PPC

Colorado Supreme Court, Court of Appeals move into palatial new digs at the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center

Published December 19, 2012 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals take up residence in a brand-new, multi-million dollar facility a block away from the Colorado Capitol today (Wednesday, 19 December 2012) -
a mere two days before the “end of the world” supposedly “predicted” by the Mayan calendar.

The new “Judicial Center” is an impressive edifice (as shown in the picture below and in a photo gallery, both published by the Denver Post last week).

 

The demolition of the old court building in August 2010 was heralded by the Denver Post with another impressive front-page photo under the headline, “Make Room for Justice!“ along with a story inside (“Denver & The West” section – Colorado judicial building puts on show, disappears).  Interestingly, although the Post article noted the cost of the demolition ($850,000) it completely failed to mention the cost of the replacement “judicial complex” (possibly out of concern for the sensibilities of the Post’s largest paying tenant – the Colorado Supreme Court paid the Denver Newspaper Agency $1.6 Million per year over the last three years for their temporary ‘digs’ while the new complex was being built).

Interestingly, almost every other contemporary news report DID mention the cost to taxpayers
($258 million).

“Make Room for Justice” or “Justice Held For Ransom?”

Unfortunately, NONE of the news coverage provided any information on just where all of this money to fund the massive new “judicial complex” came from (ultimately, of course, from your pockets – but the details are interesting).

Part of the funding for the project (authorized back during the 2008 legislative session under SB08-206 State Justice Center) came from an unprecedented expansion in use of “Certificates of Participation” (in the words of a state legislator who shall remain nameless, “debt pretending not to be debt”).    In fact, the legislative language specifies that the debt is simply re-defined as ‘not-debt’ by declaring that

the obligations shall not be deemed or construed as creating an indebtedness of the state within the meaning of any provision of the state constitution or the laws of the state of Colorado concerning or limiting the creation of indebtedness by the state of Colorado and shall not constitute a multiple fiscal-year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of the state within the meaning of section 20 (4) of article X of the state constitution. [SB08-206, Section 2, (2) (b), page 5]

Former Colorado Treasurer Cary Kennedy was so proud of the ‘not-debt’ incurred to finance the construction of the new judicial complex (and new state history museum) that she trumpeted the great ‘success’ in a press release:

The successful financing of over $338 million in Certificates of Participation earlier today to build the new Colorado History Center and the Ralph L. Carr Justice Complex completed one of the largest sales of Build America Bonds to date, announced State Treasurer Cary Kennedy

“Crazy on Court Fees”

However, by far the greatest proportion of funding for the new judicial complex comes in the form of increasing the cost of access to justice by Colorado citizens due to substantial increases (including the creation of an entirely new category – the “Justice Center Fund” fee) in court fees.

Want to file a case in civil court, defend yourself against a claim, petition to change your name, or request a civil protection order?  It’ll cost you an extra $37 for the “Justice Center Fund” – per filing.  Small claims court filings?  An extra $11 for the “Justice Center Fund”, thank you.

Oh, and that’s just in your local county court – which may be hundreds of miles away from the recently completed “Mullarkey Monument” (actually, even the legislature reportedly balked at naming the center after Mullarkey when some legislators dug in their heels and insisted upon another name; honoring former Republican Governor Ralph L. Carr – truly, a principled politician – but naming the center after him is a rather ironic twist).  Need access to justice at the District Court level or higher?  Be prepared to cough up even more in “fees” for the ”Justice Center Fund” – most actions in District Court now cost an additional $68 for the fund, some as much as another $136 or even $204 each, at any of the various District Courts (22 in all) across Colorado, still miles from the as-yet unbuilt Colorado Judicial Complex.

Even “domestic relations” cases across the state are now more expensive thanks to the ”Justice Center Fund” fees – legal separation, annulment, divorce will each cost another $26; child custody registration or child support order, another $15 just for financing the construction of the massive new judicial complex.

Death in the family?  That’ll cost you extra, too – another $15 ”Justice Center Fund” fee for probate filings, estate fees, conservatorship, etc. etc.  Anywhere in the state – all of Colorado now enjoys the privilege of contributing to this marvelous new edifice.

