HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130659.tiffTO: Weld County Council; Weld County Board of
County Commissioners; Steve Moreno, Weld County
Clerk and Recorder; and John Cooke, Weld County
Sheriff
FROM: Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney
DATE: March 4, 2013
SUBJECT: Term Limits as Applied to Steve
Moreno, Weld County Clerk and Recorder; and to
John Cooke, Weld County Sheriff; Naming of
"Designated Election Official"
Introduction
On February 6, 2013, Steve Moreno and John Cooke declared themselves candidates for Weld
County Clerk and Recorder and Weld County Sheriff, respectively, for the 2014 election. Each
of them on that date filed a "Candidate Affidavit" with the Colorado Secretary of State. Both
gentlemen were first elected to their respective positions in 2002. They were re-elected to
second terms in 2006, and to third terms in 2010. The question for 2014 will be whether or not
they may run for fourth consecutive terms. The answer lies in an analysis of Colorado
Constitution Article 18, Section 11 (entitled, "Elected government officials — limitation on
terms"), and Weld County Home Rule Charter Sections 8-3 (terms of office for the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder) and 10-7 (terms of office for the Weld County Sheriff), and how all of those
provisions interrelate.
Colorado Constitution Article 18, Section 11
Colorado Constitution Article 18, Section 11 ("Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11"), was approved by
Colorado voters in November, 1994. It says the following:
Colorado Constitution, Article 18, § 11. Elected government officials --limitation on
terms
(1) In order to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials
of governments are responsive to the citizens of those governments, no nonjudicial
elected official of any county, city and county, city, town, school district, service
authority, or any other political subdivision of the State of Colorado, no member of the
state board of education, and no elected member of the governing board of a state
institution of higher education shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office,
1
rp,o&vvvu
—(c)-13
2013-0659
except that with respect to terms of office which are two years or shorter in duration, no
such elected official shall serve more than three consecutive terms in office. This
limitation on the number of terms shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after
January 1, 1995. For purposes of this Section 11, terms are considered consecutive
unless they are at least four years apart. (Emphasis added.)
(2) The voters of any such political subdivision may lengthen, shorten or eliminate the
limitations on terms of office imposed by this Section 11. The voters of the state may
lengthen, shorten, or eliminate the limitations on terms of office for the state board of
education or the governing board of a state institution of higher education imposed by
this Section 11. (Emphasis added.)
(3) The provisions of this Section 11 shall apply to every home rule county, home rule city
and county, home rule city and home rule town, notwithstanding any provision of Article
XX, or Sections 16 and 17 of Article XIV, of the Colorado Constitution. (Emphasis
added.)
Four key points in Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, are important to consider:
1. Subsection (1) limits the terms of all elected official positions in Colorado, including
county officials, to two consecutive terms in office.
2. The new term limitation for county officials set forth in Subsection (1) was only to apply
to terms of office beginning after January 1, 1995, meaning that the two consecutive term
limitation would not begin for those officials in office in November, 1994, until and
unless they were re-elected to new terms of office beginning after January I, 1995.
3. Subsection (2) authorized voters to lengthen, shorten or eliminate the two consecutive
term limitation.
4. Subsection (3) specifically and unequivocally applied the rules set forth in Constitution
Art.18, Sec. 11, to home rule counties. This meant that although in November, 1994, no
term limitations for the positions of Assessor, Clerk and Recorder, Coroner, Sheriff and
Treasurer were set forth in the Charter, each of those positions were then limited to two
consecutive terms for those terms of office beginning after January 1, 1995.
Weld County Home Rule Charter Sections 3-4(3), 7-4, 8-3, and 10-7
The Weld County Home Rule Charter ("the Charter") was amended on November 6, 2007, to
add Sections 7-4, 8-3, and 10-7, and amend Section 3-4(3) (referred to herein collectively as the
"2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments"). These sections added and amended the term limits to
three consecutive terms for the positions of Assessor, Clerk and Recorder, Sheriff, and County
Commissioner, respectively.
2
The 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments say the following:
Section 3-4. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a County
Commissioner.
Ballot Question 1D, regarding the amendment to Charter Section 3-4(3), was approved
by Weld County voters by a margin of 63.13% (yes) to 42.11% (no).
Section 7-4. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Assessor.
Ballot Question 1 A, regarding the addition of Section 7-4 to the Charter, was approved
by Weld County voters by a margin of 65.09% (yes) to 34.91% (no).
Section 8-3. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Clerk and Recorder.
Ballot Question 1B, regarding the addition of Section 8-3 to the Charter, was approved by
Weld County voters by a margin of 62.32% (yes) to 37.68% (no).
Section 10-7. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Sheriff.
Ballot Question IC, regarding the addition of Section 10-7 to the Charter, was approved
by Weld County voters by a margin of 57.89% (yes) to 42.11% (no).
The 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments became effective on November 6, 2007, pursuant to
Charter Section 17-1(5), which states:
Section 17-1. Procedure to Amend or Repeal Charter.
(5) if a majority of the electors voting thereon vote for a proposed amendment, the
amendment shall be deemed approved. If a majority of the electors voting thereon vote
for repeal of the charter, the charter shall be deemed repealed and the County shall
proceed to organize and operate pursuant to the statutes applicable to statutory counties.
(Emphasis added.)
3
Several points are important to understand about the 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments and
their adoption on November 6, 2007:
1. The 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments were recommended to the Board of County
Commissioners by a committee of five Weld County citizens ("the Committee"). The
Committee included Commissioner Garcia, Weld County Councilman Gene Stille,
former Weld County Sheriff Ed Jordan, David Delgado, and Steve Mazurana. The
Committee held open meetings on July 18, July 30, and August 6, 2007. The July 30th
meeting was a public hearing to take testimony concerning the issue of extending the
term limits of Weld County elected officials. A written recommendation from the
Committee, dated August 6, 2007, was provided to the Board for its consideration. The
recommendation included proposed ballot questions of whether or not to amend the
Charter with the proposed 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments. On August 20, 2007,
the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 2007-2639, referring the ballot
questions with their proposed amendments exactly as submitted by the Committee. A
copy of the Committee's recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." A copy of
Resolution 2007-2639 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." A copy of the Board of County
Commissioners' minutes of its August 20, 2007, meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit
"C." Note the summary of my testimony and that of Gene Stille explaining the proposed
ballot questions on page 3 of Exhibit C.
2. In order to extend the term limits for elected officials in Weld County from the two
consecutive terms restriction established in Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, to three
consecutive terms, the Charter had to be amended to clearly state the new, extended term
limits. The Committee considered how to accomplish this task. It chose language for
each of the proposed 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments which was similar to the
language of the original two consecutive term limitation for County Commissioners set
forth in Charter Section 3-4(3). Until then, that language had not been modified since it
was approved by voters in 1975. The idea was to extend the term limits for Weld County
elected officials from two to three consecutive terms by utilizing the same manner and
method of term restriction that had been utilized in the original Charter section for
County Commissioners.
3. None of the ballot questions for the 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments included
language setting dates as to when the amended language would become effective. This is
in contrast to Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, which specifically includes a date when terms
beginning thereafter were subject to the two consecutive term limitation (January 1,
1995). Upon voter approval of the 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments on November
6, 2007, the term limits for Clerk and Recorder and Sheriff were immediately extended to
three consecutive terms. This meant that Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno could then run in
2010 for election to third consecutive terms to begin in early January, 2011. However,
without the 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments which extended the term limits for
Weld County elected officials from two to three consecutive terms, the two consecutive
4
term limitation of Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, would have been in place, leaving Mr.
Cooke and Mr. Moreno unable to run for third consecutive terms. Accordingly, their
terms in office as Clerk and Recorder and Sheriff, respectively, would have ended upon
their successors being sworn into office in early January, 2011.
4. All of the 2007 Charter Term Limit Amendments set the extended term limits for Weld
County elected officials to three consecutive terms. No Charter amendments were made
in 2007, or at any time thereafter, extending such term limits to more than three
consecutive terms, as allowed under Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11(2).
5. A "Sample Ballot" was mailed by Mr. Moreno to every Weld County registered elector at
least thirty days prior to November 6, 2007. It provided notice of the upcoming election,
and delineated the ballot questions and the language of each amended or added section to
the Charter. Pages 66-1, 66-2, 66-3, and 66-4 of the Sample Ballot set forth Weld County
Referred Ballot Questions 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D, respectively. Each page included written
comments both for and against the ballot question. The comments for each clearly
indicated that the two consecutive term limitation was established in January, 1995, and
that the new Charter language would extend the term limits for the Weld County elected
officials from two to three consecutive terms. A copy of the Sample Ballot cover page
and pages 66-1, 66-2, 66-3, and 66-4 of the Sample Ballot are attached hereto as Exhibit
"D."
Questions Presented
The main question being asked is whether or not Mr. Moreno and Mr. Cook may run for
fourth consecutive terms. Reading the simple language of Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7,
one may only conclude the answer is "no." Those sections clearly state that "no person
shall serve more than three full consecutive terms" as Clerk and Recorder and Sheriff.
However, Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno argue that because Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7
were approved by the voters during their second terms in office, the three consecutive
term limitation did not begin as to them until after the end of their second terms (2010).
Under this reading by Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno, they would be able to run for up to
five consecutive terms.
To analyze their argument, one must determine if there is language in the Charter, a
statute, or a provision of the Colorado Constitution, or if there is an opinion from the
Colorado Attorney General, or case law, which supports their positions. Specifically, the
questions to analyze are the following:
1. Is the language of Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 clear and unambiguous, so that it
may be enforced as written?
5
2. May the provisions of Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, and Charter Sections 8-3 and
10-7, somehow be read together so as to allow Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno to run
for fourth consecutive terms?
3. Is there language in the Charter, language in a statute, or an opinion from the
Colorado Attorney General that says the three consecutive term limitations set
forth in Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 apply only to terms beginning after the
terms in place on November 7, 2007?
4. Does the prohibition against the application of "ex post facto" or "retroactive"
laws apply in this instance?
Each of these questions will be analyzed in the order in which they are listed above.
Analysis
Is the language of Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 clear and unambiguous,
so that it may be enforced as written?
One of the key requirements of constitutional, statutory, or charter interpretation is to determine
if the provision being read is clear and unambiguous, and therefore should be enforced as
written. See Colorado Ass `n of Public Employees v. Lamm, 677 P.2d 1350, 1353 (Colo. 1984)
("Where the language of the Constitution is plain and its meaning clear, that language must be
declared and enforced as written."); SDI, Inc. v. Pivotal Parker Commercial, LLC, 292 P.3d
1165 (Colo.App. 2012) ("To determine the meaning of a statute, we `first look to the plain
language of the statute.' .... If the statute is unambiguous, we look no further."); Englewood
Police Ben. Ass'n, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 22 v. City of Englewood, 811 P.2d 464
(Colo.App. 1990) ("A charter provision must be interpreted according to its plain meaning... .
Clear, plain, and unambiguous provisions of a municipal charter will be applied as written.")
