Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

Year: 2018

  • An Introduction to Initiatives (Continued)

    by Ed DeCecco

    I know that the end of part one1 of this article was quite the cliffhanger, and you’ve probably been obsessively refreshing the LegiSource page to see what happens after the Title Board sets the ballot title for an initiative. So, without further delay, here is the conclusion of the initiative process.

    Signature Gathering

    Once the ballot title is officially set, the proponents may proceed to the signature-gathering phase, which many people think of as “those times when I’m accosted outside of King Soopers to sign something, but that is not nearly as fun as being accosted to buy Girl Scout cookies.” (Okay, that might just be me.) The reason for these encounters is that the state constitution requires that an initiative petition be signed by a number of registered electors in the state that is greater than or equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office of Secretary of State at the previous general election. Currently, that threshold is 98,492 signatures. Lucky for designated representatives, they may use volunteer and paid petition circulators2 to help gather signatures.

    As a result of Amendment 71, an initiative from 2016, if the initiative is for a constitutional amendment, then 2% of the total required signatures must also come from each Senate District3. This has had a twofold effect. First, it means that citizens throughout the state are involved in the petition process for constitutional initiatives. Second, it’s been a major boon for businesses that sell maps of the state Senate Districts.

    Circulators must collect the signatures on petition sections approved by the Secretary of State4, which include LCS’s fiscal information abstract on the first page of the initiative section and have spaces for the electors to sign their name and identify the address. So, if someone outside of King Soopers asks you to sign anything other than this official form, then congratulations, you’re famous, and someone wants your autograph.

    Submission and Verification of Petitions

    The designated representatives must turn in their signed initiative petitions5 to the Secretary of State no later than six months after the date a ballot title is set or three months before the election, whichever date is sooner. Secretary of State Wayne Williams will then personally review and verify each signature submitted, oftentimes visiting with each elector to confirm that he or she signed the petition. (Not true. I was just checking to see if you were still paying attention.) The Secretary of State’s office will verify6 that the petition is signed by registered electors of the state using random sampling, and, depending on the number of valid signatures, possibly a line-by-line analysis.

    If there are enough signatures to meet the constitutional requirements, then the Secretary of State will deem the petition sufficient7, and barring a successful protest against the determination8, the proponents have successfully navigated the initiative process and the measure will appear on the ballot.

    Blue Book

    But before jumping to the ballot, a word about the Blue Book is in order. Named as an homage to The Beatles eponymous album or, perhaps, because it has a blue cover, the Blue Book is the excellent ballot information booklet published by LCS as required by the state constitution9. It includes the full text of the initiative, the title, a fair and impartial analysis, and arguments for and against it. If the measure is a matter arising under TABOR, then it will also include fiscal information required by that initiative, which was approved by voters in 1992.

    LCS prepares three drafts of the measure, and solicits feedback from interested parties and the public. The Legislative Council committee considers LCS’s final draft and may modify it with a 2/3rds vote10. Once completed, the Blue Book is mailed to every residence in the state with a registered elector. Everyone should have received the 2018 version. It is just a smidge shorter than Moby Dick because it describes a total of 13 initiated and referred measures.

    Ballot

    Having gone through the appropriate steps, an initiative will appear on the ballot. Initiated constitutional amendments are numbered consecutively from 1 to 99 and are referred to as “amendments.” Initiated statutory changes are numbered consecutively from 101 to 1999 and are referred to as “propositions.” (See section 1-5-407, Colorado Revised Statutes.) To pass, an amendment requires 55% of the votes cast, unless the measure just repeals a provision, in which case it requires a majority vote, which is the same amount needed to pass an initiated statutory change (See Article V, section 1(4)(b) of the Colorado Constitution).

    If approved by voters, the initiative will officially become part of the Colorado Constitution or the Colorado Revised Statutes, and the designated representatives may finally rest on their laurels. I, on the other hand, may have to prepare a LegiSource article about their successful endeavor. So thanks for that!

