(Link for Colorado Supreme Court order affirming the Denver court’s ruling and Moreno Map)

(New Democrat redistricting map - statewide)

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

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, although disappointing to Colorado Republicans (particularly the residents of Douglas and Larimer counties) hardly comes as a surprise - Colorado Democrats carefully prepared the conditions for their victory on Congressional Redistricting as part of a long-standing strategy of sending the decision to the courts, where they have traditionally enjoyed a friendly venue.

Even before reprising the 2000 legislative session playbook by blocking passage of (constitutionally required) Congressional Redistricting legislation in the Colorado state senate, the more strategically-savvy Democrat leadership set the conditions for their eventual court victory by enabling judicial consideration of “non-neutral” political factors (and removing guidelines establishing a hierarchy of neutral criteria) in the  “Mary-mandering” legislation passed at the close of the 2010 legislative session - allowing Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt room for extensive discretion (i.e. exercising his own personal preferences) in ruling for the ‘Moreno Map’:

The General Assembly amended this statute in 2010 to repeal the statutory prohibition, adopted in 2004, against the use of political data such as party registration and so-called “political performance” data. (Ruling at 43)

Despite having copious advance notice of Democrat intentions in regard to Congressional Redistricting strategy, Republican “leadership” was caught flat-footed and “steamrollered” in the courts:

Republicans may not even be able to decry the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling as purely partisan (contrasting with the situation in the 2003 Salazar v. Davidson congressional redistricting case) or an example of unmitigated judicial activism, since the statutory changes (enabling consideration of purely political factors by the courts) and selective use of testimony may have provided sufficient legal “cover” for the court’s ruling majority to affirm the lower court’s ruling - aside from that pesky constitutional provision (Article V, Section 44) mandating Congressional Redistricting as a legislative, not judicial, responsibility in the first place.

Final judgment on the legal merits of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in this case (along with knowing the vote count) will have to wait, pending release and review of the actual written ruling (expected in the coming weeks).

In any event, the boundaries of Colorado’s Congressional districts are now set for the next decade - there is no further appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.

Irrespective of one’s preferences on the congressional district maps, the negative repercussions of manipulating the redistricting process to impose an outcome via the courts are severely damaging to public confidence in our institutions of state government - both legislative and judicial.  Legislative abdication of constitutionally-mandated responsibilities reinforces public perception of politicians as feckless and irresponsible (not without reason).

Perhaps more importantly, the intentional politicization of the judiciary - increasingly seen as acting as just another category of politician, distinguished from the other branches only by a unique mode of dress (black robes) - is corrosive to our institutions, and undermines the sanctity of the rule of law.

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.

Thursday’s oral arguments before the Colorado Supreme Court, in which each side had 30 minutes to make their case, were recorded and posted online shortly after the hearing.

Unlike the challenges to the state legislative district maps (which resulted in the maps being rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court and remanded back to the Colorado Reapportionment Commission), which revolved around clear and straightforward constitutional criteria, the arguments in the Congressional Redistricting case dealt with much more esoteric issues of case precedent & standards of legal review, making a prediction of the outcome much less certain.

(New Democrat redistricting map - statewide)

Opponents (challenging the “Moreno Map” approved by Judge Hyatt) went first.

Attorney Richard Westfall (representing the Hall plaintiffs - the Republican parties to the original case) opened by stating “the crux of this appeal is whether the trial court is free to disregard decades of precedent in amending congressional districts this cycle.”  He outlined the basis for the appeal on two main points:

1. It was ‘manifestly unreasonable’ for the trial court to ignore existing ‘communities of interest’ regarding Douglas and Larimer counties
2. When a court draws congressional districts, there are judicial standards that should be followed - and when they are not, a ‘de novo review’ of the record is required

Westfall then addressed the disparate application of “agricultural communities of interest” in the case of Douglas and Larimer counties - held by the trial court to be paramount in tying Douglas, yet negligible in linking Larimer, to the Eastern Plains congressional district, CD4 (long established in case law as the “Eastern agricultural” district for the state).  He highlighted Larimer’s status as an agricultural production center (the 10th largest in the state, with $128M in agricultural production, contrasted with Douglas County’s mere $16M) and close ties with ’similar’ neighboring Weld County as strong evidence for Larimer’s continuing “community of interest” with CD4.  Westfall also raised the “absolute inconsistency in application” of the standard of oil & gas exploration as a “community of interest” binding Douglas County (with “zero” oil & gas permits issued in 2010) to CD4 while ignoring existing oil & gas exploration efforts in Larimer County.

Questions put to Westfall by the Colorado Supreme Court justices raised the issue of competing ‘communities of interest’ (Chief Justice Bender asked,”why is it so unreasonable that beetlekill, and the universities” don’t establish a “community of interest” between Boulder and Larimer counties?)