Even an “insufficient funds” return check fee for court payments (already $40, which is double what any private entity is allowed to charge) gets another $10 fee tacked on for the ”Justice Center Fund” (truly, adding insult to injury).

Need to fight a case up to a higher court?  Pretty much ANY actions at the Colorado Court of Appeals now costs an additional $68 fee for that ”Justice Center Fund.”  Water Court?  Same story – almost every activity listed incurs an additional $68 for the ”Justice Center Fund” (some activities, such as applying for Change of Water Right or Plan for Augmentation, cost double – $136).

Ironically, the ONLY court where you WON’T have to pay an extra ”Justice Center Fund” fee to pursue justice?  You guessed it – the Colorado Supreme Court, who’s “home” is being financed by all these “fees” in the first place.

(View the full list of Colorado Court Fees – featuring the ”Justice Center Fund” fee)

It has been said that “if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”  Since “fees” are only supposed to be charged to offset the cost of providing or administering a voluntarily accessed good or service, the proliferation of new “fees” to finance the construction of palatial new digs for the Colorado Supreme Court – holding the administration of justice at county and District courts across the state hostage to this massive new monument to judicial supremacy – is questionable at best, particularly at a time when state resources are already strained and Colorado Citizens are being forced to cut back on personal spending.  Aren’t we supposed to be asked before the government in Colorado can take more of our hard-earned dollars?  Perhaps that’s why the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority decision in the 2008 Barber v. Ritter “Fees aren’t really taxes” case – expanding the use of “fees” by government entities across the state as a means of evading constitutional protections against tax increases – carries the taint of self-interest.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

 

CU Regents Unwise to Consider Residence Hall Gun Ban

Published May 11, 2012 | By Guest

The Colorado Supreme Court recently overturned the gun ban at state universities for concealed carry permit holders.  In response, University of Colorado administrators, led by Chancelor Phil DiStefano, now wants the CU Regents to circumvent the Court by implementing a contractual clause in housing contracts which would forbid guns within any of the campus residence halls.

Normally, such a contractual waiver of rights might be acceptable to the courts – if it was truly voluntary.  In this case, however, it is difficult to see how such a clause could be voluntary when CU requires its freshmen to live on campus for a year.  Thus, for first-year students, the supposed contractual waiver effectively becomes an imposed regulation.

This would be an extraordinarily foolish policy to attempt.  Forcing students to waive their Second Amendment rights in order to comply with campus housing requirements would effectively escalate CU’s dispute with the Colorado constitution into a full blown conflict with the Constitution of the United States and earn the ire of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s fundamental right to own and keep a firearm -specifically within his home.  Further, any law or regulation requiring guns to be stored at home in a locked container, trigger locked, or disassembled will violate Second Amendment rights.  Because CU requires its freshmen to live in the campus residence halls for a year, these halls effectively become the students’ homes and CU must respect the rights articulated in the Heller case.  CU cannot force students to waive fundamental rights. Any attempt to do so will only result in massively expensive and ultimately doomed litigation which the cash strapped universities can ill afford.

If CU truly wanted to ban guns in campus residence halls, it has only two options.  First, it could abolish its residence hall requirement for freshmen, thus giving students a true choice as to where to live and whether to waive their Second Amendment rights.  Otherwise, it could choose to provide armed guards and security checkpoints at the entrances to each residence hall to provide the protection that would otherwise come from being armed.  Though both of these options would at least give the university a plausible justification for a policy banning guns in residence halls, they are by no means certain to withstand scrutiny under the Heller rule.  The courts do tend to take a dim view of those who try to squash fundamental rights.  It also seems especially inappropriate when coming from universities – the very institutions that best articulated and steadfastly championed human rights since the Enlightenment.

CU and other universities would be wise to embrace that lauded tradition and cease their opposition to the basic rights of our citizenry.  Thus, instead of attempting to thwart the Second Amendment, universities might even profit by requiring firearms training and safety classes for campus residents to promote both safety and good citizenship.  That would not only respect the rights of their students, it would teach them how to responsibly exercise those rights.  After all, is that not one of the primary purposes of a Classical Liberal education?