    For additional resources about the initiative process, open new links to visit:

    1. https://legisource.net/2018/10/11/an-introduction-to-initiatives/ ↩︎
    2. Section 1-40-112, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    3. Article V, section 1, Colorado Constitution. ↩︎
    4. Section 1-40-113, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    5. Section 1-40-108, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    6. Section 1-40-116, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    7. Section 1-40-117, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    8. Section 1-40-118, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    9. Article V, section 1 (7.5), Colorado Constitution. ↩︎
    10. Section 1-40-124.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎

  • An Introduction to Initiatives

    by Ed DeCecco

    While sitting in Starbucks, filling out the 2018 general election mail ballot, and sipping what might be your last Pumpkin Spice Latte for the season, you might think to yourself, “Only seven statewide initiatives—why aren’t there more of these delightful, thought-provoking questions?”1 You might even be inspired to become an active participant in Colorado’s robust system of direct democracy. If so, here is an initiative-process primer to help you.

    Initiating the Initiative

    To paraphrase Lao Tzu, the journey of a thousand signatures begins with a single email to Legislative Council Staff (LCS). That is, proponents begin the initiative process by submitting to LCS a draft of the initiative to change the Colorado Revised Statutes or amend the Colorado Constitution, or occasionally to do both. The petition must be typewritten and legible and contain the text of the initiated measure,2 and it must include the names and mailing addresses of the two designated representatives of the proponents.3 Proponents are encouraged to write the measure “in plain, nontechnical language and in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and everyday meaning that are understandable to the average reader.”4

    Review and Comment

    Two weeks after submission to LCS, LCS and the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) are required “to render their comments to the proponents of the petition concerning the format or contents of the petition at a review and comment meeting that is open to the public.”5 Upon reading this rather formal-sounding requirement, one might think that the review and comment meeting is akin to the senate committee grilling Michael Corleone. It’s not. In fact, it is not a hearing at all because it is not conducted by a legislative committee and there no witnesses. Instead, it is a relaxed discussion at the State Capitol between staff, the designated representatives, (both of whom are required to attend the meeting), and the designated representatives’ attorney, if they have one.

    But, like the scene from The Godfather II, the designated representatives will have a script for their discussion. At least 48 hours prior to the meeting, staff from OLLS and LCS will give the proponents a Review and Comment Memorandum, which includes our view of the proposal’s major purposes and our substantive and technical comments and questions. At the meeting, staff will read the review and comment memorandum aloud and provide the proponents with a chance to respond.

    Many proponents view this as an opportunity to provide a record of their intent and to see if they can improve the measure. Others do not. For example, one set of proponents responded to each question and comment by saying something along the lines of, “Thank you very much for the question. We will take it under consideration.” Which is fine, as the designated representatives are under no obligation to answer our questions or make any changes after the review and comment meeting. This is their initiative and they are free to disregard our comments, considered and wise as they hopefully may be, and proceed to title setting.

    Many times, however, the designated representatives will make changes based on staff’s questions and comments. If so, they can resubmit the measure to LCS for another review and comment meeting. Alternatively, if all of their changes are directly in response to staff suggestions, they may make the changes and proceed to title setting.

    Setting the Ballot Title

    Initiatives do not appear in their entirety on the ballot, which is beneficial to everyone other than the printers paid to prepare the ballots. Instead voters are presented with a question known as a ballot title, which is in a form that they can answer “yes/for” or “no/against.” A ballot title is a summary of what the initiative does and includes the single subject6 and central features of the proposal. It cannot include slogans or catch phrases, and it must be brief.

    To procure a ballot title, the designated representatives must submit their finalized initiative to the Secretary of State and appear at a title board meeting7. These meetings occur on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays from December through May. The title board consists of representatives from the Attorney General’s office, the Secretary of State’s office, and the OLLS. If the initiative is properly before the title board, and if the title board determines the measure has a single-subject, which is a constitutional requirement8, then it will set a ballot title.

    Prior to the title board meeting, LCS will prepare an initial fiscal impact statement and an abstract of the fiscal impact9. These numbers are a sneak peak of the fiscal impacts that will be described in the Blue Book, and the abstract is used in the next phase in the initiative process.