The language of Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 is clear and unambiguous. Again, those sections
clearly state that "no person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms" as Clerk and
Recorder and Sheriff. It is hard to imagine how such language could be made clearer. As such,
no other methods of interpreting the language need be used, and it must be enforced as written.
On November 6, 2007, Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno were nearly one year into their second
consecutive terms. A citizen reading the approved Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 on that date
would understand and conclude that these two elected officials were allowed to run for third
consecutive terms in 2010, but no more.
6
May the provisions of Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, and Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7,
somehow be read together so as to allow Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno to run
for fourth consecutive terms?
The Charter Term Limit Amendments must be read and understood in the context of Constitution
Art.18, Sec. 11. As explained above, Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, limited all governmental
elected officials to two consecutive terms for terms beginning after January 1, 1995. The two
consecutive term limitation could only be extended by the voters. When Mr. Cooke and Mr.
Moreno were elected to their first terms in 2002 and their second terms in 2006, they were
limited to two consecutive terms. If the voters had not approved Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7
on November 6, 2007, then Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno would not have been able to run for third
consecutive terms. Their terms in office would have ended upon their successors being sworn
into office in early January, 2011. Additionally, because no language extending term limits for
the positions of Clerk and Recorder and Sheriff has been amended to the Charter (other than that
set forth in Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7) since November 6, 2007, there is no possibility for
them to run for fourth consecutive terms. Simply put, the voters of Weld County have not voted
to allow Weld County elected officials to run for more than three consecutive terms.
Is there language in the Charter, language in a statute, or an opinion from the Colorado
Attorney General that says the three consecutive term limitations set forth in Charter
Sections 8-3 and 10-7 apply only to terms beginning after
the terms in place on November 7, 2007?
When the Charter Term Limit Amendments were approved by the voters on November 6, 2007,
no language was included in the amendments specifying that the three consecutive term
limitation would apply only to terms beginning after the terms in place on that date. Since
November 6, 2007, there has been no language amended to the Charter saying, as argued by Mr.
Cooke and Mr. Moreno, that the three consecutive terms could be added to the terms in place on
that date (thereby allowing them to run up to five consecutive terms). Also, this concept of
"addition of terms" is not allowed by any Colorado statute.
Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno point to Colorado Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 2000-2
(AG Alpha No. ST EL FBQSN), dated February 9, 2000 ("the 2000 AG Opinion"), as providing
them authority to interpret the three consecutive term limitation of Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7
start after the terms of office in place on November 6, 2007. It does not.
First, the 2000 AG's Opinion is only an interpretation of Constitution Art. 18, Sec. 11. It is not
an interpretation of Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7.
Second, for this purpose, the central legal concept of the 2000 AG's Opinion is that, when trying
to figure out what a constitutional provision means, one looks to the language to see if it is clear
(see the "Discussion of Issue 3" beginning on page 6). Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, specifically
says in Subsection (1), "This limitation on the number of terms shall apply to terms of office
7
beginning on or after January 1, 1995." The 2000 AG's Opinion holds that the meaning of this
language is clear, and therefore it specifically limited the applicability of Constitution Article 18,
Section 11, and its two consecutive term limitation to terms starting after January I, 1995. The
2000 AG's Opinion says nothing more as to the issue of when term limits begin. A copy of the
2000 AG's Opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit "E."
Does the prohibition against the application of "ex post facto" or
"retroactive" laws apply in this instance?
A basic legal concept found in the Colorado Constitution, Colorado statute and Colorado case
law is that a new law may not be applied retroactively. Colorado Constitution Article 2, Section
11, states the following:
§ 11. Ex post facto laws
No ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its
operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises or
immunities, shall be passed by the general assembly.
C.R.S. § 2-4-202, states the following:
§ 2-4-202. Statutes presumed prospective
A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation.
See In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d 854 (Colo. 2002) ("We utilize a two-step inquiry in assessing
a statute under the retrospectivity provision of our constitution... First, we must determine
whether the general assembly intended the challenged statute to operate retroactively.... In
order to overcome the presumption of prospectivity, the statute must reveal a clear legislative
intent of retroactivity.... However, express language of retroactive application is not required
for courts to find such intent..... If we determine that the general assembly intended
retroactivity, we turn to the second step of determining whether the challenged statute is
unconstitutionally retrospective. .... Because a statute is retrospective if it either (1) impairs a
vested right, or (2) creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability . .
.") This test to determine if a statute is retroactive is commonly known as the "DeWitt Test."
Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno argue that Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 cannot be applied to them
retroactively. They point out that prior to November 6, 2007, the Charter had no stated term
limits for the positions of Clerk and Recorder and Sheriff. Accordingly, they argue that Charter
Sections 8-3 and 10-7 are "new term limits, never before in the Charter," and therefore cannot be
applied to terms of office in place on November 6, 2007.
8
What Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno fail to recognize with this argument is that Charter Sections 8-
3 and 10-7 had to apply to them for them to be able to run for third terms in 2010. Otherwise,
their terms of office would have been bound by the two consecutive term limitation of
Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11. This is not "retroactivity" like that which is prohibited by the
Colorado Constitution, Colorado statute, and in the Colorado case cited above. Although they
were couched as a limitation of three consecutive terms, Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 were, in
fact, Charter additions which enabled Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno to run for third consecutive
terms in 2010, but no more. There is no need to apply the DeWitt Test, because no prohibited
retroactivity occurred.
Conclusion
As explained above, it is my opinion that the three consecutive term limitation of Charter
Sections 8-3 and 10-7 enabled Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno to run for third consecutive terms in
2010. However, those sections, working in concert with Constitution Art.18, Sec. 11, prohibit
them from running for fourth consecutive terms in 2014. They are therefore not qualified to run
for election in 2014.'
Appointment of Designated Election Official
Weld County elections take place every two years (even years). In those years, various Weld
County officials are elected. Ballot issues, including TABOR issues, may also be placed on the
ballot in even year elections. In odd year elections, Charter amendments and ballot issues may
be considered by the voters. Thus, an election for the political subdivision of Weld County will
definitely take place in 2014, and it will most likely include both a primary and general election
(collectively referred to herein as "the 2014 Weld County Election"). However, if ballot issues
are referred to the ballot by the Board of County Commissioners, or initiated or referred to the
ballot by petition, an election for Weld County could take place in 2013 (but is uncertain at the
present time).
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-104(18), the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County is the
"governing body" for the purpose of Weld County Elections. C.R.S. § 1-1-104(5), authorizes the
Board to name as "designated election official" for Weld County Elections either the Clerk and
Recorder, a member of the Board, or "other person designated by the governing body as the
person who is responsible for the running of an election" To my knowledge, the Board has never
named someone other than the Weld County Clerk and Recorder as the designated election
official for Weld County Elections; however, in my opinion, the Board has authority to do so,
pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-104(5).
I wish to make it clear that I am not saying Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno are unqualified to run because of factors
other than electoral qualification. To the contrary, I have thoroughly enjoyed working with both gentlemen. They
are competent in their respective positions. I have found them to be good managers and always current on technical
and legal issues facing their respective departments. They know their jobs well. Each has done good work for Weld
County.
9
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-4-501(1), the designated election official may only certify the names of
qualified candidates:
§ 1-4-501. Only eligible electors eligible for office
(1) No person except an eligible elector who is at least eighteen years of age, unless another
age is required by law, is eligible to hold any office in this state. No person is eligible to
be a designee or candidate for office unless that person fully meets the qualifications of
that office as stated in the constitution and statutes of this state on or before the date the
term of that office begins. The designated election official shall not certify the name of
any designee or candidate who fails to swear or affirm under oath that he or she will
fully meet the qualifications of the office if elected and who is unable to provide proof that
he or she meets any requirements of the office relating to registration, residence, or
property ownership. The information found on the person's voter registration record is
admissible as prima facie evidence of compliance with this section. (Emphasis added.)
Certification of the ballot with the names of qualified candidates must be made 60 days prior to
the primary election and 60 days prior to the general election:
§ 1-5-203. Certification of ballot
(3)(a) No later than sixty days before any election, the designated election official of each
political subdivision that intends to conduct an election shall certify the order of the
ballot and ballot content. Such certification shall be delivered to the county clerk and
recorder of each county that has territory within the political subdivision if the election is
coordinated with the clerk and recorder. The order of the ballot and ballot content shall
include the name and office of each candidate for whom a petition has been filed with the
designated election official and any ballot issues or ballot questions to be submitted to
the eligible electors. (Emphasis added.)
In my opinion, by announcing himself as a candidate for a fourth consecutive term when he is
clearly unable to do so pursuant to Charter Section 8-3, Mr. Moreno has created a conflict of
interest for himself being named as the designated election official for the 2014 Weld County
Election, because he would be certifying his name to the ballot. Therefore, I recommend that the
Board name someone other than Mr. Moreno to fill this role for the 2014 Weld County Election,
as authorized by C.R.S. § 1-1-104(5).2 To do this, the Board should amend the Weld County
Code to provide a procedure for the naming of a designated election official. This procedure
Although I am suggesting that Mr. Moreno not be named as the designated election official for the 2014 Weld
County Election, he would still be the "chief designated election official" for the 2014 Coordinated Election,
pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-110(3) and 8 CCR 1505-1 Rule 6.3.1. In this circumstance, I would recommend that the
named designated election official enter into a coordinated election agreement with Mr. Moreno, pursuant to 8 CCR
1505-1 Rule 6.1.2 (as happens with all municipalities and special districts holding elections during the coordinated
primary and general elections).
10
would provide that the designated election official would be named by the Board in a resolution
approved no later than December 1st of the year immediately preceding the even year Weld
County Election, and simultaneously with the time a ballot issue is either referred to the ballot by
the Board, or upon receipt of a ballot issue petition by the Clerk to the Board, in an odd year
election.
A reason for naming the designated election official for the 2014 Weld County election sooner
than December 1,' 2013, would be to offer a defendant or respondent for a declaratory judgment
action to be brought by Mr. Cooke and Mr. Moreno in 2013, pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 57 and
C.R.S. §§ 13-51-101, et seq. An action seeking a declaratory judgment from the court is
typically brought by a person who is uncertain as to whether a provision of law applies and/or
affects that person. The naming of a designated election official would give Mr. Moreno and
Mr. Cooke the opportunity to bring a declaratory judgment action against the designated election
official to find out how Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7 apply as to them. They will have statutory
remedies in 2014, pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 1-1-113 and 1-4-909, to file verified petitions in district
court to challenge either the rejection of their nominations by party officials or by the designated
election official, or the rejection of their petitions because of lack of qualification (term limited
by Charter Sections 8-3 and 10-7). However, it seems that sometime in 2013 may be an
appropriate time for them to bring a declaratory judgment action, if they so desire, and having a
designated election official in place to act as a defendant or respondent in case would be of
assistance.
Attach.
pc: Chris Woodruff, Weld County Assessor
11
uce T. Barker
Weld County Attorney
EXHIBIT A
COLORADO
a
1T" FR Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
FROM: Weld County Home Rule Charter Study Committee
DATE: August 6, 2007
Recommendations for Ballot Questions for 2007 General
Election
The Weld County Home Rule Charter Study Committee ("the Committee") was appointed on
June 25, 2007, by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, to study possible
amendments to the Weld County Home Rule Charter. The Board directed the Committee to
consider possible Charter amendments which would set term limits for the elected offices of
Assessor, Clerk and Recorder, and Sheriff. The Committee consists of David Delgado, Weld
County Commissioner William Garcia, Ed Jordan, UNC Professor Steve J. Mazurana, and Weld
County Councilman Gene Stille.
