Proponents tell legislative staff proposed 'Petition Rights Amendment' would expand initiative powers to all Colorado districts

Proponents of a proposed ballot measure called the Petition Rights Amendment (PRA) told Colorado legislative staff Wednesday that the measure would extend initiative and referendum powers to all districts, alter petition filing and challenge procedures, and add civil remedies for people who obstruct petitioning.

The review-and-comment hearing was led by Julia Jackson of Legislative Council staff and Jed Franklin of the Office of Legislative Legal Services. Franklin summarized the measure's stated goals as including "to extend initiatives and referenda to all districts, including local and home rule governments and authorities," changing filing procedures, title setting, deadlines, signature form and review, the number of signatures required, protest and appeal windows, voter information procedures, enforcement, and election timing.

Proponents said the initiative's single subject is "petition rights in Colorado." A proponent who spoke in the hearing said the measure is intended to preserve existing petition authorities and to add rights expressly or by implication but would exclude recalls. "PRA does not require free legal advice or cash donations," proponent Marty Nielsen said during the hearing, calling suggestions otherwise "a warped view." He added that aid from election offices would mean neutral administrative support such as counting entries and providing public records, not drafting or financial contributions.

Staff questioned how the initiative's timelines and signature rules would interact with the Colorado Constitution. The measure proposes a 5% signature floor of "district active registered electors" with a statutory cap at 100,000 entries; staff noted that Article V of the Colorado Constitution sets signature requirements based on the total number of votes cast for Secretary of State at the previous general election. Proponents said the proposal provides an alternative process for districts that currently lack petition rights and argued the provisions could be litigated and severed if necessary.

On timing, proponents described a system in which petitions could start at any time with 300 days for collection plus a five-day cure or filing period; petitions beginning late in the year would be voted in November of the next year. Staff raised concerns about short protest windows proposed in the measure (for example, a four-day window for certain title protests and a six-day decision window for the Supreme Court). Proponents responded that the four- and six-day periods begin to run after the ballot title is set or denied and that if the court cannot frame a balanced title in time, the prior title would prevail.

The measure would also alter signature verification procedures: proponents said offices would "count entries, not verify" individual signatures within a five-day counting period and that private-party protests would remain the mechanism for contesting validity. On the question of which court should hear signature-validity fact-finding, a proponent said the Supreme Court could hire special masters to expedite decisions.

Proponents proposed a $3,000 civil penalty for those who "stop, sight, or arrest carriers or signers peaceably petitioning in public access areas." A proponent said the remedy is civil (excluding jail), that a judge would set penalties, and that victims could bring complaints to local law enforcement; proponents also defined public-access areas to include sidewalks, business doorways open to the public, parks and malls, but not private homes or restrooms. The proponent said law enforcement and private security must honor petitioners' civil rights.

The initiative would remove certain statutory review processes and provide alternative paths for title setting, proponents said, but they also acknowledged that the title board and other existing mechanisms could remain involved. Proponents confirmed they prepared a cosmetically retyped version of the petition's text that adds no words and asked whether staff would issue a letter to the title board reflecting responsiveness to the memo. Staff explained proponents could either resubmit revised text for staff review and a letter or file directly with the title board; proponents indicated they plan to file the retyped text with the Secretary of State and the title board.

The hearing concluded with staff explaining next steps and that the title board would decide whether any changes were merely cosmetic. No formal votes were taken at the review-and-comment hearing; the proceedings were limited to staff questions and proponents' answers as part of the statutorily required review process.