That court recently blocked Coloradans from voting on an initiative that, aside from administrivia, says this:
Except as mandated by federal law, the provision of non-emergency services by the state of Colorado, or any county, city, or other political subdivision thereof, is restricted to citizens of and aliens lawfully present in the United States of America.
They took this off the ballot because they claim that it involves more than one subject, something that initiatives are forbidden from doing by Colorado's constitution.
As discussed here and here, it seems to only deal with one subject and the court's reasoning seems a bit circuitous. So, perhaps there's something else involved.
As pointed out at the first link, the court approved a similar initiative in 2004, although it was challenged this time on a different issue.
The opposition group is the misleadingly-titled "Keep Colorado Safe", which is headed up by former Denver mayor Federico Pena. The petitioner in the challenge was one Manolo Gonzalez-Estay.
And, the spokesman for the group is someone mentioned here before: Polly Baca. I wonder if any other members have links to First Data/Western Union or if they were involved in this in any way.
Others involved include Mitch Ackerman, head of an SEIU local (Service Employees International Union). Also, Anna Sampaio, political science professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. The former interim chairwoman was Lorez Meinhold, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. They selected Pena to replace her after seeing him deliver a rousing speech before a May 1 illegal immigration march.
UPDATE: Surprisingly, the Rocky Mountain News disagrees with the court:
The court really had to reach to find that second subject, prompting us to conclude it worked backward from the finding it wanted instead of forward from the arguments made...
...We note for the record that this newspaper has taken no position on the initiative. The only issue that concerns us here is the people's right to launch ballot issues without contrived interference from the courts.
It's clear to us that the proposal doesn't even come close to violating the single-subject rule. If the high court can keep the electorate from voting on this issue, there's practically nothing that can get on the ballot if four members of the court don't want it there...