The Committee met on July 18, July 30, and August 6, 2007. Public testimony was taken at the
July 30, 2007, meeting. In addition to the issue of term limits for the positions of Assessor, Clerk
and Recorder, and Sheriff, the Committee considered the term limits for the elected offices of
County Commissioners, County Councilman, and the District Attorney for the Nineteenth (19t°)
Judicial District. The Committee also considered possible Charter amendments to clarify that
appointed officeholders are not required to run for election during the appointed term, that
appointed terms do not "count against" the number of consecutive full terms the appointed
officeholders may serve, and several housekeeping amendments.
Based upon discussions among the Committee members and having heard the public testimony,
the Committee recommends that the Board place the ballot questions listed in the attached
Exhibit "A" on the ballot for the November 6, 2007, General Election for Weld County.
David Delgado
Ed Jorda
it e
Attachment
pc: Bruce T. Barker
Williartt F. G
Steve J. Mazurana
2007-2639
Exhibit "A"
Proposed Questions for Weld County Home Rule Charter Amendments
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 7-4 BE ADDED TO THE WELD COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 7-4. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Assessor.
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 8-3 BE ADDED TO THE WELD COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 8-3. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Clerk and Recorder.
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 10-7 BE ADDED TO THE WELD COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 10.7. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Sheriff.
SHALL SECTION 3-4(3) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 3-4. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a County
Commissioner.
SHALL SECTION 13-3(3) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 13-3. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a Councilman.
SHALL SECTIONS 6-4(1) AND 6-4(2) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE
CHARTER BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 6-4. Term of Office.
(1) The term of office of each elected office shall commence on the first working day of
the year immediately following the general election at which he is elected and shall be
for four years.
(2) The term of office of each elected office shall continue until a successor is elected
and qualified.
1
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 6-4(3) BE ADDED TO THE WELD
COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 6-4. Term of Office.
(3) A person appointed to complete a term for a vacant elected office shall not be
required to run for election during such term. A term completed by an appointee shall
not be considered a "full term" for the purposes of determining limitation on the number
of consecutive terms of office the appointee is able to serve.
SHALL SECTIONS 3-15(2), 13-7(2), AND 13-8(3) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME
RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 3-15. Vacancies.
(2) A vacancy in any other elected office, except Councilman, shall be filled by
appointment by the Board. Said appointee shall be of the same political party as that of
the previous officer and the appointment shall be effective for the remainder of the term.
Section 13-7. Vacancies.
(2) A vacancy shall exist when a Councilman dies, resigns, is removed from office,
moves from the district from which elected, is incapacitated, recalled, or becomes a
candidate for a county elected office or an employee of the County, or when no person
has been elected to the position of Councilman.
Section 13-8. Powers and Duties.
(3) A vacancy in the Board of County Commissioners shall be filled by appointment by
the Council. Said appointees shall be of the same political party as that of the previous
officer, and the appointment shall be effective for the remainder of the term.
Proposed Question Regarding Term Limit for the District Attorney
for the Nineteenth (19th) Judicial District Meld County)
SHALL THE TERM LIMIT IMPOSED IN ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 11(1) OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION ON THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR
THE NINETEENTH (19th) JUDICIAL DISTRICT (WELD COUNTY), BE MODIFIED SO
AS TO PERMIT AN ELECTED OFFICEHOLDER IN THAT OFFICE TO SEEK AND, IF
THE VOTERS OF THE NINETEENTH (19'h) JUDICIAL DISTRICT (WELD COUNTY)
CHOOSE TO RE-ELECT THAT PERSON TO A THIRD TERM IN OFFICE, TO SERVE
A THIRD CONSECUTIVE TERM?
2
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION
RE: SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6,
2007, AMENDMENTS TO THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER AND
QUESTION REGARDING LIMITATION ON CONSECUTIVE TERMS FOR THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, Article XVII, Section 17-1(1)(b) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter
("Charter") provides for the submittal to the qualified electors proposed Charter amendments by
Resolution of this Board, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution #2007-1775, dated June 25, 2007, the Board appointed an ad hoc
study committee ("Study Committee") to study and recommend amendments to the Charter with
respect to term limits and other pertinent provisions, and
WHEREAS, after study and consideration of the recommendation of the Study Committee,
which is attached hereto, the Board determines that the following proposed amendments to the
Weld County Home Rule Charter, shall be referred to the ballot for the November 6, 2007, General
Election (highlight shows additions and strikeout shows deletions):
Amend the Charter by adding the following new Sections:
Section 6-4. Term of Office.
(3) A person appointed to complete a term for a vacant elected office shall not be
required to run for election during such term. A term completed by an appointee
shall not be considered a "full term" for the purposes of determining limitation on the
number of consecutive terms of office the appointee is able to serve.
Section 7-4. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Assessor.
Section 8-3. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Clerk and Recorder.
Section 10-7. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Sheriff.
(IV
2007-2639
BC0013
o�i� O7
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER AND QUESTION
REGARDING LIMITATION ON CONSECUTIVE TERMS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PAGE 2
Amend the below -listed Charter Sections as follows:
Section 3-4. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a County
Commissioner.
Section 3.15. Vacancies.
(1) A vacancy in the office of County Commissioner shall be filled by appointment by
County Council.
(2) A vacancy in any other elected office, except Councilman, shall be filled by
appointment by the Board. Said appointee shall be of the same political party as that
of the previous officer and the appointment shall be effective forthe remainder of the
term.
Section 6-4. Term of Office.
(1) The term of office of each elected office shall commence on the first working day of
the year, immediately following the general election at which he is elected, and shall
be for four years.
(2) The term of office of each elected office shall continue until a successor is elected
and qualified.
Section 13-3. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a Councilman.
Section 13-7. Vacancies.
(2) A vacancy shall exist when a Councilman dies, resigns, is removed from office,
moves from the district from which elected, is incapacitated, recalled, or becomes
a candidate for a county elected office or an employee of the County, or when no
person has been elected to the position of Councilman.
Section 13.8. Powers and Duties.
(3) A vacancy in the Board of County Commissioners shall be filled by appointment by
the Council. Said appointees shall be of the same political party as that of the
previous officer, and the appointment shall be effective forthe remainder of the term.
2007-2639
BC0013
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER AND QUESTION
REGARDING LIMITATION ON CONSECUTIVE TERMS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PAGE 3
WHEREAS, in the case of Davidson v. Sandstrom, 83 P.3d 648 (Cob., 2004), the Colorado
Supreme Court held that the county commissioners of counties located within a judicial district in
the State of Colorado have the authority to place on the ballot the question of whether or not the
limitation on consecutive terms for the district attorney, as imposed in Article XVIII, Section 11(1) of
the Colorado Constitution, should be modified from two consecutive terms to some greater or lesser
number, and
WHEREAS, after study and consideration of the recommendation of the Study Committee,
the Board determines that the question of whether or not to extend to three the term limitation on the
number of consecutive terms the District Attorney for the Nineteenth (19th) Judicial District may be
elected to and serve shall be referred to the ballotforthe November 6, 2007, General Election, and
WHEREAS, the Board further determines that the Clerk to the Board shall publish the full text
of the proposed amendments within 30 days of this Resolution, along with notice that the questions
of such proposed amendments, along with the question of the extension of the District Attorney's
limitation on consecutive terms to three, will be determined at the General Election on November
6, 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the proposed amendments to the Charter to add Article VI, Section 6-4(3);
Article VII, Section 7-4; Article VIII, Section 8-3; and Article X, Section 10-7, and to amend Article III,
Sections 3-4(3) and 3-15(2); Article VI, Sections 6-4(1) and 6-4(2), as set forth above, be referred
to the ballot for the November 6, 2007, General Election, and that the questions regarding such
amendments be presented in the form shown in Exhibit "A?
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Clerk to the Board publish notice of the
election, along with the full text of the proposed amendments to the Charter and the question
regarding the term limits for the District Attorney, within 30 days of this Resolution in the legal
newspaper for Weld County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the proposed question of whether or not
to extend to three the term limitation on the number of consecutive terms the District Attorney for
the Nineteenth (19th) Judicial District may be elected to and serve shall be referred to the ballot for
the November 6, 2007, General Election, and that the questions regarding such amendments be
presented in the form shown in Exhibit "A."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that each elector voting at the election and
desirous of voting for or against said amendment shall cast his or her ballots as provided by law
either "Yes" or "No" on the propositions shown as "Proposed Questions" in Exhibit "A."
2007-2639
BC0013
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER AND QUESTION
REGARDING LIMITATION ON CONSECUTIVE TERMS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PAGE 4
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 20th day of August, A.D., 2007.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
W OUl;1TY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the Board
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Board
APP
unty Attorney
Date of signature* 8 -3/ -O 7
Robert D. lasden
r� % .
uglafs Rademac er
2007-2639
BC0013
Exhibit "A"
Proposed Questions for Weld County Home Rule Charter Amendments
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 7.4 BE ADDED TO THE WELD COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 7-4. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Assessor.
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 8-3 BE ADDED TO THE WELD COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 8-3. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Clerk and Recorder.
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 10-7 BE ADDED TO THE WELD COUNTY
HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 10-7. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Sheriff.
SHALL SECTION 3-4(3) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 3-4. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a County
Commissioner.
SHALL SECTION 13.3(3) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 13-3. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a Councilman.
SHALL SECTIONS 6-4(1) AND 6-4(2) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE
CHARTER BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 6-4. Term of Office.
(1) The term of office of each elected office shall commence on the first working day of
the year immediately following the general election at which he is elected and shall be
for four years.
(2) The term of office of each elected office shall continue until a successor is elected
and qualified.
1
SHALL THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION 64(3) BE ADDED TO THE WELD
COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER?
Section 6-4. Term of Office.
(3) A person appointed to complete a term for a vacant elected office shall not be
required to run for election during such term. A term completed by an appointee shall
not be considered a "full term" for the purposes of determining limitation on the number
of consecutive terms of office the appointee is able to serve.
SHALL SECTIONS 3-15(2), 13-7(2), AND 13-8(3) OF THE WELD COUNTY HOME
RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS?
Section 3-15. Vacancies.
(2) A vacancy in any other elected office, except Councilman, shall be filled by
appointment by the Board. Said appointee shall be of the same political party as that of
the previous officer and the appointment shall be effective for the remainder of the term.
Section 13-7. Vacancies.
(2) A vacancy shall exist when a Councilman dies, resigns, is removed from office,
moves from the district from which elected, is incapacitated, recalled, or becomes a
candidate for a county elected office or an employee of the County, or when no person
has been elected to the position of Councilman.
Section 13-8. Powers and Duties.
