 1353, 738 P.2d 371 (Colo.1987) (holding as unconstitutional a bill which violated the single-subject requirement).

1996The subject matter of a bill must be "necessarily or properly connected" rather than "disconnected or incongruous," In re House Bill No. 1353, 738 P.2d 371, 374 (Colo.1987), in order to satisfy the single-subject requirement.

2019Id. at 534 . ¶23 As pertinent here, we began by setting out the law relating to the single-subject requirement.

2012Id. ¶ 29 "[I]n order to pass the single-subject test, the subject of the initiative should be capable of being clearly expressed in the initiative's title." In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, Summary for 2005-2006 No. 73, 135 P.3d 736, 738 (Colo.2006).

2022An initiative with provisions that are "disconnected or incongruous," id. at ¶ 13 , 489 P.3d at 1221 (quoting In re 2019 - 2020 #315, ¶ 13 , 500 P.3d at 367 ) —covering "more than one subject and [having] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other," id. ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2005-2006 #74 , 136 P.3d 237, 239 ( Colo. 2006 ) ) —violates this requirement. ¶14 We have recognized that " [m] ere implementation or enforcement details directly tied to the initiative's single subject will not, in and of the

2021"Said another way, the single-subject requirement is not violated unless the text of the measure ‘relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.’ " In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2005-2006 #74 , 136 P.3d 237, 239 ( Colo. 2006 ) ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary with Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Const. of State Adding Section 2 to Article VII (Petition Procs.) , 900 P.2d 104, 109 ( Colo. 1995 ) ) . ¶14 Accordingly, " [w] e

2000See In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 # 104, 987 P.2d 249, 253 (Colo.1999).

2000See In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 # 104, 987 P.2d 249 , 258-54 (Colo.1999).

2006See In re Initiative for 1997-98 # 113, 962 P.2d 970, 971-72 (Colo.1998) (per curiam) (upholding the titles and summary for a proposed initiative to limit pollution from hog farms, including its implementation measures and provisions for reporting waste disposal information to the Health Department); In re Proposed Initiative “Petitions”, 907 P.2d 586, 591 (Colo.1995) (determining that a proposed initiative establishing comprehensive rules governing petitions did not violate the single-subject requirement in its inclusion of detailed procedures and its authorization for citizen lawsuits to ens

2006See In re Initiative for 1997-98 #113, 962 P.2d 970, 971-72 (Colo. 1998) (per curiam) (upholding the titles and summary for a proposed initiative to limit pollution from hog farms, including its implementation measures and provisions for reporting waste disposal information to the Health Department); In re Proposed Initiative "Petitions", 907 P.2d 586, 591 (Colo.1995) (determining that a proposed initiative establishing comprehensive rules governing petitions did not violate the single-subject requirement by its inclusion of detailed procedures and its authorization for citizen lawsuits to ens

2022See In re 1997-1998 #64 , 960 P.2d at 1198 ( holding that a measure that "indirectly affects" the central objective is inconsistent with the single-subject requirement ) . ¶23 The inclusion of both subjects in one initiative "is precisely the logrolling dilemma that the voters intended to avoid when they adopted the [single-subject] requirements." In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3 , 2012 CO 25 , ¶ 31 , 274 P.3d 562, 571 (Hobbs, J., dissenting) .

2022See In re 1997-1998 #64 , 960 P.2d at 1198 ( holding that a measure that "indirectly affects" the central objective is inconsistent with the single-subject requirement ) . ¶23 The inclusion of both subjects in one initiative "is precisely the logrolling dilemma that the voters intended to avoid when they adopted the [single-subject] requirements." In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3 , 2012 CO 25 , ¶ 31 , 274 P.3d 562, 571 (Hobbs, J., dissenting) .

2002To ensure that a proposed initiative complies with this single-subject requirement, the title board is required to make inquiries like Mr. Pike's, see In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 # 25, 974 P.2d at 468-69 , and it is permissible for us to take note of a proponent's responses thereto.

2000In In *495 re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 #25, 974 P.2d 458, 460-63 (Colo.1999), we explained the origins and history of the single-subject requirement.