    If the proponents or literally any other registered voter in the state is dissatisfied with a ballot title or the title board’s failure to set a ballot title, or with the abstract prepared by LCS, then he or she may file a motion for rehearing10 with the Secretary of State within seven days after the title board’s decision. The rehearing decision may be further appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which will hear the case on an expedited schedule. Obviously, these appeals can add a few extra steps for the designated representatives. On the bright side, this appeal means the proponents would have completed a coveted state government trifecta: legislative branch for review and comment; executive and legislative branch for title board; and judicial branch for the final review. How many citizens can say that? Not many.

    “Not many” is also the answer to the question, “How many people will keep reading this blog if it gets any longer?” Check back for the next installment to read about the remainder of an initiative’s amazing administrative journey.

    1. I realize this may be an unlikely scenario. You may actually be having your first Peppermint Mocha of the season while voting and thinking about how much you like initiatives. ↩︎
    2. Section 1-40-105, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    3. Section 1-40-104, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    4. Section 1-40-105 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    5. Id.; see also Legislative Council Rules for Staff of Legislative Council and Office of Legislative Legal Services Review and Comment Filings (9)(a), which requires the meeting to take place two weeks after submission, with some exceptions. ↩︎
    6. Section 1-40-106.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    7. Section 1-40-106, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    8. Article V, section 1 (5.5), Colorado Constitution. ↩︎
    9. Section 1-40-105.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    10. Section 1-40-107, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎

  • When More is More

    by Jery Payne

    A United States Court of Appeals’ opinion begins, “For want of a comma, we have this case1.” The facts are simple. Delivery drivers employed by a Maine dairy company were suing for overtime. The dairy wasn’t paying them overtime, which they believed the law required.

    Whether the law required it was not so simple. The law states that the overtime protection law does not apply to:

    The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

    1. Agricultural produce;
    2. Meat and fish products; and
    3. Perishable foods.

    The intent appears to be that overtime shouldn’t be required for jobs when dawdling might cause food to perish. The court was wrestling with whether this exemption covers delivery drivers.

    Is the phrase packing for shipment or distribution of one item or two items on the list? In other words, which of the following is exempted?

    • Packing for shipment and packing for distribution; or
    • Packing for shipment and any kind of distribution.

    The dairy argued that distribution of should be read as one item on the list. If the distribution of perishables is read as one item on the list, then the law doesn’t require the dairy to pay the delivery drivers overtime. But if the whole phrase packing for shipment or distribution of is meant to be read together, then the dairy owed the delivery drivers a lot of money.

    The statute has at least one of two grammar errors. Notice that the list starts with a series of gerunds, which is a five-dollar word for a noun created by adding “ing” to the end of a verb: canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing. And distribution of isn’t a gerund. Because every other item on the list is a gerund, the grammar indicates that the phrase was intended to be one item, packing for shipping and distribution of. But if this is true, then the statute is missing the word “or” before the last item of the list. It should read marketing, storing, or packing for shipment or distribution of. And it doesn’t. So the statute should have been written in one of two ways:

    • …marketing, storing, or packing for shipment or distribution of:
    • …marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distributing of:

    These dueling errors bedeviled the court, so it gave up trying to parse the sentence. It decided that the ambiguous exception should be read narrowly and ruled that the dairy had to pay the delivery drivers.

    As I mentioned, the court pointed out several times that an Oxford comma2 would have solved the issue. If the statute had read storing, packing for shipment, or distribution of perishables, it would have been clear that the statute covered the delivery drivers.

    So using the Oxford comma is good advice. We aim to use it in the Colorado Revised Statutes.

    But what if the legislature hadn’t intended to cover the delivery drivers? How could we draft the statute so that it is clear? What if we repeated the preposition of?

    The canning of, processing of, preserving of, freezing of, drying of, marketing of, storing of, or packing for shipment or distribution of:

    • Agricultural produce;
    • Meat and fish products; and
    • Perishable foods.

    Now the statute is clear.