(3) A vacancy in the Board of County Commissioners shall be filled by appointment by
the Council. Said appointees shall be of the same political party as that of the previous
officer, and the appointment shall be effective for the remainder of the term.
Proposed Question Regarding Term Limit for the District Attorney
for the Nineteenth (19") Judicial District (Weld County)
SHALL THE TERM LIMIT IMPOSED IN ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 11(1) OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION ON THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR
THE NINETEENTH (19111) JUDICIAL DISTRICT (WELD COUNTY), BE MODIFIED SO
AS TO PERMIT AN ELECTED OFFICEHOLDER IN THAT OFFICE TO SEEK AND, IF
THE VOTERS OF THE NINETEENTH (19th) JUDICIAL DISTRICT (WELD COUNTY)
CHOOSE TO RE-ELECT THAT PERSON TO A THIRD TERM IN OFFICE, TO SERVE
A THIRD CONSECUTIVE TERM?
2
EXHIBIT C
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
AUGUST 20, 2007
TAPE #2007-24
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full conformity
with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County Centennial Center,
Greeley, Colorado, August 20, 2007, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members were
present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro -Tern
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of August 15, 2007, as printed. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on August 14, 2007, as follows: 1) Violation Hearings; and the hearings conducted on
August 15, 2007: 1) PZ #1131 - Robert Buderus, do TEAM Engineering, and 2) AmUSR #987 -
DCP Midstream, c/o Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry and Johnson, LLP. Commissioner Masden seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Masden moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
2007-2645
BC0016
09-/3 -O -7
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $578,228.05
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr. Warden. Commissioner
Jerke seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER AGREEMENT CONCERNING PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO CR 13, ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT AND
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS - HICKS AND JOHNSON DACONO FARM, LLP: Leon Sievers, Department of Public
Works, stated this is the fourth of eleven parcels to be acquired for the County Road 13 Road
Improvements Project south of State Highway 52. He stated the parcel is located on the east side of County
Road 13, and north of County Road 8. He further stated 0.978 acres of right-of-way will be acquired for a
total of $16,137.00,1.438 acres of permanent easement will be acquired fora total of $11,864.00, and both
values are based upon an appraisal report completed by Foster Valuation Company. He stated 7,175
square feet of temporary construction easement will be acquired for $273.00 and there is no cost -to -cure
for this property, therefore, the total reimbursement to the landowner will be $28,274.00. Commissioner
Rademacher moved to approve said agreement, accept said grants of permanent easement and temporary
construction easement, and authorize the Chair to sign any necessary documents. Commissioner Masden
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CR 13 AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -ANDORAINVESTMENTS, LLC: Mr. Sievers stated this parcel is located
on the east side of County Road 13, and north of County Road 8. He stated 1,125 square feet of easement
will be acquired for $500.00, which was a negotiated settlement with the landowner. He further stated there
is no cost -to -cure for this parcel, therefore, the total compensation provided to the landowner will be
$500.00. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Sievers stated all of the right-of-way required for
the project north of State Highway 52 has been secured with agreements, donations, or dedications. He
further stated the start date of the construction work for the north project depends on the time frame of the
intersection improvements completed through the south project. Commissioner Rademacher stated the
Towns of Frederick and Firestone have expressed their concems regarding traffic during construction
improvements. Mr. Sievers stated traffic will be allowed to travel through the detour of the project, and traffic
may continue to utilize State Highway 52. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said temporary
construction easement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR CR47 AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN - JOHN JOHNSON-JF CATTLE: Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated the
agreement is required as a Condition of Approval through Second Amended Use by Special Review
Permit #1282. The property is located east of the Town of Eaton, adjacent to County Roads 74 and 47.
He stated the agreement is a Dust Abatement Plan for County Road 47, to control dust adjacent to the cattle
facility. He further stated County Road 47 is classified as an arterial road, the necessary right-of-way has
been obtained for future expansion, and staff recommends approval. In response to Commissioner
Rademacher, Mr. Carroll stated Mr. Johnson will be required to apply dust suppressant chemical twice per
year, or more often as determined by Department staff. He further stated the dust suppressant chemical
will be applied to approximately one-half mile of roadway at a cost of $.50 per square yard. Commissioner
Garcia moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner
Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, August 20, 2007 2007-2645
Page 2 BC0016
CONSIDER PETITION TO VACATE PORTIONS OF ROAD RIGHTS -OF -WAY - VARRA COMPANIES,
INC., C/O DREXEL, BARRELL, AND COMPANY: Mr. Carroll stated Drexel, Barrell, and Company has
submitted a petition for vacation of road right-of-ways within the property formerly owned by the Western
Sugar Company; however, the property is now owned by Varra Companies. He stated the platted
right-of-way is located east of Ash Avenue and north of East 16th Street, which is east of the City of Greeley.
He further stated Ash Avenue has been annexed by the City of Greeley, and the Department recommends
approval of the vacation; however, if landlocked parcels are sold at a later date, a shared easement must
be secured to provide access to the parcels. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Carroll stated First
Avenue is located to the west of Ash Avenue, and Highway 263 is located north of the Poudre River, which
is the road to the Greeley -Weld County Airport. Further responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Carroll
reiterated Varra Companies now owns the property, and the Western Sugar Company was the previous
owner. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Carroll stated the sugar factory is located to the
west of Ash Avenue, and he believes Western Sugar Company still owns the parcel on which the factory
is located. Mr. Warden stated the City of Greeley will be completing a redevelopment within the area, and
the road vacation will not impact the redevelopment project. No public testimony was offered concerning
this matter. CommissionerJerke moved to approve said petition. Seconded by Commissioner Masden,
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FORA SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - A
KID'S PLACE: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated a non-profit organization may apply for a Special
Events Permit, which is a temporary liquor permit for a charitable fund-raiser. He stated A Kid's Place is
holding an event at the David Calvin residence on September 8, 2007, proof of the required permission has
been provided, and he recommended approval. Robin Overmeyer, member of the Board of Directors for
A Kid's Place, provided diagrams of the Calvin residence and the service area for alcoholic beverages,
marked Exhibit A, and pictures depicting the posting of the notice posted at the site, marked Exhibit B.
Christy Dodd, Director, A Kid's Place, stated the property is fully fenced, and only patrons which have
purchased a ticket for the event will be allowed on the property. She clarified the service of alcohol will
cease at 11:00 p.m. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Dodd stated the alcohol will be purchased
separately and an open -bar is not provided as a part of the ticket for the event. Responding to
CommissionerJerke, Ms. Dodd stated A Kid's Place is a non-profit organization which coordinates the Child
Advocacy Center, which is where children who are victims of sexual abuse are interviewed by law
enforcement agencies, and it also coordinates the CASA Program, which works with children who are
involved with dependency and neglect cases within the court system. She stated staff from A Kid's Place
are appointed to act as volunteers and provide information to the court regarding the welfare of the children
involved. Ms. Overmeyer stated security will also monitor the property during the event, and no more than
150 people will be allowed at the site, which will provide for better crowd control measures. No Public
testimony was offered concerning this matter. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said
application and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007,
AMENDMENTS TO THE WELD COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER AND QUESTION REGARDING
LIMITATION ON CONSECUTIVE TERMS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mr. Barker stated a
committee of five people were appointed by the Board to study the need for changes to be implemented
within the Home Rule Charter, and to review a question on the election ballot to extend the term of the
District Attorney. He clarified the changes reviewed for the Home Rule Charter include the ability to extend
the number of consecutive terms an elected official may serve. He stated the committee met several times,
and came up with recommendations in the form of questions to be placed on the ballot at the next election.
Mr. Barker stated Exhibit A to the Resolution lists the questions which are proposed to be listed on the
election ballot, and the Resolution indicates the changes which will be made to the Home Rule Charter.
He stated the Home Rule Charter originally only placed term limits for the offices of County Commissioner
Minutes, August 20, 2007 2007-2645
Page 3 BC0016
and County Council; however, a Constitutional provision was approved in 1994, which limited all elected
office positions to two consecutive terms. He further stated Home Rule Counties must take a vote to
amend the Constitutional provision, and it is proposed to extend all elected offices to be able to serve three
consecutive terms. Mr. Barker stated modifications will also be made to the Home Rule Charter to clarify
vacancy positions, and one grammatical change will be made.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Barker clarified the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2004, in
response to the failed vote results for term limit changes for the Jefferson County District Attomey, that
individual matters regarding changes to term limits may be set forth for the voters of a particular County or
Judicial District. He stated the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to place the matter before
the voters since the salary of the District Attorney is coordinated by the Board. Commissioner Garcia
clarified the 19th Judicial District is contained entirely within Weld County. Responding to Commissioner
Jerke, Mr. Barker stated each elected office will have a separate question on the ballot.
Gene Stille, County Councilman, stated he was a part of the ad hoc study committee, and the term limits
for the three offices of Assessor, Clerk and Recorder, and Sheriff, were originally addressed through the
study; however, discussion then led to possibly eliminating term limits of the office of the District Attorney.
He stated public input was sought regarding the matters, and fifty-five residents attended the public input
meeting, and he presented a summary of the ideas discussed at the meeting. He further stated the study
committee then met again, and decided that the voters have the right to place a vote for each office. He
expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barker for his research and guidance in this matter.
Commissioner Jerke expressed his appreciation to Mr. Stille and the rest of the committee for their hard
work, and he realizes the committee had to sort through a wide range of opinions. He stated he appreciates
the recommendations set forth by the committee. Mr. Stille stated a broad spectrum of opinions were
presented, and the matter was considered fairly. Chair Long stated input was provided from both political
parties as well as varying input from residents, and he supports the committee's recommendations.
Commissioner Masden stated he concurs with Commissioner Jerke and Chair Long, and he explained
several residents have contacted the Board to place term limit issues on an upcoming ballot. He stated the
Board wanted to receive public input regarding the matter, and he appreciates the effort put forth by the
study committee. He further stated he is comfortable with the results of the process, and expressed his
appreciation to Mr. Barker for his guidance. Commissioner Rademacher stated the study was very well
done, the results were provided in a timely manner, and it is a wise decision to have separate questions for
each elected office. Commissioner Garcia expressed his appreciation for his opportunity to serve on the
study committee. He stated his personal opinion has not been changed through the process; however, he
recognizes there was enough public input expressed that it is appropriate to let voters have a voice in the
matter. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the submission of said amendments to the Weld County
Home Rule Charter and the ballot questions regarding term limits. Seconded by Commissioner
Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY QUIT CLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -
LORETTA CONTRERAZ: Mr. Barker stated the Casa Grande Estates Subdivision was created with
outlots, as a small easement around the entire subdivision, to prevent access directly from lots to County
Roads. He stated the outlots are approximately six feet in width and one thousand feet in length, and are
taxable properties with no property owner to hold liable for payment of taxes. He explained the County has
held the tax deeds for these outlots, and in past instances, the outlots have been deeded back to the
adjacent property owners. He further stated this parcel has been controlled by the County for more than
twenty years, and Loretta Contreraz has agreed to accept the ownership of the outlot. In response to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Barker stated Ms. Contreraz is the sole owner of all the land contiguous to the
outlot. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker stated Ms. Contreraz should not be able to
create an access to the adjacent County Road; however, if it is attempted, the current planning practices
Minutes, August 20, 2007 2007-2645
Page 4 BC0016
will prohibit approval. Commissioner Masden suggested placing language in the Resolution which limits
the use of the outlot. Mr. Barker clarified he believes the outlots may have been created for an easement
for the placement of utilities, and he does not recommend placing restrictions within the language of the
Resolution. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said transfer of property and authorize the
Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL: Commissioner Jerke moved to
appoint David True to the Extension Advisory Council, with a term to expire February 1, 2010.
