IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1817-REB-KLM

CATHERINE BURNS;
SHEILA SCHROEDER;
MARK THRUN;
GEOFFREY BATEMAN;
RACHEL CATT;
CASSIE RUBALD;
BREANNA ALEXANDER;
STACY PARRISH;
ANGELA CRANMORE;
J ULIANNE DELOY;
KAREN COLLIER; and
DENISE LORD;

Plaintiffs,

v.

J OHN W. HICKENLOOPER, J R., in his official capacity as Governor of Colorado;
J OHN SUTHERS, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Colorado; and
PAM ANDERSON, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder for J efferson County;

Defendants.



JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S REPLY REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND NON-OPPOSITION TO
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION


J efferson County Clerk and Recorder Pam Anderson (“Clerk Anderson”), by and
through the J efferson County Attorney and Assistant County Attorneys Writer Mott and
David Wunderlich, at the request of the Court [Doc. #38], hereby submits her Reply
addressing Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and Non-Opposition to Proposed
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
2
Preliminary Injunction (“Motion to Stay”) [Doc. #16] and Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (the “Response”) [Doc. #32].
Argument
I. The State, not any i ndi vidual clerk, is the real party in interest in a civil
rights action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute or state
constitutional provision
Clerk Anderson is a separately elected county official who is statutorily
responsible for issuing marriage licenses in accordance with State law. See Colo.
Const. Art. 14, Sec. 8 (creating the office of County Clerk and Recorder); Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 14-2-106 (establishing a non-discretionary duty upon county clerks to issue
marriage licenses if certain state requirements are met). The county clerks in issuing
marriage licenses act in a ministerial role enforcing state law. See Echols v. Parker,
909 F.2d 795, 801 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Thus, the State cannot dissociate itself from actions
taken under its laws by labeling those it commands to act as local officials. A county
official pursues his duties as a state agent when he is enforcing state law or policy.”);
Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Services, Inc. v. Leean, 154 F.3d 716, 718 (7th Cir. 1998)
(“When the municipality is acting under compulsion of state or federal law, it is the policy
contained in that state or federal law, rather than anything devised or adopted by the
municipality, that is responsible for the injury.”); Pusey v. City of Youngstown, 11 F.3d
652, 657 (6th Cir. 1994) (“Thus, a city official pursues her duty as a state agent when
enforcing state law or policy.”). See also Colorado Attorney General’s Emergency
Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, filed J uly 14, 2014 with the Colorado Supreme
Court in Colorado v. Brinkman, 2014SA000212, seeking an injunction against all county
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
3
clerks in Colorado from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, attached as Exhibit A-1,
pg. 8 (“By definition, the issuance of marriage licenses is a ministerial act…. Under the
Uniform Marriage Act, County Clerks are given the power to issue licenses by the State
on behalf of the State, but only if the requirements set by the state are met.”).
Clerk Anderson is in a unique position, therefore, in this litigation, by being sued
for enforcing a state policy rather than a policy developed by her office or by J efferson
County. Accord, West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 952 F. Supp. 342, 348 (S.D. W.
Va. 1996) (“The State’s prosecuting attorneys would have been acting primarily for the
State, not their own county governments, in assisting Secretary Hechler to implement
the statute. It would be patently unfair to require West Virginia’s fifty-five county
governments to shoulder a share of the cost of the State’s unconstitutional action. The
Court therefore orders that the entire amount of the [fees] award be paid by Secretary
Hechler [on behalf of the State].”). It is the State, through the Attorney General, who
has been and continues to defend the constitutionality of the State’s prohibition on
same-sex marriage. Thus, the State, and not any of the individual clerks, is the real
party in interest.
A local government official pursues his duties as a state agent when
enforcing state law or policy. Where the local official was acting on behalf
of the state, his action cannot be attributed to the local governmental entity
under Monell. An examination of the Ohio statutory scheme for the
issuance of certificates of title for motor vehicles reveals that this is a
matter within the control of the state. The counties have no role in the
issuance or regulation of certificates of title for motor vehicles. The Ohio
General Assembly, by statute, has designated the clerks of court in each
county in Ohio to perform the largely ministerial tasks associated with the
issuance of certificates of title in accordance with state law.
* * *
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
4
This court concludes that defendant Williams [clerk of the court] was
acting as an agent of the state in transferring title of plaintiff’s
manufactured home to Lacy, not pursuant to any policy of Pike County.
The actions of defendant Williams cannot be attributed to Pike County
under Monell, and Pike County is entitled to summary judgment. Since
defendant Williams was acting as an agent of the state, the plaintiff’s claim
for monetary damages against defendant Williams in his official capacity is
not cognizable under § 1983.
Leslie v. Lacy, 91 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1195 (S.D. Ohio 2000), citing Monell v. Dep’t of
Social Serv’s of City of New York 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2035-2036 (1978)
(“Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary,
declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be
unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or
decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers.”)(emphasis added).
The objective of this lawsuit is to have Colorado’s ban on same-sex marriage
overturned. It is a direct challenge of a State statute and a State constitutional
provision, which under State law the Attorney General is required to be given notice and
be given the opportunity to be heard and defend the constitutionality of the State
provision. Colo. Rev. Stat. §13-51-115; see also C.R.C.P. 57(j) (Colorado Attorney
General must be served with any action challenging constitutionality of any statute,
ordinance or franchise). Given the objective to strike down the state ban on same-sex
marriages, the true party in interest who is responsible and is statutorily required to
defend the State’s laws is the Attorney General on behalf of the State, not the Clerk who
is merely fulfilling a ministerial duty on behalf of the State in issuing the licenses.
II. Clerk Anderson does not take a position on the merits of the stay or
whether any stay should be issued
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
5
As described above, Clerk Anderson is simply serving in a ministerial role in
issuing marriage licenses and does not take a position on the underlying merits or on
the stay. Clerk Anderson seeks clarity and guidance from this Court, as she similarly
requested from the Colorado Supreme Court (Exhibit A-3) in response to the state
court Injunction Motion,
1
whether she should or should not be issuing same-sex
marriage licenses.
WHEREFORE, Clerk Anderson respectfully requests that the Court issue an
order providing Clerk Anderson explicit guidance as to whether she should or should not
be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples pending a final determination of the
constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on same-sex marriages.


