Clear The Bench Colorado was at the forefront of the opposition to the unconstitutional “Dirty Dozen” tax increases passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2010 - testifying before the House and Senate Finance Committees that the tax increases were violations of the rights of Colorado citizens under the Colorado Constitution (Article X, Section 20: Taxpayers Bill of Rights) to be consulted (by vote) before being subjected to more or higher taxes, despite an interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case that the requirement to ask first could be ignored.

The 2010 internet sales tax (or “Amazon Tax”) House Bill 10-1193: Sales Tax Out of State Retailers (Pommer/Heath) was among the worst of the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases from both a constitutional and policy perspective, since previous court rulings had already held that a state’s attempts to regulate commerce in other states (as this tax attempted to do) ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold testified before both the state House and Senate Finance committees that the Amazon Tax was a violation of both the Colorado Constitution (TABOR - Article X, Section 20) and the US Constitution before the law was passed back in 2010 and boldly predicted that the law would be challenged - and be struck down - in federal court.

Instead of heeding the warning, the Democrat-controlled legislature passed what was clearly an unconstitutional law (depending, no doubt, on a then reliably anti-constitutional Colorado Supreme Court to uphold the law) which not only failed to collect any tax revenue, but wound up costing the state tens if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible in federal court when the law was (predictably) challenged - and (predictably) overturned.

It’s worth noting that the challenge was filed in Federal court, not in the state courts, because the plaintiffs clearly understand that the Colorado Supreme Court has established a pattern of failing to uphold the law (as written) and that the current majority on the court would have a vested interest in striking down any challenge to the tax increase law since it relied explicitly on an interpretation of their ruling in the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case.  It’s a sad state of affairs when businesses and consumers cannot count on the courts in our state to uphold the rule of law - part of why Colorado is regarded as a “judicial hellhole.”

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.

The supreme court holds that the Concealed Carry Act’s comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus.  Accordingly, the supreme court agrees with the court of appeals that, by alleging the Policy violates the CCA, the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus have stated a claim for relief. Because the supreme court affirms on statutory grounds, it does not consider the Students’ constitutional claim.

The court upheld the Colorado Court of Appeals April 2010 ruling that the CU gun ban policy violates “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits:”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

Interestingly, the Colorado Supreme Court chose not to address the claims for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, (which affirms an individual right to bear arms in self-defense) - leaving the Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutional right intact while avoiding giving that language the imprimatur of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling.

The courts - both the Colorado Supreme Court in Monday’s ruling, and the Colorado Court of Appeals in its more sweeping April 10th ruling were right on the law, and reinforced the right policy, too.

There is NO compelling state interest to bar responsible adults (Colorado CCW permits can only be obtained by people 21 years or older, with a clean criminal and mental health background check passed, who obtain training in both physical and legal aspects of using firearms) the exercise of a fundamental right.

From a “safety” standpoint, barring guns from college campuses places students, staff, faculty, and visitors at greater risk of criminal predation, as  ”gun free zone” equals “target-rich environment” for criminals.

Further, there has been NO documented instance of a concealed-carry permit holder misusing firearms on any Colorado college campus, as noted in the amicus brief filed by the Colorado sheriffs opposing the CU Gun Ban.

Allowing responsible adults to exercise a fundamental constitutional right - affirming the right of licensed concealed-carry permit holders to responsibly exercise their inherent right of self-defense - is not only good law, it is good policy.

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.

Legal precedent - including two relevant Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions - is clear; Fenster’s lawsuit is frivolous, the “Republican form of government” language in the Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” (United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 - “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government“) has been repeatedly ruled non-justiciable (meaning, not subject to determination by the courts), and constitutional constraints on government (such as the TABOR amendment) are, by definition, constitutionally allowed.

The two relevant SCOTUS cases on the “Guarantee Clause” have unambiguously held the “Republican form of government” language to be non-justiciable:

In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to put the “republican character” of state government subject to judicial review, holding that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State … as well as its republican character.”  The court, properly exercising judicial restraint, held the “Guarantee Clause” to be a political question, not a judicial one - and therefore not subject to review by the courts (i.e. non-justiciable).