2022Specifically, it is designed to prevent "the practice of putting together in one measure subjects having no necessary or proper connection, for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits," § 1-40-106.5 (1) (e) (I) , and to "prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters" by ensuring that the title of the measure "apprise the people of the subject," § l-40-106.5 (l) (e) (II) . ¶13 To meet the single-subject requirement, we have previously explained that an

2022Specifically, it is designed to prevent "the practice of putting together in one measure subjects having no necessary or proper connection, for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits," § 1-40-106.5 (1) (e) (I) , and to "prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters" by ensuring that the title of the measure "apprise the people of the subject," § l-40-106.5 (l) (e) (II) . ¶13 To meet the single-subject requirement, we have previously explained that an

2020In re 2013–2014 #90, ¶ 12, 328 P.3d at 159–60.

2017Accordingly, the subject matter of a proposed initiative “must be necessarily and properly conheeted rather than disconnected or incongruous.” In re 2013-2014 #90, ¶ 11, 328 P.3d at 159 (quoting In re 2011-2012 #3, ¶ 9, 274 P.3d at 565 ).

2022However, our deference here is not absolute; we have an obligation to "examine the initiative's wording to determine whether it comports with the constitutional requirements," In re 2019 - 2020 #315, ¶ 8 , 500 P.3d at 366 , and we have found clear violations of the single-subject requirement on review on multiple occasions, see, e.g., In re 2021 - 2022 #16, ¶ 42 , 489 P.3d at 1225 ( reversing the Board's title setting on a proposed initiative amending animal cruelty statutes in two distinct ways ) ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015 - 2016 #132, 2016 CO 55 , ¶ 36 , 374 P.3

2022However, our deference here is not absolute; we have an obligation to "examine the initiative's wording to determine whether it comports with the constitutional requirements," In re 2019 - 2020 #315 , ¶ 8 , 500 P.3d at 366 , and we have found clear violations of the single-subject requirement on review on multiple occasions, see, e.g. , In re 2021 - 2022 #16 , ¶ 42 , 489 P.3d at 1225 ( reversing the Board's title setting on a proposed initiative amending animal cruelty statutes in two distinct ways ) ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015 - 2016 #132 , 2016 CO 55 , ¶ 36 , 374

2021"Said another way, the single-subject requirement is not violated unless the text of the measure ‘relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.’ " In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2005-2006 #74 , 136 P.3d 237, 239 ( Colo. 2006 ) ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary with Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Const. of State Adding Section 2 to Article VII (Petition Procs.) , 900 P.2d 104, 109 ( Colo. 1995 ) ) . ¶14 Accordingly, " [w] e

2014However, "[wle have never held that just because a proposal may have different effects ... it necessarily violates the single-subject requirement." In re 1999-2000 No. 256, 12 P.3d at 254 .

2008To this end, the prohibition against multiple subjects "prevents the proponents of an initiative from joining multiple subjects into a single initiative in the hope of attracting support from various factions which may have different or conflicting interests." In re Proposed Initiative "Public Rights in Waters II", 898 P.2d at 1079; see also Catron v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 18 Colo. 553, 557 , 33 P. 513 , 514 (1893) (holding that the single-subject requirement serves the beneficent purpose of making each legislative proposal dependent upon its own merits for passage).

2008This is in addition to forbidding "the treatment of incongruous subjects in the same measure [to avoid] securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits." § To this end, the prohibition against multiple subjects "prevents the proponents of an initiative from joining multiple subjects into a single initiative in the hope of attracting support from various factions which may have different or conflicting interests." In re Proposed Initiative "Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1079; see also Catron v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 18 Colo. 553, 557 , 33 P. 513 , 514 (

2022V, § 1 (5.5) ( stating that "no title shall be set" for a measure that "contains more than one subject" ) ; § 1-40-106.5 ( articulating the single-subject requirement for ballot initiatives ) . " We liberally construe the [single-subject] requirement both because of the Title Board 's considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause and in order to avoid unduly restricting the initiative process." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2021-2022 #16 , 2021 CO 55 , ¶ 8 , 489 P.3d 1217, 1220 (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause

