Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in these consolidated cases concerned the actions of the title setting board (Title Board) in setting the titles and ballot titles and submission clauses (or titles) in two groups of initiatives. In case 12SA117, Petitioner Philip Hayes challenged the Title Board's title setting for Initiatives 2011-2012, Numbers 67, 68 and 69. Respondents David Ottke and John Slota were the designated representatives for those proposed initiatives. If adopted, the initiatives would alter how the General Assembly amended or repealed citizen-initiated statutes. In Case 12SA130, Petitioners Barbara Walker and Don Childears challenged the Title Board's title setting for Initiative 201-2012 Number 94 and 95. Respondents Earl Staelin and Robert Bows were the designated representatives. If adopted, Initiative 94 would have amended the Colorado constitution to allow political subdivisions to establish and operate banks; Initiative 95 would have allowed the State to open and operate its own bank. The common threshold question before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether the Title Board had authority to act on motions for rehearing to address challenges to the titles previously set, where fewer than both of the designated representatives of the initiative's proponents appeared at the rehearing. Finding no statutory authority that conferred such authority to the Title Board, the Supreme Court reversed the actions of the Title Board and returned the measures to the Title Board for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. Ottke" on Justia Law

In an original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the Ballot Title Setting Board's findings that proposed Initiative 2011-2012 No. 45, its title, and its ballot title and submission clause contained a single subject. Upon review, the Court held that the Title Board was correct: Initiative 45 and its Titles stated a single subject: "public control of waters." The Court concluded this title complied with article V section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). View "In the Matter of the Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 45" on Justia Law

In an original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the Ballot Title Setting Board's findings that proposed Initiative 2011-2012 No. 3, its title, and its ballot title and submission clause contained a single subject. Upon review, the Court held that the Title Board was correct: Initiative 3 and its Titles stated a single subject: "the public's rights in the waters of natural streams." The Court concluded this title complied with article V section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). View "In the Matter of the Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 3" on Justia Law

"Judicial redistricting is a truly 'unwelcome obligation.'" This case involved the redistricting of Colorado's congressional districts following the results of the 2010 census. The Supreme Court held that the district court adopted a lawful redistricting scheme in accordance with constitutional criteria, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the non-constitutional factors as set forth in C.R.S. 2-1-102 (2011). Furthermore, the Court held that the balancing was reasonable and supported by the evidence that was heard through the district court’s "thorough, inclusive and non-partisan proceedings." The Court affirmed the district court’s order that the secretary of state implement the adopted redistricting scheme in future congressional elections. View "Hall v. Moreno" on Justia Law

During the November 2008 election season, parties Senate Majority Fund, LLC (SMF) and Colorado Leadership Fund (CLF) were registered with the I.R.S. as so-called "527" tax-exempt political organizations. In the run-up to the November 2008 election, SMF distributed eight printed political ads and one television ad and CLF distributed eight printed ads that were the subject of this dispute. None of the seventeen ads contained words or phrases that specifically directed the viewer to "vote for," "elect," "support," "vote against," "defeat," or "reject." Similarly, none of the ads included the phrase "[candidate] for [office]." The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of this case by an administrative law judge (ALJ) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. At issue is the meaning of "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate," as that phrase is used within the definition of "expenditure" in article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution, the Campaign and Political Finance provision. The parties contended that "express advocacy" encompassed only those advertisements that explicitly exhort the viewer, listener, or reader to vote for or against a candidate in an upcoming election. This included the use of so-called "magic words," as set forth in "Buckley v. Valeo," (424 U.S. 1, 44 n.52 (1976)), as well as substantially similar synonyms of those words. Appellant Colorado Ethics Watch (Ethics Watch) argued that the category of advertisements that "expressly advocate" is more expansive and encompasses any advertisement that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The court of appeals rejected Ethics Watch's argument and held that, given the settled definition of express advocacy at the time that article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution was adopted, the category of advertisements that constitute express advocacy was intentionally limited to include only those ads that use the magic words or those that explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. After reviewing article XXVIII and the legal context in which it was adopted as a citizen's initiative in 2002 (known as Amendment 27), the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that "expenditure" was intentionally and narrowly defined in article XXVIII to include only "express advocacy," so that it covers only those communications that explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate in an upcoming election. The Court affirmed the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appeals to return to the ALJ to enter judgment consistent with the Court's opinion. View "Colorado Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC" on Justia Law