Full Opinion

1 2026 CO 58 In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #241 Robert Balink, Petitioner v. Tanya Nathan and Lindsey Rasmussen, Respondents and Michael Dohr, Theresa Conley, and Kurt Morrison, Title Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #242 Robert Balink, Petitioner: v. Tanya Nathan and Lindsey Rasmussen, Respondents and Michael Dohr, Theresa Conley, and Kurt Morrison, Title Board In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #328 John Brackney and Robyn Carnes, Petitioners v. Colorado Ballot Title Setting Board, Respondent and Michael Dohr, Theresa Conley, and Kurt Morrison, Title Board Nos. 26SA122, 26SA123, 26SA157 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc June 29, 2026 Original Proceeding Pursuant to § 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2025) Appeal from the Ballot Title Setting Board 2 Attorneys for Petitioners Robert Balink, John Brackney, and Robyn Carnes: Gessler Blue LLC Scott E. Gessler Geoffrey N. Blue Greenwood Village, Colorado Attorneys for Respondents Tanya Nathan and Lindsey Rasmussen: Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC Martha M. Tierney Denver, Colorado 3 Attorneys for Title Board (26SA122 26SA123): Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Peter G. Baumann, Assistant Solicitor General Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Title Board (26SA157): Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Nicholas Riley, Assistant Attorney General Fellow Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Curtis Hubbard (26SA157): Recht Kornfeld, P.C. Mark G. Grueskin Nathan Bruggeman Denver, Colorado 4 JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE MARQUEZ, JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE SAMOUR, JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER, and JUSTICE BLANCO joined. 5 OPINION GABRIEL, JUSTICE 6 ¶1 In these three cases, we review the actions of the Title Board in (1) setting the titles and the ballot titles and submission clauses for Initiative 2025-2026 #241 ("Initiative #241") and Initiative 2025-2026 #242 ("Initiative #242") and (2) declining to set a title for Initiative 2025-2026 #328 ("Initiative #328"). Each of these cases presents, among other issues, the question of whether an initiative violates the single subject requirement when its effectiveness is conditioned on the passage of a separate initiative. ¶2 We now conclude that an initiative violates the single subject requirement in these circumstances and that, therefore, Initiative #241, Initiative #242, and Initiative #328 run afoul of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2025). Accordingly, we reverse the actions of the Title Board in case nos. 26SA122 and 26SA123 and affirm the action of the Title Board in case no. 26SA157. In light of this disposition, we need not address the other issues raised in the petitions for review now before us. (The text, title, and ballot title and submission clauses for Initiative #241 and Initiative #242 and the text of Initiative #328 are attached as appendices to this opinion.) I. Facts and Procedural History ¶3 We begin by discussing the pertinent facts and procedural histories of each of the cases now before us. 7 A. Initiative #241 and Initiative #242 ¶4 Pursuant to section 1-40-106, C.R.S. (2025), proponents-respondents Tanya Nathan and Lindsey Rasmussen submitted proposed Initiative #241 and proposed Initiative #242 to the Title Board for a setting of a title and submission clause. Initiative #241 proposed an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes that would replace the constitutional independent congressional redistricting commission with an identical statutory independent congressional redistricting commission, but this initiative was expressly conditioned on the passage of Initiative #242. Initiative #242, in turn, proposed a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes, creating a new temporary congressional district map to be used in the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections. Initiative #242 was conversely conditioned on the passage of Initiative #241. ¶5 The Board conducted initial public hearings in both cases, unanimously concluded that both initiatives contained a single subject, and set the following titles: Initiative #241 An amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes replacing the constitutional independent congressional redistricting commission with an identical statutory independent congressional redistricting commission if a ballot measure creating a new temporary congressional district map to be used in 2028 and 2030 congressional elections is approved by a vote of the people. 