Other questions addressed the ’standard of review’ for the Colorado Supreme Court to apply in reviewing the lower court’s ruling (Justice Monica Marquez asked regarding standards of review, “was the trial court decision supported by the record?” and raised the issue of how to apply judicial standards vs. statutory standards, and discretion in applying standards).

Attorney Kelly Dunnaway, representing the Douglas County plaintiffs, added more information about the “communities of interest” applying to Douglas County - as perceived by the county government and majority of county residents.  He highlighted the fact that transportation, jobs, water compacts, membership in regional government organizations (including RTD, the stadium district and DRCOG, the Denver Regional Council of Governments) and tax-sharing agreements all tied Douglas County to the Denver metro suburban area and NOT to the Eastern Plains.  He pointed out the “manifestly arbitrary” nature of the trial court’s selection of evidence to put Douglas County in CD4 - noting that the trial court “invented communities of interest that don’t really exist in order to support the order.”

Questions to Dunnaway also addressed the issues of standards of review and findings of fact in the trial court’s order.  Justice Rice asked if the standard of review is to “look for absence of information in the court order;” Chief Justice Bender asked if there was “insufficient data to support findings of fact” in the trial court ruling (Dunnaway: “absolutely”) or if there was “sufficient evidence to support the conclusion” reached by the trial court (Dunnaway: it was arbitrary to not consider Douglas County’s evidence and testimony, “ignoring wishes of residents in both [Douglas and Larimer] counties”).  Justice Marquez noted that “we need to look at this map as a whole… there are always competing interests” (Dunnaway: the standard is whether the decision was “manifestly unreasonable” - noting that not only were Douglas and Larimer counties impacted but “1.4 Million people in Colorado were reassigned to different congressional districts under the ‘Moreno Map’ - over a third of Colorado residents, without ‘compelling reason,’ concluding that it is “manifestly unreasonable to disenfranchise 1.4 Million people”).

Proponents for the ‘Moreno Map’ were represented by Democrat Party attorney Mark Grueskin (astute observers of Clear The Bench Colorado (or of Colorado politics in general) may recall Mark Grueskin from his role in establishing a shadowy and well-funded special-interest group to counter the Clear The Bench Colorado judicial accountability efforts during the 2010 judicial retention vote).

Grueskin opened by noting that the Colorado General Assembly had failed to pass congressional redistricting legislation 4 times in the past 30 years - resulting in 3 judicial redistricting decisions.  He asserted that the Moreno Map created “appropriate districts to ensure fair representation.”

Grueskin’s opening statement drew an immediate question from Justice Marquez - noting that “part of this notion of effective representation hinges in some part on stability of districts, in part to establish that identity over time.”  Each congressional district “conjures in my mind a certain image…”

Is it really appropriate every 10 years to just completely wipe the slate clean? How does your map honor minimizing disruption of districts?

Grueskin responded that although it’s appropriate to “recognize stability”… it doesn’t trump other criteria.  He asserted that issues and “communities of interest” do change, and that the judicial process is an appropriate venue for assessing what is “put into evidence” in order to establish congressional districts, and argued that it is “counterintuitive… that districts are set in stone.”

Chief Justice Bender then asked Grueskin to address the main points of the opponents’ argument (1. disagreement on standard of review, and 2. taking Douglas and Larimer counties out of current districts was ‘unfair’) - “what are the facts supporting [Hyatt's] decision?”

Grueskin argued that “evidence linking Boulder and Larimer counties is strong” - citing “expert testimony” that the demographics of Boulder and Larimer counties are “virtually identical” while the demographics of Larimer and the Eastern Plains are “exceedingly different.”  He noted many common employment industries in both counties, while noting that the percentage of residents actually employed in agriculture in Larimer is not large.

Grueskin noted that the “standard of review” issue is important, while maintaining that the issue of what is open to ‘de novo review’ is very limited.

Finally, the attorney for Aurora expressed support for the ‘Moreno Map’ in keeping Aurora wholly within a single congressional district, citing previous case law supporting keeping the city intact as a “community of interest” that had previously been trumped by other factors.  He did note, however, the close ties of Aurora to Douglas and Elbert counties as a provider of water resources (which one might think would be an argument for maintaining Aurora in a “community of interest” with those counties).

Interestingly, neither side brought up the disputed notion of “competitiveness” as a basis for defining congressional district boundaries, cited by Judge Hyatt in support of his decision to split some counties (Douglas, Adams, Arapahoe, and Eagle) and not others. (Ruling at 43)

Bottom Line:

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in the appeal of the trial court’s congressional redistricting ruling is likely to come down to the ’standards of review’ issue: was the trial court “manifestly unreasonable” in defining districts and did it “inconsistently apply” standards for ‘communities of interest’ in assigning counties to congressional districts?

