A lot of big questions are on your Colorado ballot. You may need 22 years of schooling to understand them.

Voters will start receiving ballots for November mid-terms this week. Why is the language so difficult?

Photo by Wonderlane, via Flickr: Creative Commons

Colorado is tied with Florida in offering up the most initiatives — 13  — on the November ballot. But unlike Florida, a voter in Colorado needs a doctoral-level education, more than 22 years of school, to understand the average title question on Colorado’s ballot, according to a commonly used readability formula. Florida’s average title requires 12 years.

Colorado’s ballot titles have long ranked among the nation’s most difficult to understand. The complexity annoys and angers many voters here, but for populations with lower education levels — particularly communities of color —  the impact is even worse. It’s disenfranchising, voting rights groups argue.

“This is especially concerning for the Latino community since we are already under-represented in government spaces and under-valued by politicians; we cannot have our electoral decisions threatened or diluted by unnecessary literacy barriers,” Karina Martinez, communications director for Mi Familia Vota, wrote to The Colorado Independent.

The reason for Colorado’s low readability score boils down to state laws that demand each title be condensed into a single sentence that meets several tests, often making the title complicated and unwieldy.

The title on this year’s ballot that requires the highest reading level is Proposition 112, better known as the oil-and-gas-drilling setback measure. The title reads:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?

The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula suggests 37 years of schooling are needed to understand that sentence. But the point of the formula isn’t the grade level — it’s the difficulty. So, why such a high score?  In the case of Prop. 112, that one sentence is about 80 words. And, according to the formula, used by the U.S. military and many educators, the shorter the sentences, the fewer the syllables per word, the lower the reading level required to understand a ballot title.

The initiative title requiring the lowest reading level on the November ballot is Amendment W, involving judge-retention ballot language. Someone with 15 years of school should be able to understand that title, according to the formula. Amendment W reads:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning a change in the format of the election ballot for judicial retention elections?

The chart below shows how Colorado’s measures stack up against one another in reading difficulty.


Data Obtained from https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2018_ballot_measures
Calculations and graphic by Forest Wilson

Related: The big questions on your November 2018 ballot in Colorado

Amendment W’s 23-word title is atypically short for Colorado. It also has no semicolons — punctuation many title writers use to pack as many words as possible into a sentence, making reading comprehension more difficult. (In the chart above, we replaced semicolons with periods in the titles. Otherwise, the readability score of amendments such as Y and Z would have topped 90 years.)

Between 1997 and 2007, Colorado was second only to New Mexico in difficulty of initiative titles, according to a study by political scientists Shauna Reilly and Sean Richey. The study, published in 2009, found that Colorado’s ballot titles required an average of more than 25 years of schooling on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scale. The average for all states was 17 years.

“Readability does connect to education so if there are segments of the population that are less educated than others they will find it more difficult to participate in these elections,” Reilly wrote in an email to The Colorado Independent.

The following charts show the education attainment levels of various groups in Colorado.


Data obtained from United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service and United States Census Bureau.
Graphic by Forest Wilson

According to the study, which examined the readability of 1,211 state-level ballot questions, voters often skipped initiatives they didn’t understand, known as voter roll-off. Reilly and Richey write in the conclusion:

Particularly of interest is the disparate impacts that these poorly worded questions could have on disadvantaged groups.

The crafting of a title

How the titles are written depends whether the measure was initiated by citizens or lawmakers. The average reading level required is higher for citizen-referred initiatives — 25 — than those from the legislature — 20.  

In both cases, though, titles have to be one sentence.

And that single sentence has to work hard. The Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 1 states that if a subject in a measure isn’t clearly expressed in the title, that portion of the measure “shall be void.”

That is the primary reason titles are written in complex sentences with multiple clauses.

Titles also must be written in the form of a question and contain all the major features of a measure, and they can’t be misleading.

For a legislatively referred measure, the Colorado Office of Legislative and Legal Services drafts a title at the request of the sponsoring lawmakers. It then passes through the legislature, where it can be amended. Ultimately, the measure sponsors have the final say over the title wording.

The legislature’s intent is not to confuse voters, said Sen. Lois Court, D-Denver, adding she worked for several years trying to figure out how to simplify ballot language. The title requirements kept posing a problem.

“The responsibility of the writers of these is to make certain that they are summarizing as many details of what the proposal would do as they can,” Court said. “And when it’s a 20-page proposal, that’s pretty complicated.”

Rep. Jovan Melton, D-Aurora, said the titles don’t always accurately convey the measure’s outcome. An example he gave was 2016’s Amendment T, “Removal of Exception to Slavery Prohibition for Criminals,” which Melton sponsored. The amendment’s title focused on removing specific language from the Colorado Constitution and was written with a double-negative that was confusing to voters, Melton said. The poor wording torpedoed the measure, which was expected to pass easily. Peter Hessler in The New Yorker remembers the confusion of the amendment:

On a ballot full of odd and confusing measures, I couldn’t untangle the language of Amendment T: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?” Does yes mean yes, or does yes mean no? The election of 2016 disturbs me in many ways, and one of them is that I honestly cannot remember whether I voted for or against slavery.