8 Initiative #242 A change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating a new temporary congressional district map to be used in 2028 and 2030 congressional elections if a ballot measure replacing the constitutional independent congressional redistricting commission with an identical statutory independent congressional redistricting commission is approved by a vote of the people. ¶6 Thereafter, petitioner Robert Balink filed motions for rehearing in both cases, and by a two-to-one vote, the Board denied these motions in their entirety. ¶7 Pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), C.R.S. (2025), Balink now petitions this court for review in both cases, arguing that Initiative #241 and Initiative #242 violate the single subject rule in multiple ways, including by conditioning the effective date of each on the simultaneous passage of the other. Balink further contends that the measures are incomplete and misleading in a number of ways that are not ultimately pertinent to our decision. B. Initiative #328 ¶8 Pursuant to section 1-40-106, proponents-petitioners John Brackney and Robyn Carnes submitted proposed Initiative #328 to the Title Board for a setting of a title and submission clause. This initiative is, in form, nearly identical to Initiative #242. Initiative #328 proposes a map of new temporary congressional districts (a different map from the one proposed in Initiative #242) and, like Initiative #242, provides that it will take effect only if Initiative #241 is adopted. 9 ¶9 The Board conducted a hearing on whether to set a title for Initiative #328 but reached a different result from the one that it reached regarding Initiative #242. Specifically, by a two-to-one vote, the Board denied the title setting, concluding, among other things, that the measure did not constitute a single subject because it necessarily relied on the passage of a separate ballot measure and, therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to set a title. ¶10 Brackney and Carnes filed a motion for rehearing, but by a different two-to-one vote, the Board denied that motion in its entirety. ¶11 Pursuant to section 1-40-107(2), Brackney and Carnes now petition this court for review, arguing that for the same reasons that the Board found that Initiative #242 contains a single subject, Initiative #328 likewise contains a single subject. Brackney and Carnes further contend that the Board erred in declining to set a title and submission clause based on the Board's view, allegedly expressed for the first time during consideration of the motion for rehearing, that it did not understand what the initiative did. Brackney and Carnes contend that it was improper for the Board to raise new concerns at the rehearing stage and that, in any event, the initiative is easy to comprehend, for the same reasons that the Board had no difficulty understanding the meaning of Initiative #242. (The Board disputes the characterization that it raised a new issue during the rehearing, 10 contending that it relied on the same issue that it had raised at the initial hearing; regardless, the Board contends that it may reconsider its jurisdiction at any time.) II. Analysis ¶12 We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review. Next, we lay out the general principles concerning the single subject requirement. We then apply those principles to the cases before us. A. Standard of Review ¶13 "The Title Board is vested with considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause," and we will reverse the Board's decision only when a title is insufficient, unfair, or misleading. In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90 , 2014 CO 63, ¶ 8 , 328 P.3d 155, 159 . ¶14 In reviewing Title Board title settings, "we employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board's actions." In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45 , 234 P.3d 642, 645 (Colo. 2010). ¶15 In addition, in our limited review of the Title Board's actions, we do not address the merits of the proposed initiative. In re 2013-2014 #90 , ¶ 9, 328 P.3d at 159 . Nor do we suggest how it might be applied if enacted. Id. Rather, as pertinent here, we must examine the initiative's wording to determine whether it comports with the constitutional single subject and clear title requirements. See id. In 11 conducting this limited inquiry, we employ the general rules of statutory construction, giving words and phrases their plain and ordinary meanings. Id. B. Single Subject Requirement ¶16 Article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution provides, in pertinent part: No measure shall be proposed by petition containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in any measure which shall not be expressed in the title, such measure shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed. If a measure contains more than one subject, such that a ballot title cannot be fixed that clearly expresses a single subject, no title shall be set and the measure shall not be submitted to the people for adoption or rejection at the polls. See also § 1-40-106.5(1)(a) ("Section 1(5.5) of article V . . . require[s] that every constitutional amendment or law proposed by initiative . . . be limited to a single subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title ...."). ¶17 The single subject requirement serves two functions. ¶18 First, it is intended [t]o forbid the treatment of incongruous subjects in the same measure, especially the practice of putting together in one measure subjects having no necessary or proper connection, for the purpose of enlisting in support of the measure the advocates of each measure, and thus securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits[.] § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I). 