    I bet I know what a lot of you are thinking: “We don’t need all those extra prepositions, of. Just don’t forget the disjunctive, or.” No, I suppose in this case we didn’t need the extra prepositions. But they do help. And what about the following statute3 that authorized the defendants to move a case to federal court:

    Any officer of the United States or any agency thereof4 …

    Can any officer of any agency move the case to federal court? Or does the defendant have to be the agency itself? In other words, the list was ambiguous because it could be read either of these two ways:

    • An officer of the US or an officer of an agency of the US; or
    • An agency of the US or an officer of the US.

    The United States Supreme Court5 settled this issue by deciding that an officer of an agency could move the case. They decided that Congress meant an officer of an agency. If that is the correct intent, repeating the preposition of would have solved the issue:

    Any officer of the United States or of any agency thereof …

    I know that people will be tempted to dispense with the repetitious preposition in a list, but repeating those prepositions does remove ambiguity. My advice is to repeat those prepositions when clarity is at stake.

    1. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/16-1901/16-1901-2017-03-13.html ↩︎
    2. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/punctuation-capitalization/what-is-the-oxford-comma/ ↩︎
    3. Hat tip to Bryan Garner from his Advanced Legal Drafting Course. ↩︎
    4. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/72/ ↩︎
    5. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/72/ ↩︎

  • The 411 on Executive Session under the Colorado Open Meetings Law

    by Bob Lackner

    You are the chairman for a legislative committee, and the committee’s next hearing starts in 15 minutes. The committee will be discussing a new report that you expect may embarrass employees of a particular state agency. To avoid this type of embarrassment, it would be better if the committee could meet in executive session so the committee can talk about the issue in a “safe space” without the media or any professional malcontents being present. You read the Open Meetings Law when you started chairing the committee, and you’re sure that the fine print of the law includes a list of reasons for which you can close the meeting. Specifically you’re hoping it includes a general catch-all for sensitive matters that would make the state look bad if disclosed. But you also seem to recall that there are specific procedures to follow when going into executive session. You reach for the phone for a quick consult with your legislative staff…

    This article aims to provide a basic understanding of the requirements for meeting in executive session under the Colorado Open Meetings Law (OML)1 and enable legislators and legislative staff to successfully navigate the requirements for executive sessions.

    First, it’s important to note that the OML begins with an over-arching statement of policy: “It is declared to be … the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.” Next, the OML declares that all meetings of “two or more members of any state public body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action is taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” The General Assembly and its committees are specifically included in the definition of “state public body.”

    The OML allows a legislative committee to go into executive session, that is, to conduct a closed session, only to discuss topics that are specified in the statute. Only members of the committee and staff—and in some cases outside counsel—may be present in an executive session. Before the committee can go into executive session, the committee chair must announce to the public—in open session—the “topic for discussion in the executive session,” including specific citation to the OML provision authorizing the committee to meet in executive session, and  identify “the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized…”. Going into executive session requires the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the entire membership of the committee after the chair makes the announcement. The committee may hold an executive session only at a regular or special meeting. Presumably this means the committee is not permitted to hold a spontaneous get together to go into executive session.

    These are the specific grounds for which the statute authorizes a legislative committee to meet in executive session:

    • Discussions regarding the purchase of property for public purposes or the sale of property at competitive bidding if premature disclosure of the information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general interest;
    • Conferences with an attorney representing the General Assembly, the legislative committee, or a legislator concerning disputes involving the General Assembly, the committee or the legislator that are the subject of pending or imminent court action, concerning specific claims or grievances, or for purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions;
    • Matters required to be kept confidential by federal law or rules, state statutes, or in accordance with any joint legislative rule pertaining to lobbying practices;
    • Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations; and
    • Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations with employees or employee organizations; developing strategy for receiving reports on the progress of such negotiations, and instructing negotiators.

    The OML additionally permits a legislative committee that is acting as a search committee to go into executive session to consider certain appointments or employment matters, but establishing job search goals and the time frame for appointing an agency’s chief executive officer must take place at an open meeting.

