Long before the proponents of citizen-initiated ballot measure must convince a majority of voters to support their proposal, they must first win over a majority of the three-member Title Board.

The board’s mission is narrow: it must determine whether the proposal satisfies the Colorado constitution’s requirement that an initiative pertain to a single subject. If so, the board sets the ballot title that appears before voters. Board members — representing the secretary of state, attorney general and Office of Legislative Legal Services — balance the requirement to have a brief title with the obligation to describe all central features of the measure, giving voters a clear picture of what a “yes” or “no” vote would mean.

Both designated representatives must appear before the board to describe their measure and answer any questions. Board members are not allowed to base their decision on the effects of the measure if passed. If the board determines it has no jurisdiction over the initiative because it lacks a single subject, the designated representatives may ask for a rehearing

Similarly, if the board determines it has jurisdiction and sets a title, an objector may request a rehearing and argue for a rejection on single-subject grounds or a rephrasing of the title. For parties who remain dissatisfied with the Title Board’s ruling, they may appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

The justices have the final say, and may affirm the Title Board’s decision or send the measure back to the board for further action.

While most of the board’s decisions are unanimous, there is occasional disagreement about the single-subject determination. Board members can look to past precedent from the Supreme Court, but it is sometimes difficult to discern whether a given provision in a proposal is truly connected to the initiative’s subject, or is a second topic altogether.

This year, proponents of some ballot measures chose to file multiple, sometimes in excess of a dozen, minor variations on a single proposal.

Although the expectation was that they would only seek to place one version on the ballot, proponents believed they were covering their bases in case the board rejected some versions on single-subject grounds, or felt the comments of board members may be helpful in deciding which proposal to ultimately back.