12 ¶19 Accordingly, "an initiative's subject matter must be necessarily and properly connected rather than disconnected or incongruous, and the initiative will be held to violate the single subject requirement when it relates to more than one subject and has at least two distinct and separate purposes." In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #73 , 2016 CO 24, ¶ 14 , 369 P.3d 565, 568 . Such a requirement prevents proponents from combining multiple subjects to attract a "yes" vote from voters who might vote "no" on one or more of the subjects if they were proposed separately. In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #3 , 2019 CO 57, ¶ 14 , 442 P.3d 867, 870 . ¶20 Second, the single subject requirement seeks "[t]o 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." § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II). ¶21 When an initiative tends to effectuate one general objective or purpose, then the initiative presents only one subject. In re 2015-2016 #73 , ¶ 17, 369 P.3d at 568 . Therefore, we will not conclude that an initiative violates the single subject requirement merely because it spells out details relating to its implementation. In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #315 , 2020 CO 61, ¶ 15 , 500 P.3d 363 , 367. Nor will we conclude that an initiative violates the single subject requirement because it may have different effects on other provisions of Colorado 13 law. Id. Such effects are irrelevant to whether the proposed initiative contains a single subject. Id. ¶22 The breadth of the initiative's objective, however, is not without limits. For example, "[a] proponent's attempt to characterize an initiative under some general theme will not save the initiative from violating the single-subject rule if the initiative contains multiple subjects." In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #91 , 235 P.3d 1071, 1076 (Colo. 2010). ¶23 We liberally construe the single subject requirement both because of the Title Board's considerable discretion in setting the title and the ballot title and submission clause and to avoid unduly restricting the initiative process. In re 2013-2014 #90, ¶ 12, 328 P.3d at 159-60 . We will therefore overturn the Board's finding that an initiative contains a single subject only in a "clear case." In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #158 , 2026 CO 13 , ¶ 13, 585 P.3d 232 , 236. C. Application ¶24 Turning to the measures before us, we begin by noting our view that if the counterpart initiatives were contained within one measure, then the combined measure would comprise at least two subjects, namely, (1) replacing the constitutional independent congressional redistricting commission with an identical statutory commission; and (2) adopting a specific, temporary 14 congressional district map to be used in the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections. See also In re Title, Ballot Title Submission Clause for 2025-2026 #240 , 2026 CO 57, ¶¶ 1, 24, 32 , ___ P.3d ___ (also decided today and concluding that initiatives asking voters to approve both mid-cycle redistricting and particular maps in a single initiative comprise multiple subjects). We would so conclude for several reasons. ¶25 First, these two subjects would not be "necessarily and properly connected." In re 2015-2016 #73 , ¶ 14, 369 P.3d at 568 . For example, voters might vote to replace the constitutional independent congressional redistricting commission with an identical statutory commission without adopting a new congressional district map. Nor can we perceive how one portion of this combined measure could be said to do no more than recite implementation details of the other. In re 2019-2020 #315 , ¶ 15, 500 P.3d at 367. ¶26 Second, in a combined measure, a purported single subject would need to be defined in the broadest of generalities, which would not likely save the measure. See In re 2009-2010 #91 , 235 P.3d at 1076 . ¶27 Third, and perhaps most significantly, a voter who might wish to replace the constitutional independent congressional redistricting commission with an identical statutory commission might be opposed to the specific map proposed. Conversely, a voter who supports the proposed map might be opposed to replacing the constitutional commission. As a result, such a combined measure 15 might attract "yes" votes from voters who might otherwise vote "no" on one or more of the subjects if they were proposed separately. In re 2019-2020 #3 , ¶ 14, 442 P.3d at 870 . ¶28 The question thus becomes whether the result should differ when these two subjects are contained in separate initiatives but when the effectiveness of each initiative is expressly contingent on the passage of the other. We conclude that the result is not different and that when a measure's effectiveness is expressly contingent on the passage of a separate and independent measure, the measure contains multiple subjects, just as if the measures were combined into one. We reach this conclusion for much the same reasons as are set forth above. ¶29 First, when the effective date of one measure is made expressly contingent on the passage of a separate and independent measure, it is neither accurate nor complete to say that the subject of the