_______________

Julian Dunraven is a corporate transactional lawyer and adjunct professor of Law and Criminal Justice at Everest College.

2011 Year in Review: Colorado Courts Continue to Play Politics

Published January 1, 2012 | By CTBC Director

Colorado Courts Continue to Play Politics in 2011…

Another tumultuous year has come and gone for the Colorado judiciary – and once again, Colorado Citizens and taxpayers have been hammered by the gavels of Colorado judges pounding their personal preferences over the will of the people – and the rule of law.

Last year closed with Colorado being declared a “judicial hellhole” by a national judicial evaluation organization (one of only three state supreme courts nationwide to qualify for the “honor”, joining Michigan and perennial favorite West Virginia in being so recognized).  The 2011 legislative session failed in repealing all but two of 2010’s unconstitutional “Dirty Dozen” tax increases (facilitated by the Colorado Supreme Court) or the even more onerous 2009 “FASTER” Colorado Car Tax legislation (aided and abetted by yet another anti-constitutional ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” enabling taxes to masquerade as “fees”), and even almost passed another tax increase (the “movie-ticket tax“) attempting to exploit the court’s creation of anti-TABOR “loopholes.”

Spring and Summer was dominated by legislative battles over congressional redistricting (sadly, the state senate reprised the 2000 playbook of abdicating responsibility to send it to the courts) and the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s public hearings on re-setting the boundaries of our state legislative districts.  Both issues came to a head in court battles during the Fall, with the Colorado Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in both cases (determining the political shape of Colorado for the next decade) coming in early December (December 5th & December 12th, respectively).

Colorado courts were also a central battlefield for Education policy, as one Denver District judge threw out Douglas County’s attempts to enable greater school choice, and another Denver District judge declared the state system of funding schools “unconscionable” while advancing the power of the courts to determine “proper” levels of school funding (despite the Constitution’s delegation of that power to the legislative branch) – although that decision is likely to be overturned after an expensive (and long) appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

In fact, 3 out of 4 “Top Colorado Political Stories of 2011” directly involve Colorado’s politicized judiciary (and the remainder, the voter rejection of tax increases at the ballot box, is juxtaposed against yet another court-approved tax increase the day before the vote):

  1. Redistricting/Reapportionment
  2. Failure of Prop 103
  3. Lobato decision
  4. Douglas County school vouchers

Cases such as Lobato – particularly Rappaport’s biased ruling – and the politicized nature of the court’s involvement in the congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment cases – highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering – let alone deciding – issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government.  Our courts have an important – even vital – role to play in our society and system of government. Deciding issues of policy – instead of fairly and impartially upholding the law – is not it.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

State Education Board joins Governor Hickenlooper in bipartisan appeal of Denver judge’s ruling on Lobato school-funding lawsuit

Published December 27, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Colorado’s State Board of Education voted 4-3 Tuesday morning to appeal Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport’s ruling against the state in the Lobato school funding lawsuit.  Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper had officially announced last Wednesday* that the state would appeal Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport’s ruling that the state’s education funding is not “thorough and uniform” as referenced in constitutional language (Colorado Constitution, Article IX, Section 2).  Rappaport’s 183-page ruling also paved the way for court-ordered tax increases, stating:

“It is also apparent that increased funding will be required.”

The state education board’s decision to appeal the Lobato ruling is significant because although the board’s vote to appeal Rappaport’s ruling was decided on a party-line basis (Education News Colorado)

(SBE’s four Republicans, Bob Schaffer, Marcia Neal, Paul Lundeen and Deb Scheffel, voted for appeal while Democrats Elaine Gantz Berman, Jane Goff and Angelika Schroader voted no)

the board joins Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper and Republican Attorney General John Suthers in a broad, bipartisan coalition of state elected officials seeking to overturn judicial usurpation of executive and legislative authority.

Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General Suthers had earlier warned of “devastating” consequences for the state if the Lobato plaintiffs were successful in forcing additional school spending.

Although the lawsuit (and Rappaport’s ruling) is likely to be overturned (thanks to the departure of former Chief Justice Mullarkey and the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, 2 of the original 4 votes keeping the Lobato lawsuit alive in 2009 are now gone), appealing the case will cost Colorado taxpayers plenty:

[Mike] Saccone [spokesman for the attorney general's office] said the legislature has appropriated up to $3.5 million to defend the state against the suit.

