The Colorado Supreme Court issued opinions in multiple cases on Monday, June 29. Included were rulings on ballot measures focused on drawing new congressional maps for the 2028 and 2030 elections. The court ruled that these measures violated the state constitution, reversing and remanding the matters to the Title Board with directions to strike the titles, ballot titles, and submission clauses of each initiative. The case summaries and full opinions for each are listed below.
City of Grand Junction and Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel Energy, Petitioner v. John Nicola, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Danielle Nicola. 2026 CO 55. Section 13-81-103(1)(b), C.R.S. (2025) (“subsection (1)(b)”), provides that if a person dies while under disability and “before the expiration of the period of limitation in [section 13-81-103(1)(a) (“subsection (1)(a)”)],” then any survival claim must be brought within one year after the date of the person’s death. § 13-81-103(1)(b). The supreme court holds that subsection (1)(b) applies irrespective of whether a legal representative has been appointed for a person under disability.
If the person under disability had no legal representative appointed, then the phrase “the expiration of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]” simply refers to the applicable statute of limitations. Id. But if the person under disability had a legal representative appointed, then “the expiration of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]” refers to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations or two years after the appointment of the legal representative, whichever is later. Id.
The supreme court concludes that subsection (1)(b) applies to John Nicola’s survival claims and renders them untimely. The supreme court also concludes that the City of Grand Junction and Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees under section 13-17-201, C.R.S (2025). Accordingly, the supreme court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including reinstatement of the district court’s judgment dismissing Nicola’s complaint and determination of appropriate attorney fees. Read the opinion.
Unite for Colorado, Petitioner v. Colorado Department of State; Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as the Colorado Secretary of State; and Andrew Kline, in his official capacity as the Colorado Deputy Secretary of State, Respondents. 2026 CO 56. The supreme court interprets the definition of “issue committee” in article XXVIII, section 2(10)(a)(I) of the Colorado Constitution and holds that Unite for Colorado does not qualify as an issue committee. Article XXVIII, section 2(10) (a)(I) defines an issue committee as an organization that has “a major purpose of supporting or opposing any ballot issue or ballot question.” The supreme court construes the phrase “a major purpose” to require a fact-specific analysis of an organization’s creation, spending, and ballot campaign-related activities to determine whether the organization spent a considerable or principal amount of its time and resources engaging in ballot issue advocacy. The supreme court construes the phrase “any ballot issue or ballot question” to allow consideration of the organization’s aggregate spending and activities across multiple ballot issues. After conducting a fact-specific analysis, the supreme court holds that Unite for Colorado did not have a major purpose of ballot issue advocacy during the 2020 election cycle and reverses the judgment of the court of appeals. Read the opinion.
In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025–2026 #240; In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025–2026 #327. 2026 CO 57. The supreme court holds that both proposed Initiative #240 and proposed Initiative #327 encompass multiple subjects in violation of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2025). Initiative #240 and Initiative #327 violate the single subject requirement by combining (1) temporary changes to the current congressional redistricting process and (2) specific new congressional district maps for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles.
The supreme court reverses the actions of the Title Board and remands these matters to the Board with directions to strike the titles, ballot titles, and submission clauses of each initiative and to return the initiatives to their proponents. Read the Opinion.
In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #241; In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #242; In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #328. 2026 CO 58. In these three cases, the supreme court reviewed the actions of the Title Board in (1) setting the titles and the ballot titles and submission clauses for Initiative 2025-2026 #241 (“Initiative #241”) and Initiative 2025-2026 #242 (“Initiative #242”) and (2) declining to set a title for Initiative 2025-2026 #328 (“Initiative #328”). Each of these cases presents, among other issues, the question of whether an initiative violates the single subject requirement when its effectiveness is conditioned on the passage of a separate initiative.
The court now concludes that an initiative violates the single subject requirement in these circumstances and that, therefore, Initiative #241, Initiative #242, and Initiative #328 run afoul of article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2025). Accordingly, the court reverses the actions of the Title Board in case nos. 26SA122 and 26SA123 and affirms the action of the Title Board in case no. 26SA157. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent v. Madani Ceus, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. 2026 CO 59. After the prosecution charged the defendant with two murder counts for the deaths of two young girls, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the lesser included offenses of child abuse resulting in death. The supreme court agreed to review this case to consider whether (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury, (2) any instructional error was constitutionally harmless, and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the two convictions.
Agreeing with the division, the supreme court first concludes that the trial court should have either used special interrogatories to allow the jury to make distinct findings on whether the child abuse resulted in death or drafted the elemental instructions to require such findings.
But for three reasons, the supreme court parts ways with the division’s conclusion that the error was not constitutionally harmless. First, whether the girls died as a result of the abuse they endured was never meaningfully disputed at trial. Second, the jury instructions and the verdict forms clearly directed the jury to determine whether Ceus had engaged in child abuse that resulted in the girls’ deaths. And third, the evidence that the child abuse resulted in the girls’ deaths was overwhelming.
Finally, like the division, the supreme court rejects the defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. Viewing the evidence as a whole and in the light most favorable to the People, it is clear that it was both substantial and sufficient to support her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, despite agreement with parts of the division’s opinion, the
supreme court ultimately reverses the judgment and remands the case for consideration of the defendant’s remaining claims. Read the opinion.