The extent of judicial discretion exercised by Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt (in selecting evidence and applying statutory criteria) is also likely to factor in the court’s ruling.  Thanks to the “Mary-Mandering” bill passed in the waning days of the 2010 legislative session, the judge could pick & choose criteria including “non-neutral” political factors according to his personal preference.

The General Assembly amended this statute in 2010 to repeal the statutory prohibition, adopted in 2004, against the use of political data such as party registration and so-called “political performance” data. (Ruling at 43)

Quo Vadis?

Although “reading the tea leaves” in such a complex and highly political case is fraught with danger, based on the arguments presented, questions posed by the Colorado Supreme Court justices, and in light of relevant case law precedent and Colorado statutory requirements (see below), Clear The Bench Colorado can discern some indicators on the eventual outcome:

• Justices Bender and Rice (the remaining members of the “Mullarkey Majority”) will almost certainly vote to uphold the Moreno map (based on past ‘performance’ and questions asked)
• Justices Eid and Boatright (the Colorado Supreme Court’s newest member) appeared skeptical that the trial court consistently applied standards and considered existing “communities of interest” and relevant case law; they appear disposed to reject the map
• Justice Coats asked no questions during oral argument; he trends “conservative” and dissented in the judicial usurpation of legislative redistricting authority in the 2003 redistricting case (Salazar v. Davidson), and tends to support case law precedent (which would support maintaining traditional “communities of interest” & minimizing disruption).  Leans reject.
• Justice Hobbs appeared to accept proponents’ arguments that competing “communities of interest” had been considered by the trial court, and that on balance the evidence was sufficient to support Hyatt’s ruling; leans uphold.
• Justice Marquez asked the most incisive and relevant questions at oral argument.  Although it’s not clear how she might eventually decide, it is clear that she is possessed of a sharp legal mind and appears disposed to rule on the merits of the evidence and legal criteria applicable to the case.
• CTBC predicts that the Colorado Supreme Court will almost certainly issue a split decision, most probably ending on a 4-3 vote (with Justice Marquez the most likely deciding vote). Based on available evidence, it’s impossible to predict which way it will go - but given the urgency of reaching a decision, we’ll see a ruling from the court next week.

Congressional District Google Earth maps (requires Google Earth download): Moreno/South Map (Google Earth)

Statutory Criteria governing Congressional Redistricting:

2-1-102. Neutral criteria for judicial determinations of congressional districts.
(1) In determining whether one or more of the congressional districts established in section 2-1-101 are lawful and in adopting or enforcing any change to any such district, courts:

(a) Shall utilize the following factors:

(I) A good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical population equality between districts, justifying each variance, no matter how small, as required by the constitution of the United States. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts shall not overlap.
(II) Compliance with the federal “Voting Rights Act of 1965″, in particular 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973; and

(b) May, without weight to any factor, utilize factors including but not limited to:

(I) The preservation of political subdivisions such as counties, cities, and towns. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in districts shall be as prescribed by law.
(II) The preservation of communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors;
(III) The compactness of each congressional district; and
(IV) The minimization of disruption of prior district lines.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state website listing relevant legal language on Congressional redistricting & state legislative reapportionment)
• Redistricting in Colorado (Ballotpedia site - although the site contains several errors, some of which are being corrected, it does provide useful context and historical background on past restricting battles.  As with any Wiki site - contributions come from a variety of sources and are frequently edited - proceed with some skepticism)

Opening briefs from the petitioners (appellants) are due to the Colorado Supreme Court on Wednesday, 23 November; response briefs are due to the court on Monday, 28 November (so much for a happy Thanksgiving weekend for the lawyers).

Next Thursday’s (1 December) oral arguments before the Colorado Supreme Court, in which each side will have 30 minutes to make their case, will be recorded and posted online shortly after the hearing.

Arguments in the case are likely to revolve around the issue of whether the lower court properly adhered to Colorado constitutional and statutory guidelines governing redistricting, in particular the requirement to maintain county integrity where possible

Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts. Article V, Section 47(2)

and “preservation of political subdivisions such as counties, cities, and towns.” [C.R.S. 2-1-102(1)(b)]

Douglas County is also challenging Judge Hyatt’s assertion that Douglas County is more properly within a “community of interest” with the Eastern Plains (putting Castle Rock and Park Meadows shopping mall in the same district as Wray, Burlington, and Lamar).  [Ed. an observer wryly noted that Douglas County doesn't even have a Burlington Coat Factory location, much less strong 'agricultural' ties to the plains]

Finally, petitioners are likely to challenge the notion of “competitiveness” as a basis for defining congressional district boundaries, cited by Judge Hyatt in support of his decision to split some counties (Douglas, Adams, Arapahoe, and Eagle) and not others. (Ruling at 43)

It must be noted that ”competitiveness” is a political argument, NOT a legal or constitutional argument (since there is neither a clear definition, nor constitutional requirement, for “competitiveness”), and as such has no place in a court ruling on the constitutional or legal merits of the maps.

