(Colo.1994). Even though the language of the titles set by the title board was nearly identical to that of the proposed initiative, the titles still did not fairly reflect the contents of the measure. Id. at 850. The titles failed to sufficiently inform voters that the measure was intended to prevent the state from adopting a definition of obscenity that was broader than that under the First Amendment. Id. at 850-51. In the same way, the titles in this case create confusion and are misleading because they do not sufficiently inform the voters of the parental-waiver process and its virtual elimination of bilingual education as a viable parental and school district option. This is the same problem we identified in our prior case. See In re Ballot Title 1999-2000 # 258(A), 4 P.3d at 1100 (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the title board's and proponents'
holding that the rod and eis for a program were final agency action holding that prisoner had no liberty interest in remaining in voluntary boot camp program despite fact that completion of program qualifies inmate for early release holding that the title of that initiative created confusion and was misleading in that vloters could assume that parents of nonenglish speaking students will have a meaningful choice between an english immersion program and a bilingual program and thus favor the proposal as assuring both programs holding that the implementation of a training program as opposed to the adoption of the program is not a discretionary function under the state tort liability act holding that a contract for the installation and implementation of a complex computer system did not constitute a consumer purchase covered by the njcfa and noting that the contract did not provide for simply the installation of a standardized computer software program but rather the design of a custommade program to satisfy the plaintiffs unique needs and the defendants active participation in implementation of this program