The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday confirmed a proposed ballot initiative to ban gender-affirming care for children will not appear on the November ballot, while another measure that would revamp the state’s primary elections and implement ranked-choice voting remains eligible.

The justices reached their conclusions on narrow procedural grounds, revolving around the deadline for seeking Supreme Court review and the limited types of challenges the court may hear under existing law.

Both initiatives arrived at the Supreme Court after consideration by the Title Board, the three-member body that screens citizen-initiated ballot measures. The board’s responsibility is to determine whether a proposed initiative contains a single subject, as the state constitution requires. If so, it sets a ballot title that appears before voters to describe the measure. Proponents are then eligible to collect signatures and place their measure on the ballot.

In the case of Initiative #175, which would outlaw the provision of gender-affirming surgery and medicine for minors, and Initiative #188, which would create an all-candidates primary with ranked-choice voting for the general election, the proponents did something unconventional while at the Title Board.

Initially, the Title Board determined each measure satisfied the single-subject requirement and set a title. Challengers disputed that determination, leading the Title Board to reverse itself at a rehearing and conclude the proposals contained multiple subjects after all.

Instead of restarting the process with a new measure, the proponents exercised an option available in the state constitution: striking the language that allegedly created a second subject and resubmitting the same measure to the Title Board.

The tactic generated substantial discussion for different reasons. Board Chair Theresa Conley, the representative of Secretary of State Jena Griswold, noted the proponents of Initiative #175 did not simply delete language, but they added and modified the provisions of their ban on gender-affirming care.

“The one thing I believe it’s very clear on,” Conley said, “is that only language can be struck and only language to meet single subject.”

“With all due respect, it would be nice if the very first time an initiative goes through your hands, if you’re able to look at it and make a reasonable determination and not bring people back a second time,” responded Darcy Schoening, one of the listed proponents, “because some donors to Jena Griswold and every left-wing hack out there doesn’t like the initiative.”

The proponents of Initiative #188, backed by former DaVita executive Kent Thiry, similarly deleted language from their original proposal after Conley and another board member concluded the measure combined voting reforms in primary and general elections with changes to ballot access for candidates, constituting two subjects.

Although the proponents indicated they struck the problematic language to address Conley’s concerns, she then voiced doubts that the Title Board could consider an initiative that had already been given an initial hearing and a rehearing. The board voted 2-1 to proceed with the title setting, with Conley wondering if the Supreme Court could even review the Title Board’s move.

In a pair of June 24 decisions, both authored by Justice Melissa Hart, the Supreme Court provided clarity on what it can and cannot do. With Initiative #175, Hart wrote that the proponents had challenged the board’s denial of a title too late. They needed to seek review within seven days of the Title Board’s vote, and not three weeks later when the secretary of state’s office provided the certified record of the proceedings.

For Initiative #188, the court did not answer whether the Title Board correctly acted on a resubmitted, edited-down measure that already had one hearing and one rehearing. Instead, Hart observed state law only gave the Supreme Court the power to review certain components of a ballot title challenge, including the single subject, the accuracy of the language and the fiscal summary.

“The General Assembly may choose to amend (the law) to permit us to review a Title Board action concerning acceptable edits,” she wrote. “As the statute is currently written, however, this review is unavailable.”

Initiative #188, which is now eligible for signature-gathering, is similar to another, already approved initiative, #310. On May 30, the Supreme Court upheld the measure’s title in a one-sentence, unsigned order.

Unusually, Justice Monica M. Márquez noted her dissent from that decision, although she did not author a dissenting opinion. Those familiar with the Title Board process could not recall another recent example of a dissent under similar circumstances.

“It’s hard to say what the significance is of the dissent — it’s impossible to know whether Justice Márquez dissented on single-subject grounds or would simply have clarified the language that may go to the voters,” said Frederick R. Yarger, a former solicitor general and Title Board member.

“I am not surprised that if there was a dissent, it was Justice Márquez,” added Martha M. Tierney, a lawyer who represents clients before the Title Board, “because she, of all the justices, understands election law the best, having practiced election law for many years.”