Given the Colorado Supreme Court’s rejection of “competitiveness” as a factor taking precedent over clear constitutional and statutory guidelines in remanding state legislative district maps back to the Colorado Reapportionment Commission for corrections and revisions, it would be utterly inconsistent of the court to reject “competitiveness” as a primary factor in state legislative redistricting while upholding the notion for Colorado’s Congressional districts.

Sadly, the entire spectacle of judicial imposition of a political solution to Colorado’s Congressional District representation could have been prevented had the state legislature carried out their constitutionally-mandated responsibility to pass redistricting legislation instead of sending it to the courts last Spring.

Congressional District Google Earth maps (requires Google Earth download): Moreno/South Map (Google Earth)

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (official Colorado state website, which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)
• Redistricting in Colorado (Ballotpedia site - although the site contains several errors, some of which are being corrected, it does provide useful context and historical background on past restricting battles.  As with any Wiki site - contributions come from a variety of sources and are frequently edited - proceed with some skepticism)

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.

On the macro (statewide) level, the most noticeable changes:

• 2nd Congressional District: adds Larimer County, southern Jefferson County, drops half of Eagle County
• 3rd Congressional District: adds Lake County, most of Eagle County; drops Las Animas and Otero counties
• 4th Congressional District: loses Larimer County (to 2nd), gains Las Animas and Otero counties (from 3rd) and Douglas & Elbert counties (from 6th) along with most (the non-urban areas) of Arapahoe and Adams counties
• 5th Congressional District: drops Lake County (to 3rd CD)

Moreno Map statewide

Some of the greatest changes were made to Denver metro-area districts:

• 1st Congressional District: picks up chunks of Arapahoe and Jefferson counties along the southern edge of the current district
• 6th Congressional District: loses Elbert County, Douglas County (except Highlands Ranch) and the non-urban majority of Adams and Arapahoe counties to 4th CD; gains all of Aurora, northern Adams County suburbs (from 7th CD)
• 7th Congressional District: loses all of Aurora & northern Denver-metro (Adams County) suburbs to 6th CD; gains parts of Jefferson County

Moreno Map metro magnified

(UPDATE: the Denver Post has created a “find your proposed district” application)

Judge Hyatt’s ruling relies heavily on the “competitiveness” trope advanced by the Democrat plaintiffs as a consistent theme in both legal arguments and in the public-relations “framing” of the case in the media and public discussions.
(H/T Law Week Colorado for posting the court’s ruling online)

However, it must be noted that reliance on ”competitiveness” is a political argument, NOT a legal or constitutional argument (since there is neither a clear definition, nor constitutional requirement, for “competitiveness”), and as such has no place in a court ruling on the constitutional or legal merits of the maps.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Colorado Supreme Court consistently critiqued the notion of “competitiveness” as a basis for legal rulings during hearings on state legislative district maps, Denver District Court Judge Hyatt repeatedly cited “competitiveness” as a basis for ruling in favor of the ‘Moreno Map’, based on party registration numbers, not voting performance:

Judge Hyatt also relied heavily on the “discretionary factors” facilitated by the “Mary-mandering” legislation passed at the close of the 2010 legislative session in what has been confirmed by events as a preparatory move in the plan to send the issue of redistricting to the courts all along:

The General Assembly amended this statute in 2010 to repeal the statutory prohibition, adopted in 2004, against the use of political data such as party registration and so-called “political performance” data. (Ruling at 43)

The 2010 legislative changes not only added “political” or “non-neutral” data to the list of factors which could be considered by the courts, but also removed legal guidance on prioritizing other factors, allowing the judge to pick and choose the remaining “discretionary” factors according to his personal preference - which he did:

Of the discretionary factors specifically listed in the statute, the court finds that no factor is more important than a district’s communities of interest. (Ruling at 43)

Why should the factor of “community of interest” - subject to shifting and subjective definition - trump any of the other more objective and quantifiable factors set forth in Colorado statute?

Statutory Criteria for Congressional Redistricting

Colorado law [C.R.S. 2-1-102(1)(b)] also sets forth a number of discretionary criteria that this Court may consider.  In Congressional redistricting litigation, a court:

May, without weight to any factor, utilize factors that include but (are) not limited to:

(I) The preservation of political subdivisions such as counties, cities, and towns.  When county, city or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in districts shall be preserved by law.
(II) The preservation of communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors;
(III) The compactness of each congressional district; and
(IV) The minimization of disruption of prior district lines

Judge Hyatt was also selective in choosing which testimony he cited to define “communities of interest”,  further moving the ruling from the realm of legal review based on consistent standards (rule of law) into the area of arbitrary decisions by a single individual (rule by caprice) - the very antithesis of “what makes a good judge.”