This educational-funding lawsuit (seeking to force even higher state educational spending by court order) represents yet another abuse of the courts for the pursuit of political ends – unfortunately aided and abetted by an all-too-complicit (and highly political) majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, which previously (October 2009) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, a policy issue not to be decided by the courts).

If the courts are able to decide “the future of public education” by judicial fiat, Colorado citizens will have lost all control and accountability over our schools.

The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.

Read more about the Lobato school funding case in these articles:

The Attorney General’s office has also compiled a full list of key pleadings and court decisions in the Lobato case.

Cases such as Lobato – particularly Rappaport’s biased ruling – highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering – let alone deciding – issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government.  Our courts have an important – even vital – role to play in our society and system of government.  This is not it.

* Governor Hickenlooper responded to a question at a 13 December 2011 town hall event about Lobato that he was leaning towards an appeal, since the court’s ruling “clearly violated TABOR” and Colorado voters had recently rejected a tax increase purportedly targeted for education funding (Prop. 103).

The Constitution says we can’t raise taxes without a vote of the people – the people just voted specifically on more revenues for education, and the people pretty clearly voted 2-to-1 that this was a bad idea. So how can the courts say that we should do it?

Governor Hickenlooper clearly disagreed with Rappaport’s ruling, and clearly expects to win on appeal, since the alternative would plunge the state into a constitutional crisis:

“Let’s say that the Supreme Court agrees with the district court – if that’s the case, then we’ve got the Constitution versus the Supreme Court.”

Listen to audio update on the Lobato appeal (playing this week on 560KLZ The Source)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Friday Funnies: …and a Leftist Judiciary! (reprise)

Published December 23, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Welcome to the 2011 Christmas edition of the Clear The Bench Colorado Friday Funnies!

Another tumultuous year has come and gone for the Colorado judiciary – and once again, Colorado Citizens and taxpayers have been hammered by the gavels of Colorado judges pounding their personal preferences over the will of the people – and the rule of law.

Last year closed with Colorado being declared a “judicial hellhole” by a national judicial evaluation organization (one of only three state supreme courts nationwide to qualify for the “honor”, joining Michigan and perennial favorite West Virginia in being so recognized).  The 2011 legislative session failed in repealing all but two of 2010′s unconstitutional “Dirty Dozen” tax increases (facilitated by the Colorado Supreme Court) or the even more onerous 2009 “FASTER” Colorado Car Tax legislation (aided and abetted by yet another anti-constitutional ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” enabling taxes to masquerade as “fees”), and even almost passed another tax increase (the “movie-ticket tax“) attempting to exploit the court’s creation of anti-TABOR “loopholes.”

Spring and Summer was dominated by legislative battles over congressional redistricting (sadly, the state senate reprised the 2000 playbook of abdicating responsibility to send it to the courts) and the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s public hearings on re-setting the boundaries of our state legislative districts.  Both issues came to a head in court battles during the Fall, with the Colorado Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in both cases (determining the political shape of Colorado for the next decade) coming in early December (December 5th & December 12th, respectively).

Colorado courts were also a central battlefield for Education policy, as one Denver District judge threw out Douglas County’s attempts to enable greater school choice, and another Denver District judge declared the state system of funding schools “unconscionable” while advancing the power of the courts to determine “proper” levels of school funding (despite the Constitution’s delegation of that power to the legislative branch) – although that decision is likely to be overturned after an expensive – and long – appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Although remaining mindful that what’s at stake – holding our judiciary accountable for serial violations of our constitutional rights (to vote on taxes, even when taxes are called “fees”; defend our property against unjust seizure; bear arms in self-defense; and too many others to list) is serious business, all work and no play makes Matty a dull boy.

Although still awaiting payment a year later after “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) was once again ordered to pay Clear The Bench Colorado thousands of $ in legal fees (owed since the judge’s original ruling in July found their complaint “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious”) brings a rueful chuckle, the following video (even if focused on the national level) elicited a hearty laugh:

…and a Leftist Judiciary!

