A broad coalition’s push for stronger government transparency hit a major setback last week when Colorado’s title board rejected a proposed ballot measure that would allow more public access to most legislative deliberations.

The three‑member title board on April 15 voted 2–1 to reject Measure No. 286, ruling that it violated the state constitution’s single‑subject requirement.

Colorado’s single‑subject rule requires that every ballot initiative deal with only one main issue. The rule is designed to keep measures simple and prevent unrelated ideas from being bundled together.

Supporters of No. 286 say they plan to appeal and will continue pressing forward. The deadline to appeal is April 22.

The title board is made up of representatives from the Secretary of State’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office and Legislative Legal Services, which serves as the General Assembly’s legal arm. Its main responsibility is to determine whether proposed ballot initiatives contain only one subject, though it also frequently revises ballot language.

Measure No. 286, which the title board narrowly rejected, would ask voters to amend the state constitution’s Bill of Rights to declare that “the fundamental right of the public to know the affairs of all levels of state and local government shall apply to all public records and public meetings.”

The initiative is being supported by groups that aren’t always on the same side, including the Colorado Press Association, the Colorado Broadcasters Association, Colorado Public Radio, the ACLU, Colorado Common Cause, the Independence Institute, League of Women Voters of Colorado and the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, along with advocates on all sides of the political spectrum.

In February, John Caldara of the Independence Institute told Colorado Politics, “It’s either wildly encouraging or scary that the breadth of this coalition is truly ideologically opposed in every way, yet everyone sees the same danger.”

The proposed initiative also states that any local ordinance, rule, regulation, charter or statute that conflicts with the new section is declared inapplicable. That would include the 2024 law that largely exempted lawmakers from the state’s open meetings law.

The coalition argues that the measure has a single, straightforward purpose: “the right of the public to know the affairs of government through access to public records and public proceedings.”

But the majority of the title board said the proposal sweeps too broadly.

Jon Caldara told the board the initiative is modeled on similar constitutional provisions in California and Montana and is intended to apply across all levels of government.

Teresa Conley, representing the Secretary of State’s Office on the title board, countered that the measure would reach every governmental agency and appeared to extend beyond open records and public meetings into broader categories of information not limited to public documents.

Conley said the measure’s broad reach was concerning, and she warned it could even undermine attorney‑client privilege.

Caldara responded that the drafters focused on government deliberations and records, and he disputed the privilege issue, noting that similar provisions in other states have not created such conflicts.

Caldara told the board that courts would ultimately determine how the measure should be applied, with additional clarification likely to come from the legislature.

But Kurt Morrison, representing the Attorney General’s Office on the title board, warned that the proposal could open the door to litigation over a wide range of matters currently handled in executive session, including trade secrets, contracting and procurement decisions, and hiring discussions.

Shayne Madsen, an attorney for the Independence Institute, noted that Colorado’s system already contains numerous exemptions that keep certain information from being disclosed under open‑meetings laws. That reality, she said, underscores the need for a balancing test.

Conley, in addition to concerns over attorney-client privilege and for law enforcement, which she said was not excluded under the measure, pointed out that the burden of proof would shift to the government, a much higher standard.

Conley argued that the measure was so broad that voters would not understand what they were being asked to approve or reject. She added that its many intertwined elements made it too expansive to meet the state’s single‑subject requirement.

Caldara countered, “We have a right to free speech,” a right to keep and bear arms and a right to religion that is broad. “We build laws and court cases around those broad principles.”

He added, “Every taxpayer is part of the government…all of us are owners of the government…and we should be able to understand the basic things and have a right to know what’s going on in our enterprise.”

Not swayed, Conley maintained that the measure reached far beyond public records and public meetings in its pursuit of information, reinforcing her argument that it violated the single‑subject rule and should be rejected.

At least seven states, including California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Dakota, guarantee in their constitutions the public’s right to inspect government documents or attend government meetings.

In addition to rejecting Measure No. 286, the title board held its final scheduled meeting for initial ballot‑measure reviews on April 15. The agenda was packed, with 60 proposals awaiting consideration during that session.

Beyond the transparency measure, the board also reviewed proposals on congressional redistricting, allowing Pinnacol Assurance to separate from the state, income taxes, oil and gas operations, gaming, hunting and fishing, elections, and even a measure to repeal the constitutional right to abortion.