first measure is the single subject. Thus, here, we do not agree that it is accurate or complete to say that the single subject of Initiative #241 is to move the independent congressional redistricting commission from the state constitution to a statute. Such a statement would ignore the fact that, to become effective, Initiative #241 would require voters also to approve the proposed map set forth in Initiative #242. Accordingly, both the replacement of the constitutional commission and the approval of the proposed 16 map are the subjects of Initiative #241 (and conversely, they are the subjects of Initiative #242). ¶30 Second, for the reasons set forth above, we do not perceive these two subjects to be necessarily and properly connected with one another. Nor can it be said that one merely sets forth implementation features of the other or that the effective date of each initiative is merely an implementation feature directly tied to that initiative's central focus. Such an argument again ignores the fact that the effective date renders each initiative contingent on the passage of the other. ¶31 Finally, for the reasons also set forth above, a voter might wish to move the independent commission from the constitution to a statute but disapprove of the proposed maps set forth in Initiative #242 or Initiative #328. Thus, the initiatives at issue here might well attract "yes" votes from voters who might otherwise vote "no" on one or more of the subjects if they were not made contingent on one another. See id. ¶32 Accordingly, we conclude that Initiative #241, Initiative #242, and Initiative #328 all contain multiple subjects and, thus, the Title Board lacked jurisdiction to set titles for any of them. To conclude otherwise and to allow initiative proponents to proceed with interlocking measures like those at issue here would allow proponents to achieve indirectly what they could not achieve 17 directly and would endorse an end run around the single subject requirement. This we cannot do. ¶33 We are not persuaded otherwise by the contrary arguments raised by the proponents of each of these initiatives or by the Title Board in the cases concerning Initiative #241 and Initiative #242. ¶34 Contrary to these parties' arguments, we do not agree that the assertions as to why these initiatives contain multiple subjects are merely arguments regarding the effects of the initiatives, which effects are irrelevant to a single subject analysis. See In re 2019-2020 #315, ¶ 15, 500 P.3d at 367. For the reasons set forth above, each of the arguments directly relates to the concerns motivating the single subject requirement. ¶35 Nor are we persuaded by the assertion that the initiatives at issue satisfy the single subject requirement because they all "point in the same direction." The fact that the initiatives allegedly point in the same direction does not make their respective ends necessarily and properly connected. Nor does it resolve the logrolling concern that we described above (i.e., the concern that a voter may want to move the independent redistricting commission from the constitution to a statute but may not agree with the particular map proposed in the connected initiative). 18 ¶36 Finally, we are unpersuaded by the assertion that these initiatives do not run afoul of the single subject rule because if the proposed mid-cycle temporary redistricting maps do not pass, then there would be no reason to move the independent commission from the constitution to a statute. Such an argument does not establish that the measures are necessarily and properly connected. To the contrary, this argument makes clear that the subjects are, in fact, disconnected and incongruous because one is not necessarily connected to the other. III. Conclusion ¶37 For these reasons, we conclude that an initiative violates the single subject requirement when its effectiveness is conditioned on the passage of a separate initiative. We therefore further conclude that Initiative #241, Initiative #242, and Initiative #328 encompass multiple subjects in violation of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5. ¶38 Accordingly, we reverse the actions of the Title Board in case nos. 26SA122 and 26SA123 and affirm the action of the Title Board in case no. 26SA157. In light of this disposition, we need not reach, and we express no opinion on, the other issues raised in the petitions for review now before us. Title Board Action Affirmed. 19 APPENDIX A-Initiative #241 and Title Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 2-1-100.5, amend (1), and add (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11), as follows: 2-1-100.5. Legislative declaration Declaration of the People of the State of Colorado. (1) The general assembly THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO hereby finds FIND and declares DECLARE that the state of Colorado shall be divided into districts pursuant to the official figures of the most recent decennial census of the United States. The general assembly PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO further finds FIND and declares DECLARE that such figures are the most reliable data that the state has available and that the use of any other data or of any data adjustments may