While still afflicted with the (black-robed) ghosts of Christmas past in our Christmas present, we can still act to save our Christmas future. Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with comments (Sound Off!) and contributions. Freedom isn’t free – nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper announces state will appeal Denver judge’s ruling on Lobato school-funding lawsuit

Published December 22, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper officially announced Wednesday* that the state would appeal Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport’s ruling that the state’s education funding is not “thorough and uniform” as referenced in constitutional language (Colorado Constitution, Article IX, Section 2). Rappaport’s 183-page ruling also paved the way for court-ordered tax increases, stating:

“It is also apparent that increased funding will be required.”

Rappaport’s 183-page opus spends a mere 10 pages even purporting to address issues of law (the remainder is dedicated to a lengthy exposition of the judge’s views on the educational system and her personal opinions on the worthiness of various witnesses) and fails to address how to enforce funding increases in compliance with other constitutional provisions.  As the governor’s statement noted,

“The judge’s decision provided little practical guidance on how the state should fund a ‘thorough and uniform’ system of public education,” said Hickenlooper.  ”Moreover, while the judge focused on the inadequacy of state funding, she did not reconcile this issue with other very relevant provisions of the Constitution, including the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, the Gallagher Amendment and Amendment 23.”

A Denver Post article (“Gov. Hickenlooper to appeal Lobato education-funding decision to state Supreme Court; state board of education delays its own decision“) also noted the budgetary implications:

The lawsuit seeks no specific sum of money, but plaintiffs have pointed to studies estimating the state is underfunding education by as much as $4 billion.

The state now spends more than 40 percent, or $3.2 billion in the 2010-11 fiscal year that ended in June, of its almost $7 billion general fund on K-12 schools.

Coloradans in November by a two-to-one margin shot down a $3 billion tax increase measure for schools.

Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General Suthers had earlier warned of “devastating” consequences for the state if the Lobato plaintiffs were successful in forcing additional school spending.

Although the lawsuit (and Rappaport’s ruling) is likely to be overturned (thanks to the departure of former Chief Justice Mullarkey and the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, 2 of the original 4 votes keeping the Lobato lawsuit alive in 2009 are now gone), appealing the case will cost Colorado taxpayers plenty:

[Mike] Saccone [spokesman for the attorney general's office] said the legislature has appropriated up to $3.5 million to defend the state against the suit.

This educational-funding lawsuit (seeking to force even higher state educational spending by court order) represents yet another abuse of the courts for the pursuit of political ends – unfortunately aided and abetted by an all-too-complicit (and highly political) majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, which previously (October 2009) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, a policy issue not to be decided by the courts).

If the courts are able to decide “the future of public education” by judicial fiat, Colorado citizens will have lost all control and accountability over our schools.

The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.

Read more about the Lobato school funding case in these articles:

The Attorney General’s office has also compiled a full list of key pleadings and court decisions in the Lobato case.

Cases such as Lobato – particularly Rappaport’s biased ruling – highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering – let alone deciding – issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government.  Our courts have an important – even vital – role to play in our society and system of government.  This is not it.

* Governor Hickenlooper responded to a question at a 13 December 2011 town hall event about Lobato that he was leaning towards an appeal, since the court’s ruling “clearly violated TABOR” and Colorado voters had recently rejected a tax increase purportedly targeted for education funding (Prop. 103)

The Constitution says we can’t raise taxes without a vote of the people – the people just voted specifically on more revenues for education, and the people pretty clearly voted 2-to-1 that this was a bad idea. So how can the courts say that we should do it?

Governor Hickenlooper clearly disagreed with Rappaport’s ruling, and clearly expects to win on appeal, since the alternative would plunge the state into a constitutional crisis:

“Let’s say that the Supreme Court agrees with the district court – if that’s the case, then we’ve got the Constitution versus the Supreme Court.”

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Speaking Out on Reforming Colorado’s Campaign Finance Laws

Published December 19, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 15 December 1791

Abridging the freedom of speech – particularly political speech – has a long and sordid history, as the ruling ‘Establishment’ or entrenched special interests seek to suppress criticism and competition.