(Until court transcripts are available, Clear The Bench Colorado has the most comprehensive review and summary of the congressional redistricting trial arguments and testimony available).

Although the ultimate decision on Colorado’s Congressional District maps will be made by the Colorado Supreme Court (following the inevitable appeal), the district court’s decision has at a minimum framed the terms of the debate and set the conditions for the eventual outcome.

Sadly, the entire spectacle of judicial imposition of a political solution to Colorado’s Congressional District representation could have been prevented had the state legislature carried out their constitutionally-mandated responsibility to pass redistricting legislation instead of sending it to the courts last Spring - an outcome pursued by yesterday’s winners fully expecting a “friendly” set of judges.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (official Colorado state website, which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)
• Redistricting in Colorado (Ballotpedia site - although the site contains several errors, some of which are being corrected, it does provide useful context and historical background on past restricting battles.  As with any Wiki site - contributions come from a variety of sources and are frequently edited - proceed with some skepticism)

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.

Sadly, this latest ruling only continues a pattern of judicial assault on the rights of Colorado taxpayers that is both politically motivated (the court’s majority has frequently expressed antipathy towards the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 - the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’ - despite their oath to support and uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like) and entirely predictable.  (Indeed, Clear The Bench Colorado forecast the court’s decision over a year ago in this article):
Colorado Supreme Court prepares additional assault on taxpayer rights, hearing another stealth tax increase case (31 August 2010)

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ‘Mullarkey Majority’ has now gone 0-16 in upholding TABOR, a “perfect season” establishing them as the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence
(Mullarkey’s replacement, Monica Marquez, recused herself from the decision due to her role as a former Deputy Attorney General arguing the case for violating taxpayer’s rights before the Court of Appeals)

Some of the most prominent examples of the court’s “perfect” record:

• ‘Mill Levy Tax Freeze‘ property tax increase (calling the tax increase a “rate freeze”)
• ‘Dirty Dozen‘ tax increases (2010) and the 2009 tobacco tax increase (calling tax increases “elimination of Tax Credits & Exemptions“)
• ‘Colorado Car Tax’ (enabling tax increases by calling them “fees” instead of taxes)

Following the pattern of earlier anti-TABOR decisions, the majority opinion tortures statutory language to extract a tenuous justification for a constitutional end-run in favor of tax increases, overturning a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that was a model of clarity and conciseness in legal language:
so simple, even a caveman could understand it:

We hold that TABOR precludes the challenged coal severance tax adjustments. Our holding is based on a simple syllogism:

(1) TABOR prohibits increasing tax rates without voter approval. Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a); Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway Auth., 896 P.2d 859, 867 (Colo. 1995).

(2) Applying the statutory formula increased the coal severance tax rate (initially from $0.54 to $0.76 per ton) without voter approval.

(3) Therefore, TABOR was violated.

So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get around this clear, concise language?

The ruling majority declared that the tax increase was merely an “adjustment” to the “tax rate formula” that the statutory language “required” the Department of Revenue to increase - a “non-discretionary” mechanism (despite the undisputed fact that the Department of Revenue did exercise discretion - and complied with the Constitution by not raising the rate - for 15 years previously).  The majority likewise ignored the well-established legal principle that constitutional language trumps statutory language, as Justice Coats pointed out in his dissent:

Not only is TABOR a constitutional provision to which legislative acts are subservient, rather than merely another statute itself, but its intent to limit the legislative taxing power by subjecting it directly to popular approval, see Bickel v. City of Boulder,885 P.2d 215, 226 (Colo. 1994), and to ‘s upersede” all conflicting state statutes could not be more clear, see Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20 (1) (“All provisions are self-executing and severable and supersede conflicting state constitutional, state statutory, charter, or other state or local provisions.”). Starting November 4, 1992, the state is expressly required to have voter approval in advance for any tax rate increase that does not fall within a TABOR exception.

Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20(4)(a). The language of TABOR simply does not admit of any construction permitting future tax rate increases without the constitutionally required voter approval, whether or not they were mandated by statutes enacted before the constitutional amendment, and this court has never suggested otherwise.

Despite the clearly-expressed intent of the voters, both in decisively repudiating a tax increase at the polls (in 2011) and in establishing constraints of the power of government to arbitrarily and without asking raise taxes (or “increase revenue” by any “tax policy changes”) by adopting a constitutional amendment (the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” in 1992), the Colorado Supreme Court continues its unbroken streak of raising taxes by judicial decree, usurping the power and authority both of the legislature and of “We The People” - the ultimate sovereigns.

