Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Court of Appeals SOS Opening Brief EW v.Gessler

Court of Appeals SOS Opening Brief EW v.Gessler

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0 |Likes:
Opening Brief of Colorado Secretary of State in Colorado Ethics Watch v. Gessler, Colorado Court of Appeals (campaign finance recodification litigation)
Opening Brief of Colorado Secretary of State in Colorado Ethics Watch v. Gessler, Colorado Court of Appeals (campaign finance recodification litigation)

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Colorado Ethics Watch on Sep 03, 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

02/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS2 East 14th AvenueDenver, CO 80203District Court, City and County of DenverHonorable J. Eric Elliff, JudgeCase No. 2012 CV 2133(consolidated with 2012 CV 2153)
Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee
: SCOTTGESSLER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado,v.
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants
:COLORADO ETHICS WATCH and COLORADOCOMMON CAUSEand
Plaintiffs/Appellees
: DAVID PALADINO;MICHAEL CERBO; PRO-CHOICE COLORADOPAC; PPRM BALLOT ISSUE COMMITTEE; andCITIZENS FOR INTEGRITY, INC.
COURT USE ONLY
 
Case No. 12 CA 1712
 
JOHN W. SUTHERS, Attorney GeneralLEEANN MORRILL, First Assistant AttorneyGeneralFREDERICK R. YARGER, Assistant SolicitorGeneral, Reg. No. 39479*MATTHEW D. GROVE, Assistant Attorney General,Reg. No. 34269*1300 Broadway, 10th FloorDenver, Colorado 80203Telephone: (720) 508-6551E-Mail: fred.yarger@state.co.us;matt.grove@state.co.us*Counsel of Record
 
Opening Brief of Appellant / Cross-AppelleeColorado Secretary of State
 
 
Certificate of Compliance
This brief complies with the requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32,including all formatting requirements. Specifically, I certify thefollowing:The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(g) because
 
It contains 9,144 words.
o
 
It does not exceed 30 pages.
o
 
The brief does not comply with CAR 28(g) because it exceedsthe word and/or page limit. A motion to accept the over lengthbrief has been filed contemporaneously with the brief.The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(k) because,
 
For the party raising the issue:
It contains under a separateheading (1) a concise statement of the applicable standard of appellate review with citation to authority; and (2) a citation tothe precise location in the record (R. __, p. __), not to an entiredocument, where the issue was raised and ruled on.
For the party responding to the issue:
It contains, under aseparate heading, a statement of whether such party agreeswith the opponent’s statements concerning the standard of review and preservation for appeal, and if not, why not.
/s/ Frederick R. Yarger
 Frederick R. Yarger
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE
 iIntroduction ................................................................................................ 1
 
Issues on Appeal ......................................................................................... 2
 
Statement of the Case and Facts ............................................................... 3
 
 A.
 
The Secretary’s rulemaking effort. .................................................. 3
 
B.
 
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit............................................................................... 6
 
C.
 
The decision below. ............................................................................ 7
 
D.
 
The Secretary’s request for a stay and the parties’ appeals. ......... 9
 
Summary of Argument ............................................................................... 9
 
 Argument .................................................................................................. 11
 
I.
 
Standard of Review. ........................................................................ 11
 
 A.
 
In enacting administrative rules, the Secretary must followthe law, including binding judicial interpretations of thelaw.....................................................................................................13
 
B.
 
The Court must defer to the Secretary’s Rules, asking onlywhether the Rules are based on a “permissible”interpretation of the law. ................................................................19
 
II.
 
The five rules at issue in this appeal are all within theSecretary’s authority and discretion to promulgate. ..................... 23
 
 A.
 
 As the district court observed, the “major purpose” test oRule 1.18.2 is “undeniably required” by Colorado case law. ........ 23
 
1.
 
The Supreme Court’s “major purpose” test refines thescope of political committee regulation. ................................ 24
 
2.
 
Rule 1.18.2 acknowledges the major purpose test andexplains how it applies. .......................................................... 25
 
3.
 
The district court improperly held that the Secretary’srules must ignore the existence of the major purposetest. ......................................................................................... 26
 

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)//-->