    This list states the only reasons for which a legislative committee may meet in an executive session. (There are other reasons on the list that apply to state public bodies that are not associated with the General Assembly.) If the topic of the discussion is not on the list, the legislative committee cannot hold an executive session to discuss it. There is no general catch-all for a legislative committee to meet in executive session to avoid a public discussion that could make the state, a state agency, or a state employee look bad. And no catch-all for sensitive matters that decision makers simply want to be able to discuss in secret. As stated above, under the OML, the default position is that the discussion of public business should be conducted in the open.

    The OML prohibits a legislative committee from adopting a proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, or regulation or otherwise taking formal action at an executive session. If the discussion during executive session leads to an official action, the committee will complete its discussion in executive session, then go back into the open meeting, make a motion, and vote to take the action.

    When a legislative committee goes into executive session, the committee staff turns off the official digital recorder and turns off the internet streaming technology. But under the OML, the committee’s discussions in an executive session must be electronically recorded. The electronic recording must reflect the specific citation to the provision of the OML that authorizes the body to meet in an executive session and the actual contents of the discussion during the session.  The minutes of a meeting during which an executive session is held must reflect the topic of the discussion of the executive session.

    A person who feels that a legislative committee improperly held an executive session may sue for a copy of the record of the executive session under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA)2. If this happens, the court will privately review the recording of the executive session. If it finds that the legislative committee discussed matters that are not included in the list of reasons to hold an executive session or took formal action while in the executive session, the court will declare the part of the record that applies to those issues or actions to be open and available for public review.

    The public cannot inspect, and the members of the legislative committee are not supposed to disclose, any part of the record of an executive session and the record is not subject to discovery in a trial unless 1) the legislative committee consents; or 2) the legislative committee fails to comply with the OML, resulting in disclosure of the record in accordance with CORA.

    Armed with this information, legislators and legislative staff should now be better prepared to appropriately meet in executive session in compliance with the OML.

    1. Section 24-6-402, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎
    2. Section 24-72-201, Colorado Revised Statutes. ↩︎

  • Who’s Afraid of the Origination Clause?

    by Nicole Myers

    Senators, has this ever happened to you?  You have a great idea for a bill to create a tax credit. It will provide assistance or incentives to deserving Coloradans who satisfy the criteria to claim it. You submit your bill request to the OLLS at your earliest opportunity, and within a day or two, an OLLS attorney calls you to discuss your request.  But before you can even explain your great idea, the attorney respectfully tells you that because your bill creates a tax credit, it is considered revenue raising and therefore should start in the House of Representatives.

    Now hold on just a minute.  You are a State Senator! Why is an OLLS attorney telling you that your bill, which was your idea, should start in the House?  What’s with this revenue-raising thing…did the OLLS make this up? And, how can a tax credit, which is revenue reducing, be considered a bill that raises revenue?

    Senators, your OLLS attorney gave you this unhappy news because section 31 of article V of the state constitution requires that “[a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives, but the senate may propose amendments, as in the case of other bills.” This requirement is known as the “Origination Clause” and was likely modeled after a similar provision in the United States constitution1.

    You may be wondering why the Colorado and United States Constitutions require bills that raise revenue to originate in the House of Representatives. The right to introduce money bills is an ancient privilege of the House of Commons, the lower house of the British Parliament. This privilege was awarded the lower house in the belief that the House of Lords, a permanent, hereditary body created by the king, would be more subject to influence by the crown than the House of Commons, a temporary elective body.  They thought it was more dangerous to let the Lords impose new taxes; better to leave that to the body elected by the people.

    A substantial number of state constitutions and the United State constitution maintain the privilege of the “lower” house to introduce money bills. While the limitation regarding revenue-raising bills is a remnant of Parliament’s struggles with the Crown, in modern times it expresses a preference for keeping the power to tax as close as possible to those subject to the tax. The House of Representatives, deemed the “lower” house, is presumed to more directly represent the people both because lower houses are customarily larger than their corresponding upper chamber and their membership is usually subject to election more frequently.