As Justice Coats made clear in his dissent:

It simply strains credulity beyond the breaking point to assert, as does the majority, that raising the tax on every ton of extracted coal from fifty-four to seventy-six cents is not a tax rate increase.

A tax increase by any other name (be it “elimination of existing exemption“, “fee“, or now “adjustment“) still smells as foul.

A violation of your right to have a say before having your money taken from you is just as bad (arguably, much worse) coming from the courts as coming from the executive or legislative branches  - your wallet can’t tell the difference.

Know your rights - as a Citizen - and defend them.

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.

(New Democrat redistricting map - statewide)

Sitting through the hearings and witness statements is admittedly dry stuff, with topics ranging from pine beetles and educational funding (which Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin claimed is what ties Boulder and Larimer counties together into a common “community of interest”) to water and agriculture issues (which Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin claimed were issues tying Douglas County and the Eastern Plains together into a common “community of interest”), and transportation funding (which witnesses from Douglas County - including County Commissioner Jill Repella and county lobbyist Ken Butler - advanced as evidence of common ties between Douglas and the other Denver Metro counties).

Witnesses at the Congressional Redistricting trial included a “Who’s Who” of the Colorado political scene - including over half of Colorado’s Congressional Delegation (CD2 Congressman Jared Polis, CD3 Congressman Scott Tipton, CD6 Representative Mike Coffman, and CD7 Representative Ed Perlmutter) along with other political luminaries such as CU Regent Michael Carrigan (D-Denver/CD1) (just re-elected in 2010) and former director of the Department of Higher Education Rico Munn (for the Democrats) and former Deputy Treasurer Dick Murphy and former state representative candidate (and current Denver County GOP Chair) Danny Stroud (for the Republicans).

As might be expected with so much at stake, the attorneys participating in the trial were also a “Who’s Who” of the state’s legal profession: Democrats were represented by a team headed by perennial political litigator Mark Grueskin (astute observers of Clear The Bench Colorado (or of Colorado politics in general) may recall Mark Grueskin from his role in establishing a shadowy and well-funded special-interest group to counteract the Clear The Bench Colorado judicial accountability efforts during the 2010 judicial retention elections); Republicans were represented by a team led by former Colorado Solicitor General Richard Westfall (who also contested the constitutionality of the Colorado “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case, first successfully in Denver District Court in May 2008 before being overturned in a highly political decision by the Colorado Supreme Court in March 2009); the Colorado Latino Forum, which introduced a separate set of maps, was represented by Gina Rodriguez; and the City of Aurora, which intervened in the case in order to carve out an Aurora-centric district (keeping the city, although split between multiple counties, in a single congressional district) was represented by former state senator and CD7 candidate Mike Feeley (apparently taking a break from his participation in the “Fenster’s Folly” anti-TABOR lawsuit pursued against the state of Colorado in federal court).  A wag reportedly opined that the sum of billable hours over the several weeks of the Congressional Redistricting trial could feed, clothe, and bathe the “Occupy Denver” crowd for a year…

Media coverage of the trial ranged from the trivial (Denver Post Lynn Bartels tweeting about former Congressman Bob Beauprez having the zipper down on his jeans) to the mildly humorous (comments on repeatedly spilled water and “a huge, industrial-size roll of paper towels” along with Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin’s characterization of the GOP “Minimum Disruption” map as a “light-jazz band”) to the occasionally informative (a background piece on presiding Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt, “Colorado redistricting judge unafraid to issue controverial decisions“).

An interesting sideline to the overall Colorado Congressional Redistricting narrative was provided by the shifting fortunes of state senator Brandon Shaffer, running for Congress in CD4 in 2012, as district maps submitted by his own party first drew him out of, then later back within, the boundaries of the district (prompting him to submit his own map) - as chronicled in a series of article in the Colorado Peak Politics political website:

• TEA LEAVES: Shaffer Screwed, Gardner Safe; Tipton And Coffman Will Have To Fight
• BOMBSHELL: Under Questioning From Grueskin, Dems’ Top Lawyer Says Cory Gardner Can’t Be Beat
• THE BRANDON-MANDER IS BACK: Dems New Redistricting Map Allows Shaffer To Stay In CD4

(NOTE: although residency within the district is not a requirement to run for Congress, it is certainly a political disadvantage to live outside the district one is seeking to represent)

The main themes of the Congressional Redistricting trial, however, were attempts by all parties to argue the constitutionality of the various map proposals.  All parties acknowledged the federal and state constitutional requirements in general terms, but sought to emphasize different aspects in making their case.  All sides attempted to define “communities of interest” via witness testimony (or refute the commonality of interests claimed by the other side during cross-examination).

