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
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
John Suthers vs. Hillary Hall - Supreme Court petition

John Suthers vs. Hillary Hall - Supreme Court petition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,230 |Likes:
Published by Matt Sebastian
John Suthers vs. Hillary Hall - Supreme Court petition
John Suthers vs. Hillary Hall - Supreme Court petition

More info:

Published by: Matt Sebastian on Jul 28, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

08/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Colorado State Judicial Building 2 East 14
th
 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203
 COURT USE ONLY
 
Case No.: ___SA ___ 
 
Boulder County District Court  Andrew Hartman District Court Judge No. 2014CV30833 IN RE: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
ex rel
. JOHN SUTHERS, in his official capacity as Colorado  Attorney General, and THE STATE OF COLORADO, Petitioners-Appellants, v. HILLARY HALL, in her official capacity as Boulder County Clerk and Recorder, Respondents-Appellees. JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General
 
DANIEL DOMENICO, Solicitor General MICHAEL FRANCISCO, Ass’t Solicitor General LEEANN MORRILL, First Ass’t Attorney General KATHRYN A. STARNELLA, Ass’t Attorney General 1300 Broadway, 10
th
 Floor Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (720) 508-6000 Email: dan.domenico@state.co.us; michael.francisco@state.co.us; leeann.morrill@state.co.us; kathryn.starnella@state.co.us Registration Numbers: 32038, 39111, 38742, 43619
 PETITION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 21
DATE FILED: July 27, 2014 8:29 PM FILING ID: 4EBD8EB8E348F CASE NUMBER: 2014SA228
 
1
Pursuant to Colorado Appellate Rules 21, and Colorado Constitution article VI, § 3, the People of the State of Colorado
ex rel
. John Suthers and the State of Colorado, petition this Court to issue a writ directing the Boulder Clerk to abide by the same terms as the Denver and Adams County Clerks and thereby stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses pending resolution on appeal of the merits. C.A.R. 21(a)(2) (“The petitioner need not designate a specific form of writ when seeking relief under this rule.”).  As this Court knows, the statewide confusion and legal chaos revolving around same-sex marriage in Colorado were detailed in the Rule 8 proceedings in
State
,
et al. v. Brinkman
,
et al.
, No. 2014SA212. To be sure, the Attorney General had expected that other Clerks, acting on behalf of the State, would understand that an order directing the Denver Clerk to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses would counsel against other Clerks engaging in identical conduct.
1
 This expectation was partly fulfilled when the Pueblo Clerk agreed to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, because of the order in
 Brinkman
. The Respondent Clerk alone continues to issue same-sex marriage licenses, contrary to current Colorado law, and in contravention of the
1
 
See Brinkman
Repl. To Emergency Mot. at 11-12 (“[E]ven an order only directed at the clerks in this case [Denver and Adams Counties], but mandating that they comply with state law until the Court has ruled on the merits, would be adequate guidance to other clerks around the state.”)
 
 
2
uniform nature of Colorado’s marriage laws. Accordingly, the State has had no choice but to pursue an additional court order providing for the uniform application of Colorado’s marriage laws pending final determination of the constitutional claims for same-sex marriage. Before seeking another extraordinary order from this Court the  Attorney General pursued timely motions in the trial court and Court of  Appeals. Those motions were denied, in spite of this Court’s
 Brinkman
order.
See
 part E, p.5-6
infra
. As explained below, if this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over this case and allows the Boulder Clerk to likewise continue issuing same-sex marriage licenses, then the rationale behind the stay in
 Brinkman
 would become suspect. Almost every reason given to order the Denver Clerk to stop would be made a nullity and the State as a whole would continue to be subject to legal confusion, needless disputes, all degrading to the rule of law This Court alone is left to restore order to the legal process in Colorado. This Court alone has the authority under Rule 21 to issue a writ necessary to preserve the status quo in Colorado as the important constitutional claims presented in
 Brinkman
 are given due deliberation.
 A. Identity of the Parties
The Petitioners are the People and the State. The proposed Respondent is Hillary Hall, in her official capacity as the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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