Predictably (indeed, Clear The Bench Colorado predicted both motion and grounds almost three months ago), Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General John Suthers filed a Motion to Dismiss the anti-TABOR lawsuit (”Fenster’s Folly“) this week, noting that the lawsuit raises a ”political question” rather than a legal issue and is therefore (as the U. S. Supreme Court has previously ruled, several times) “non-justiciable” (meaning, a policy issue not to be decided by the courts).

The state’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Substitute Complaint echoes the same points and references raised in Clear The Bench Colorado’s review of the lawsuit when it was filed back in May of this year (”TABOR, citizen initiatives targeted by frivolous Fenster lawsuit“):

I. All the claims asserted by Plaintiffs present political questions that the U.S. Supreme Court has long held to be nonjusticiable. The Plaintiffs ask this Court to do something the Supreme Court has consistently refused to do: overthrow a state law for being too democratic.  Not only has the Court never done such a thing, it has repeatedly held that claims of this sort may not be entertained by federal courts. [Motion to Dismiss, p.5-6]

The Motion proceeds to highlight the danger of judicial activism that would inevitably result:

Beyond the “lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards,” the claims presented here would entangle the Court in policy determinations it must avoid. [Motion at 8]

Noting further the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs’ argument that “ some direct democracy should be upheld, so long as it results in their preferred policy” [Motion at p.8] the state concludes

It would be difficult to imagine a more glaring example of “a policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion.”  Baker, 369 U.S. at 216.

Noting the “narrow and limited authority” of judges, the Motion cites an earlier Federal court ruling:

Our entire System of Government would suffer incalculable mischief should judges attempt to interpose the judicial will above that of the [coordinate branches], even were we so bold as to assume that we can make better decisions.”) [ Pauling v. McNamara, 331 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C. Cir. 1963)]

Now where have we heard that before?

In fact, as the Motion further elucidates,

B. The Supreme Court has specifically held that claims like Plaintiffs’, based on citizen initiative power to tax, are nonjusticiable political questions [Motion at 11]

In a deliciously ironic twist, the Motion even cites the Colorado Supreme Court’s arrogation of legislative authority to the judicial branch in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case:

In Salazar, the court extended this rationale to include the courts.  79 P.3d at 1232-33, 1236-37.  Neither of these decisions has been disturbed.  See Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar, 541 U.S. 1093 (2004); Lance v Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (refusing to address challenges to Salazar).  So even if Plaintiffs were correct that only a state’s “legislature” can enact laws, these cases require inclusion of the people (not to mention the judiciary) within that concept.

The remainder of the Motion addresses issues of Standing (in brief, the Plaintiffs don’t have any) to bring the case - which, while important, will most likely induce acute MEGO (”My Eyes Glaze Over”) in the typical (lay) reader and will not be recounted here.

Clear The Bench Colorado’s sole critique of the state’s Motion to Dismiss is that the state did not seek attorney’s fees from the plaintiffs under C.R.S. 13-17-101 (to offset costs to taxpayers) for filing what is clearly a ”frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” lawsuit.

Although an award of attorneys’ fees is rare (Clear The Bench Colorado won just such an award against “Colorado Ethics Watch” - CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do - one of only a few in the last decade) it can be done (although actually collecting on the judgement may take months, or years), when opposing counsel pursued legal action knowing they had little chance of prevailing or failed to do basic research before filing.

Such abuse of the courts for political posturing can and should be discouraged…

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.

Apparently not content with killing TABOR (Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights constitutional amendment) by the thousand cuts (well, 15 and counting) of Colorado Supreme Court “interpretations” of TABOR’s viability in individual cases (most notoriously, the 2009 “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase and the 2008 “fees don’t count as taxes” case leading to the Colorado Car Tax), TABOR’s foes have decided to swing for the bleachers by targeting the amendment’s passage via the citizen initiative process - which the lawsuit claims is an unconstitutional practice.

The lawsuit was filed in Federal court on Monday by a group predominantly composed of current and former elected officials (including both Democrats and Republicans, although all current Republican legislators and the party organization vigorously oppose the lawsuit, in defense of the Colorado Constitution and the right of citizen initiative).  The lead attorney and “mastermind” behind the lawsuit is “superlawyer” Herbert L. Fenster - who has been shopping around the idea for over a year before finding enough plaintiffs and other attorneys (including former Democrat Congressman David Skaggs and former Democrat state senator Mike Feeley) to sign to the case.  Fenster and Skaggs both work at the firm McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, while Feeley works at the politically connected Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck law firm (a powerhouse Democrat political brokerage).

However, for a “superlawyer,” Fenster’s lawsuit is based on the most tenuous of legal grounds…

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 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.

It doesn’t get more clearly stated than that.

Since even a casual review of the legal literature by a non-attorney can turn up the clear and definitive legal precedent that leaves the lawsuit devoid of justification and any prospect for success in court, Fenster’s Folly clearly meets the definition of a “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” lawsuit.  The Colorado Attorney General (along with any parties joining in the defense) should pursue recovery of costs (taxpayer dollars) spent in defending the suit against all attorneys and plaintiffs involved.

Although an award of attorneys’ fees is rare (Clear The Bench Colorado won just such an award against “Colorado Ethics Watch” - CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do - one of only a few in the last decade) it can be done (although actually collecting on the judgement may take months, or years), when opposing counsel pursued legal action knowing they had little chance of prevailing or failed to do basic research before filing.

Such abuse of the courts for political posturing can and should be discouraged…

Given the unambiguous and overwhelming constitutional precedent against the case, Fenster’s Folly must be viewed for what it clearly is: a massive PR stunt that’s merely the opening salvo in part of a concerted attack on Colorado’s Constitution and the citizen initiative process in Colorado.

