Proposed ballot initiatives pertaining to out-of-school learning opportunities and the spending of certain state funds are scheduled before the Title Board on Wednesday, as is a reconsideration of the board’s decision to grant a title to an animal cruelty measure.

In March, the three-member board advanced Initiative #16, which seeks to expand animal cruelty protections to livestock, place conditions around the slaughter of animals and add new elements to the definition of “sexual act with an animal.” The board received two separate requests to review that decision from individuals arguing the ballot initiative does not adhere to a single subject and the ballot title is misleading.

“The measure’s Proponents stated that the single subject is…’the removal of the exemption that livestock has in the animal cruelty statutes,’ ” wrote one set of six objectors. “The Proponents nonetheless included a second subject within the measure: redefinition of ‘sexual act with an animal.’ These subjects are not ‘necessarily connected’ but are logically distinct and separate issues.”

In deciding whether to set a ballot title to appear before voters, the Title Board must ascertain that the proposal encompasses a single subject and, if so, grant a title that is brief yet encompasses all central features of a measure. Initiative #16, also known as Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation (PAUSE) has a stated goal of giving the same protections to farm animals as the law currently provides to pets.

The objectors, represented by Denver attorney Mark G. Grueskin, also claimed the words “cruelty to animals” in the measure’s title constituted a catchphrase intended to appeal to voters’ emotions, and that “sexual act with an animal” likewise is a “socially and politically loaded phrase.”

A second group of more than one dozen people also submitted a request for reconsideration, similarly asserting the initiative covered more than one subject. Specifically, the objectors believed the measure would also change the practice of veterinary medicine by prohibiting certain practices such as spaying, neutering, artificial insemination and breeding.

The objectors construed the ban against sexual acts with an animal to encompass those healthcare procedures. The measure defines sexual act to include any intrusion, “however slight,” into an animal’s anus or genitals with an object or body part.

The meeting will also encompass four other measures, three of which board members have already seen in slightly different forms during the 2021-2022 election cycle. Two proposals, Initiatives #23-24, would amend the constitution and Colorado law to restructure the state’s direct democracy process, and Initiative #25 would raise marijuana taxes and divert state land revenue to create a Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program for out-of-school instruction and enrichment.

Finally, the board will hear anew Initiative #19, which would provide authority over custodial funds to the General Assembly, rather than the direction of the executive branch. Custodial funds are not tax-generated, and which the state holds for particular purposes. Pension funds and court-approved settlements are examples of such money.

Among the 49 questions the Office of Legislative Legal Services and Legislative Council Staff raised upon reviewing the initiative, analysts were unclear whether, should voters approve the measure, state agencies could use federal money received until the legislature acts.

For instance, in the case of the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which makes Medicaid reimbursements to healthcare providers, “This may lead to a disruption of services or federal payments,” OLLS wrote.