    There are many Colorado cases in which the court has assessed the constitutionality of bills under the Origination Clause, and there have been various interpretations of the phrase “bills for raising revenue” as stated in both the Colorado and United States Constitutions. In Colorado, the courts have determined that a bill for raising revenue “is one which provides for the levy and collection of taxes for the purpose of paying the officers and of defraying the expenses of government2.” The courts have also held that “[a] bill designed to accomplish some purpose other than raising revenue, is not a revenue-raising measure.  Merely because as an incident, to its main purpose, it may contain provisions, the enforcement of which produces a revenue does not make it a revenue measure3.”

    If you are thinking “but the General Assembly can’t pass a bill for the levy and collection of taxes for any purpose,” you are one step ahead of me. Today, the accountability to taxpayers for tax increases that the Origination Clause provides is largely superseded by the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. TABOR requires voter approval for any legislation that increases taxes, so now the voters directly decide whether taxes should be increased. (Interestingly, a bill that includes a referendum clause asking voters to increase or decrease state general fund revenue is considered a bill for raising revenue, even though voter approval is required.) So why are OLLS attorneys still bothering you with e-mails or phone messages about revenue-raising bills?

    The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has issued several opinions regarding bills for raising revenue. One of these opinions states that a bill that would have the obvious effect of decreasing collected revenues is still a bill for raising revenue4. The Attorney General’s Office determined through its research that bills for raising revenue “means bills which provide for the levy and collection of taxes. A bill levying taxes may cause a tax to decrease as well as increase.  Accordingly, art. V (section) 31 precludes the senate from introducing measures that decrease state taxes5“. For this reason, the OLLS advises members of the General Assembly that a bill that affects the amount of general fund revenue collected by the state is considered a revenue-raising bill and should be introduced first in the House. Bills that fall into this category include income tax credits, income tax exemptions, bills to decrease any state tax, and bills that seek voter approval for an increase or decrease in any state tax or approval for the creation of a new state tax. Bills that are not deemed to affect the amount of general fund revenue collected by the state and therefore can be introduced in the Senate include bills that delegate authority to local governments to levy local property taxes, bills that appropriate money from the general fund, and bills that create, increase, or decrease a fee or toll as compensation for the use of government facilities or for services provided by the government6.

    Although the OLLS does its best to advise Senators of the provisions of section 31 of article V of the state constitution, Senators have started many revenue-raising bills in the Senate. There is now precedent for these bills being enacted after starting in the Senate, and these bills are presumed to be constitutional. To our knowledge, no one has challenged any of these revenue-raising bills in court based on a violation of the Origination Clause; therefore, the OLLS does not know whether a court would give more weight to the constitutional provisions of the Origination Clause or the presumption of constitutionality afforded every measure enacted by the General Assembly. Regardless, it is interesting to note that one Speaker of the House within recent memory, to protect the House’s authority to introduce revenue-raising bills, refused to introduce in the House any Senate bill that was revenue raising. While a Senator may decide that he or she is not going to let the Origination Clause stop him or her from introducing a Senate Bill that affects the overall amount of revenue coming into the state general fund, the House of Representatives may use the Origination Clause to prevent the bill from proceeding in the House.

    As all Colorado State Senators and Representatives know, the OLLS will never tell a member of the General Assembly that he or she cannot introduce a bill for any reason. So if you are a Senator and are ever advised that your bill is revenue raising and, pursuant section 31 of article V of the state constitution, should start in the House, it is just the OLLS reminding you of the requirements of the Origination Clause. We do this in an effort to protect the constitutionality of your bill, maintain the authority of the House of Representatives to introduce revenue-raising bills, and preserve the integrity of the laws and traditions that govern the legislative process in Colorado. We leave it to you to determine whether to be afraid!

    1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section7 ↩︎
    2. https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1958/18144.html ↩︎
    3. Colorado Nat’l Life Assurance Co. v. Clayton, 54 Colo. 256. ↩︎
    4. For a list of specific Attorney General Opinions discussing article V (section) 31, please see section 8.1.5 of the OLLS Drafting Manual. ↩︎
    5. Attorney General Opinion No. 66-3941 ↩︎
    6. For a more thorough discussion of bills that are and are not considered revenue raising, please see sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the OLLS drafting manual. ↩︎