P. 1
Answer Brief of Paladino Parties - Ethics Watch v. Gessler, CO Court of Appeals

Answer Brief of Paladino Parties - Ethics Watch v. Gessler, CO Court of Appeals

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0 |Likes:
Answer Brief of
Answer Brief of

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Colorado Ethics Watch on Jun 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OFCOLORADO2 East 14
th
AvenueDenver, Colorado 80203
COURT USE ONLY
 
Appeal from the District Court, City and Countyof Denver, ColoradoThe Honorable J. Eric Elliff Case No. 2012CV2133 (consolidated with2012CV2153)Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants:COLORADO ETHICS WATCH
and 
COLORADO COMMON CAUSE,Plaintiffs-Appellees:DAVID PALADINO; MICHAEL CERBO; PRO-CHOICE COLORADO PAC; PPRM BALLOTISSUE COMMITTEE;
and 
CITIZENS FOR INTEGRITY, INC.,v.Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee:SCOTT GESSLER,
in his capacity as ColoradoSecretary of State
 Attorneys for Paladino Plaintiffs-Appellees:
Mark G. Grueskin, No. 14621Heizer Paul Grueskin LLP2401 15
th
Street, Suite 300Denver, Colorado 80202Phone Number: (303) 376-3703FAX Number: (303) 595-4750E-mail: mgrueskin@hpgfirm.comCase No.: 12CA1712
PALADINO PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ ANSWER BRIEF
 
ii
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this brief complies with all requirements of C.A.R. 28and C.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules.Specifically, the undersigned certifies that the brief complies with C.A.R. 28(g). Itcontains 9,404 words.Further, the undersigned certifies that the brief complies with C.A.R. 28(k).For the party raising the issue:
It contains under a separate heading (1) a concise statement of theapplicable standard of appellate review with citation to authority; and (2) a citationto the precise location in the record (R.__, p.__), not to an entire document, wherethe issue was raised and ruled on.For the party responding to the issue:
It contains, under a separate heading, a statement of whether such partyagrees with the opponent’s statements concerning the standard of review and  preservation for appeal, and if not, why not.I acknowledge that my brief may be stricken if it fails to comply with any of the requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.AR. 32.s/Mark G. Grueskin
 
iii
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageSTATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ................................................................ 1
 
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................................... 1
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................2
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................3
 
LEGAL ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................3
 
A.
 
Rule 28(k): Standard of review and preservation for appeal ..........................4
 
1.
 
The Secretary failed to comply with C.A.R. 28(k) ..................................... 4
 
2.
 
The Secretary’s overarching standard of review is only partially correct ...5
 
3.
 
The Secretary incorrectly omitted any reference to the full Chevronstandard for judicial review of administrative actions ................................ 6
 
4.
 
The Secretary incorrectly omitted any reference to the judicial review provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act .........................................7
 
5.
 
The Secretary must prove that existing statutory and constitutionaldefinitions are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt ......................9
 
6.
 
The Secretary is incorrect that his rules or legal interpretations are owed deference .................................................................................................. 10
 
B.
 
The Secretary erred in adopting Rule 1.12.3 which created a 30%expenditure threshold before an issue committee has “a major purpose” of affecting ballot issue elections .....................................................................11
 
1.
 
Rule 28(k) certification: standard of review and citation to the record ... 11
 
2.
 
Rule 1.12.3 ............................................................................................... 12
 
3.
 
The District Court properly found that Rule 1.12.3 is invalid .................13
 
4.
 
The General Assembly has directly addressed the meaning of “a major  purpose.” .................................................................................................. 14
 
5.
 
A major purpose” is not ambiguous and thus the Secretary exceeded hislawful authority ........................................................................................16
 
6.
 
The 30% test is arbitrary and capricious and not based on substantialevidence in the record ..............................................................................18
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->