create a serious risk of inaccuracy and injustice in establishing congressional districts to represent the citizens of Colorado. (2) PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAS CALLED ON REPUBLICAN LED STATES TO UNDERTAKE AN UNPRECEDENTED MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING OF CONGRESSIONAL SEATS TO RIG FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS BEFORE VOTING BEGINS. (3) SEVERAL STATES HAVE CONSIDERED, CONVENED, OR INTEND TO CONVENE SPECIAL SESSIONS OF THEIR LEGISLATURES TO REDRAW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS TO UNFAIRLY ADVANTAGE REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING TEXAS, FLORIDA, OHIO, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEBRASKA, AND NORTH CAROLINA. (4) PRESIDENT TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS ARE ATTEMPTING TO GAIN ENOUGH SEATS THROUGH REDISTRICTING TO RIG THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS REGARDLESS OF HOW THE PEOPLE VOTE. (5) PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ELECTION-RIGGING SCHEME IS AN EMERGENCY FOR OUR DEMOCRACY. 20 (6) COLORADO IS A NATIONAL LEADER ON FAIR, INDEPENDENT, AND NONPARTISAN REDISTRICTING. (7) COLORADO CALLS ON CONGRESS AND ALL OTHER STATES TO COMMIT TO FAIR AND IMPARTIAL DRAWING OF MAPS. (8) COLORADO HAS A DUTY TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY. (9) THE 2028 AND 2030 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS MUST BE CONDUCTED ON A NATIONAL LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITHOUT AN EXTREME AND UNFAIR ADVANTAGE FOR REPUBLICANS. (10) THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO, NOT POLITICIANS, SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO APPROVE TEMPORARY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ELECTION-RIGGING SCHEME-; AND. (11) IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT COLORADO'S TEMPORARY MAPS BE DESIGNED TO HELP NEUTRALIZE THE PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING BEING UNDERTAKEN BY REPUBLICAN-LED STATES WITHOUT ERODING FAIR REPRESENTATION FOR ALL COMMUNITIES. SECTION 2. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 44 of article V. SECTION 3. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 44.1 of article V. SECTION 4. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 44.2 of article V. SECTION 5. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 44.3 of article V. SECTION 6. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 44.4 of article V. SECTION 7. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 44.5 of article V. SECTION 8. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, repeal section 44.6 of article V. 21 SECTION 9 . In Colorado Revised Statutes, 2-1-101.5, amend (1), as follows: 2-1-101.5. Definitions. As used in this article 1, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Congressional commission" means the independent congressional redistricting commission created pursuant to section 44 of article V of the state constitution SECTION 2-1-105.2. SECTION 10. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 2-1-105.2, as follows: Section 2-1-105.2. Representatives in congress - congressional districts -commission created - definitions. (1) Congressional districts- commission created . THERE IS HEREBY CREATED THE INDEPENDENT CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION SHALL DIVIDE THE STATE INTO AS MANY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AS THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS APPORTIONED TO THIS STATE BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ELECTION OF ONE REPRESENTATIVE TO CONGRESS FROM EACH DISTRICT. WHEN A NEW APPORTIONMENT IS MADE BY CONGRESS, THE COMMISSION SHALL DIVIDE THE STATE INTO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ACCORDINGLY. (2) Definitions. AS USED IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 2-1-105.3 THROUGH 2-1-105.7, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: (a) "COMMISSION" MEANS THE INDEPENDENT CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMISSION CREATED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION. (b) (I) "COMMUNITY OF INTEREST" MEANS ANY GROUP IN COLORADO THAT SHARES ONE OR MORE SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS THAT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION, IS COMPOSED OF A REASONABLY PROXIMATE POPULATION, AND THUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION WITHIN A SINGLE DISTRICT FOR PURPOSES OF ENSURING ITS FAIR AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION. (II) SUCH INTERESTS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO MATTERS REFLECTING: 22 (A) SHARED PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS OF URBAN, RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR TRADE AREAS; AND (B) SHARED PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS SUCH AS EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH, TRANSPORTATION, WATER NEEDS AND SUPPLIES, AND ISSUES OF DEMONSTRABLE REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. (III) GROUPS THAT MAY COMPRISE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST INCLUDE RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUPS, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTIONS (1)(b) AND (4)(b) OF SECTION 2-1-105.5, WHICH SUBSECTIONS PROTECT AGAINST THE DENIAL OR ABRIDGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE DUE TO A PERSON'S RACE OR LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUP. (IV) "COMMUNITY OF INTEREST" DOES NOT INCLUDE RELATIONSHIPS WITH POLITICAL PARTIES, INCUMBENTS, OR POLITICAL CANDIDATES. (c) "RACE" OR "RACIAL" MEANS A CATEGORY OF RACE OR ETHNIC ORIGIN DOCUMENTED IN THE FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS. (d) "REDISTRICTING YEAR" MEANS THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS IS TAKEN. (e) "STAFF" OR "NONPARTISAN STAFF" MEANS THE STAFF OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR OFFICES, WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO ASSIST THE COMMISSION BY THE DIRECTORS OF THOSE OFFICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2-1-105.4(1)(b). (3) ADJUSTMENT OF DATES. IF ANY DATE PRESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 2-1105.2 THROUGH 2-1-105.7 FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY, THEN THE DATE IS EXTENDED TO THE NEXT DAY THAT IS NOT A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY. SECTION 11. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 2-1-105.3, as follows: Section 2-1-105.3. Commission Composition and Appointment - Vacancies. 23 (1) AFTER EACH FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE APPOINTED AND CONVENED AS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION. (2) THE COMMISSION CONSISTS OF TWELVE MEMBERS WHO HAVE THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS: (a) COMMISSIONERS MUST BE REGISTERED ELECTORS WHO VOTED IN BOTH OF THE PREVIOUS TWO GENERAL ELECTIONS IN COLORADO; (b) COMMISSIONERS MUST EITHER HAVE BEEN UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR HAVE BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY FOR A CONSECUTIVE PERIOD OF NO LESS THAN FIVE YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION; AND (c) NO PERSON MAY BE APPOINTED TO OR SERVE ON THE COMMISSION IF HE OR SHE: (I) IS OR HAS BEEN A CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION; (II) IS OR HAS BEEN, WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION, COMPENSATED BY A MEMBER OF, OR A CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE ADVOCATING THE ELECTION OF A CANDIDATE TO, THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE UNITED STATES SENATE; (III) IS OR HAS BEEN, WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION, AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPAL LEVEL IN COLORADO; (IV) IS OR HAS BEEN, WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION, AN 24 ELECTED POLITICAL PARTY OFFICIAL ABOVE THE PRECINCT LEVEL IN COLORADO OR AN EMPLOYEE OF A POLITICAL PARTY; (V) IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVIDING THE STATE INTO SENATORIAL AND REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY; OR (VI) IS OR HAS BEEN A PROFESSIONAL LOBBYIST REGISTERED TO LOBBY WITH THE STATE OF COLORADO, WITH ANY MUNICIPALITY IN COLORADO, OR AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION. (3)(a) BY AUGUST 10 OF THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL, AFTER HOLDING ONE OR MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS, PREPARE AN APPLICATION FORM THAT WILL ALLOW APPOINTING AUTHORITIES TO EVALUATE A PERSON'S EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS AND MAKE SUCH APPLICATION AVAILABLE ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC. (b) THE APPLICATION FORM MUST CLEARLY STATE THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS OF POTENTIAL APPOINTEES. INFORMATION REQUIRED OF APPLICANTS MUST INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, PARTY AFFILIATION, A DESCRIPTION OF PAST POLITICAL ACTIVITY, A LIST OF ALL POLITICAL AND CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS BELONGED WITHIN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS, AND WHETHER THE APPLICANT MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS STATED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICATION FORM MUST REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WANT TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION AND AFFORD THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT HOW THEY WILL PROMOTE CONSENSUS AMONG COMMISSIONERS IF APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION. APPLICANTS MAY ALSO CHOOSE TO INCLUDE UP TO FOUR LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION WITH THEIR APPLICATION. 25 (4) BY NOVEMBER 10 OF THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MUST SUBMIT A COMPLETED APPLICATION TO NONPARTISAN STAFF. