On Thursday, the Colorado Initiative Title Setting Review Board signed off on five ballot initiatives that include monetary compensation for voting and establishing an Election Day holiday. The board also revived a redesign of the petitioning process for ballot measures despite “substantial reservations.”

The Title Board, which by law sets the titles that appear before voters as long as proposals abide by a single-subject requirement, had previously blocked initiative #127, nicknamed the Petition Rights Amendment, at its meeting in December. Board members felt that the proposal from Natalie Menten of Lakewood and Donald L. “Chip” Creager III of Denver covered more than one subject.

As originally introduced, the Petition Rights Amendment established a right to ballot initiative at all levels of government, as well as placed limits on the Legislature’s ability to shield laws from referendum. It would have given the state Supreme Court new jurisdiction to review General Assembly-passed laws. To protect initiative backers from retaliation, it would have prohibited any reporting or disclosure of money donated for circulating petitions.

However, Menten and Creager struck those features not strictly pertaining to the ballot initiative process or the restriction of the legislature’s ability to prevent referendums. Menten made it clear that despite the changes to assuage the Title Board, she felt that there was nothing wrong with their original proposal.

“We, from day one, believed that we were in agreement with the single-subject rule,” she told board members.

Jason Gelender, representing the Office of Legislative Legal Services, moved that the board had jurisdiction to set a title.

“With substantial reservations, I think I’d be inclined to find a single subject,” he said. “Construing things liberally and providing the benefit of the doubt to petitioners,” he added, “there’s a decent possibility the [Supreme] court won’t see it the same way.”

Ben Schler, representing Secretary of State Jena Griswold, said he was “sitting on the fence,” but would vote with Gelender.

LeeAnn Morrill, a representative of Attorney General Phil Weiser, said she had “concerns that this was not a single subject,” but would would go along with Gelender’s reasoning.

The board agreed that the proposal added language to the constitution, and would therefore require 55% approval from the electorate in accordance with Amendment 71, which passed in 2016.

Despite the board’s openness to her initiative, it was now Menten who balked.

“One of the biggest benefits in our proposal is to provide a ballot title in plain English, with no more than 60 words,” she said. “If we were to accept the staff draft, there’s no doubt that we would be called hypocrites.”

The proposed title from the nonpartisan state staff stretched to 22 lines of text, and did not even include the requirement for a “plain English” title in its summary.

“I beg the board not to open up the door for us to be called hypocrites,” Menten said.

Morrill responded that she was sympathetic, but “the board is not subject to this proposed constitutional amendment, and we are not under a 60-words-or less mandate. Instead, we are under the mandate imposed on us by the state Supreme Court and countless Title Board decisions that we must craft a title that is clear and not misleading.”

Creager interjected, asking if each of the board members felt that the staff-proposed title was “brief.”

“What you’re hearing from me is that we need to properly articulate the measure,” Schler responded.

The hearing focused at length on the staff’s contention in the title that the Petition Rights Amendment would give the governor new veto power over bills passed in the General Assembly and referred to voters.

Menten and Creager both seemed taken aback at the news that their measure would repeal the part of the constitution that currently limits the veto.

“Was that not your intent?” Morrill asked. “That’s what your initiative does. So if that was not your intent, you just need to be comfortable if we move forward setting a title … setting it in stone.”

Menten conceded that further revision of the initiative may be the result, as board members looked at each other quizzically.

“We may use the rehearing process once I digest that a little bit,” she said.

Gelender had drafted an alternate, shorter title, which he introduced to the board. After suggestions from the other members, the text ended up at just under 120 words, and included a reference to a 60-word title.

The three members voted unanimously to set the title. The initiative is now cleared to begin the signature-gathering process to place it on the ballot.

The board also considered four proposals from Nathan Clay and Mark A. Tejeda, both of Denver. Without much discussion, they set titles for three measures to establish a state Election Day holiday in even-numbered years, provide tax credits for voting in primary and general elections, and create vouchers for voters to donate to the campaigns of certain state and federal candidates.

The fourth measure would replace plurality voting with an approval voting system in which people could vote for as many candidates as they wanted for an office, with the winner being the individual with the most votes. Gelender was concerned about how a municipality like Denver, which requires candidates to receive a majority of votes or else advance to a runoff, would determine a winner.

“Denver would perhaps have to look at modifying their home rule charter to conform with this, but would not necessarily be bound by it,” Schler said, adding that those systems designed with runoffs in mind might not be affected.

Gelender said that the board is not supposed to speculate about the effects of initiatives. The board voted unanimously to set the title.

Afterward, Clay said of his and Tejeda’s proposals that “throughout the world you see compulsory voting. Punishments and penalties for not voting. We decided to take that and flip it a little bit to incentivize it.”

The board also declined to set the title for a proposal establishing a process for expunging criminal records. Julie Pelegrin, who substituted for Gelender only during this initiative’s hearing, asked the proponent, Stephen Ball of Denver, how a series of scholarships and aid programs funded through the initiative was relevant to the expungement procedure. Those included money for first responder safety equipment and agricultural education, among many others.

Ball explained that participation in these programs would, in his opinion, lessen the chances that someone would offend and therefore result in fewer criminal convictions.

“If these programs are taken advantage of, it will in effect lower convictions, which will lower the cost of the expungement records,” Ball said.

Pelegrin did not feel that the explanation was sufficient to prove compliance with the single-subject rule.

“My concern is that does not have enough of a connection to one another or the subject of expungement records,” she said as the board voted to block the measure.