In the Matter of the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE, FOR 2007-2008, No. 17
From Judgepedia
Justices Eid, Coats, and Rice dissented with the majority opinion which struck down a voter-proposed ballot measure that would have created an environmental conservation agency with a mission of protecting land, wildlife, water, and public resources by resolving conflicts between "economic interests" and "public ownership and values" in favor of the latter. The Majority held that the inclusion of the mission and the creation of the agency constituted two separate subjects, and thus that the initiative violated [Colorado's single subject rule].
* ON WHETHER TO TRUST THE WISDOM OF THE VOTERS: "An initiative that joins multiple subjects poses the danger of voter surprise and fraud occasioned by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision coiled up in the folds of a complex initiative. We must examine sufficiently an initiative's central theme to determine whether it contains hidden purposes under a broad theme. The initiative before us today is complex and subtly worded. * * * Despite the statement of the initiative's proponents that the initiative simply creates a new environmental department with a conservation stewardship mission, a plain reading of the initiative reveals that it superimposes onto existing constitutional and statutory provisions the duty to resolve every conflict between “economic interests” and “public ownerships and public values” in favor of “public ownerships and public values.”
Justice Eid authored the dissenting opinion, in which Justices Coats and Rice joined, protesting that "...[a]ccording to the majority, the initiative's proponents can create a new department, but they cannot-without running afoul of the single subject requirement-give that department a mission. * * * [T]he new department's 'conservation stewardship' mission is sufficiently connected to the creation of the department itself.
* ON COLORADO'S SINGLE SUBJECT RULE: "In my view, [the initiative] passes muster under the single subject requirement because it contains a single, easily identifiable subject- namely the creation of a new department of environmental conservation."
* ON WHETHER TO TRUST THE WISDOM OF THE VOTERS: "We have repeatedly held that it is not our role at this stage to construe the proposed initiative. This is a matter “for judicial determination in a proper case should the voters approve the initiative.” Nevertheless, the majority strays into construction in this case by giving the initiative's 'conflict' language an extraordinarily broad interpretation-an interpretation that goes significantly beyond the plain language of the initiative itself.”
* ON WHETHER TO TRUST THE WISDOM OF THE VOTERS: "These 'subjects' proposed by the majority are simply straw men, however, as the initiative's proponents do not suggest any of them. Instead, the initiative is focused on a much narrower theme-that is, the creation of the new department of environmental conservation. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, it would come as no surprise to voters that a new department of environmental conservation would have 'conservation stewardship' as its priority."
* ON ADHERENCE TO PRIOR PRECEDENCE / DEFERENCE TO VOTERS: "In its application of the single subject test today, the majority significantly increases the degree of scrutiny to which we subject proposed voter initiatives, [since] traditionally we have stated that there must be a 'necessary or proper' connection between the component parts of a proposed initiative. * * * Under the [old] standard, the single subject requirement was not violated unless an initiative has 'at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.' * * * In my view, 'conservation stewardship' is sufficiently connected with the creation of the new department to meet the single subject requirement as it has been traditionally defined in our case-law."
* ON BURDENING CITIZEN-DRIVEN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM EFFORTS: "The majority's approach requires an initiative's proponents to draw their proposal as narrowly as possible, leaving out components that are sufficiently connected with, but not absolutely necessary to, carrying out the initiative's central theme. * * * Taking our cue from the legislature, we have recognized that the single-subject requirement must be liberally construed. * * * The majority's approach flies in the face of this liberal construction by imposing a new level of heightened scrutiny under which all but the narrowest of proposed initiatives will fail. * * * Today's decision effectively requires the initiative's proponents to accomplish a single goal by proposing two separate initiatives-one to consolidate existing boards and commissions into a new department, and a second to give that department a mission to promote conservation stewardship."
* ON WHETHER TO TRUST THE WISDOM OF THE VOTERS: "The proposed initiative might be a good idea or a bad idea; we must leave that decision to the voters."
See this link to the full text of the case In the Matter of the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE, FOR 2007-2008 #17.
