Bauch v. Anderson
Mary Lou Bauch v. Byron A. Anderson, Secretary of State, Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Irving M. Mehler, Reporter of the Supreme Court, Sam C. Pandolfo III, Lad A. Felix, and Elizabeth J. Adams
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
*310 In this original proceeding brought under C.R.S. 1963, 70-1-1(2), Petitioners seek to have this Court hold insufficient a ballot title and submission clause assigned to a proposed initiative amendment to the constitution of Colorado by the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Reporter of the Supreme Court acting under the provisions of C.R.S. 1963, 70-1-1(1).
Section 70-1-1(2) provides that upon the filing of such a proceeding the Supreme Court shall place the matter at the head of the calendar and dispose of it summarily either affirming the action of the board or reversing it. We affirm the action of the board and hold the title and submission clause affixed by the said board to be sufficient.
We have arrived at this conclusion by applying the principles enunciated in relevant Colorado cases that in a proceeding of this sort (1) we must not in any way concern ourselves with the merit or lack of merit of the proposed amendment since, under our system of government, that resolution rests with the electorate; (2) all legitimate presumptions must be indulged in favor of the propriety of the board’s action; and (3) only in a clear case should a title prepared by the board be held invalid. Our case law on this subject is epitomized in Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155 , 322 P.2d 317 .
The action of the Respondents, Byron Anderson, Secretary of State, Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General and Irving M. Mehler, Reporter of the Supreme Court, acting as a board under C.R.S. 1963, 70-1-1 in this matter is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that we presume that the Title Setting Review Board accurately expresses the true meaning and intent of proposed constitutional amendments in the ballot title)
-
(“[W]e must not in any way concern ourselves with the merit or lack of merit of the proposed amendment since, under our system of government, that resolution rests with the elector-ate_”)
Cited by 33 cases
View all citing references →- Federal District Courts1
- State Highest Courts30
- State Appellate Courts1
- State Attorney General Opinions1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- In re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age in Colorado
- In re Proposed Initiative Concerning "State Personnel System"
- Spelts v. Klausing
- In re Title, Ballot Title, Etc.
- In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Including the Estimate of Fiscal Impact & Explanation Thereof Pertaining to the Mineral Production Tax Initiative Adopted on January 27, 1982
- In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment of Education, 1984
Most recent
- In re Prop. Init." Fair Fishing"
- In re Prop. Init." Auto. Ins. Coverage"
- In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause & Summary Approved April 6, 1994, & April 20, 1994, for the Proposed Initiative Concerning "Automobile Insurance Coverage."
- In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Approved On April 6, 1994, for the Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning "Fair Fishing"
- In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Pertaining to the Proposed Initiative on School Pilot Program
- Submission of Interrogatories on Senate Bill 93-74
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.