PETITION FOR REVIEW OF FINAL ACTION OF THE TITLE SETTING BOARD CONCERNING PROPOSED INITIATIVE 2013-2014 NO. 45
____________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
2 East 14th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
____________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO C.R.S. § 1-40-107(2)
Petitioners:
Robert Bows and Jason Bosch, Proponents
v.
Respondents:
Title Board:
Suzanne Staiert, Jason Gelender, and Daniel Domenico
v.
Respondents:
Don Childears (Colorado Bankers Association), Objector
Barbara M.A. Walker (Independent Bankers of Colorado), Objector
____________________________________________________
Representative for the Petitioners:
Robert Bows
____________________________________________________
Pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), Robert Bows, representing the proponents, respectfully petitions this court to review the action of the Ballot Title Setting Board ("Title Board") in declining to set title for Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #45 (the "Initiative").
I. ACTION OF THE TITLE BOARD
The Title Board conducted its initial public hearing and declined to set the title for the Initiative on August 21, 2013. Petitioner subsequently filed timely Motion for Rehearing on August 26, 2013. The Title Board considered the motion at its September 4, 2013 hearing and rejected Petitioner’s challenges and denied the motion. Petitioner now seeks review of the Ballot Title Setting Board’s actions under C.R.S. section 1-40-107(2).
II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
A. One member of the title board majority voting to deny the appeal argued that: The second topic is the clause that exempts the bank's revenues from constitutional limitations.
Did the title board err in ignoring that all ballot issues since the advent of TABOR that involve revenues (including taxes, bonds, certain changes in appropriations, and even unnamed sums of revenues)--whether initiatives of the people or referrals from the General Assembly--have such a clause? If so, then, in and of itself, this clause cannot be considered a second topic.
B. One member of the title board majority voting to deny the appeal, as well as counsel for both individual objectors argued that: The transfer of funds from the bank to the state is a second topic, because a bank is not the same as a tax or bond issue.
Did the title board err in not properly considering that, as the proposed amendment describes it, the bank is a d/b/a of the state, so any transfers are simply interdepartmental transfer, no different than the transfer of funds collected from taxes, bonds, fees, or other revenues from the Department of Revenue, the treasury, or any other account of the state into the general fund.
C. One member of the title board majority voting to deny the appeal argued that: The bank could use the proceeds from bonds to finance deficit spending by the state.
Did the title board err in not considering that: (1) deficit financing would expressly violate two provisions in the Initiative: (a) it is expressly stated in the Initiative that the revenue from bonds is to establish the necessary capitalization of the bank; (b) that according to “sound banking practices’ as defined by the Initiative—which cites the Bank of North Dakota (BND) that only transfers profits (surplus funds) to state's general fund, not bond proceeds nor taxes—said funds specifically earmarked for capitalization would not be transferable. ; (2) this mischaracterizes what capitalization of a bank means, and does not account for the so-called "stress test" reserve requirements for all banks, which limit the outlay of loans based on reserves; (3) this is a political objection, not a second subject.
D. One member of the title board majority voting to deny the appeal argued that: The proposed amendment is potentially confusing to the electorate because it does not state a specific amount for the capitalization of the bank.
Did the title board err in interpreting the meaning of the "confusion clause" (1-40-106.5.(1)(e) (II), “To prevent surreptitious measures and apprise the people of the subject of each measure by the title, that is, to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters”? The absence of a specific amount for the bond issue does not, in itself, constitute surprise or fraud. The amount of capitalization is a complex decision, which the Initiative reserves for the bank board, and requires a thorough evaluation of the state’s unused funds, as well as unmet needs for essential loans, etc.) Further, there have been a number of ballot issues concerning taxes and revenues in which the dollar amounts are unspecified, including: Amendment 61 (2010), an initiative concerning limitations on government borrowing, which proposed reducing tax rates by an unspecified amount; and, Referendum C (2005), a referred referendum from the General Assembly, which proposed authorizing the state to spend an unspecified amount of revenues in excess of constitutional limitations for five fiscal years.
E. One of the objectors argued that: A supreme court ruling re: TABOR and multiple subjects applies to the Initiative.
Did the title board err in accepting the application of this ruling to this Initiative?
F. One of the objectors argued that: The use of the bank to strengthen the state’s economy necessarily implies growth of government, which in turn puts the Initiative in direct conflict with article X, section 20 of the state constitution.
Did the title board err in interpreting the Initiative?
G. The member of the title board voting in the minority and in favor of the appeal argued that: Initiatives must be interpreted liberally, as directed by a supreme court ruling; otherwise, given the growing complexity of the state constitution and statutory framework, the initiative process becomes unworkable.
Did the title board err in ignoring the intent of the cited supreme court ruling?
III. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
As required by section 1-40-107(2), attached is a certified copy of the petition, a certified copy of the motion for rehearing, results from the rehearing, results from the hearing, final text, amended text, original text, and final action by the Title Board.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
Petitioner respectfully requests that the court reverse the Title Board’s denial of the Motions for Rehearing and find that the Title Board lacked cause for said denial. Alternatively, Petitioner requests that the court reverse the Title Board’s findings that the Initiative does not constitute a single subject.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of September, 2013.
ROBERT BOWS
.JPG)
-1.jpg)
.jpg)
Posts