1
The Colorado Supreme Court declined to provide guidance to all of the counties regarding the
issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in its order issued today. See Exhibit A-2 (the
Colorado Supreme Court’s Order on the Attorney General’s state court injunction request).
Instead, the Supreme Court stayed only those clerks who are parties to the appeal, Denver and
Adams, from issuing same-sex marriage licenses pending the determination of the merits of that
appeal. Id. In so doing, the Colorado Supreme Court declined the request of the J efferson
County Clerk and Recorder, Mesa County Clerk and Recorder, La Plata County Clerk and
Recorder, Douglas County Clerk and Recorder, and Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder to
provide guidance to all of the 64 county clerk and recorders in the state regarding the propriety
and legality of issuing same-sex marriage licenses at this time. See Exhibit A-3 (the clerk’s
Amicus Brief).
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
6

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of J uly, 2014.

J EFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY
ELLEN G. WAKEMAN


/s/ Writer Mott
By: _________________________________
Writer Mott
David Wunderlich
Assistant County Attorneys
100 J efferson County Parkway, Suite 5500
Golden, CO 80419
Telephone: 303-271-8932
Email: wmott@jeffco.us; dwunderl@jeffco.us


Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing JEFFERSON
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S REPLY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND NON-OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION via the US District Court ECF Filing System this 18th day
of J uly, 2014, which will provide service upon the following:

Mari Newman
David A. Lane
Darren M. J ankord
Danielle C. J efferis
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
mnewman@kln-law.com
dlane@kln-law.com
djankord@kln-law.com
djefferis@kln-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Michael Francisco
Daniel D. Domenico
Colorado Department of Law
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Michael.francisco@state.co.us
Dan.domenico@state.co.us
Attorneys for Defendant John W. Suthers

Wendy J . Shea
Evan P. Lee
Assistant County Attorney
Denver City Attorney’s Office, Litigation Section
201 W. Colfax Avenue, Dept. 1108
Denver, CO 80202
Wendy.shea@denvergov.org
Evan.lee@denvergov.org
Attorneys for Defendant Debra Johnson


/s/ Briana McCarten

Briana McCarten, Paralegal

Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
2 East 14
th
Ave., Denver, Colorado 80203
 COURT USE ONLY 
Appeal from District Court, Adams County,
Colorado, Case No. 13CV32572, Hon. C. Scott
Crabtree
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: STATE OF
COLORADO, et al,
v.
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: REBECCA
BRINKMAN et al.
Consolidated with District Court, City and
County of Denver, Colorado, Case No.
14CV30731:
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: STATE OF
COLORADO, et al.
v.
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: G. KRISTIAN
MCDANIEL-MICCIO et al.
JOHN W. SUTHERS, Attorney General
DANIEL D. DOMENICO, Solicitor General*
MICHAEL FRANCISCO, Ass’t Solicitor
General*
LEEANN MORRILL, First Ass’t Attorney
General*
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (720) 508-6551
Email: dan.domenico@state.co.us; michael.fran
cisco@state.co.us;
leeann.morrill@state.co.us
*Counsel of Record
Registration Numbers: 32038, 39111, 38742