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND MUST BE POSTED PROMPTLY AFTER RECEIPT ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC. (5)(a) NO LATER THAN JANUARY 5 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT SHALL DESIGNATE A PANEL TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS. THE PANEL MUST CONSIST OF THE THREE JUSTICES OR JUDGES WHO MOST RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT OR THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS, APPOINTED SEQUENTIALLY STARTING WITH THE MOST RECENT JUSTICE OR JUDGE TO RETIRE WHO HAS BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY OR UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY FOR THE TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT; EXCEPT THAT NO APPOINTEE, WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT, SHALL HAVE BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS A JUSTICE OR JUDGE ALREADY APPOINTED TO THE PANEL. IF ANY OF THE THREE JUSTICES OR JUDGES WHO MOST RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT OR THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO SERVE ON THE PANEL OR HAS BEEN AFFILIATED WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT WITH A POLITICAL PARTY ALREADY REPRESENTED ON THE PANEL, THEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHALL APPOINT THE NEXT JUSTICE OR JUDGE WHO MOST RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT OR THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS AND WHO HAS NOT BEEN AFFILIATED WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS ANY JUSTICE OR JUDGE ALREADY APPOINTED TO THE PANEL. IF, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL JUSTICES AND JUDGES WHO HAVE RETIRED FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT AND THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS, FEWER THAN THREE ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS FOR THE PANEL HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WHO ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO SERVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHALL APPOINT THE MOST RECENTLY RETIRED DISTRICT 26 COURT JUDGE WHO HAS NOT BEEN AFFILIATED WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS ANY PREVIOUS APPOINTEE TO THE PANEL AND WHO ACCEPTS SUCH APPOINTMENT. NO JUSTICE OR JUDGE SHALL SERVE BOTH ON THIS PANEL AND THE PANEL ASSISTING IN THE PROCESS OF CHOOSING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVIDING THE STATE INTO STATE SENATE AND STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISTRICTS. (b) ALL DECISIONS OF THE PANEL REGARDING THE SELECTION OF APPLICANTS PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION REQUIRE THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROVAL OF ALL THREE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL. (c) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL PRESCRIBE BY LAW THE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE PANEL. NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL ASSIST THE PANEL IN CARRYING OUT ITS DUTIES. (6) AFTER APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTED, NONPARTISAN STAFF, WITH THE COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SHALL MAKE AN OBJECTIVE AND FACTUAL FINDING BASED ON, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION, INCLUDING INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION AND INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WHETHER EACH APPLICANT MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION. NO LATER THAN JANUARY 11 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL MAKE ITS FINDINGS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND NOTIFY THE APPLICANTS OF THE STAFF'S FINDING. IF THE STAFF FINDS THAT AN APPLICANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE, THEN THE STAFF SHALL INCLUDE THE REASONS IN ITS FINDING. (7) BY JANUARY 18 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE PANEL, IN A PUBLIC MEETING, SHALL RANDOMLY SELECT BY LOT FROM ALL OF THE APPLICANTS WHO WERE FOUND TO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION THE NAMES OF THREE HUNDRED APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, THREE HUNDRED APPLICANTS WHO ARE 27 AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, AND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY APPLICANTS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY, OR SUCH LESSER NUMBER AS THERE ARE TOTAL APPLICANTS WHO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION FOR EACH OF THOSE GROUPS. (8)(a) IN ONE OR MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 1 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS OF THE APPLICANTS SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (7) OF THIS SECTION, THE PANEL SHALL IDENTIFY FIFTY APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, FIFTY APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, AND FIFTY APPLICANTS WHO ARE UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY AND WHO BEST DEMONSTRATE: (I) EXPERIENCE IN ORGANIZING, REPRESENTING, ADVOCATING FOR, ADJUDICATING THE INTERESTS OF, OR ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, OR ASSOCIATIONS IN COLORADO; AND (II) RELEVANT ANALYTICAL SKILLS, THE ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL, AND THE ABILITY TO PROMOTE CONSENSUS ON THE COMMISSION. (b) NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 1 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, FROM THE APPLICANTS IDENTIFIED IN SUBSECTION (8)(a) OF THIS SECTION, THE PANEL SHALL CHOOSE BY LOT SIX APPLICANTS TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: (I) TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY; (II) TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY; AND (III) TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY. (c) IN THE PROCESS OF CHOOSING APPLICANTS BY LOT FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION, NO APPLICANT WHOSE NAME IS 28 CHOSEN MAY BE APPOINTED IF HE OR SHE IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT THAT IS ALREADY REPRESENTED ON THE COMMISSION; EXCEPT THAT, WHEN ALL THEN-EXISTING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IN COLORADO ARE REPRESENTED ON THE COMMISSION, A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAY BE REPRESENTED BY A SECOND COMMISSIONER. NO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAY BE REPRESENTED BY MORE THAN TWO COMMISSIONERS. ANY PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE CHOSEN BUT DUPLICATE A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT'S REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMISSION AND ARE NOT APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS (9) AND (10) OF THIS SECTION. (9)(a) BY FEBRUARY 16 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE STATE SENATE, THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE STATE SENATE, THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL EACH SELECT A POOL OF TEN APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH ONE OF THE STATE'S TWO LARGEST POLITICAL PARTIES FROM ALL APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO NONPARTISAN STAFF AND NOTIFY THE PANEL OF THEIR SELECTIONS. (b) AS DETERMINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS IN SELECTING THEIR RESPECTIVE POOLS, THE APPLICANTS SELECTED FOR EACH POOL MUST MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION AND DEMONSTRATE THE QUALITIES LISTED IN SUBSECTION (8)(a) OF THIS SECTION. (c) FOR EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NOT REPRESENTED BY A COMMISSIONER APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS (8)(b) AND (8)(c) OF THIS SECTION, EACH POOL MUST CONSIST OF AT LEAST ONE APPLICANT WHO IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THAT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. (d) IF THERE IS AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF AVAILABLE APPLICANTS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (9)(b) OF THIS SECTION TO SELECT ANY COMPLETE POOL, THEN THE POOL MUST 29 CONSIST OF ONLY THOSE APPLICANTS WHO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. (10) By March 1 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE PANEL OF JUDGES SHALL SELECT, IN SUCH ORDER AS THE PANEL DETERMINES, ONE COMMISSIONER FROM EACH LEGISLATIVE LEADER'S POOL OF APPLICANTS AND TWO COMMISSIONERS FROM THOSE APPLICANTS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY AND WHOSE NAMES WERE RANDOMLY SELECTED BY LOT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (7) OF THIS SECTION. THE PANEL OF JUDGES MUST ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION INCLUDES FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY, FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, AND FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY. THE PANEL OF JUDGES MAY INTERVIEW APPLICANTS BEFORE MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS. IN SELECTING APPLICANTS, THE PANEL SHALL, IN ADDITION TO CONSIDERING APPLICANTS' OTHER QUALIFICATIONS: (a) TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION REFLECTS COLORADO'S RACIAL, ETHNIC, GENDER, AND GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY; (b) ENSURE THAT AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT BUT NO MORE THAN TWO COMMISSIONERS ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN ANY SINGLE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT; (c) ENSURE THAT AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER RESIDES WEST OF THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE; AND (d) ENSURE THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION AND DEMONSTRATE THE QUALITIES LISTED IN SUBSECTION (8)(a) OF THIS SECTION. (11)(a) A COMMISSIONER'S POSITION ON THE COMMISSION WILL BE DEEMED VACANT IF HE OR SHE, HAVING BEEN APPOINTED AS A REGISTERED ELECTOR WHO IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH A POLITICAL 30 PARTY, AFFILIATES WITH A POLITICAL PARTY BEFORE THE COURT HAS APPROVED A PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-1-105.7. A COMMISSIONER'S POSITION ON THE COMMISSION WILL ALSO BE DEEMED VACANT IF HE OR SHE, HAVING BEEN AFFILIATED WITH ONE OF THE STATE'S TWO LARGEST POLITICAL PARTIES AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT, AFFILIATES WITH A DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTY OR BECOMES UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY BEFORE THE COURT HAS APPROVED A PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-1-105.7. (b) ANY VACANCY ON THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING ONE THAT OCCURS DUE TO DEATH, RESIGNATION, REMOVAL, FAILURE TO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS OF APPOINTMENT, REFUSAL OR INABILITY TO ACCEPT AN APPOINTMENT, OR OTHERWISE, MUST BE FILLED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BY THE DESIGNATED APPOINTING AUTHORITY FROM THE DESIGNATED POOL OF ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS FOR THAT COMMISSIONER'S POSITION AND IN THE SAME MANNER A