On the September 8 broadcast of KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show, host Peter Boyles misleadingly linked two separate ballot initiatives that sought to deny taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants, stating that the Colorado Supreme Court had “OK'd ... once before” the language in ballot Initiative 55, which the court kept off the ballot earlier this year. In fact, while the court had rejected a challenge to an earlier initiative with language similar to that of Initiative 55, it based its ruling against the later initiative on a different challenge.

On his show, Boyles referred to Initiative 55 which, if approved by voters, would have added an amendment to the Colorado Constitution denying all taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled June 12 that the initiative violated Colorado's "single-subject requirement" and threw it off the November ballot. The court's ruling prompted a special legislative session that resulted in new statewide rules requiring applicants for public benefits to provide proof of U.S. citizenship and requiring employers to verify the legal immigration status of their employees.

The issue of Initiative 55 came up during an interview with anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce. During the interview, Boyles asserted that Initiative 55 “was going to force action on illegal immigration, and the Colorado Supreme Court ... had OK'd it once before.” While the Colorado Supreme Court has never “OK'd” Initiative 55, it did approve Initiative 88 --which had language similar to Initiative 55 -- in 2004. But it did not consider the issue of whether the initiative violated the “single subject requirement” in its 2004 ruling. According to the Colorado Supreme Court's June 12 decision:

In 2004, a prior version of Initiative #55 was presented to the [Title] Board. The measure, known as Initiative 2003-2004 #88 (“Initiative #88”), proposed to amend article V of the Colorado Constitution by adding section 51, “Restrictions on Non-Emergency Services.” Section 51 provided that Colorado's provision of “non-emergency services” would be restricted to lawfully present citizens and aliens."

The Court also noted:

Initiative #88 was approved as to single subject matter by the [Title] Board. Petitioner [Manolo Gonzalez Estay] and Ramon Del Castillo filed a motion for rehearing. They argued both that Initiative #88 contained multiple subjects and the title did not accurately reflect the content of the measure. The Board denied the motion. To this court, Petitioner and Castillo argued only that the title “is misleading, does not correctly and fairly express the true meaning of the initiative, does not unambiguously state the principle of the provision to be added to the Constitution, and will lead to voter confusion ... ” Petitioner and Castillo did not argue the initiative contained multiple subjects contrary to Colorado Constitution article V, section 1(5.5). We affirmed the action of the Board without opinion.

Though the Colorado Supreme Court approved Initiative 88, supporters did not obtain sufficient signatures to place the measure on the 2004 ballot. According to the June 12 Colorado Supreme Court decision, “On December 21, 2005, William G. Herron and Janice Herron submitted Initiative #55, entitled 'Restrictions on Non-Emergency Services,' to the Board for inclusion on the 2006 ballot. Initiative #55 repeated, with minor changes, the provisions of Initiative #88.”

With the new initiative came a new legal challenge, this time questioning whether Initiative 55 violated Colorado's single-subject rule. According to the decision, “The [Title] Board set the title, Petitioner [Manolo Gonzalez Estay] sought reconsideration before the Board, and the Board denied Petitioner's motion. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before this court and argues Initiative #55 violates the single subject requirement.”

On June 12, the court issued its final opinion:

The Supreme Court concludes that Initiative #55 violates the single subject prohibition. Initiative #55 presents at least two, unrelated and incongruous purposes: (1) decreasing taxpayer expenditures contributing to the welfare of individuals not lawfully present in Colorado; and (2) restricting access to administrative services. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reverses the action by the Title Board.

From the September 8 broadcast of KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: And once again I think I take people back, and I'm sure they all remember when all that struggle went through for people that were trying to save the state, and they had all the total amount of signatures needed, everything was really set to go, it was good to go, and it was going to force action on illegal immigration. And the Colorado Supreme Court -- that had OK'd it once before --

BRUCE: That's right -- last year -- last cycle

BOYLES: Exactly OK'd it -- Then in this lawsuit brought about by this guy who was four-square for illegal immigration rights -- citizenship, rights, the whole thing -- he brings the lawsuit. That Supreme Court buys it and strikes it down. And we end up in the special session that, again, in spite of what people want to tell you about that special session, totally excluded the private sector, Douglas, we spoke about that. How there was allegedly this meeting with these powerful builders and others, and suddenly there is absolutely nothing that can or will be done.