For example, Democrat witnesses Michael Carrigan and Rico Munn advocated for combining Boulder and Larimer counties as a single “community of interest” based on the presence of Colorado’s two largest institutions of higher education in each (CU in Boulder, CSU in Fort Collins).  GOP witness Dick Murphy countered that the cultural differences between the two schools - to say nothing of the two counties - diverged sharply between “liberal” CU/Boulder and more traditionally rural/conservative CSU/Fort Collins.  (Ed.: Plus, how could a combined district deal with a candidate unable to take a stand on football matchups between the two universities, or alienating half the district?)  GOP attorney Westfall also pointed out that both CU and CSU have multiple campuses around the state, and that multiple institutions of higher education exist around the state in different congressional districts, eliminating any unique claim to a “Higher Ed” community of interest centered around Boulder and Larimer counties.

Bottom Line?

The GOP argument (as well as the title of the map proposal) centered around the theme that voters should suffer “minimal disruption” to their current congressional representation.  GOP attorneys emphasized the “clear legal guidelines” and precedents (including the rightly-maligned 2003 Salazar v. Davidson case when the Mullarkey Court usurped the legislative role in redistricting - a responsibility willingly abdicated by the legislature this year) binding upon the court.

The City of Aurora sought to be contained whole within a single congressional district (despite being split between counties, which enjoy a higher constitutional precedence for remaining intact than municipalities).  Interestingly, both the modified Democrat and Republican maps appear to have accepted this premise.

The Colorado Latino Forum maps were roundly panned by all sides - the original maps (which paired Scott Tipton and Ed Perlmutter in a single district, ranging from Cortez to Lakewood) were criticized both by Republicans:

“When I saw that I thought, ‘They can’t possibly be serious,’ ” said state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray. “We had public testimony earlier this year against this kind of proposal.”

as well as by Democrats (even after modifications to the original maps):

“When a map is driven by the issue of race, whatever the race, it becomes suspect.” (Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin)

(The Latino Forum’s lawyer returned the favor, “ripping” both Republican and Democrat maps)

The Democrat argument sought to create or define new “communities of interest” but most prominently promoted the principle of “competitiveness” as a basis for determining district boundaries.  However, it must be noted that reliance on ”competitiveness” is a political argument, NOT a legal or constitutional argument (since there is neither a clear definition, nor constitutional requirement, for “competitiveness”) - even notwithstanding the “Mary-mandering” legislation passed at the close of the 2010 legislative session in what has been confirmed by events as a preparatory move in the plan to send the question of redistricting to the courts all along (instead of being resolved in the legislature, as mandated by the Colorado Constitution, Article V Section 44,

Text of Section 44:Representatives in Congress.
The general assembly shall divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in congress apportioned to the state by the congress of United States for the election of one representative to congress for each district. When a new apportionment shall be made by congress, the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.

Judge Hyatt, who has a reputation as being hardworking, independent-minded and well-versed in the law, is not expected to take long to reach a decision - and may have already reached some conclusions on the merits of the arguments advanced during trial, as indicated by an aside uttered casually during the second week of the trial, stating (and this may be more a paraphrase than a precise quote)
“Is there anything being presented here as testimony that is likely to influence my decision?”

In any event, all parties have indicated that whatever the outcome, the case is almost certain to be appealed to - and ultimately decided by - the Colorado Supreme Court.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (official Colorado state website, which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)
• Redistricting in Colorado (Ballotpedia site - although the site contains several errors, some of which are being corrected, it does provide useful context and historical background on past restricting battles.  As with any Wiki site - contributions come from a variety of sources and are frequently edited - proceed with some skepticism)

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 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.

Days before a landmark school-funding lawsuit goes to trial, Gov. John Hickenlooper and Attorney General John Suthers on Thursday took a pre-emptive bipartisan stand against the legal challenge, arguing that it could cost the state billions of dollars if it loses in court. (Denver Post, “Colorado governor, attorney general stand against education-funding challenge“)

When Colorado’s Democrat Governor and Republican Attorney General agree that “education funding should be left to the legislature and voters” and not decided by the courts, it might be an indication of the return of some level of fiscal sanity to state government (or a sign of the impending apocalypse).

Unfortunately, the restoration of some level of sanity to Colorado’s judicial branch (which recently earned the state the title of “judicial hellhole“) may take a bit longer.

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.

Current Chief Justice Michael Bender (together with disgraced then-Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, joined by justices Alex Martinez and Greg Hobbs) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, not to be decided by the courts).

Unfortunately - thanks to the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority injecting their personal sympathies ahead of the law - this lawsuit has already cost the state tens of thousands, and if upheld will likely lead to court-ordered increases in funding (and, inevitably, taxation) - a violation of separation of powers, and yet another unconstitutional tax increase facilitated by the Colorado Supreme Court.