Amendment T was rewritten into Amendment A for 2018’s ballot. Melton said he and its other sponsors instead focused on the outcome of the measure, writing a title question that “prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude in all circumstances.”

Citizen-initiated measures go through a few more hurdles, including a hearing before the state’s Title Setting Board, which is made up of representatives from the offices of the secretary of state, the attorney general, and legislative services. Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert chairs the board.

The board makes sure the language of the question meets legal and constitutional requirements, including that it address a single subject, that it’s clearly stated, that it isn’t misleading, that all the major features of the proposal are incorporated, and that it doesn’t include any catch-phrases that campaigns sometimes use to influence the vote.

After the title is set by the board, opponents or supporters of the measure can apply for a rehearing if they aren’t satisfied with the title. The board doesn’t often grant rehearings — Proposition 112 is the only measure on the ballot this year that went through one. Staiert said at these rehearings the tone can become more hostile. One of the more interesting examples, she said, was Proposition 106, also known as access to medical aid in dying. Arguments over the successful 2016 ballot measure arose over the definitions of “suicide” and “assisted suicide.”

“It ends up being a lot of fight over every word and every comma and the description of everything,” Staiert said.

The title language has been difficult for more than 47 years, according to Gerry Cummins, vice president in charge of voter services for League of Women Voters.

“We’d like to see everything written more simply for the average person to understand what they are voting on,” Cummins said. “I think in its place they tend to rely on TV ads and yard signs.”

Staiert said when the title board has discussions about incorporating more “user-friendly” language, but when opposing sides can’t agree, the board falls back on the language in the body of the initiative.

The title board hopes voters aren’t relying only on the text of the title, she said, and will do outside research on each measure. Legislation that would require a 12th-grade reading level for all title question is possible, according to Staiert, but not under Colorado’s current law.

5 COMMENTS

  1. Forest,
    The measures referred by the General Assembly on the ballot did not go through the Title Board. C.R.S. 1-40-106 requires referred measures from the General Assembly to have their titles set by the Title Board. Amendment W, which you refer to in your article, is an inappropriate title because it does not tell the voter what the change is to the judicial retention format. The title simply asks whether the format should be changed. The natural response to the title is another question: “What’s the proposed change?” So the title is inappropriate. The voter is supposed to know from the title what the proposed change is. But there are many measures that should not be on the ballot because they did not have their titles set by the Title Board as required by law.

  2. Another, equally important issue with ballots and the sources that purport to explain them is the fact that they are typeset in ALL CAPS!! Every graphic designer, and everyone who uses email and social media, recognize that all caps text is much more difficult to read and, on social media, it communicates yelling, screaming, undue emphasis and generally a loud, insistent voice. For information of such importance to the citizens, why is it made so much more difficult to read? Does this need to be changed by the legislature or is it just a “tradition” of the people who create the paper media? Ballots and booklets NEED to be set in upper and lowercase text like everything else that’s intended to be read and understood.

  3. Forest, C.R.S. 1-40-106 refers to “ballot issues”. It’s in the very first sentence of the statute. All “ballot issues” shall have a title set by the Title Board. That’s what C.R.S. 1-40-106 says. “Ballot issues” is defined in C.R.S. 1-40-102 (1) as meaning both citizen initiated measures and measures referred by the General Assembly.
    You are incorrect to state that C.R.S. 1-40-106 only refers to measures initiated by citizens. All issues on the ballot are to receive a title from the Title Board. None of the measures referred by the General Assembly received a title from the Title Board. Those measures are not in compliance with the law and should not be on the ballot.
    A reporter should report that there are problems with the ballot. A citizen should not need to pay court costs and legal fees when the government is not in compliance with the law. The financial burden on someone to file a challenge pursuant to C.R.S. 1-11-203.5 is too great. But the entire state is set to vote on measures that have not been properly placed on the ballot. Such a fact would make an excellent story for you to report.

  4. The statute unequivocally reads that “ballot issues” are to have titles set by the Title Board. C.R.S. 1-40-102 makes it abundantly clear that “ballot issues” refers not only to citizen-initiated measures and legislatively-referred measures. The statute does not provide any exceptions to the law. The legislature didn’t follow the law. It’s that simple. And the grade level necessary to understand that is much less than the grade levels you refer to in your story. The legislatively-referred measures should not be on the ballot this year because they don’t have titles set by the Title Board. The legislature and the Secretary of State are being bullies because they know they didn’t comply with the law, yet they know no one will take the financial risk of challenging what they have done. Their actions can be challenged, but only if a bond is posted in district court. Legislative Council and/or the Secretary of State should have done the right thing and followed the law. Once they were aware that they didn’t comply with the law (they are aware) they should have corrected their actions. They failed to do so. We’ll all be voting on issues that should not be on the ballot. And some of those issues may be come law, when they shouldn’t be on the ballot in the first place.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.