A more recent case, Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912) dealt specifically with a challenge to the use of citizen initiatives in states (such as Colorado’s TABOR Amendment). In that case, the Court also held that challenges to a state’s “republican character” are non-justiciable political questions:

The enforcement of the provision in § 4 of Art. IV of the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government is of a political character, and exclusively committed to Congress, and as such is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.

However, Judge Martinez appears disinclined to honor the Supreme Court precedent, based on his statements during the hearing.  As reported in the Denver Post,

U.S. District Judge William Martinez - while not ruling Wednesday - disagreed with key arguments presented by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers’ office in its defense of TABOR. Martinez flatly opposed the notion that a century-old Oregon decision settled issues around the present-day case.

On what grounds?  After all, as the state’s attorney (Assistant Attorney General Megan Paris Rundlet) argued, ”The (Oregon) case does present almost precisely the same issues that are before this court.”

The Denver Post article (Judge questions precedent cited to defend Colorado’s TABOR) continues:

“That’s not how I see it,” Martinez replied, saying the Oregon case involved a challenge of the initiative process itself, while the lawsuit before his court was a challenge of an initiative’s result - in this case TABOR.

“It’s clear the plaintiffs are not challenging the citizens’ initiative ballot process in Colorado,” Martinez said. “If your argument is this case is the same case as (in the Oregon ruling) … I don’t see it that way.”

However, Judge Martinez - either intentionally or erroneously - appears to be misreading the case, since (as noted above) the Oregon ruling did NOT simply deal with the issue of the initiative process, but with the larger question of judicial review of the “Guarantee Clause” and the “republican character” of state government more generally.

Unfortunately, although it may be weeks or even months before Judge Martinez issues his ruling on the state’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Substitute Complaint, based on his comments and statements during the hearing, it appears likely that the case will continue to trial, and may ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court - since overturning a state constitutional amendment by judicial fiat would have immense implications for the citizens’ initivative process and the right of the people to limit government power by constitutional limits nationwide.

If “We The People” cannot set constitutional limits on government power, then the very founding principles of this nation - indeed, the foundations of Liberty itself - are at risk.

Additional references:
A more detailed (and highly informative) discussion of the constitutionality of the citizen initiative and referendum processes may be found in the Texas Law Review article, “A Republic, Not a Democracy?  Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause” by Professor Robert G. Natelson.

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.

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.

“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:

• “Judicial Overreach” (Pueblo Chieftain editorial, 14 December 2011)
• “Judge Sets Constitution Aside in School Finance Ruling” (Audio, Education Policy Center, 12 December 2011)
• “Victory for Lobato Plaintiffs” (Education News Colorado, 9 December 2011)
• “Lobato case primer” (Education News Colorado, 11 August 2011)
• “Lobato lawsuit unfounded” (Denver Post, 11 August 2011)
• “In Lobato, might high court issue a ruling it can’t enforce?” (Colorado News Agency, 11 August 2011)
• “Lobato education-funding budget-buster aided & abetted by Colorado Supreme Court” (8 August 2011)

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.

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.

“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:

• “Judicial Overreach” (Pueblo Chieftain editorial, 14 December 2011)
• “Judge Sets Constitution Aside in School Finance Ruling” (Education Policy Center, 12 December 2011)
• “Victory for Lobato Plaintiffs” (Education News Colorado, 9 December 2011)
• “Lobato case primer” (Education News Colorado, 11 August 2011)
• “Lobato lawsuit unfounded” (Denver Post, 11 August 2011)
• “In Lobato, might high court issue a ruling it can’t enforce?” (Colorado News Agency, 11 August 2011)
• “Lobato education-funding budget-buster aided & abetted by Colorado Supreme Court” (8 August 2011)

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.