In “modern” and “civilized” times, the tools of repressing political speech have “evolved” from the brute force of physically preventing anyone from speaking out to the more subtle and “sophisticated” methods of legislating limits, building bureaucratic barriers, and piling on paperwork for “permission” in order to exercise what is a fundamental right.

A confusing cloud of campaign finance laws in Colorado challenge the Constitution, chill free speech, and curtail civic participation.

On Thursday December 15th, the office of Colorado Secretary of State held open hearings to receive public testimony (chaired by Secretary of State Scott Gessler) on rules changes oriented towards clarifying and reforming Colorado’s unconstitutional campaign finance laws.

A number of people – both supporting and opposing specific rules changes, and/or speaking out more generally on the topic of the impact of campaign finance laws on political speech and civic participation – submitted written comments, showed up in person to testify, or both.

Curiously, the people supporting the reforms to campaign finance rules largely spoke as individuals or as representatives of small, grassroot organizations, while those opposing the rules reforms almost uniformly represented well-established politically-active special interest groups (see below for list).

A common theme emerged regarding the complexity of existing campaign laws, and the resultant cost, burden and difficulty of compliance.

Some people – such as Colorado state senator John Morse – think that’s just “the price of transparency”:

(Video courtesy of Ari Armstrong of Free Colorado)

Organizations opposing rules changes to reform campaign finance laws at the hearing:

Curiously, none of these politically active organizations – NOT ONE – is subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements that they support imposing on others.
(NOTE: the state Democrat and Republican parties are subject to some campaign finance reporting and disclosure requirements, but differ in some details)

In fact, the Colorado Statesman profiled some of these groups in a pair of articles last year:

Testifying in favor of rules changes to reform campaign finance laws at the hearing:


Clear The Bench Colorado director Matt Arnold testifies in favor of reforming Colorado campaign laws

The Revised Draft of Proposed Rules is posted on the Secretary of State’s website, along with written comments submitted in support or opposition.  Interested individuals or groups can still submit written comments to the Secretary of State’s office until Friday, 23 December.

Other videos on how Colorado campaign laws adversely impact free speech:

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Friday Funnies: This Time, the Joke’s on all of You – Colorado’s Congressional and State Legislative District Maps

Published December 16, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The long saga of Colorado’s Congressional redistricting and state legislative district reapportionment has been decided for the next decade by the Colorado Supreme Court in a pair of recent rulings (ruling to uphold Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt’s ruling on Congressional Redistricting December 5th, then ruling to uphold the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s resubmitted state legislative district maps on December 12th).

Over a million Colorado citizens weren’t laughing when they discovered they’d been moved into new Congressional districts by court order, and even more Colorado voters didn’t get the joke when they were shuffled into new (and at times bizarrely formed) state legislative districts, either – contrary to the views expressed by countless individuals who’d testified at many hearings over the summer (one round of hearings in June, followed by another round of public hearings on maps incorporating public comment and testimony throughout the month of August) and contrary to the objections raised by numerous city and country governments filing legal challenges against the commission’s constitutionally suspect maps.

However, even in the aftermath of such tectonic shifts in Colorado’s political landscape, there’s some humor to be found – as illustrated by the following political cartoon, courtesy of Benjamin Hummel (creator of Politix Cartoons):

Redistricting

“Benjamin Hummel, the creator of Politix Cartoons, is the greatest conservative political cartoonist within a one mile radius of his studio in Golden, Colorado. Outside that, his work has been republished on several blogs, including JonCaldara.com, PoliticalLore.com and PARitzer.com. As a member of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, his work has also been published in several textbooks and university handbooks across the nation, and his blog Politixcartoons.com has an international following.”

REFERENCE:

In response to numerous requests and for handy reference, links to Colorado’s Congressional District and state legislative district maps are posted below:

Congressional District map:

Congressional Districts-statewide

(DETAIL: the Denver Post has created a “find your congressional district” application)

State legislative district maps:

Additional references:

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Reforming Colorado’s Unconstitutional Campaign Finance Laws

Published December 14, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 15 December 1791

Abridging the freedom of speech – particularly political speech – has a long and sordid history, as the ruling ‘Establishment’ or entrenched special interests seek to suppress criticism and competition.

