Whether Initiative 2009-2010 #45 addresses multiple subjects, as it deals with:
(a) the applicability of state or federal mandates to participate in any public or private health care plan or benefit;
(b) the preservation an individual's ability to personally pay health care providers; and
(c) a new constitutional "right" of "health care choice" thatsurfaced for the first time at the rehearing and applies to every aspect of health care.
Whether the Title Board lost jurisdiction when the Proponents made a substantial change in the asserted meaning of the measure by expanding it from choice in health care payment systems to the guaranteed constitutional right ofchoice in all aspects of health care.
Whether the ballot title is prejudicial because it contains a political catch phrase ? "the right to health care choice" ? that is intended to and will unfairly characterize the matter in voters' minds.
Whether the title is inaccurate, as the measure does not actually "prohibit? the state from adopting any statutes, regulations, resolutions, or policies?" but merely limits the implementation of federal and state laws regarding insurance mandates and private payments for health care services.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Gorman and Caldara (hereafter "Proponents") drafted Initiative 2009-2010 #40 relating to "Health Care Choice." This measure asreviewed by the directors of the Office of Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services. Later, Proponents filed that measure with the Title Board, which considered it on March 3. TheBoard refused to set a title, however, because Proponents made a "substantial change" to the measure, prior to submission to the Board, a change that did not emanate from the review and comment process. SeeC.R.S. § 1-40-105(3). Specifically, before submitting to the Title Board, Proponents added "contract" to the list of legal measures ? "statute, resolution, regulation, or policy" ? affected by their proposal, even though this issue never was discussed with legislative staff.1
Proponents submitted a second version of their measure to the legislative offices, and it was designated Initiative 2009-2010 #45 (the measure before this Court in this appeal). This version omitted the term "contract" from the earlierdraft but modified the definition of "lawful health care services" to apply to those health care services not prohibited by Colorado law. The legislative offices deemed this revision to be non-substantial, and Proponents bypassed the review and comment process and submitted their final draft of #45 to the Title Board for the March 17 Title Board hearing.
Initiative #45 deals with consumer choice in health care payment systemsunder the rubric, "right of all persons to health care choice." Itseeks to insulate residents of Colorado from federal health care reform legislation, on the one hand, and from any state legislation, rule, or policy that requires health insurance coverage, on the other. It also guarantees each person the ability to make direct payment for lawful health care services.
Proponents were always clear about this mission. They stated it in many forums and in many ways. First, Proponent Jon Caldara stated these objectives when he publicly announced the measure.
In this –in this addition to the Bill of Rights in Colorado, it guarantees that all persons shall have a right of health care choice. What that means is that (neither) the State nor the Federal Government can mandate someone to purchase an insurance project — product or to participate in any public or private health care plan or benefit. Furthermore, it protects a private ability to buy health care services.
Text has been truncated. For full publication text, download document.