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:

• Colorado Progressive Coalition (Hillary Jorgenson)
• Occupy Denver (Chad Kautzer)
• “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) (Luis Toro)
• New Era Colorado (Chris Getzan)
• Colorado Democratic Party (Martha Tierney)
• Mi Familia Vota (Grace Lopez Ramirez)
• Metro Organizations for People (MOP) (Dawn Riley Duval)
• Mark Grueskin (represents Democrat Party and “Citizens for Integrity” PAC)

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:

• Campaign finance in Colorado: Where’s the money?
• Disclosure isn’t always forthcoming

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

• Center for Competitive Politics (Allen Dickerson)
• Colorado Republican Party (Ryan Call)
• Coalition for Secular Government (Diana Hsieh)
• Freedom & Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) (Paul Hsieh)
• Clear The Bench Colorado (Matt Arnold)
• Mario Nicolais (campaign finance attorney, Hackstaff Law Group)
• and 9 private (individual) citizens

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:

• Campaign Laws Violate Free Speech (Ari Armstrong, at Liberty On The Rocks 8 Dec 2011)
• Hsieh Reviews Harms of Campaign Controls (Diana Hsieh, Liberty On The Rocks 8 Dec 2011)
• Ari Armstrong Testifies at Dec. 15 Campaign Rule Hearing
• Diana Hsieh Testifies at Dec. 15 Campaign Rule Hearing
• Paul Hsieh Testifies at Dec. 15 Campaign Rule Hearing
• Matt Arnold Testifies at Dec. 15 Campaign Rule Hearing

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.

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):

“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:

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

State legislative district maps:

• House Map: Final House Plan Maps and Reports
• Senate Map: Final Senate Plan Maps and Reports
• Google Earth maps (requires Google Earth download): Final House Plan (download zip file),Final Senate Plan (download zip file)
• UPDATE: Information page and map (11″ x 17″) for individual districts (House) (Senate)

Additional references:

• Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.
• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state website listing relevant legal language on Congressional redistricting & state legislative reapportionment)

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.

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

• Wade Buchanan, President, The Bell Policy Center (PDF) – 12/14/11
• Grace López Ramírez, Mi Familia Vota (PDF) – 12/14/11
• Christopher Getzan, New Era Colorado (PDF) – 12/14/11
• Lorena Garcia, Executive Director, Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (PDF) – 12/14/11
• John Daniel (PDF) – 12/14/11
• Senator Morgan Carroll, Senate District 29 (PDF) – 12/14/11
• John Williams (PDF) – 12/13/11
• Paul Hsieh, MD (PDF) – 12/13/11
• Hannah Krening (PDF) - 12/13/11
• Chuck O’Reilly, Treasurer, Douglas County Republicans: Comment 1 (PDF) - 12/13/11
• Chuck O’Reilly, Treasurer, Douglas County Republicans: Comment 2 (PDF) - 12/13/11
• Bill Killgore (PDF) - 12/13/11
• Theresa Null (PDF) - 12/13/11
• Alan Guillaudeu (PDF) - 12/12/11
• Brian Lewis (PDF) - 12/12/11
• Trevor Conn (PDF) - 12/11/11
• Atlee Breland (PDF) - 12/11/11

Additional commentary on Colorado’s campaign finance regime

• It’s Time To Bring Some Sanity To Campaign Finance Laws, Forbes Op/Ed 13 December 2011
• Gessler emerges as the Free Speech Secretary of State, 13 December 2011
• There’s a Good Gessler, Too, Denver Post editorial 4 December 2011
• SOS Looks To Mitigate Burden Of Campaign Censorship Laws, 2 May 2011
• Why Colorado’s Campaign Laws Constitute Censorship, 5 May 2011
• CO Campaign Laws Chill Speech, 6 May 2011
• Colorado’s Campaign Laws Throw Common Sense Out The Window, 13 May Grand Junction Free Press
• Public’s ‘right to know’ can clash with right free speech, 14 May Colorado Springs Gazette

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.