Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-104 (2026)

Designated representatives

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

At the time of any filing of a draft as provided in this article, the proponents shall designate the names and mailing addresses of two persons who shall represent the proponents in all matters affecting the petition and to whom all notices or information concerning the petition shall be mailed.

Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 677, § 1, effective May 4.

Editor's note: The former § 1-40-104 was relocated to § 1-40-108 (1) in 1993.

1-40-105. Filing procedure - review and comment meeting - amendments - filing with secretary of state. (1) The original typewritten draft of every initiative petition for a proposed law or amendment to the state constitution to be enacted by the people, before it is signed by any elector, shall be submitted by the proponents of the petition to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services for review and comment. Proponents are encouraged to write such drafts in plain, nontechnical language and in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and everyday meaning that are understandable to the average reader. Upon request, any agency in the executive department shall assist in reviewing and preparing comments on the petition. No later than two weeks after the date of submission of the original draft, unless it is withdrawn by the proponents, the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, or their designees, shall render their comments to the proponents of the petition concerning the format or contents of the petition at a review and comment meeting that is open to the public. Where appropriate, such comments shall also contain suggested editorial changes to promote compliance with the plain language provisions of this section. Except with the permission of the proponents, the comments shall not be disclosed to any person other than the proponents prior to the review and comment meeting.

(1.5) Both designated representatives of the proponents must appear at all review and comment meetings. If either designated representative fails to attend a meeting, the measure is considered withdrawn by the proponents. If one of the two designated representatives fails to attend the review and comment meeting, the petition is deemed to be automatically resubmitted to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services for review and comment, unless the designated representative present objects to the automatic resubmission. No later than five business days after the resubmission, the directors shall conduct a review and comment meeting in accordance with the requirements of this section. If both designated representatives fail to attend the review and comment meeting or if the designated representative present objects to the automatic resubmission, the proponents may thereafter resubmit the initiative petition in accordance with subsection (1) of this section.

(2) After the review and comment meeting but before submission to the secretary of state for title setting, the proponents may amend the petition in response to some or all of the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, or their designees. If any substantial amendment is made to the petition, other than an amendment in direct response to the comments of the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services, the amended petition must be resubmitted to the directors for comment in accordance with subsection (1) of this section prior to submittal to the secretary of state as provided in subsection (4) of this section. If the directors have no additional comments concerning the amended petition, they may so notify the proponents in writing, and, in such case, a review and comment meeting on the amended petition pursuant to subsection (1) of this section is not required. (3) To the extent possible, drafts shall be worded with simplicity and clarity and so that the effect of the measure will not be misleading or likely to cause confusion among voters. The draft shall not present the issue to be decided in such manner that a vote for the measure would be a vote against the proposition or viewpoint that the voter believes that he or she is casting a vote for or, conversely, that a vote against the measure would be a vote for a proposition or viewpoint that the voter is against.

(4) After the review and comment meeting provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a copy of the original typewritten draft submitted to the directors of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services; a copy of the amended draft with changes highlighted or otherwise indicated, if any amendments were made following the last review and comment meeting conducted pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section; and an original final draft that gives the final language for printing shall be submitted to the secretary of state without any title, submission clause, or ballot title providing the designation by which the voters shall express their choice for or against the proposed law or constitutional amendment.

Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 677, § 1, effective May 4; (1) amended, p. 994, § 1, effective June 2. L. 2000: (4) amended, p. 1622, § 4, effective August 2. L. 2015: (1), (2), and (4) amended and (1.5) added, (HB 15-1057), ch. 198, p. 674, § 2, effective March 26, 2016.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 1-40-101 as it existed prior to 1993, and the former § 1-40-105 was relocated to § 1-40-109.

Cross references: For the general assembly, powers, and initiative and referendum reserved to the people, see also § 1 of art. V, Colo. Const.; for recall from office, see art. XXI, Colo. Const.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1980–2014 · leading case: In Re: Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting Rights of the Pub. to Uninterrupted Serv. by Pub. Employees of 1980, 613 P.2d 867 (Colo. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re: Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting Rights of the Pub. to Uninterrupted Serv. by Pub. Employees of 1980, 613 P.2d 867 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 3× “5 Section 1-40-104, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Supp.”

In re the Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause Approved February 2, 1994, Respecting the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Ltd. Gaming in the City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 8× “The petitioners contend that the Board lacked jurisdiction to set a title, submission clause, and summary because the Initiative’s proponents failed to comply with section 1-40-104, IB C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”

Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Etc., 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 3× “The practical effect of such an order would prevent the Proponents from obtaining the necessary signatures [7] and filing the petition with the Secretary of State at least three months before this Fall's election, as required by section 1-40-104, C.R.S.1973 (Repl. Vol. 1B, 1981…”

Montero v. Meyer, 795 P.2d 242 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “[8] That statute is now codified at § 1-40-104, 1B C.R.S. (1989 Supp.). [9] Montero's interpretation of § 1-40-109(2) and article V, § 1(2), also renders the 15-day time limit in the cure provision of § 1-40-109(2) superfluous.”

Loonan v. Woodley, 882 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1994). “Pursuant to § 1-40-104, IB C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), appellants Woodley and Miller are the designated representatives of the subject petition.”

Cordero v. Doe, 328 P.3d 127 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 8× “" § 1-40-104, C.R.S. (2018). During the first Title Board meeting at which the Board considers their initiative, these designated representatives must certify by a notarized affidavit that they are familiar with the statutory requirements for the initiative process and provide a…”

In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Pertaining to the Workers Comp Initiative Adopted on January 6, 1993, 850 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1993). “§ 1-40-104, IB C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). There is, however, no limit as to how early a petition for an initiative can be circulated or filed prior to an election, as long as the process is started after the previous general election.”

Spelts v. Klausing, 649 P.2d 303 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 3× “The practical effect of such an order would prevent the Proponents from obtaining the necessary signatures 7 and filing the petition with the Secretary of State at least three months before this Fall’s election, as required by section 1-40-104, C.R.S.1973 (Repl. Yol. IB, 1981…”

Indep. Inst. v. Gessler, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (D. Colo. 2012). · cites it 3× “…the names and mailing addresses of two persons to represent proponents in all matters affecting the petition. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-104.”

Hayes v. Ottke, 293 P.3d 551 (Colo. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 1-40-104; see also § 1-40-102(8.7), CRS.”

Matter of Proposed Initiated Const. Amend., 873 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 8× “The petitioners contend that the Board lacked jurisdiction to set a title, submission clause, and summary because the Initiative's proponents failed to comply with section 1-40-104, 1B C.R.S. (1993 Supp.).”

Montero v. Meyer, 790 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Colo. 1992). · cites it 2× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-104. As is evidenced by the instant motion, that time period proved too short for the plaintiffs to obtain complete judicial review, and any future suit on a similar initiative likely would extend beyond that statutory period.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-104(4)(b) — 1 case

Cordero v. Doe, 328 P.3d 127 (Colo. 2014). “" § 1-40-104, C.R.S. (2018). During the first Title Board meeting at which the Board considers their initiative, these designated representatives must certify by a notarized affidavit that they are familiar with the statutory requirements for the initiative process and provide a…”

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.