Commissioner Masden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
consent agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted by
the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WEL Z OUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the Board
BY: 1*'
Deputy Clerk'o the Board
avid E. Long, Chair
illiam H. Jqe Pro-Tem
/
illiam F.`Garci
ougla Rademache
Minutes, August 20, 2007 2007-2645
Page 5 BC0016
EXHIBIT D
WE�Yc.
COLORADO
a ple
allot
I
COORDINATED ELECTION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007
J
NOTE: THE NOTICE OF ELECTION
CONTAINING SUMMARY STATEMENTS
ON BALLOT ISSUES IS ATTACHED
TO THIS SAMPLE BALLOT.
66FC-11652 66 FC
IIIIIIIIIII
III IIIIIIIIIIIIVIII III
WILD
COLORADO
INCREASE TAXES/
INCREASE DEBT,
ON A CITIZEN PETITION
AND/DR ON A
REFERRED MEASURE
GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEMBER 6, 2007
POLLS OPEN 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM
For further information, contact
WELD COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE
ELECTIONS DIVISION
1401 N. 17th Ave., Greeley
Phone 970-304-6525
THIS PAMPHLET CONTAINS
SUMMARY STATEMENTS FOR
BALLOT PROPOSITIONS AS
REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF
COLORADO CONSTITUTION,
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20.
A 'yes' vote on any ballot issue is
a vote in favor of changing current
law or existing circumstances, and
a 'no' vote on any ballot issue is
a vote against changing current
law or existing circumstances.
THIS NOTICE IS MAILED
TO EACH ADDRESS WITH
ONE OR MORE ACTIVE,
REGISTERED ELECTORS.
YOU MAY NOT BE ELIGI-
BLE TO VOTE ON ALL
ISSUES PRESENTED.
I, Steve Moreno,
Weld County Clerk & Recorder, certify
that the ballot issue notices are complete
as submitted by the political subdivisions.
661C-1107
IIIIIIIII1l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
WELD COUNTY
TO ALL REGISTERED VOTERS
NOTICE OF ELECTION ON AMENDMENT TO
THE HOME RULE CHARTER
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Election Date:
Election Hours:
Local Election Office Address and Telephone Number:
Steve Moreno
Weld County Clerk & Recorder
1402 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
970-304-6525
November 6, 2007
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Ballot Title and Text:
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A
Shall the following new section 7-4 be added to the Weld County Home Rule
Charter?
Section 7-4. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Assessor.
Summary of Written Comments FOR REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A:
Weld County has a proud history of being a leader in promoting term limits.
In the County's history of term limits, however, many elected officials have dutifully
ended their public service at the height of their effectiveness due to the existing
two term limit. In keeping with our long history of citizen representation, the ballot
question for the position of Weld County Assessor asks whether the present term
limit should be extended from two to three terms.
Tax dollars provide salaries for elected officials who, during their tenure,
become highly trained in their particular fields of expertise, only to be required to
leave office at the height of their learning curve. The Weld County Assessor
oversees a professional property tax assessment agency. Property taxation in
Colorado is very complicated. An extension of the present limit to three terms
will maintain institutional knowledge as well as further ensure that the investment
of tax dollars in the professional development of the Assessor provides a benefit
to our County.
Term limits have been promoted to ensure accountability of elected officials
to the voters and prevent incumbents from maintaining in office indefinitely, make
room for citizens to participate in elected office and present new ideas, and to
reduce the advantage of incumbency in national elections. Locally, elected officials
are, by nature of their offices, closer to the people and more accessible. The
possibility of a third term of office does not create the possibility of an elected
official maintaining office indefinitely. At the local level, the advantage of incumbency
is mitigated by the limited availability of media coverage compared to larger
metropolitan areas for campaigning.
Summary of Written Comments AGAINST REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1A:
For the Assessor, the 2 term limit became effective in January, 1995. Historically,
term limits have been honored by many dedicated public servants. In fact, term
limits of 2 terms can be traced back to our first President George Washington when
he refused to run for a third term. Thus, the tradition has venerable, historic roots.
Citizens should vote against this extension of term limits for all or any of the
following reasons:
The elected officials currently in office were aware of term limits when
they ran and they should honor the rules under which they were elected.
The ballot issue as currently written benefits those holding office and
allows those currently in office to benefit from the change.
The term limits as they currently stand make room for fresh candidates
and encourage participation of others as new candidates will not be
challenging an entrenched, established elected official.
The term limits as they currently stand stop elected officials from making
choices that prolong their political careers and focus on policies that further
the interests of the voters.
The term limits as they currently stand force elected officials to anticipate
returning to other careers within a reasonable time frame and, therefore,
they must think about what it will be like to live under the laws and policies
that they enact.
The term limits as they currently stand should only be extended to three
terms in cases like that of the Assessor and the Clerk and Recorder where
expertise deals more with administration of policies created under state
statutes and less with policy -making itself.
Any term limits are, by their nature, "undemocratic" in that they take away
the right of voters to be represented by elected officials the voters choose
whenever they so choose. Elections should be the term limits of an elected
official. This ballot issue provides for the continuance of term limits rather
than abolishing them completely, which would be the most democratic
action possible.
By refusing to extend the current term limits of 2 terms in office to 3 terms in
office, the citizens of this County will ensure a regular rotation of elected officials
who will remain responsive and in touch with the needs and wants of the citizens,
rather than creating positions whereby the elected official tends to become a
career official.
66-1
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
WELD COUNTY
TO ALL REGISTERED VOTERS
NOTICE OF ELECTION ON AMENDMENT TO
THE HOME RULE CHARTER
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Election Date:
Election Hours:
November 6, 2007
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Local Election Office Address and Telephone Number:
Steve Moreno
Weld County Clerk & Recorder
1402 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
970-304-6525
Ballot Title and Text:
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1B
Shall the following new section 8-3 be added to the Weld County Home Rule
Charter?
Section 8-3. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as Clerk and Recorder.
Summary of Written Comments FOR REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 18:
Weld County has a proud history of being a leader in promoting term
limits. In the County's history of term limits, however, many elected officials have
dutifully ended their public service at the height of their effectiveness due to the
existing two term limit. In keeping with our long history of citizen representation,
the ballot question for the position of Weld County Clerk and Recorder asks whether
the present term limit should be extended from two to three terms.
Tax dollars provide salaries for elected officials who, during their tenure,
become highly trained in their particular fields of expertise, only to be required to
leave office at the height of their learning curve. The Weld County Clerk and
Recorder deals with many complicated issues, including elections, motor vehicle
licensing, recording of documents, and the issuance of marriage licenses, An
extension of the present limit to three terms will maintain institutional knowledge
as well as further ensure that the investment of tax dollars in the professional
development of the Clerk and Recorder provides a benefit to our County.
Term limits have been promoted to ensure accountability of elected officials
to the voters and prevent incumbents from maintaining in office indefinitely, make
room for citizens to participate in elected office and present new ideas, and to
reduce the advantage of incumbency in national elections. Locally, elected officials
are, by nature of their offices, closer to the people and more accessible. The
possibility of a third term of office does not create the possibility of an elected
official maintaining office indefinitely. At the local level, the advantage of incumbency
is mitigated by the limited availability of media coverage compared to larger
metropolitan areas for campaigning.
Summary of Written Comments AGAINST REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1 B:
For the County Clerk and Recorder, the 2 term limit became effective in January,
1995. Historically, term limits have been honored by many dedicated public servants.
In fact, term limits of 2 terms can be traced back to our first President George
Washington when he refused to run for a third term. Thus, the tradition has
venerable, historic roots.
Citizens should vote against this extension of term limits for all or any of the
following reasons:
The elected officials currently in office were aware of term limits when
they ran and they should honor the rules under which they were elected.
The ballot issue as currently written benefits those holding office and
allows those currently in office to benefit from the change.
• The term limits as they currently stand make room for fresh candidates
and encourage participation of others as new candidates will not be
challenging an entrenched, established elected official.
• The term limits as they currently stand stop elected officials from making
choices that prolong their political careers and focus on policies that further
the interests of the voters.
• The term limits as they currently stand force elected officials to anticipate
returning to other careers within a reasonable time frame and, therefore,
they must think about what it will be like to live under the laws and policies
that they enact.
• The term limits as they currently stand should only be extended to three
terms in cases like that of the Assessor and the Clerk and Recorder where
expertise deals more with administration of policies created under state
statutes and less with policy -making itself.
• Any term limits are, by their nature, "undemocratic" in that they take away
the right of voters to be represented by elected officials the voters choose
whenever they so choose. Elections should be the term limits of an elected
official. This ballot issue provides for the continuance of term limits rather
than abolishing them completely, which would be the most democratic
action possible.
By refusing to extend the current term limits of 2 terms in office to 3 terms in
office, the citizens of this County will ensure a regular rotation of elected officials
who will remain responsive and in touch with the needs and wants of the citizens,
rather than creating positions whereby the elected official tends to become a
career official.
66-2
111 1111111111111111
WELD COUNTY
TO ALL REGISTERED VOTERS
NOTICE OF ELECTION ON AMENDMENT TO
THE HOME RULE CHARTER
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Election Date:
Election Hours:
Local Election Office Address and Telephone Number:
Steve Moreno
Weld County Clerk & Recorder
1402 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
970-304-6525
November 6, 2007
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Ballot Title and Text:
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1C
Shall the following new section 10-7 be added to the Weld County Home Rule
Charter?
Section 10-7. Terms of Office.
No person shall serve more than three lull consecutive terms as Sheriff.
Summary of Written Comments FOR REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1C:
Weld County has a proud history of being a leader in promoting term limits.
In the County's history of term limits, however, many elected officials have dutifully
ended their public service at the height of their effectiveness due to the existing
two term limit. In keeping with our long history of citizen representation, the ballot
question for the position of Weld County Sheriff asks whether the present term
limit should be extended from two to three terms.
Tax dollars provide salaries for elected officials who, during their tenure,
become highly trained in their particular fields of expertise, only to be required to
leave office at the height of their learning curve. The Weld County Sheriff oversees
a professional law enforcement agency. An extension of the present limit to three
terms will maintain institutional knowledge as well as further ensure that the
investment of tax dollars in the professional development of the Sheriff provides
a benefit to our County.
