The Title Board declined to revoke the ballot title previously awarded to a proposed ballot initiative criminalizing abortion, but it amended the description on Tuesday to more explicitly inform voters the measure would prohibit murdering a child “regardless of whether the child is a fetus.”
The three-member board previously set a title for Initiative #56 in February after determining it met the minimum constitutional requirement of containing a single subject. On Feb. 23, Dani Newsum filed a motion asking the board to reconsider the title, alleging it was unclear and misleading, and the initiative actually spanned multiple subjects.
The existing ballot title “suggests that the subject of the measure is to make it illegal to ‘murder a child.’ In fact, the principle subject and primary purpose of the measure is to newly criminalize terminations of pregnancy,” Newsum told the board. “The voters are entitled to be informed of that fact clearly, directly and up front in the title.”
Initiative #56 would change Colorado law to outlaw the act of intentionally causing the death of a human being “any time prior to, during, or after birth” up to age 18. It would also empower the attorney general and state prosecutors to investigate and prosecute the killing of fetuses.
Newsum, a director with the reproductive rights advocacy group Cobalt, noted that the murder of children is already illegal, and using the phrase “murder of a child” in the ballot title failed to inform voters about the initiative’s effects on abortion rights.
Title Board members sympathized with her concerns. David Powell, the representative of Attorney General Phil Weiser, said the Colorado Supreme Court might consider “murder of a child” to be an impermissible catchphrase.
“I am not concerned that ‘murder of a child’ itself is a catchphrase, but I think there is more language we can add into the title to make it clear we are referring to murder of a fetus,” explained Julie Pelegrin, representing the Office of Legislative Legal Services.
The proponents of Initiative #56, Angela Eicher and Rebecca Greenwood, indicated they are merely seeking to apply existing laws against murder to fetuses.
“Right now, they only include children who are born. Our initiative is expanding the laws to include children prior to birth, as well,” Eicher said.
The Title Board’s narrow focus is on setting a title that is brief yet describes all central features of a measure, without debating the merits of the proposal. Both the proponents of Initiative #56 and Newsum agreed that the debate over language veered into political territory.
“I think this one is very difficult to thread the needle between giving a fair explanation of what is in the measure without straying into political arguments on either side,” Pelegrin acknowledged.
The board declined to find that Initiative #56 contained multiple subjects, but revised the previous ballot title to now clearly refer to the death of a fetus. Any further appeal of the title language will go directly to the state Supreme Court.
Currently, legislation progressing through the General Assembly would enshrine the right to an abortion in state law. Democratic lawmakers introduced the Reproductive Health Equity Act as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether to overrule longstanding protections of abortion rights up to the point of fetal viability.
The Title Board also blocked two versions of an initiative that would have slashed local governments’ property tax revenue by an estimated $2.47 billion in 2023-2024. The initiatives, #70-71, would have reset the value of real property to its 2020 level and only allowed the value to increase by 3% per year.
The board found that the proponents, Reps. Alex Valdez, D-Denver, and Colin Larson, R-Littleton, made a substantial change to their proposal after the required review by nonpartisan legislative staff. As such, the Title Board could not set a ballot title without further review.
However, the board set titles for two other variations of the property tax initiative. Initiatives #74-75 would only decrease local governments’ revenues by $1.3 billion statewide and require the state to increase its spending on schools.
The nonprofit Colorado Fiscal Institute issued a memo in opposition to the proposed cap.
“There’s no doubt skyrocketing home prices are creating multiple problems for Coloradans,” the nonprofit research and advocacy group wrote. But “the proponents’ untargeted approach that treats the mansions of multi-millionaires the same as condos starter homes is a recipe for driving up economic inequities at the cost of public services that Coloradans — and businesses — rely on heavily to live their lives and make ends meet.”
One feature of Initiative #74 spurred controversy, as board member Ed DeCecco, who substituted for Pelegrin as the Office of Legislative Legal Services’ representative, called attention to a provision requiring another vote in 2032 on whether to make the property tax caps permanent. A “no” vote would revert all changes in Colorado law and the constitution to their 2022 form.
The proponents acknowledged that the maneuver is “novel” but characterized it as a trial period for voters to evaluate whether the limitations are effective. DeCecco believed the 2032 referendum is not connected to the subject of the initiative, given that it could potentially wipe out any further amendments to the law.
If voters say “no” in 10 years, he said, “it’s gonna basically eliminate any changes since then. An initiative doesn’t have the authority to limit the ability of later initiatives or the General Assembly to make changes.”
The Title Board also advanced two proposals, #66-67, which would expand the ability of alcohol licensees to conduct tastings, sell alcohol for off-premises consumption and utilize third-party delivery. Four other initiatives that would divert roughly a billion dollars or more to the state education fund also received titles.
Although proponents may seek ballot titles for multiple initiatives covering the same policy topic, they can only attempt to bring one version to the statewide ballot.
This story has been updated with additional details about the meeting.
More Stories
How Much Should You Spend While Buying A Car
The Role of Leverage in Forex Trading: Risks and Rewards
How to Qualify for FHA Loans in Tempe With a Low Credit Score