Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 1
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109 (2026)

Signatures required - withdrawal

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) (a) No petition for any initiated law is of any force or effect, nor shall the proposed law be submitted to the people of the state of Colorado for adoption or rejection at the polls, as is by law provided for, unless the petition for the submission of the initiated law is signed by the number of registered electors required by section 1 (2) of article V of the state constitution.

(b) No petition for any initiated amendment to the state constitution is of any force or effect, nor shall the initiated amendment to the state constitution be submitted to the people of the state of Colorado for adoption or rejection at the polls, as is by law provided for, unless the petition for the submission of the initiated amendment to the state constitution is signed by the number of registered electors required by the state constitution who reside in each state senate district in Colorado, so long as the total number of registered electors who have signed the petition is at least the number of registered electors required by section 1 (2) of article V of the state constitution. For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), the number and boundaries of the state senate districts are those in existence, and the number of registered electors in the state senate districts is those registered, at the time the form of the petition is approved for circulation in accordance with section 1-40-113 (1)(a).

(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 433, § 7, effective May 8, 1995.)

(3) Any person who is a registered elector may sign a petition for any ballot issue for which the elector is eligible to vote. A registered elector who signs a petition may withdraw his or her signature from the petition by filing a written request for such withdrawal with the secretary of state at any time on or before the day that the petition is filed with the secretary of state. Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 682, § 1, effective May 4. L. 94: (2) amended, p. 1180, § 73, effective July 1. L. 95: (2) and (3) amended, p. 433, § 7, effective May 8. L. 2009: (3) amended, (HB 09-1326), ch. 258, p. 1172, § 7, effective May 15. L. 2017: (1) amended, (SB 17-152), ch. 169, p. 617, § 3, effective August 9.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 1-40-105 as it existed prior to 1993, and the former § 1-40-109 was relocated. For a detailed comparison, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1976–2010 · leading case: Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 46× “In pertinent part, § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), establishes evidentiary presumptions, time limits and procedures for administrative review of the sufficiency of such petitions by the Secretary, the filing and final administrative determination of protests directed to that…”
Montero v. Meyer, 795 P.2d 242 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 94× “Under section 1-40-109, opponents of an initiative may file a protest with the Secretary of State, and they may amend the protest within ten days of the Secretary of State's denial of the protest.”
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 20× “Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to issue a statement of sufficiency in violation of § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). Whether the Secretary of State erroneously employed restrictions not found in §§ 1-40-106 or 1-40-109, 1B C.”
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 6× “In 1993, the General Assembly amended the law to allow random sampling as the first step in the verification process and to extend the verification deadline to thirty days. See ch. 183, sec.”
Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999). “V, § 1(2); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109 (1) (1998); see Meyer, 486 U.”
Billings v. Buchanan, 555 P.2d 176 (Colo. 1976). · cites it 3× “The protest and the hearing conducted thereon by the Secretary of State was in accordance with the provisions of section 1-40-109, C.R.S. 1973. After a hearing, detailed findings of fact were made by the Secretary of State, who denied the protest.”
Montero v. Meyer, 696 F. Supp. 540 (D. Colo. 1988). · cites it 4× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-109. (h) If the Colorado Secretary of State’s office certifies that the proponents have complied with the statutory requirements for submission of signatures, any registered elector may file a written protest of that decision.”
Davidson v. McClellan, 16 P.3d 233 (Colo. 2001). “The proponents of the initiative protested this decision according to Colorado law, see § 1-40-109(1)(c), 1B C.R.S. (Supp.1992), and the state review proceedings followed an unremarkable path.”
Griff v. City of Grand Junction Ex Rel. Tuin, 262 P.3d 906 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 1-40-109(8), C.R.S.2010. These signatures do not so tie electors to the petition as to make them "named, individually, as a party" to it.”
Fabec v. Beck, 922 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1996). “V § 1(2); see also § 1-40-109(1), IB C.R.S. (1994 Supp.) (mandating compliance with signature requirements in constitution).”
Montero v. Meyer, 790 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Colo. 1992). · cites it 2× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-109. Any registered elector may file a written protest of the Secretary of State's certification that the signature requirement has been met.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(1) — 3 cases
Montero v. Meyer, 795 P.2d 242 (Colo. 1990). “Under section 1-40-109, opponents of an initiative may file a protest with the Secretary of State, and they may amend the protest within ten days of the Secretary of State's denial of the protest.”
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). “In 1993, the General Assembly amended the law to allow random sampling as the first step in the verification process and to extend the verification deadline to thirty days. See ch. 183, sec.”
Fabec v. Beck, 922 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1996). “V § 1(2); see also § 1-40-109(1), IB C.R.S. (1994 Supp.) (mandating compliance with signature requirements in constitution).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(1)(b)(I) — 2 cases