Term limits have been promoted to ensure accountability of elected officials
to the voters and prevent incumbents from maintaining in office indefinitely, make
room for citizens to participate in elected office and present new ideas, and to
reduce the advantage of incumbency in national elections. Locally, elected officials
are, by nature of their offices, closer to the people and more accessible. The
possibility of a third term of office does not create the possibility of an elected
official maintaining office indefinitely. At the local level, the advantage of incumbency
is mitigated by the limited availability of media coverage compared to larger
metropolitan areas for campaigning.
Summary of Written Comments AGAINST REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1 C:
For the Sheriff, the 2 term limit became effective in January, 1995. Historically,
term limits have been honored by many dedicated public servants. In fact, term
limits of 2 terms can be traced back to our first President George Washington
when he refused to run for a third term. Thus, the tradition has venerable, historic
roots.
Citizens should vote against this extension of term limits for all or any of the
following reasons:
The elected officials currently in office were aware of term limits when
they ran and they should honor the rules under which they were elected.
The ballot issue as currently written benefits those holding office and
allows those currently in office to benefit from the change.
The term limits as they currently stand make room for fresh candidates
and encourage participation of others as new candidates will not be
challenging an entrenched, established elected official.
The term limits as they currently stand stop elected officials from making
choices that prolong their political careers and focus on policies that further
the interests of the voters.
The term limits as they currently stand force elected officials to anticipate
returning to other careers within a reasonable time frame and, therefore,
they must think about what it will be like to live under the laws and policies
that they enact.
The term limits as they currently stand should only be extended to three
terms in cases like that of the Assessor and the Clerk and Recorder where
expertise deals more with administration of policies created under state
statutes and less with policy -making itself.
Any term limits are, by their nature, "undemocratic" in that they take away
the right of voters to be represented by elected officials the voters choose
whenever they so choose. Elections should be the term limits of an elected
official. This ballot issue provides for the continuance of term limits rather
than abolishing them completely, which would be the most democratic
action possible.
By refusing to extend the current term limits of 2 terms in office to 3 terms in
office, the citizens of this County will ensure a regular rotation of elected officials
who will remain responsive and in touch with the needs and wants of the citizens,
rather than creating positions whereby the elected official tends to become a
career official.
66-3
111 1111111111111111
WELD COUNTY
TO ALL REGISTERED VOTERS
NOTICE OF ELECTION ON AMENDMENT TO
THE HOME RULE CHARTER
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Election Date:
Election Hours:
November 6, 2007
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Local Election Office Address and Telephone Number:
Steve Moreno
Weld County Clerk & Recorder
1402 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
970.304.6525
Ballot Title and Text:
WELD COUNTY
REFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1D
Shall section 3.4(3) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter be amended to
read as follows?
Section 3-4. Terms of Office.
(3) No person shall serve more than three full consecutive terms as a County
Commissioner.
Summary of Written Comments FOR REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1D:
Weld County has a proud history of being a leader in promoting term limits.
In the County's history of term limits, however, many elected officials have dutifully
ended their public service at the height of their effectiveness due to the existing
two term limit. In keeping with our long history of citizen representation, the ballot
question for the position of Weld County Commissioner asks whether the present
term limit should be extended from two to three terms.
Tax dollars provide salaries for elected officials who, during their tenure,
become highly trained in their particular fields of expertise, only to be required to
leave office at the height of their learning curve. The Weld County Commissioners
oversee a multimillion dollar budget that includes Public Works, Human and Social
Services, Public Health and Planning. An extension of the present limit to three
terms will maintain institutional knowledge as well as further ensure that the
investment of tax dollars in the professional development of the Commissioners
provides a benefit to our County.
Term limits have been promoted to ensure accountability of elected officials
to the voters and prevent incumbents from maintaining in office indefinitely, make
room for citizens to participate in elected office and present new ideas, and to
reduce the advantage of incumbency in national elections. Locally, elected officials
are, by nature of their offices, closer to the people and more accessible. The
possibility of a third term of office does not create the possibility of an elected
official maintaining office indefinitely. At the local level, the advantage of incumbency
is mitigated by the limited availability of media coverage compared to larger
metropolitan areas for campaigning.
Summary of Written Comments AGAINST REFFERRED BALLOT QUESTION 1 D:
For the Board of Weld County Commissioners (County Commissioners), the
governing Board of the County, the limit of 2 four-year terms was enacted into the
Home Rule Charter of the County in 1976. Historically, term limits have been
honored by many dedicated public servants. In fact, term limits of 2 terms can
be traced back to our first President George Washington when he refused to run
for a third term. Thus, the tradition has venerable, historic roots.
Citizens should vote against this extension of term limits for all or any of the
following reasons:
The elected officials currently in office were aware of term limits when
they ran and they should honor the rules under which they were elected.
The ballot issue as currently written benefits those holding office and
allows those currently in office to benefit from the change.
The term limits as they currently stand make room for fresh candidates
and encourage participation of others as new candidates will not be
challenging an entrenched, established elected official.
The term limits as they currently stand stop elected officials from making
choices that prolong their political careers and focus on policies that further
the interests of the voters.
• The term limits as they currently stand force elected officials to anticipate
returning to other careers within a reasonable time frame and, therefore,
they must think about what it will be like to live under the laws and policies
that they enact.
• The term limits as they currently stand should only be extended to three
terms in cases like that of the Assessor and the Clerk and Recorder where
expertise deals more with administration of policies created under state
statutes and less with policy -making itself.
Any term limits are, by their nature, "undemocratic" in that they take away
the right of voters to be represented by elected officials the voters choose
whenever they so choose. Elections should be the term limits of an elected
official. This ballot issue provides for the continuance of term limits rather
than abolishing them completely, which would be the most democratic
action possible.
By refusing to extend the current term limits of 2 terms in office to 3 terms in
office, the citizens of this County will ensure a regular rotation of elected officials
who will remain responsive and in touch with the needs and wants of the citizens,
rather than creating positions whereby the elected official tends to become a
career official.
66-4
EXHIBIT E
Office of the Attorney General
State of Colorado
AG Alpha No. ST EL FBQSN
Formal Opinion No. 2000-2
February 9, 2000
Secretary of State of Colorado
This Opinion responds to a request from the Secretary of State requesting clarification of certain issues relating to
the term limits provision of Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, ti 11 ("Amendment 17").
QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION
Issue 1: Are Colorado's elected district attorneys term limited as "nonjudicial elected official[s]" for purposes of the
constitutional term limits provisions of Amendment 17?
Answer 1: Yes. District attorneys are considered nonjudicial elected officials of a subdivision of the State of
Colorado. The history of Amendment 17 indicates that it was the intent of the proponents that all officials who are
elected by the people would be subject to the term limits provisions of Amendment 17. District attorneys are elected
in partisan elections like other elected officials. It might be argued that district attorneys are "judicial" officials
because the office of the district attorney is provided for under Article VI of the Colorado Constitution which is
entitled "Judicial Department." However, nothing in the history of Article VI indicates that, by including the district
attorneys in Article VI, the framers of the Constitution intended that district attorneys be considered judicial
officials. District Attorneys are considered by the courts to be members of the executive, and not the judicial, branch
of State government. Treating district attorneys as "judicial" officials would violate the separation of powers
doctrine embodied in Coln. Const. Art. III. Although district attorneys do perform some quasi-judicial functions, this
factor is not determinative for purposes of Amendment 17. Other elected officials, who also exercise quasi-judicial
functions for some purposes, are subject to Amendment 17. District attorneys also perform administrative and
investigatory functions that are not quasi-judicial in nature.
Issue 2: Do Amendment 17 term limits apply to terms of office that began prior to January 1, 1995, or to terms of
office that result from interim appointments made to fill partial terms?
Answer 2: The term limitations of Amendment 17 are calculated prospectively, i.e., for purposes of calculating the
two or three term limitation of Amendment 17, only those terms of office which came into being as a result of the
1994 general election or thereafter are counted. In addition, the term limitations of Amendment 17 have no
application to partial terms of office, but rather, apply only to full terms of office.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 1994, the voters of the State of Colorado passed Amendment 17, an initiative imposing term limits
on federal representatives, members of the State Board of Education and the University of Colorado Board of
Regents, and on all other "nonjudicial elected official[s]" of any county, city, town, or other political subdivision of
the State. Amendment 17 became effective upon the Governor's proclamation on January 19, 1995, and is included
in the Colorado Constitution in Art. XVIII:
*2 In order to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials of governments are
responsive to the citizens of those governments, no nonjudicial elected official of any county, city and county,
city, town, school district, service authority, or any other political subdivision of the State of Colorado, no
member of the state board of education, and no elected member of the governing board of a state institution of
higher education shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office, except that with respect to terms of
office which are two years or shorter in duration, no such elected official shall serve more than three
consecutive terms in office. This limitation on the number of terms shall apply to terms of office beginning on
1
or after January 1, 1995. For purposes of this Section 11 terms are considered consecutive unless they are at
least four years apart.
Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 11(1). Amendment 17 limits to two consecutive terms in office a "nonjudicial elected
official" of any "political subdivision of the state of Colorado." Thus, the question presented turns on the following
two issues: (1) whether judicial districts are considered "political subdivisions"; and (2) whether district attorneys
are "nonjudicial" elected officials.
ANALYSIS
Discussion of Issue 1
Should Colorado's elected district attorneys be considered `nonjudicial" elected official[s] for purposes of the
constitutional term limits provisions of Amendment 17?
A. District Attorneys are Elected Officials of a Political Subdivision of the State.
Colorado Constitution Art. VI, § 10, divides the State of Colorado into judicial districts:
(1) The state shall be divided into judicial districts. Such districts shall be formed of compact territory and be
bounded by county lines. The judicial districts as provided by law on the effective date of this amendment shall
constitute the judicial districts of the state until changed. The general assembly may by law, whenever two-
thirds of the members of each house concur therein, change the boundaries of any district or increase or
diminish the number of judicial districts.
Colorado Constitution,Art. VI, § 13, provides for the election of a district attorney for each judicial district:
In each judicial district there shall be a district attorney elected by the electors thereof, whose term of office
shall be four years. District attorneys shall receive such salaries and perform such duties as provided by law.
Thus, under the Colorado Constitution, judicial districts are divisions of the state, formed for the purpose of carrying
out functions of the state, and district attorneys are elected for each of these districts to "perform such duties as
provided by law."
Furthermore, the offices of the district attorneys are treated as political subdivisions of the state for various purposes
under Colorado law. SeeC.R.S. §§ 20-1-307, 24-53-101(5) (1999) (offices of the district attorneys treated as political
subdivisions of the State for purposes of public employees' social security); C.R.S. § 20-1-110 (1999) (district
attorneys authorized to enter into intergovernmental contracts).
*3 Therefore, I conclude that the office of the district attorney in its respective judicial district is a political
subdivision of the State of Colorado.
B. District Attorneys Are Nonjudicial Elected Officials of a Political Subdivision of the State of Colorado and,
as such, They Are Not Exempt From the Term Limits Provisions of Amendment 17.
The next question is whether district attorneys are "nonjudicial" elected officials within their respective political
subdivisions as that phrase is used in Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 11. This question must be answered in the
affirmative.