One not need look very far (indeed, just across the border to Kansas) to see the potential for a fiscal and budgetary train wreck of epic proportions.  Indeed, as Governor Hickenlooper correctly points out, the consequences for Colorado would be “devastating.”

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.

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 Colorado Car Tax (er, “fee”) increase - ironically dubbed ‘FASTER’ - passed in the 2009 legislative session made another lap in media coverage this past week with a broadcast on the ‘Devil’s Advocate‘ television program and publication of a pair of “Issue Backgrounder” papers.

The “Issue Backgrounder” papers each address a specific aspect of the FASTER legislation, focusing in on the “Bridge Enterprise” (a ‘government-owned business’ within the Colorado Department of Transportation, or CDOT).  One paper addresses how the “Bridge Enterprise” has raised $300M in debt without (constitutionally-required) voter approval (and the long-term implications for Colorado’s fiscal stability); the other more generally addresses how the Colorado Bridge Enterprise contravenes the Colorado Constitution.

Both papers are well worth reading, and provide additional detail on just how bad even this single aspect of the FASTER Colorado Car Tax (er, “fee”) is for Colorado citizens.

However, both papers together only tell half of the story (almost literally).  The ‘Colorado Bridge Enterprise’ is only one of two new ‘government-owed businesses’ established by the FASTER legislation (the other being the ‘Colorado Transportation Enterprise’ charged with collecting and spending the ‘road safety surcharge’ tax - er, “fee”) .  Both “enterprises” are overseen by an 11-member appointed (ergo, unaccountable to the public) board (coincidentally, the same 11 people who make up the Colorado Transportation Commission).  Significantly (although unfortunately unremarked in both papers), both ‘enterprises’ are also authorized to use eminent domain to seize private property.

The television broadcast is informative and entertaining as well, but unfortunately also misses significant parts of the story.

The Colorado Car Tax - It’s Worse Than You Think

Also unremarked in both papers - and on the television broadcast as well - is the fact that FASTER actually comprises multiple tax increases (er, “fees”) in a single piece of legislation, blatantly violating the constitutional requirements to “receive voter approval in advance” for “any new tax, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.” (Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 - the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’).  The “bridge fund fee” and the “road safety surcharge fee” increase each year for three years (yep, that’s 3 tax increases in one!), in addition to imposing an entirely separate “fee” on car rentals as well.  Oh, and don’t forget the “late fees” too…

But all of this is necessary “to preserve our crumbling transportation infrastructure,” right?  That was the justification for passing the bill - along with claims that any and all “fees” collected “shall be used exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of the public highways of the state.”   Says so right in the legislative language (43-4-810), so it must be true, correct?

Not so much.  The dirty little secret of the FASTER bill is that many of the taxes (er, “fees”) collected don’t go towards the construction or maintenance of roads or bridges at all, but for “multi-modal and demand-side transportation solutions” - such as the desire of certain state Senators for streetcars in Denver - justified by other language in a following section (43-4-812):

43-4-812. Use of user fees for transit - legislative declaration.
(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT THE FUNDING OF TRANSIT-RELATED PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION CONSTITUTES MAINTENANCE AND SUPERVISION OF STATE HIGHWAYS BECAUSE IT WILL HELP TO REDUCE TRAFFIC ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND THEREBY REDUCE WEAR AND TEAR ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES AND INCREASE THEIR RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE.

In fact, the bill MANDATES state spending of $10 Million per year on “transit-related projects.”

It’s an outrageous semantic shell game - and a blatant violation of your constitutional rights.

To sum up: the “FASTER” car tax increase raised vehicle registration fees by $22.50-55 per vehicle, including a “road safety surcharge fee” of $16-$39 per vehicle, PLUS a “bridge fund fee” of $13-$32 per vehicle (phased in at 50%/75%/100% each of the first 3 years ).  Plus mandatory “late fees” of $25/month (capped at $100) - for all “vehicles” (including trailers barely even worth that much).

All while creating two new ‘government-owned’ bureaucracies with power to spend, borrow, & seize private property unconstrained by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and not accountable to the people.

Oh, and increasing mandatory spending by over $10 Million per year on purposes other than roads, bridges, or other transportation infrastructure used by those paying the “fees.”

Most of the politicians who did this to you - including Governor Bill Ritter, Senate sponsor Dan Gibbs, and House sponsor Joe Rice - have paid the political price, either quitting office or being defeated at the ballot box; however, the real culprits, without whom none of this would have been possible (thanks to a Nov. 2008 court ruling to allow “fees” to act like taxes, in violation of your constitutional rights) escaped justice (except for Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who quit rather than face the voters, the remaining members of the Colorado Supreme Court who aided and abetted FASTER were retained in office for another 10-year term).

Unfortunately, these politicians in black robes remain ‘at large’ and able to continue to assault your constitutional rights for years to come.

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 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.