2022V, § 1 (5.5) ( stating that "no title shall be set" for a measure that "contains more than one subject" ) ; § 1-40-106.5 ( articulating the single-subject requirement for ballot initiatives ) . " We liberally construe the [single-subject] requirement both because of the Title Board 's considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause and in order to avoid unduly restricting the initiative process." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2021-2022 #16 , 2021 CO 55 , ¶ 8 , 489 P.3d 1217, 1220 (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause

2022However, our deference here is not absolute; we have an obligation to "examine the initiative's wording to determine whether it comports with the constitutional requirements," In re 2019 - 2020 #315, ¶ 8 , 500 P.3d at 366 , and we have found clear violations of the single-subject requirement on review on multiple occasions, see, e.g., In re 2021 - 2022 #16, ¶ 42 , 489 P.3d at 1225 ( reversing the Board's title setting on a proposed initiative amending animal cruelty statutes in two distinct ways ) ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015 - 2016 #132, 2016 CO 55 , ¶ 36 , 374 P.3

2022However, our deference here is not absolute; we have an obligation to "examine the initiative's wording to determine whether it comports with the constitutional requirements," In re 2019 - 2020 #315 , ¶ 8 , 500 P.3d at 366 , and we have found clear violations of the single-subject requirement on review on multiple occasions, see, e.g. , In re 2021 - 2022 #16 , ¶ 42 , 489 P.3d at 1225 ( reversing the Board's title setting on a proposed initiative amending animal cruelty statutes in two distinct ways ) ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015 - 2016 #132 , 2016 CO 55 , ¶ 36 , 374

2006Said another way, the single-subject requirement is not violated unless the text of the measure “relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.” In re Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995); see People v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369, 405 , 74 P. 167 , 178 (1903).

1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) directs the Board to “apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and ... follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills.” In order to violate the single-subject requirement, the text of the measure must “relate[ ] to more than one subject and [have] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.” In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995) (hereafter Pe

2022V, § 1 (5.5) ( stating that "no title shall be set" for a measure that "contains more than one subject" ) ; § 1-40-106.5 ( articulating the single-subject requirement for ballot initiatives ) . " We liberally construe the [single-subject] requirement both because of the Title Board 's considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause and in order to avoid unduly restricting the initiative process." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2021-2022 #16 , 2021 CO 55 , ¶ 8 , 489 P.3d 1217, 1220 (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause

2022V, § 1 (5.5) ( stating that "no title shall be set" for a measure that "contains more than one subject" ) ; § 1-40-106.5 ( articulating the single-subject requirement for ballot initiatives ) . " We liberally construe the [single-subject] requirement both because of the Title Board 's considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause and in order to avoid unduly restricting the initiative process." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2021-2022 #16 , 2021 CO 55 , ¶ 8 , 489 P.3d 1217, 1220 (quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause

2010In re # 55, 138 P.3d at 278 .

2010In re Title & Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2005-2006 # 55, 138 P.3d 273, 278 (Colo.2006).

2021The single-subject requirement also "prevent [s] surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters." § 1-40-106.5 (1) (e) (II) . ¶13 To decide whether an initiative addresses a single subject, we ask if its provisions are "necessarily and properly connected rather than disconnected or incongruous." In re 2019-2020 #315 , ¶ 13 ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #73 , 2016 CO 24 , ¶ 14 , 369 P.3d 565 , 568 ) ; accord In re 2009-2010 #91 , 235 P.3d at 1077 ( " [W] hen an initiative's provisions seek to achieve purposes that bear no necessary or proper connecti

2019See also § 1-40-106.5(1)(a), C.R.S. (2018) (" Section 1 (5.5) of article V ... require[s] that every constitutional amendment or law proposed by initiative ... be limited to a single subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title[.]"). ¶11 The single-subject requirement serves two functions. ¶12 First, it is intended [t]o forbid the treatment of incongruous subjects in the same measure, especially *870 the practice of putting together in one measure subjects having no necessary or proper connection, for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, a