March 20, 2026 · 1,510 words · 6 speakers · 36 segments
This is the hearing for proposed initiatives measures 25-26, 2025-2026, 276 and 277 concerning plain language ballot questions. It is March 20th, 2026 at 1 p.m. We are in Senate Committee Room 354. We will now go around and introduce ourselves for purposes of the record.
My name is Amanda King with Legislative Council staff.
Sam Anderson, Office of Legislative Legal Services.
Suzanne Taherey, proponent.
Elizabeth Cabin, proponent.
Sweet. Section 140105, Print 1, Colorado Revised Statutes requires the directors of Legislative Council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to review and comment on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado Constitution. We have submitted our comments and questions to you in a memo dated March 18, 2026. The purpose of the statutory requirement of the directors of Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to provide comments and questions intended to aid designated representatives and the proponents they represent in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of the contents of the proposal. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intended purpose of the proposal. We hope that the comments and questions in the memorandum provide the basis for the discussion and understanding of the proposals but we also hope that this conversation can be conversial in nature. Conversational in nature. Thank you. The discussion between designated representatives and legal representatives and employees of the legislative council and the office of legislative legal services is encouraged during the review and comment meetings but comments and discussion from anyone outside is not permitted proposed initiatives 25 20 25 20 26 numbers 276 and number 277 were submitted they aren't the same designated no once yeah so
this is actually an incorrect statement in the memo otherwise we probably would
yeah you might have gotten a waiver yeah so yeah uh sorry for that error in the not the same designated so that's why we're here again today yay all right i think that covers all the introductory comments that we need to make uh so we can move on to the uh purposes okay purposes purposes for proposed initiative 2025 2026 number 276 the major purposes of the proposed amendment to the colorado constitution appear to be one to require that measures initiated by or referred to the people in accordance with the colorado constitution be written in plain language this that does not exceed an eighth grade reading level and two to prohibit the colorado revised statutes from mandating language to proceed follow or appear within the ballot question for initiative. Does that accurately represent
the intent of proposed initiative 2025-2026 number 276? Yes. Purposes for proposed initiative 2025-2026
number 277. The major purposes of the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution appear to be one to require the measures initially initiated by or referred to the people in accordance with the colorado constitution be written in plain language that does not exceed an eighth grade reading level nor 100 words and two to to prohibit the colorado revised statutes for mandating language to proceed follow or appear within a ballot question for an initiative do those
represent the intended purposes of proposed initiative 2025-2026 number 277 yes great
We will now move on to the substantive comments and questions. Question number one, Article 5, Section 1, Parren 5.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of each of the proposed initiatives?
Plain language ballot questions.
Article 5, Section 1, Parren 4, Parren A of the Colorado Constitution requires that when the majority of voters approve an initiative, the initiative is effective on or after the date of the official declaration of the vote and proclamation of the governor. Because the proposed initiatives do not contain an effective date, this would be the default effective date. Does this default effective date satisfy your intent?
Yes.
Okay. Number three, Article 5, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution repeatedly refers to measures to be voted on or measures initiated by or referred to the people. While the proposed initiatives refer to a ballot question, is there a reason for the discrepancies in terms? If not, consider replacing the term ballot question for consistency and clarity.
Yeah, we looked at that, but decided we're going to stick with ballot question, because I don't think the voters know what a ballot title is.
Number four, the first sentence applies broadly to ballot questions, while the second sentence specifically restricts statutes for mandating language for a ballot question for an initiative What is the proponent intent regarding this distinction Our intent is that all ballot questions should be written in plain language
If the legislature wants to mandate language for themselves when they refer one, we don't object to that. So we have a subset that they just don't provide mandatory language for a specific initiative.
Okay. Question five. Do the proponents intend for the requirements of one or both of the sentences in the proposed initiative to refer to legally referred measures or to a ballot question that the legislature places on the ballot?
So the first sentence would apply across the board, so all ballot questions would have some consistency. The second sentence would only apply to that substance.
Number six, proposed initiatives number 276 and number 277 state that, quote, no statute may mandate language preceding a ballot title of an initiative, end quote. How does this interact with the ballot language requirements in Article 10, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution? In other words, Tabor, the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights.
Yeah, we don't think it conflicts because we're only talking about statutes.
Okay. Question number seven. If constitutional language requirements in Article 10, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution remain in effect, do the words comprising that constitutionally mandated language count against the 100 word limit established in the first sentence of proposed initiative number 277? Number eight, the term may is generally construed as permissive while the term shall denotes a requirement. Both proposed initiatives state that, quote, no statute may mandate language and a ballot question for an initiative, end quote.
Were these provisions meant to be permissive or mandatory?
Mandatory. So now that sentence reads no statute shall mandate language that proceeds follows or appears within a ballot question. So hopefully that's clear. Question number nine. What is the standard for determining whether language is at an eighth grade reading level? Is the standard subject to change? Have the proponents identified a ballot question that complies with this requirement?
We've identified several not in Colorado. There is a lot of states that have similar restrictions on ballot questions. And we didn mandate the standard because it may change and we didn want to put in a specific you know guide that would be used But I think it would just be what is you know tracks with accessibility laws now
Eight grade is standard as an accessibility standard. Applying to websites and all kinds of things throughout the state. Number 10, who is responsible for determining whether ballot questions are in plain language and no more than an eighth grade reading level? And at what stage during the initiative process should this determination be made?
We anticipate it would be whoever is responsible for drafting it. So whether that is legislative referral, that would be then your office or your office. If it's an initiative, it would be the title board. If it's a local initiative, it would maybe be the clerk. Maybe if they have a title board, it would be whoever's tracking the title.
Question number 11. If a proposed measure is highly complex and the title board determines it is impossible to accurately and clearly describe a proposed measure at an eighth reading level, what is the intended outcome?
Well, then it must not be a single subject. I mean the intended outcome is they have to do it within eighth grade. And there have been complicated measures in other states. And if that means you have to just describe it generally as a tax increase or something that, you know, with the money going to a certain part of government that you maybe have to describe not using its actual department name, you know, like it's going to go to prisons instead of Department of Corrections or whatever. you have to do to put it in language that an eighth grade reading level would comply with.
Okay. Great. That concludes the substantive questions that we've included in our memo.
There are a few technical questions. We are happy to review those if you so desire, but we are not required to do so.
No, we've made all those. Okay, great. With that, is there any other comments you would like included on the official record?
No.
Okay, wonderful. With that, the hearing on proposed measure, proposed initiative measures 2025-2026 numbers 276 and 277 concludes at 1 10 PM.