Techniques have evolved from outright bans, gag orders, and brutal repression to a more subtle and “civilized” approach: suppression by regulation and legal intimidation.

In today’s Colorado, for example, your right to engage in free speech on political issues is not banned - perish the thought! – although to practically and effectively exercise that right, by collecting and spending money to reach a mass audience, you’ll first need to fill out a few forms…

Actually, you’ll need to do far more than that.  Under Colorado’s campaign finance regime, if you wish to speak out on issues or questions that may appear on the ballot, you’ll need to form and register an “Issue Committee” – as defined in Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, § 2(10)(a):

(10) (a) “Issue committee” means any person, other than a natural person, or any group of two or more persons, including natural persons:
(I) That has a major purpose of supporting or opposing any ballot issue or ballot question; or
(II) That has accepted or made contributions or expenditures in excess of two hundred dollars to support or oppose any ballot issue or ballot question.
(b) “Issue committee” does not include political parties, political committees, small donor committees, or candidate committees as otherwise defined in this section.

Colorado’s ‘Campaign Finance Laws’ challenge the Constitution, chill free speech, and curtail civic participation

The amount of paperwork and resources (time and/or money) required in order to simply exercise a fundamental right (freedom of speech) is significant, and itself exerts a chilling effect on civic or political participation.  Individuals and small groups, particularly those becoming active for the first time, face a daunting amount of red tape: establishing and registering a committee, opening a separate bank account, keeping detailed financial records, filing frequent and detailed reports of contributions and expenditures – all under threat of fines and other legal sanctions for mistakes, no matter how minor.

Even if they DO follow the rules to the letter, committees may STILL be forced to defend their right of civic participation in court, thanks to the proliferation of legal attack groups (such as the grossly misnamed “Colorado Ethics Watch” – CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do) that exist solely for the purpose of harassing and diverting resources from ideologically opposed organizations.  The cost of defending against such attacks is another deterrent to participation.  Even a successful defense can cost tens of thousands, and even defeating an attack so completely without merit (in legalese, a “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” complaint such as the CEW attack on Clear The Bench Colorado) that the judge takes the rare step of awarding attorneys fees to the defense can divert scarce resources (and take months, if not years, to collect). [Ed. to date, CEW still refuses to pay what they owe to CTBC, continuing to contest the judgment against them all the way to the Colorado Court of Appeals]

Origins of Colorado’s Campaign Finance Regime

Interestingly, many of these restrictions on freedom of (political) speech are a relatively recent development.  In 2002, as part of the wave of “campaign finance reform” measures that swept in the subsequently-found-unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law on the national scene, Colorado voters were persuaded to vote for Colorado Amendment 27 (which became Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII).

Many of these so-called “campaign finance reform” measures have since been found unconstitutional, as violating First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association – in a word, censorship.  However, until challenged, many of the laws remain on the books – forcing individuals to fight for their fundamental constitutional rights in court.

Constitutional Challenges to Colorado’s Campaign Finance Regime

One such recent court case originating in Colorado, Sampson v. Buescher, resulted in a Federal court (10th Circuit) holding certain sections of Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII in violation of the United States Constitution.  Specifically, provisions of Article XXVIII were held to unduly burden the rights of free association and free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, among our most cherished rights.

The rationale behind Article XXVIII (as Amendment 27) was to reduce “disproportionate influence” over the political process by “large campaign contributions.”  The 10th Circuit held that Colorado’s $200 trigger for requiring committee registration and subsequent disclosure and reporting failed to meet the test of either “large contributions” or “disproportionate influence” that might justify public interest, and was therefore an unconstitutional  burden on the freedoms of speech and association protected under the First Amendment.

Rolling Back the Regime – Restoring Constitutional Protections

In response to the 10th Circuit’s ruling in Sampson v. Buescher, the office of Colorado Secretary of State (beginning under outgoing SOS Buescher, continued and successfully concluded under newly-elected Secretary of State Scott Gessler), pursuant to the Secretary’s constitutional rule-making authority under Article XXVIII, Section 9(1)b, proposed a rules change to raise the registration and reporting threshold for Issue Committees to $5,000 in order to bring Colorado’s requirements in line with the court’s ruling.

