The proponents of a ballot initiative that would drastically reform the state’s direct democracy process will have another chance to plead their case before the Title Board on Wednesday.

Five more chances, in fact.

John Ebel of Lone Tree and Donald L. “Chip” Creager III have submitted five additional versions of a proposal that has appeared several times before the ballot title-setting body. Nicknamed the “Petition Rights Amendment,” the initiative seeks to legalize ballot initiatives throughout most units of state and local government, limit the legislature’s ability to shield laws from referendum, and impose fines on people who impede the activities of signature gatherers, among other changes.

Although the board has considered multiple iterations beginning in the 2020 election cycle and into the current one, in no instance has the Petition Rights Amendment been successfully petitioned onto the statewide ballot.

Memoranda from Legislative Council Staff, which reviewed each of the proposals scheduled for this week, indicated confusion over a section in the one-page measure that repeals several provisions of the state constitution.

“The first sentence in section 4 appears to limit, and therefore conflict with, the Colorado Constitution. If this is the case, is this sentence unconstitutional?” the memo reads.

The question echoed the doubts of Title Board members, who rejected a virtually identical measure in January. At the time, board members felt they lacked jurisdiction to set a ballot title, which requires a finding that the proposed initiative adheres to a single subject. The board explained to Ebel and Creager that they could not amend the constitution through a statutory change, as the Petition Rights Amendment now attempts.

In one of the five proposed versions, the section repealing parts of the constitution is replaced with the statement: “This statute is an alternative to the existing petition process.”

Legislative Council Staff questioned the intent of the provision. The office also called into question the vague wording of yet another version that would entitle “anyone defending this right to petition” to monetary compensation, without further elaboration.

Concerns about how exactly the initiative would work have surfaced repeatedly at the Title Board, with critics arguing that far-reaching changes are embedded in overly-simplified language. 

“You simply can’t know what this thing means because it uses these terms not used anywhere else in law and not defined,” argued attorney Thomas M. “Trey” Rogers III last March.

The board, however, cannot consider the effects of a measure when deciding to set a ballot title – only whether it contains a single subject.