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992). “In pertinent part, § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), establishes evidentiary presumptions, time limits and procedures for administrative review of the sufficiency of such petitions by the Secretary, the filing and final administrative determination of protests directed to that…”
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995). “Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to issue a statement of sufficiency in violation of § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). Whether the Secretary of State erroneously employed restrictions not found in §§ 1-40-106 or 1-40-109, 1B C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(1)(b)(II) — 2 cases
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995). “Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to issue a statement of sufficiency in violation of § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). Whether the Secretary of State erroneously employed restrictions not found in §§ 1-40-106 or 1-40-109, 1B C.”
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992). “In pertinent part, § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), establishes evidentiary presumptions, time limits and procedures for administrative review of the sufficiency of such petitions by the Secretary, the filing and final administrative determination of protests directed to that…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(1)(c) — 3 cases
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992). “In pertinent part, § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), establishes evidentiary presumptions, time limits and procedures for administrative review of the sufficiency of such petitions by the Secretary, the filing and final administrative determination of protests directed to that…”
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995). “Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to issue a statement of sufficiency in violation of § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). Whether the Secretary of State erroneously employed restrictions not found in §§ 1-40-106 or 1-40-109, 1B C.”
Davidson v. McClellan, 16 P.3d 233 (Colo. 2001). “The proponents of the initiative protested this decision according to Colorado law, see § 1-40-109(1)(c), 1B C.R.S. (Supp.1992), and the state review proceedings followed an unremarkable path.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(2) — 2 cases
Montero v. Meyer, 795 P.2d 242 (Colo. 1990). “Under section 1-40-109, opponents of an initiative may file a protest with the Secretary of State, and they may amend the protest within ten days of the Secretary of State's denial of the protest.”
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992). “In pertinent part, § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), establishes evidentiary presumptions, time limits and procedures for administrative review of the sufficiency of such petitions by the Secretary, the filing and final administrative determination of protests directed to that…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(2)(a) — 3 cases
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992). “In pertinent part, § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), establishes evidentiary presumptions, time limits and procedures for administrative review of the sufficiency of such petitions by the Secretary, the filing and final administrative determination of protests directed to that…”
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995). “Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to issue a statement of sufficiency in violation of § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). Whether the Secretary of State erroneously employed restrictions not found in §§ 1-40-106 or 1-40-109, 1B C.”
Montero v. Meyer, 795 P.2d 242 (Colo. 1990). “Under section 1-40-109, opponents of an initiative may file a protest with the Secretary of State, and they may amend the protest within ten days of the Secretary of State's denial of the protest.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(8) — 1 case
Griff v. City of Grand Junction Ex Rel. Tuin, 262 P.3d 906 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 1-40-109(8), C.R.S.2010. These signatures do not so tie electors to the petition as to make them "named, individually, as a party" to it.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(b)(1) — 1 case
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). “In 1993, the General Assembly amended the law to allow random sampling as the first step in the verification process and to extend the verification deadline to thirty days. See ch. 183, sec.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(b)(I) — 1 case
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). “In 1993, the General Assembly amended the law to allow random sampling as the first step in the verification process and to extend the verification deadline to thirty days. See ch. 183, sec.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(l)(b)(II) — 1 case
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995). “Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to issue a statement of sufficiency in violation of § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). Whether the Secretary of State erroneously employed restrictions not found in §§ 1-40-106 or 1-40-109, 1B C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-109(l)(c) — 2 cases
Comm. for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992). “In pertinent part, § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.), establishes evidentiary presumptions, time limits and procedures for administrative review of the sufficiency of such petitions by the Secretary, the filing and final administrative determination of protests directed to that…”
McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24 (Colo. 1995). “Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to issue a statement of sufficiency in violation of § 1-40-109, 1B C.R.S. (1992 Supp.). Whether the Secretary of State erroneously employed restrictions not found in §§ 1-40-106 or 1-40-109, 1B C.”
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.