of persons for judicial , office. While I joined in that opinion, I do not subscribe to the reasoning of that footnote, which was not germane to our holding and judgment. In fact, but for the majority’s holding today, that suggestion in footnote 11 is no more than dicta. Thus, I would conclude that, notwithstanding that dicta, fidelity to the plain language of our constitution mandates that an initiative that addresses qualifications and term of office does not comply with the single-subject mandate. While not dispositive of the issue before' us today, the cases in which we have addressed the qualifications of other constitutional officers have not included a discussion of the term of office of the subject official. See Jackson v. State of Colorado, 966 P.2d 1046, 1051 (Colo.1998) (<HOLDING>); Reale v. Board of Real Estate Appraisers, 880
holding that the constitutional qualifications for the office of sheriff were exclusive and the general assembly had no authority to impose additional qualifications as a prerequisite to holding the office of county sheriff holding that an order redistricting a county was merely prospective as to qualifications of county commissioners and did not affect the right to office of those previously elected holding that under north carolina law a sheriff is an agent of the office of the sheriff and an officialcapacity suit against him is a suit against that office holding that acts by a sheriff which gave rise to the plaintiffs claim against him were taken in the execution of his duties as sheriff and thus the sheriff was immune under  14 from an action seeking damages against him in his individual capacity holding that the sheriff when investigating crimes acts as a county officer