Last May, after soliciting and reviewing written comments and holding public hearings,  based on the overwhelming weight of public comment and testimony in favor of raising the registration and reporting threshold, the office of Secretary of State adopted the new rule on 13 May 2011.

Unsurprisingly, the rules change was challenged in court – by the perennial campaign finance attack group “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do), and advocacy group “Common Cause” which despite extensive political participation are not subject to the same financial disclosure and reporting regulations as the groups they attack.

Recently, Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Gessler “went beyond his authority” in adopting the rules change (Gessler is appealing).  Judge Jones (who is subject to a retention vote in 2012) had earlier “unloaded on Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler” at the initial hearing on the case – later admitting that he had not yet read the written briefs before issuing his critical remarks.

Pending the appeal, the office of Secretary of State is again holding public hearings (and accepting written comment) on these and other rules changes to Colorado’s campaign finance laws – most of which are oriented towards clarifying, simplifying, and/or reducing the burden on political participation.

The Revised Draft of Proposed Rules is posted on the Secretary of State’s website, along with written comments submitted in support or opposition.

Clear The Bench Colorado submitted a written brief in support of Proposed Rule 4 (clarifying requirements for Issue Committees) and Rule 20 (Redaction of Sensitive Information) and will offer verbal testimony at Thursday’s hearing as well.

(Hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2011 from 9:00AM to 12:00PM in the Blue Spruce Conference Room on the 2nd floor of the Secretary of State’s Office at 1700 Broadway, Denver CO 80290)

Written Comments

Additional commentary on Colorado’s campaign finance regime

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Colorado Supreme Court approves state legislative district maps resubmitted by Colorado Reapportionment Commission

Published December 12, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Supreme Court today approved the state legislative district maps re-submitted by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission last week (adopted in a procedurally suspect manner on a 6-5 party-line vote, with “unaffiliated” Chairman Mario Carrera joining the commission’s other Democrats).

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is surprising, since the court had previously rejected the commission’s earlier maps for constitutional deficiencies less stark than those exhibited by the commission’s re-submitted maps.

Given the constitutional deficiencies remaining in the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s re-submitted maps, the procedural travesty by which the maps were adopted, and the availability of a more constitutionally-consistent alternative set of maps submitted as part of the ‘Minority Report’ appeal (which the majority commissioners had attempted to suppress), rejection of the commission’s maps – particularly given the court’s rejection of the commission’s previous set of constitutionally-deficient maps – appeared to be the only outcome consistent with constitutional and statutory criteria.

It will be interesting to analyze the reasoning by which a majority on the Colorado Supreme Court reached the conclusion that these maps were constitutionally valid once the court issues its full written opinion, which should follow within a week or so.

BOTTOM LINE:

The resubmitted maps retain a veritable plethora of constitutional deficiencies (in particular, failing to achieve the minimal splits in county lines, which was the primary rationale for the court’s rejection of the commission’s previous maps).  Municipal (city) splits were also multiplied, districts were not drawn to be as “compact and contiguous” as possible, and communities of interest were ignored or broken up. Additionally, the pairing of multiple incumbents into the same district raises additional constitutional issues – and one just-discovered “glitch” (”Glitch in new Colorado legislative map could unseat senator“) in the maps would result in “essentially airbrushing [State Senator Tim Neville] from the Senate after he serves next session.”

The ‘Minority Report’ challenge ably deconstructs the constitutional deficiencies of the commission’s re-submitted maps, and presents an alternative set of maps which better meet constitutional criteria (urging the adoption of the alternate maps by court order, per precedent established under similar circumstances several decades ago, as the best and most timely option).

The court’s decision is all the more surprising given the more centrist makeup of the current Colorado Supreme Court (following the departure of former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, replaced with Justices Monica Marquez and Brian Boatright, who just assumed his seat last week), and in the face of a set of legislative maps that were seemingly designed “out of spite” and apparently “calculated to antagonize the court.”

Unfortunately, it is possible that politics trumped law in this highly-charged case.

Additional references:

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone –  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.

Search
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Links & Resources
Archives