(1) The general assembly declares that it is not the
intention of this article to limit or abridge in any manner the powers reserved to the people in the
initiative and referendum, but rather to properly safeguard, protect, and preserve inviolate for
them these modern instrumentalities of democratic government.
(2) (a) The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that:
(I) The initiative process relies upon the truthfulness of circulators who obtain the
petition signatures to qualify a ballot issue for the statewide ballot and that during the 2008
general election, the honesty of many petition circulators was at issue because of practices that
included: Using third parties to circulate petition sections, even though the third parties did not
sign the circulator's affidavit, were not of legal age to act as circulators, and were paid in cash to
conceal their identities; providing false names or residential addresses in the circulator's
affidavits, a practice that permits circulators to evade detection by persons challenging the
secretary of state's sufficiency determination; circulating petition sections without even a
rudimentary understanding of the legal requirements relating to petition circulation; and
obtaining the signatures of persons who purported to notarize circulator affidavits, even though
such persons were not legally authorized to act as notaries or administer the required oath;
(II) The per signature compensation system used by many petition entities provides an
incentive for circulators to collect as many signatures as possible, without regard for whether all
petition signers are registered electors; and
(III) Many petition circulator affidavits are thus executed without regard for specific
requirements of law that are designed to assist in the prevention of fraud, abuse, and mistake in
the initiative process.
(b) The general assembly further finds, determines, and declares that:
(I) Because petition circulators who reside in other states typically leave Colorado
immediately after petitions are submitted to the secretary of state for verification, a full and fair
examination of fraud related to petition circulation is frustrated, and as a result, the secretary of
state has been forced to give effect to certain circulator affidavits that were not properly verified
and thus were not prima facie evidence of the validity of petition signatures on affected petition
sections; and
(II) The courts have not had authority to exercise jurisdiction over fraudulent acts by
circulators and notaries public in connection with petition signatures reviewed as part of the
secretary of state's random sample.
(c) Therefore, the general assembly finds, determines, and declares that:
(I) As a result of the problems identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (2),
one or more ballot measures appeared on the statewide ballot at the 2008 general election even
though significant numbers of the underlying petition signatures were obtained in direct
violation of Colorado law and the accuracy of the secretary of state's determination of
sufficiency could not be fully evaluated by the district court; and
(II) For the initiative process to operate as an honest expression of the voters' reserved
legislative power, it is essential that circulators truthfully verify all elements of their circulator
affidavits and make themselves available to participate in challenges to the secretary of state's
determination of petition sufficiency.
Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 676, § 1, effective May 4. L.
2009: Entire section amended, (HB 09-1326), ch. 258, p. 1169, § 2, effective May 15.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 1-40-111 as it existed prior to 1993,
and the former § 1-40-101 was relocated. For a detailed comparison, see the comparative tables
located in the back of the index.
Notes of Decisions
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 20× “While those events transpired, the General Assembly considered and adopted several amendments to various portions of sections 1-40-101 to -119, 1B C.R.S. (1980), the statutory scheme regulating the initiative process.”
In Re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age in Colorado, 691 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 22× “Pursuant to section 1-40-101(2), 1B C.R.S. (1980), the Board designated and fixed the following title for the proposed measure: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE SELLING, SERVING, OR GIVING OF FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGES TO PERSONS UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE AS OF JULY 1, 1985, EXCEPT TO…”
In re the Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, & Summary, Adopted April 4th, 1990, Pertaining to the Proposed Initiative on Surface Mining, 797 P.2d 1275 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 19× “Before a proposed law or constitutional amendment may be submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection, the Board is required to fix a title for the proposed measure, a ballot title and submission clause, and a summary. § 1-40-101(2). Subsection 1-40-101(2) directs the…”
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 10× “On January 10, 1992, the appellants filed their proposed initiative with the Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services for review and comment, pursuant to section 1-40-101, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.).”
City of Glendale v. Buchanan, 578 P.2d 221 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 10× “As provided by section 1-40-101, C.R.S. 1973, a board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Reporter of the Supreme Court approved the following ballot title for the proposed amendment: “An act to amend Articles XIV and XX of the Constitution of the…”
Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Etc., 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 17× “Finally, the Petitioners maintain that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by deleting the first paragraph of the proposed initiative in violation of section 1-40-101(1), C.R. S.1973 (1980 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-101(1) — 21 cases
City of Glendale v. Buchanan, 578 P.2d 221 (Colo. 1978).
“As provided by section 1-40-101, C.R.S. 1973, a board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Reporter of the Supreme Court approved the following ballot title for the proposed amendment: “An act to amend Articles XIV and XX of the Constitution of the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-101(2) — 34 cases
In Re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age in Colorado, 691 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1984).
“Pursuant to section 1-40-101(2), 1B C.R.S. (1980), the Board designated and fixed the following title for the proposed measure: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE SELLING, SERVING, OR GIVING OF FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGES TO PERSONS UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE AS OF JULY 1, 1985, EXCEPT TO…”
In re the Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, & Summary, Adopted April 4th, 1990, Pertaining to the Proposed Initiative on Surface Mining, 797 P.2d 1275 (Colo. 1990).
“Before a proposed law or constitutional amendment may be submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection, the Board is required to fix a title for the proposed measure, a ballot title and submission clause, and a summary. § 1-40-101(2). Subsection 1-40-101(2) directs the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-101(2)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-101(2)(c) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-101(3) — 13 cases
In Re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age in Colorado, 691 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1984).
“Pursuant to section 1-40-101(2), 1B C.R.S. (1980), the Board designated and fixed the following title for the proposed measure: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE SELLING, SERVING, OR GIVING OF FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGES TO PERSONS UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE AS OF JULY 1, 1985, EXCEPT TO…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.