In 1990, Colorado voters passed an initial term limits initiative which applied to state representatives, state senators,
the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer and attorney general. See Colo. Cons!. Art. IV, §
I(2) Art. V.. §3(2) and Art. XVIII, § 9a. According to its proponents, Amendment 17 was an attempt to "fill in the
gaps" in term limits left by the previous term limits initiative. The proponents of Amendment 17 saw term limits as
"a method of keeping elected officials from viewing their positions as lifetime or career jobs. By forcing turnover,
new people will be able to enter the political scene and bring fresh ideas into the legislative branch of the
government and to local governments. Extending term limits to local officials ... represents the completion of the
term limits concept in Colorado."An Analysis of 1994 Ballot Proposals, Legislative Council Research Publication
No. 392 (1994). If district attorneys are exempted from the provisions of Amendment 17, they would be the only
elected officials in Colorado who would not be term limited. Nothing in the language of Amendment 17 indicates an
intent to treat district attorneys differently than other elected officials.
2
The history regarding Amendment 17 is very limited. However, the little history that exists indicates that the office
of the district attorney was intended to be encompassed within the scope of elected officials to which Amendment
17 applied. C.R.S. 6 1-40-105(1) requires that a draft of every initiative petition for a proposed amendment to the
state constitution be submitted by the proponents to the directors of the Legislative Council and the Office of
Legislative Legal Services (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Legislative Directors") for review and comment. The
submission of such draft initiative petitions serves several purposes. The first is to make sure the intent and objective
of the proponents in proposing the amendment is understood. The second is to aid the proponents in determining the
language of their proposal. The third is to make the public aware of the proposal's contents.
Pursuant to C.R.S. & 1-40-105(1), the proponents of Amendment 17 twice submitted their proposed draft of
Amendment 17 to the Legislative Directors for such review and comment. In accordance with C.R.S. § 1-40-105(1),
the Legislative Directors' comments to the proponents of an initiative must be rendered at a meeting open to the
public. Thus, two § 1-40-105O) public meetings were held on Amendment 17, one on May 2, 1994 (which lasted in
excess of an hour, 1:34 p.m. until 2:42 p.m.) and the other on May 4, 1994 (which lasted only 37 minutes, 11:03
a.m. until 11:40 a.m.). Similarly, pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-40-106(1) the Title Board must hold a public meeting at
which a title, submission clause and summary of a proposed initiative are fixed. Unfortunately, no audio tape
recordings of any of these hearings exist. Thus, in researching the history of Amendment 17, this office has had to
rely on the files maintained by the Legislative Directors. See Carrara Place v. Bd. of Equalization, 761 P.2d 197
203 (Colo.1988) ("The legislative council's interpretation, while not binding, provides important insight into the
electorate's understanding of the amendment when it was passed.").
*4 On April 29, 1994, the Legislative Directors submitted their written comments on the proposed amendment,
which was worded, in pertinent part, as follows:
"In order to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials of local government
are responsive to the citizens of those local governments, no nonjudicial elected official of any county, city and
county, city, town, school district, service authority or any other political subdivision of the state of Colorado
shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office ..."
In its comments of April 29, Legislative Council interpreted this language as follows:
"If this measure passes, it appears that the only elected officials in Colorado not subject to term limits would be
members of the board of regents of the University of Colorado and members of the state board of education
(and any other elected officials later exempted by the voters of a political subdivision). Is this the intent of the
proponents?"(emphasis added).
In response to the comments of April 29, on May 3, 1994, the proponents submitted a revised amendment that added
the "board of regents of any state university" as additional elected officials to which term limits would apply:
"In order to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials of local government
are responsive to the citizens of those local governments, no nonjudicial elected official of any county, city and
county, city, town, school district, service authority, BOARD OF REGENTS OF ANY STATE UNIVERSITY,
or any other political subdivision of the state of Colorado shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office .
On May 4, 1994, the Legislative Directors provided the following comment
on the May 3 submission of the proponents: "If this measure passes, it appears that the only elected officials in
Colorado not subject to term limits would be members of the state board of education (and any other
elected officials later exempted by the voters of a political subdivision). Is this the intent of the
proponents?"(emphasis added).
In response to the comments of May 4, the proponents again changed the language of the amendment to add "no
member of the state board of education."After the review and comment process, the language of Amendment 17
initiative, as submitted by the proponents to the Title Board, read as follows:
"In order to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials of local government
3
are responsive to the citizens of those governments, no nonjudicial elected official of any county, city and
county, city, town, school district, service authority, or any other political subdivision of the state of Colorado,
no member of the state board of education, and no elected member of the governing board of a state institution
of higher education shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office ..."
*5 From this history, it appears that both the Directors of the Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal
Services thought that district attorneys were included within the scope of Amendment 17 because the only elected
officials they thought were excluded by the language were members the State Board of Education and Board of
Regents. The fact that the proponents revised the language of their initiative to include the two types of elected
officials that Legislative Council opined had escaped inclusion in the term limits initiative is evidence that the intent
of Amendment 17 was to term limit every elected official, including the district attorneys.
Because the office of the district attorney is established in the "Judicial Department" article of the Colorado
Constitution, Article VI, 813, it might be argued that the district attorney is a "judicial" rather than a "nonjudicial"
official and thus exempt from the provisions of Amendment 17. This office acknowledges that district attorneys do
resemble judicial officers in two respects: the location of their constitutional authority in the judicial section of the
Colorado Constitution, and in their performance of certain quasi-judicial functions. Thus, each requires a more
detailed examination.
Unfortunately, there is no history to provide guidance in determining why the drafters of the Colorado Constitution
decided to place the provisions relating to district attorneys in Article VI of the Constitution. Despite a detailed
review of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, 1875-1876 (Smith -Brooks Press, State Printers 1907),
pursuant to which the Colorado Constitution was adopted, this office was unable to locate any discussion
whatsoever of the provision relating to district attorneys.
Thus, in deciding whether district attorneys are "nonjudicial" or "judicial" officials within the meaning of
Amendment 17, resort must be made to general rules of statutory construction. Campbell v. Orchard Mesa Irr. Dist.
972 P.2d 1037, 1039 (Colo. 1998) (construing the phrase "local government" appearing in Colo. Const. Art. X, 8
20). In this regard, the language in issue must be viewed not in isolation, but in context, in order to give consistent,
harmonious, and sensible effect to all parts of the constitution. People v. Saucerman, 926 P.2d 130 (Colo. App.
1996).See also People v. Daniels, 973 P.2d 641. 646 (Colo. App. 1998) ("The meaning of any one statutory section
must be gathered from a consideration of the entire legislative scheme.").
Other than the fact that the district attorneys provision is found in Article VI of the Colorado Constitution, there
does not appear to be any basis for distinguishing district attorneys from other elected officials. District attorneys are
selected in the same manner as other term limited elected officials in Colorado. For instance, district attorneys are
elected to office as partisan political candidates, in the same manner as other partisan officers of the executive
branch who are covered under the term limits provisions of Amendment 17, including the Regents of the University
of Colorado and members of the State Board of Education. Nominations for district attorney candidates are made in
primary elections by political parties, in the same manner as nominations for other state officers, the Regents, and
county officers. C.R.S. t 1-4-5020) (1999). District attorney candidates may also place their names on the primary
election ballot by petition, like members of the General Assembly or other district offices greater than a county
office. C.R.S. S 1-4-801(2)(b) (1999). District attorneys are elected to office in the State general election in the same
manner as the regents and state board members. C.R.S. $ 1-4-204 (1999). In the case of a tie vote, the law specifies
that district attorney candidates be selected for office by lot in the same manner as regents and state board members.
C.R.S. $ I-11-101(2) (1999). Vacancies in the office of district attorney are filled by the governor until the next
general election after the vacancy occurs. C.R.S. 8 1-12-204 (1999).
*6 Selection of district attorneys by partisan election stands in stark contrast to the nomination system used for
vacancies in judicial offices. In Colorado, judges are selected by appointment of the governor from a list of
nominees submitted by the relevant judicial nominating commission. Colo. Const. Art. VI, §.* 20, 24. Judges then
continue to serve unless voted out of office in periodic retention elections. Colo. Cons!. Art. VI, 8 25. Consequently,
district attorneys more closely resemble other term -limited executive officers than they do judicial officers exempted
by Amendment 17.
4
Although district attorneys are elected from judicial districts whose formation is authorized in Article VI, the
Colorado Supreme Court has consistently held that district attorneys are not members of the judiciary. Considering
district attorneys to be members of the judiciary would violate the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the
Colorado Constitution. Article III of the Colorado Constitution divides the powers of state government into three
distinct branches or departments, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial, and directs that "no person or
collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall
exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others".Colo. Const. Art. III. The Colorado Supreme Court
has repeatedly held that the doctrine of separation of powers compels separation of the judicial and prosecutorial
functions:
'The prohibition against judicial intervention in or control of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion flows from
the doctrine of separation of powers.'People v. Thorpe, 641 P.2d 935, 938 (Colo. 1982). The prosecutor, not the
court, is charged with the duty to prosecute individuals for violations of criminal laws. People v. District Court
632 P.2d 1022, 1024 (Colo. 1981). A prosecutor has broad discretion 'to determine who shall be prosecuted and
what crimes shall be charged.'Id. In order to preserve the required separation of powers, decisions of this nature
'may not be controlled by judicial intervention.'Id.
People in Interest ofJA.L., 761 P.2d 1137, 1 139 (Colo. 1988).See People v. Hushes, 946 P.2d 509, 516 (Colo. App.
1997) ("in order to preserve the required separation of powers, a prosecutor's charging decision may not be
controlled or limited by judicial intervention"); People v. Zapotockv. 869 P.2d 1234, 1244 (Colo. 1994) ("the
decision to request dismissal of pending criminal charges is within the district attorney's discretion, and this decision
may not be controlled or limited by judicial intervention"). In People v. Thorpe, 641 P.2d 935, 939 (Colo. 1982) the
Colorado Supreme Court found that the district attorney, even though an officer of the court, is "nevertheless a
member of the executive department and acting as such when exercising his discretion in choosing what charges to
file and in what court they should be filed."
*7 Because of the doctrine of separation of powers, the Colorado Supreme Court has consistently held that district
attorneys, although elected from judicial districts, are members of the executive branch of government. In Beacom
In and For Seventeenth Judicial District, Adams County v. Board of County Com'rs of Adams County, 657 P.2d 440
(Colo. 1983), the district attorney contended that a law placing approval of the district attorney's budget within the
discretion of the board of county commissioners violated the separation of powers doctrine. Contending that the
district attorney was a part of the judicial branch of government, the district attorney argued that the board had no
choice but to approve salaries of judicial employees within the county because the doctrine of separation of powers
required an independent judiciary.
The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, holding:
The district attorney, although elected from a judicial district as provided in Colo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 13, is not
a member of the judiciary. Rather, the district attorney is an executive officer of the state.
