In the Matter of Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2011-2012 #3
Colorado Supreme Court (en banc)
274 P.3d 562 (2012)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Historically, Colorado had never recognized a public-trust doctrine. In 2012, Richard Hamilton and Phillip Doe (defendants) proposed a ballot initiative to adopt a public-doctrine by adding six subsections to the Colorado constitution. The first provision would adopt a “Colorado public trust doctrine” to “protect the public’s interests in the water of natural streams and to instruct the State of Colorado to defend the public’s water ownership rights of use and public enjoyment.” The next two provisions would subordinate contract, property, and appropriative water rights to the “public estate in water.” The fourth provision would allow public access along all natural streams in Colorado up to the high-water mark. The last two subsections provided for enforcement mechanisms and enactment of supplemental and complementary laws. The Colorado Title Board entitled the ballot initiative using language essentially reiterating each provision, and the ballot title and submission clause used identical language phrased in the form of a question. Douglas Kemper (plaintiff) challenged the initiative on the ground that it violated the single-subject rule.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rice, J.)
Dissent (Hobbs, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.