On April 2, 2012, Weissmann turned in his petition sections.10.
After review, the Secretary found that Weissmann failed to submit one thousand valid petition signatures and issued a Statement of Insufficiency on April 10, 2012.11.
On April 12, 2012, the CDP obtained a copy of Weissmann’s petitions and the Secretary’sworksheet showing which signatures were accepted, which were rejected, and why a particular signature was rejected.12.
On April 14, 2012, Weissmann filed an action in this Court for review of the Secretary’sdetermination of insufficiency, attaching affidavits from some circulators and two notaries public, seeking to cure some deficiencies that resulted in the rejection of entire petitions dueto errors with the notary jurat and the circulator affidavit, including (1) omission of thenotary seal; (2) the notary entered the name of an affiant in the notary jurat that differedfrom the name of the circulator; and (3) the date of the circulator affidavit did not match thedate reflected in the notary jurat.13.
On April 12-14, the CDP carried out its own review of Weissmann’s petitions and foundthat some petition signatures that were accepted by the Secretary should have been rejected.Specifically, the CDP found that even if Weissmann is able to cure some discrepancies withthe notary jurats and circulator affidavits, many signatures contained within petitionsections that were rejected wholesale based upon the notary jurat and circulator offenseswould still not be acceptable due to other deficiencies. These other deficiencies includesigners who (1) did not fully complete the signature lines on the petition; (2) are notregistered voters in the Second Congressional District; (3) are not affiliated with theRepublican party; and (4) placed an address on the petition which does not match theaddress where the signer is registered to vote in the statewide voter registration database.14.
Specifically, the CDP has determined that even if Weissmann is able to cure all of thedefects associated with the notary jurat and circulator portions of the petitions, he wouldstill have fewer than the one thousand valid petition signatures required by Section 1-4-801(2)(b) - an insufficient number to place him on the ballot.15.
The CDP has an interest in ensuring that all candidates seeking to be placed on the ballotfor election in the Second Congressional District have met the requirements established byColorado law before they are placed on the ballot.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of C.R.S. §1-1-113)16.
The CDP incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-15 above.17.
The Colorado Election Code sets out clear rules for candidates seeking to petition on to the ballot, including the signature requirements for the petition set forth in §1-4-801.18.
The Colorado Election Code sets out clear rules for signatures on petitions in §1-4-904.19.
The Colorado Election Code sets out clear rules for circulators circulating petitions in §1-4-905.20.
Weissmann’s Petition does not meet the requirements of §1-4-801 because it does notcontain one thousand valid signatures.21.
Weissmann’s Petition does not meet the requirements of §1-4-904(1), (2)(a) and (3) because not all petition signers are eligible electors in the Second Congressional District,not all petition signers are affiliated with the Republican party, and not all petition signers