Id. at 445.See People v. District Court, 632 P.2d 1022, 1024 (Colo. 1981) ("It is clear that while the district attorney
is an officer of the court, as is any member of the bar, he is not a judicial officer nor a part of the judicial branch of
government. The district attorney belongs to the executive branch of government"); People v. District Court, 527
P.2d 50, 52 (Colo. 1974) ("While he is an officer of the court as any other attorney, a district attorney is not a
judicial officer not a part of the judicial branch of government. A district attorney belongs to the executive
branch."); People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234, 240 (Colo. 1992) ("the district attorney is a member of the executive
department"); People v. District Court, 767 P.2d 239, 240 (Colo. 1989) ("The district attorney is part of the
executive branch of government..."); People v. Wright, 742 P.2d 316, 319 (Colo. 1987) ("A district attorney is a
member of the executive branch of government.").
The specific language of Amendment 17 states that it applies to "nonjudicial elected official[s]." However, Colorado
case law observes a distinction between such terms as "judicial officers," and "officers of the court," and reserves
references to "judicial officers" for judges or "the court." People v. Proffitt, 865 P.2d 929, 933 (Colo. App. 1993).
Consequently, although district attorneys are elected from judicial districts whose formation is authorized in Art. VI
(the Judicial Department), district attorneys are not considered "judicial officers" under Colorado law.
Finally, courts have sometimes described district attorneys as exercising "quasi-judicial" functions for some
purposes. These descriptions arise in discussion of the concept of absolute immunity for prosecutors from damage
5
claims in civil cases. See Imb/er v. Pachtrnan, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) ("It is the functional comparability of their
judgments to those of a judge that has resulted in both grand jurors and prosecutors being referred to as `quasi-
judicial' officers, and their immunities being termed quasi-judicial as well"). While it is true that district attorneys
are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity while performing some functions, quasi-judicial immunity does not mean that
district attorneys are judicial officers exempt from the term limits provision of Amendment 17.
*8 In Colorado, the seminal case on prosecutorial immunity is Higgs v. District Court, 713 P.2d 840 (Colo. 1985).
In Higgs, plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution claim against a deputy district attorney alleging that she had
initiated and maintained a criminal action against him without probable cause and that she was motivated by malice.
The district attorney contended that she was absolutely immune from suit because her actions were quasi-judicial in
character.
In reviewing the type of functions for which a prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability, the Colorado Supreme
Court found that prosecutors were only absolutely immune for those actions "intimately associated with the judicial
phase of the criminal process," such as initiating a criminal prosecution and presenting the State's case at trial. Id. at
851.However, the Court found that not all of a district attorney's official actions were entitled to absolute immunity.
The Court adopted the functional approach to determine whether the prosecutorial conduct at issue is absolutely or
only qualifiedly immune. Thus, the court found that a distinction must be drawn between a prosecutor's
"advocatory" functions, which are closely related to the judicial process and thus are absolutely immune, and his
"investigative" and "administrative" functions, which have a more attenuated connection with the judicial process
and are therefore only qualifiedly immune. Id. at 853.The Court held that in regard to her participation in the photo
identification procedure, the Crim. P. 41.1 Nontestimonial Identification Order, and the Arrest and Search Warrant
Affidavits, the deputy district attorney in question was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, but only to qualified
immunity. Id at 863.
Thus, it is clear that district attorneys engage in an extensive range of functions that the courts do not consider to be
quasi-judicial. For instance, district attorneys are required by law to provide legal advice and a legal defense to
county officers and employees upon request. C.R.S. 6 20-1-105 (1999). Additionally, many executive branch
officers perform some quasi-judicial functions as part of their statutory duties, and are entitled to absolute immunity
in their performance of those functions. Even such clearly non -judicial entities as the State Board of Medical
Examiners are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity when performing specific quasi-judicial functions. Horwitz v.
State Board of Medical Examiners, 822 F.2d 1508, 1515 (10th Cir. 1987). This fact, however, does not make them
judicial officers. Consequently, the fact that district attorneys are entitled to assert quasi-judicial immunity in the
performance of some limited functions of their office is insufficient to establish that they are judicial officers exempt
from term limits under Amendment 17.
For the above reasons, I conclude that district attorneys are nonjudicial elected officials of a political subdivision of
the State of Colorado and, as such, are subject to the term limits provisions of Amendment 17.
Discussion of Issue 2
*9 Do Amendment 17 Term Limits Apply to Terms of Office That Began Prior to January 1, 1995 or to Terms of
Office That Result from Interim Appointments Made to Fill Partial Terms ?
In determining how the Amendment 17 term limit provisions apply to the district attorney or other elected officials,
we are guided by general principles of constitutional interpretation. First, the plain language is controlling. See
Colorado Ass'n of Public Employees v. Lamm, 677 P.2d 1350, 1353 (Colo. 1984) ("Where the language of the
Constitution is plain and its meaning clear, that language must be declared and enforced as written.").
[C]ourts first look to the statutory language itself, giving words and phrases their commonly accepted and
understood meaning ....[I]f courts can give effect to the ordinary meaning of the words adopted by a
legislative body, the statute should be construed as written since it may be presumed that the General Assembly
meant what it clearly said.
6
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman, 898 P.2d 1049 1053-54 (Colo. 1995). Thus, a cardinal rule of statutory
construction is that plain language needs no interpretation; alternative constructions that are contrary to the plain
wording of the statute must be rejected.
Second, constitutional interpretation must be done in a manner "to give effect to the expression of the will of the
people contained in constitutional amendments adopted by them."/n re Interrogatories Propounded by Senate
Concerning House Bill 1078, 189 Colo. 1, 7, 536 P.2d 308, 313 (1975) see also Tivolini Teller House v. Fagan, 926
P.2d 1208, 1211 (Colo. 1996) (the intent of the voters must be considered). To determine the intent of the electorate,
the words of the amendment must be examined and given their plain and natural meaning. Zaner v. City of Brighton.
917 P.2d 280, 283 (Colo. 1996). The amendment should be read as a whole and must be read consistently with other
related provisions. Id.
A. Terms of Office That Began Prior to January 1, 1995
The first step in construing the practical application of the constitutional provision at issue here is to examine the
actual language of the provision. Amendment 17 expressly provides that "[t]his limitation on the number of terms
shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after January 1, 1995."This language is unambiguous.
When a term of office begins is specified by Colorado statute. C.R.S. Section 1-1-201 provides that "the regular
terms of office of all state, congressional district, and county officers shall commence on the second Tuesday of
January next after their election, except as otherwise provided by law."
In applying the plain and natural meaning test to the language used in Amendment 17 -- "terms of office beginning
on or after January 1, 1995" - it is clear that this language applies to those elected officials who, as a result of
success in the 1994 general election, would begin their term of office, as specified in C.R.S. section 1-1-201, after
January 1, 1995.
*10 Amendment 17, by its own express language, does not apply to terms of office being served by officeholders as
of the date of the 1994 general election because the terms of those offices did not begin on or after January 1, 1995.
Rather, they began at some date prior to January 1, 1995. Thus, for purposes of this term limits provision, it does not
matter how many terms of officean officeholder may have held prior to January 1, 1995. The term limitations of
Amendment 17 are calculated prospectively, i.e., they are applicable only to officeholders who were elected to terms
of office during the 1994 general election or thereafter.
B. Terms of Office That Result from Interim Appointments Made to Fill Partial Terms
Another question which has arisen with respect to the application of Amendment 17 is whether it applies to terms of
office that result from interim appointments made to fill a vacancy.
The introductory clause to Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, ti 11(1) provides that the intent of the term limits provision was
"to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials of government are responsive to
the citizens of those governments."The provision continues by providing that "no nonjudicial elected official .. .
shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office...." As stated in section 18 above, the proponents of
Amendment 17 saw term limits as "a method of keeping elected officials from viewing their positions as lifetime or
career jobs. By forcing turnover, new people will be able to enter the political scene and bring fresh ideas into the
legislative branch of the government and to local governments."An Analysis of 1994 Ballot Proposals, Legislative
Council Research Publication No. 392 (1994).
Amendment 17 imposes a general limitation of "two consecutive terms in office" for those officials whose terms of
office are more than two years in duration. For those elected officials whose terms of office are for two years or less,
Amendment 17 increases the number of terms of office from two to three terms. While the provision several times
refers to "terms" of office, it makes no reference to partial terms of office. This lack of language, in and of itself, is
an indication that Amendment 17 does not apply to partial terms of office.However, to assist in understanding the
scope of Amendment 17, it is instructive to look at similar term limits provisions passed by the people. In 1990, the
people of the State of Colorado passed an initial term limits initiative that applied to State and Federal elected
officials. The 1990 term limits initiative contained language that expressly addressed partial terms of office. Such
7
language provided that any person "appointed or elected to fill a vacancy in the [office] and who serves at least one-
half of a term of office shall be considered to have served a term in that office for purposes of this subsection .. .
."See Colo. Const. Art. IV, § 1(2) Art. V., $3(2) Art. XVIII, & 9a. The language of Amendment 17 replicates the
language of the 1990 initiative in all substantive respects, except with respect to the language relating to partial
terms of office, which was omitted from Amendment 17. The fact that such language was included in a prior
initiative, but was not included by the proponents as part of Amendment 17, is evidence of an intent not to have
Amendment 17 term limitations apply to partial terms. See Raussello v. United States, 464 I.J.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296,
300 (1983) ("[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate
inclusion or exclusion.").
*11 The exclusion from Amendment 17 of a provision relating to partial terms, similar to that used in the 1990
initiative, under these circumstances, demonstrates that Amendment 17 does not apply to partial terms.
Therefore, I conclude that the term limitations of Amendment 17 apply only to full terms of office.
SUMMARY
For purposes of the term limits provisions of Amendment 17, district attorneys are nonjudicial elected officials of a
subdivision of the State of Colorado. Nothing in the language or history of Amendment 17 indicates that district
attorneys were intended to be exempt from its blanket term limits provisions. On the contrary, the little history that
exists indicates that it was the intent of the proponents of Amendment 17 that all officials who are elected by the
people would be subject to the term limits provisions of Amendment 17. District attorneys are elected in partisan
elections like other elected officials and are considered by the courts to be members of the executive, and not the
judicial, branch of State government. While it might be argued that district attorneys are "judicial" officials because
the office of the district attorney is provided for under Article VI of the Colorado Constitution which is entitled
"Judicial Department," there is nothing in the history of Article VI to indicate that, by including the district attorneys
in Article VI, the framers of the Constitution intended that district attorneys be considered judicial officials. To
interpret the inclusion of district attorneys in Article VI as converting district attorneys to "judicial" officials, would
violate the separation of powers doctrine embodied in Colo. Const. Art. III. Although district attorneys do perform
some quasi-judicial functions, this factor is not determinative for purposes Amendment 17 because other elected
officials who would not be considered "judicial" officials also exercise quasi-judicial functions for some purposes.
The term limitations of Amendment 17 are calculated prospectively, i.e., only those terms of office which came into
being as a result of the 1994 general election or thereafter are counted. In addition, the term limitations of
Amendment 17 have no application to partial terms of office, but rather, apply only to full terms of office.
Issued this 9th day of February, 2000.
Ken Salazar
Attorney General
Christine M. Arguello
Deputy Attorney General
Tony Dyl
Assistant Attorney General
8
Hello