Ironically, part of that attack is likely to come in the form of legislatively referred ballot measures and/or “citizen” initiatives (such as state senator Rollie Heath’s “for the children” tax hike proposal) along with additional court cases to nibble away at TABOR (the Colorado Supreme Court is a perfect 0-for-15 in upholding Article X Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution - almost as perfect losers as the 0-for-16 2008 Detroit Lions; another reason Colorado has been called a “Judicial Hellhole“).

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.

No Friday Funnies this (last) week - instead, Clear The Bench Colorado joins millions of Americans across the country in somber remembrance of the 9/11 attacks on our nation.

What does this have to do with holding our Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the rule of law and the Colorado Constitution?  Quite a lot, actually…

As a proud veteran of the U.S. military (including service in the Colorado Army National Guard), I take my oath of enlistment - “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado [emphasis added] against all enemies, foreign and domestic”  - seriously; very seriously.

Many of our elected (and unelected) officials seem to have a much more cavalier attitude towards their own oath of office.

Our Supreme Court justices also swear an oath on taking office, which begins:  “I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado.”

Note that the oath of office does not state that ”I will support only those parts of the Constitution I like or with which I personally agree or empathize.”

Yet the Mullarkey Court has consistently ruled against the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) in every case it has heard - despite the clear intent and letter of the law that “[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.”

The Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) are oathbreakers - and dishonor the service of the men and women of the United States military and law enforcement agencies who put their lives on the line to support and defend our Constitution.  They have proven themselves unworthy of the high office they occupy, and must NOT be retained in that office following the November 2010 elections.  Vote “NO” on these unjust justices!

Another important lesson of 9/11 is that individuals matter - and fighting to defend your rights, and your lives, is the only way to preserve your rights (and your life, in extremis) when under attack.  The true heroes of that day were not only the firefighters but also the ordinary citizens who acted to save lives - and the brave passengers on Flight 93 who fought back against the hijackers on the 4th plane and died not as victims, but as American heroes.

We can no longer be under any illusion - as the passengers on Flight 93 discovered - that our rights and lives are NOT under attack and threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic.  The nature of the threat (and appropriate response) are different, but the need to take action, to defend your rights - are the same.

Freedom isn’t Free - Defend YOUR Constitution, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices in 2010!

Welcome to another belated edition of the Friday Funnies (hey, our graphics guy is on vacation - and artistic talent is NOT tied to the Y chromosome in my family) for the latest in our continuing cavalcade of canine & kitty clips…

The last week has brought even more additions to the litany of backdoor taxes (er, “fees”) being foisted on Colorado citizens.  Apparently unconcerned with widespread opposition to the Colorado Car Tax, Governor Ritter picked a showdown with Colorado gun owners by proposing more new taxes (sorry, “fees“) on gun sales and concealed-carry permits to “balance the budget.”  Hmmm, and I thought that “fees” were supposed to be related to the cost of providing a particular government service?  Oh, right - that quaint notion was swept aside (along with other constitutional protections against tax increases) by our activist Colorado Supreme Court.

Sooner or later, though, our governor and legislature will run out of people they can target for tax hikes - can going after kittens and puppies be far behind?

Don’t let the Mullarkey Majority unleash even more taxes (er, “fees”) by our rabidly spendthrift governor and legislature - support Clear The Bench Colorado and vote “NO” on these unjust justices before they can make even more Colorado puppies and kittens sad.

Well, that didn’t take long.

In Monday’s article predicting that new “fees“, not new taxes, would be the preferred approach of the Governor and the Colorado Legislature to address our state’s “fiscal crisis” (in reality more of a spending issue, not a revenue shortfall), I’d thought (paraphrasing Will Rogers) that my wallet was safe until the Legislature was back in session.  Although that’s still technically true (since the latest proposed “fee” increases still require legislative approval before going into effect), less than a day passed between my prediction and the first new “fee” proposal by Governor Ritter.

Ritter’s Colorado Gun Tax is the latest scheme to target a maligned minority group (gun-owners) to bear the burden of additional charges (pardon, “fees“) in order to exercise a constitutional right.  Under Ritter’s proposed budget plan, the state would levy “a fee increase for background checks on gun sales” as well as increasing the fee for Concealed-Carry Weapons (CCW) permits.

This follows on the heels of the 2009 Legislative Session’s Tobacco Tax increase, HB1342  (technically, an elimination of the long-standing Colorado state tax exemption for tobacco products).

Does anyone think that our governor and legislators will stop with targeting gun-owners and smokers?  Not by a long shot (pardon the pun); they’re just getting warmed up:

He [Governor Ritter] talked vaguely about “options other than budget reductions” for next year’s budget. Some Democratic leaders want to eliminate some of the nearly $2 billion in tax credits, incentives and exemptions in state law.

The “nearly $2 billion in tax credits, incentives, and exemptions in state law”- which includes exemptions on taxing groceries, internet access, gasoline, fuel for residential heat, etc.  (view the complete list) - was previously shielded from legislative raids on your wallet by TABOR, until the Mullarkey Court declared “open season” on these credits as part of the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” ruling.

Ritter and the Colorado Legislature were similarly prohibited from bypassing TABOR - and TABOR’s requirement for a vote of the people on tax increases - by raising taxes disguised as “fees” until the Mullarkey Court’s “November Surprise” ruling in the Barber v. Ritter case.

The Mullarkey Majority has been aiding and abetting the sticky fingers of state government in YOUR wallet.  It’s high time to hold them accountable - vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices in 2010.

Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!