Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-116 (2026)

Validation - ballot issues - random sampling - rules

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

(1) For ballot issues, each section of a petition to which there is attached an affidavit of the registered elector who circulated the petition that each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be and that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the affiant each of the persons signing the petition was at the time of signing a registered elector shall be prima facie evidence that the signatures are genuine and true, that the petitions were circulated in accordance with the provisions of this article, and that the form of the petition is in accordance with this article. (2) Upon submission of the petition, the secretary of state shall examine each name and signature on the petition. The petition shall not be available to the public for a period of no more than thirty calendar days for the examination. The secretary shall assure that the information required by sections 1-40-110 and 1-40-111 is complete, that the information on each signature line was written by the person making the signature, and that no signatures have been added to any sections of the petition after the affidavit required by section 1-40-111 (2) has been executed. (3) No signature shall be counted unless the signer is a registered elector and eligible to vote on the measure. A person shall be deemed a registered elector if the person's name and address appear on the master voting list kept by the secretary of state at the time of signing the section of the petition. In addition, the secretary of state shall not count the signature of any person whose information is not complete or was not completed by the elector or a person qualified to assist the elector. The secretary of state may adopt rules consistent with this subsection (3) for the examination and verification of signatures. (4) (a) The secretary of state shall examine the signatures on the petition by use of random sampling. The random sample of signatures to be examined must be drawn so that every signature filed with the secretary of state is given an equal opportunity to be included in the sample. The secretary of state is authorized to engage in rule-making to establish the appropriate methodology for conducting such random sample. (b) (I) The random sampling to validate signatures on a petition proposing an initiated law must include an examination of no less than five percent of the signatures, but in no event fewer than four thousand signatures. If the random sample examination establishes that the number of valid signatures is ninety percent or less of the number of registered eligible electors needed to find the petition sufficient, the secretary of state shall deem the petition to be not sufficient. If the random sample establishes that the number of valid signatures totals one hundred ten percent or more of the number of required signatures of registered eligible electors, the secretary of state shall deem the petition sufficient. If the random sample shows the number of valid signatures to be more than ninety percent but less than one hundred ten percent of the number of signatures of registered eligible electors needed to declare the petition sufficient, the secretary of state shall order the examination and validation of each signature filed. (II) The random sampling to validate signatures on a petition proposing an amendment to the state constitution must include an examination of no fewer than five percent of the signatures, but in no event less than four thousand signatures. If the random sample establishes that the number of valid signatures is ninety percent or less of the number of registered electors required by section 1 (2) of article V of the state constitution to find the petition sufficient, the secretary of state shall deem the petition to be not sufficient. If the random sample shows the number of valid signatures to be more than ninety percent of the number of registered electors required by section 1 (2) of article V of the state constitution to declare the petition sufficient, the secretary of state shall order the examination of each signature filed.

Source: L. 93: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 686, § 1, effective May 4. L. 95: (1) amended, p. 435, § 12, effective May 8. L. 2017: (4) amended, (SB 17-152), ch. 169, p. 618, § 5, effective August 9.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 1-40-109 as it existed prior to 1993, and the former § 1-40-116 was relocated. For a detailed comparison, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1980–2013 · leading case: Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998).
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 50× “Article V, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution and sections 1-40-116 to -119, 1 C.R.S. (1998) govern the timing of the initiative process.”
Fabec v. Beck, 922 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 33× “The Secretary then determines whether the proponents gathered the constitutionally requisite number of valid signatures for inclusion on the statewide ballot, § 1-40-116, IB C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), and issues a statement of sufficiency or insufficiency, § 1-40-117, IB C.”
McKee v. City of Louisville, 616 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 12× “mediately after the adoption of the ordinance and before it becomes effective under the municipal code, the qualified voters file initiative petitions for the repeal of the annexation ordinance, those qualified voters have a constitutional right to have that initiated measure…”
City of Idaho Springs v. Blackwell, 731 P.2d 1250 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 4× “Any ordinance, resolution, or other measure of the City Council of Idaho Springs, Colorado incurring debt in any form, or appropriating or allocating any revenues, funds, or monies from the City of Idaho Springs Conservation Trust Fund or from any other source for the purpose of…”
Indep. Inst. v. Gessler, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Colo. 2013). · cites it 4× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-116(3). . The number of valid signatures required must be in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the Office of Secretary of State during the last preceding general election.”
Armstrong v. Davidson, 10 P.3d 1278 (Colo. 2000). · cites it 3× “Following presentation of the signed petition to her on August 2, 2000, Davidson conducted a random sample of the petition signatures in accordance with section 1-40-116(4). Proponents submitted approximately 108,000 signatures to Davidson.”
The Indep. Inst. v. Buescher, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (D. Colo. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 1-40-111 (2010) (circulator affidavit); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-112(3)0010) (training); Colo.”
Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc. v. Meyer, 870 F. Supp. 995 (D. Colo. 1994). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs also argue that the circulator affidavit requirement, as it is reiterated in C.R.S. § 1-40-116(1) (Supp.1994), is unconstitutionally vague because it requires circulators to aver, without personal knowledge, that all circulators have complied *1005 with C.”
In Re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for No. 26, 954 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 2× “This petition must be filed at least three months prior to the election in which the initiative is to be voted on.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-116(1) — 3 cases
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). “Article V, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution and sections 1-40-116 to -119, 1 C.R.S. (1998) govern the timing of the initiative process.”
Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc. v. Meyer, 870 F. Supp. 995 (D. Colo. 1994). “The plaintiffs also argue that the circulator affidavit requirement, as it is reiterated in C.R.S. § 1-40-116(1) (Supp.1994), is unconstitutionally vague because it requires circulators to aver, without personal knowledge, that all circulators have complied *1005 with C.”
Fabec v. Beck, 922 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1996). “The Secretary then determines whether the proponents gathered the constitutionally requisite number of valid signatures for inclusion on the statewide ballot, § 1-40-116, IB C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), and issues a statement of sufficiency or insufficiency, § 1-40-117, IB C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-116(2) — 1 case
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). “Article V, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution and sections 1-40-116 to -119, 1 C.R.S. (1998) govern the timing of the initiative process.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-116(3) — 1 case
Indep. Inst. v. Gessler, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Colo. 2013). “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-116(3). . The number of valid signatures required must be in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the Office of Secretary of State during the last preceding general election.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-116(4) — 4 cases
Buckley v. Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 112 (Colo. 1998). “Article V, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution and sections 1-40-116 to -119, 1 C.R.S. (1998) govern the timing of the initiative process.”
Fabec v. Beck, 922 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1996). “The Secretary then determines whether the proponents gathered the constitutionally requisite number of valid signatures for inclusion on the statewide ballot, § 1-40-116, IB C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), and issues a statement of sufficiency or insufficiency, § 1-40-117, IB C.”
Armstrong v. Davidson, 10 P.3d 1278 (Colo. 2000). “Following presentation of the signed petition to her on August 2, 2000, Davidson conducted a random sample of the petition signatures in accordance with section 1-40-116(4). Proponents submitted approximately 108,000 signatures to Davidson.”
Indep. Inst. v. Gessler, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Colo. 2013). “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 1-40-116(3). . The number of valid signatures required must be in an amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the Office of Secretary of State during the last preceding general election.”
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.