Case No. 2014SA000212



EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL


DATE FILED: July 14, 2014 1:45 PM
FILING ID: 4731FE44144D2
CASE NUMBER: 2014SA212
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24
A-1


2


Pursuant to C.A.R. 8, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
John Suthers, on behalf of the State and the People of Colorado, hereby
seeks an injunction pending resolution of this appeal. The Court now has
jurisdiction over the case that will resolve, so far as state courts can
resolve it, the substantive question of whether Colorado’s marriage laws
violate the federal constitution. See Notice of Appeal, filed today.
But while the Court goes about the process of resolving that
important question, the State, its lower courts and county clerks, and its
people, deserve clarity and uniformity in the application of state law.
This motion asks the Court to provide that clarity and uniformity –
regardless of how the merits are ultimately resolved on the important
question of same-sex marriage. As will be argued below, the appropriate
way to do so is to look to the U.S. Supreme Court’s actions in Herbert v.
Kitchen, (and the numerous other federal courts resolving constitutional
claims for same-sex marriage) and enjoin the State and the Clerk and
Recorders or others acting on its behalf from acting contrary to current
state law until the validity of those laws has been fully adjudicated. See
n.5-6 infra (collecting cases with stays).
The current confusion and uncertainty benefits nobody. This Court
plainly has the power to prevent that from continuing, see C.A.R. Rule 8,
Rule 21(a); Colo. Const. art VI, § 3.
1


1
See also C.R.C.P. 65 (an injunction is binding not only on the parties, but on
“the parties’ officers, agents ... and other persons who are in active concert or
participation with” a party. Thus any injunction as to the State would be
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 24


3


BACKGROUND
The Notice of Appeal filed earlier today in this case brings the
underlying question of the constitutionality of Colorado’s Marriage Laws
a significant step closer to final resolution. But while that important
issue has gotten closer to resolution, the issue of what County Clerks
and the State are supposed to do in the interim, has descended into
complete confusion. Only this Court can bring clarity and ensure that
the orderly administration of justice prevails. There are two state cases
from same-sex couples challenging the merits of Colorado’s marriage
laws. Those have been combined through Multi-District Litigation to
Judge Crabtree in Adams County. Brinkman et al v. Long et al. No.
13CV32572, and the summary judgment order in that case is the subject
of this appeal. Ex. A (Brinkman Summary Judgment Order, July 9,
2014). There is also a case in Boulder County district court whereby the
Attorney General is addressing the County Clerk’s legal authority to
issue same-sex marriage licenses contrary to current Colorado law.
Colorado v. Hall, No. 14CV30833, where the court denied the State’s
request for a preliminary injunction. Ex. B (Hall Order Denying
Preliminary Injunction, July 10, 2014).
Another lawsuit will apparently be necessary in Pueblo County
district court unless this Court acts, as the Pueblo Clerk has now begun

binding upon those acting under state law, as clerks do when they issue
marriage licenses.).
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 24


4


issuing same-sex marriage licenses contrary to Colorado law.
2
Finally,
there is a federal case in the district of Colorado from same-sex couples
challenging the merits of Colorado’s marriage laws. Burns v.
Hickenlooper, No. 14-cv-1817, Ex. C. (Complaint, July 1, 2014); Ex. D
(Defendants’ Motion for Stay Proceedings and Non-Opposition to
Proposed Preliminary Injunction, July 2, 2014).
On July 9, Judge Crabtree issued a summary judgment order in
Brinkman, holding that Colorado’s limits on same-sex marriage violate
the U.S. Constitution, but also recognizing it was a “delusion” to think
that his district court order was the final word on the matter. Ex. A,
p.47. Recognizing the legal and social confusion caused by allowing the
issuance of licenses before that final word has been handed down, Judge
Crabtree stayed the effectiveness of his judgment. Id. p.46-48.
One day later, Judge Hartman of Boulder County reached an
apparently conflicting decision. Ex. B. While recognizing that the
issuance of licenses in these circumstances is likely illegal, he
nevertheless refused to prevent Boulder Clerk Hall from doing so. Id.,
p.23. In response, the Denver Clerk & Recorder, despite being a party to
the Brinkman case (subject to a stay), began issuing licenses contrary to
state law and Judge Crabtree’s Order. The Pueblo Clerk & Recorder

2
See http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Pueblo-County-to-Start-Issuing-Same-Sex-
Marriage-Licenses-Friday-266676981.html The longer there is legal confusion,
the more likely it is that other Clerks will act contrary to Colorado law
and the legal game of whack-a-mole will continue.
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 24


5


followed suit. The State filed a motion for an injunction against the
Denver Clerk, but Judge Crabtree denied the State’s motion on the
morning of July 9, 2014, stating “[i]t is not the function of an injunction
to enforce the dignity and enforceability of a Court’s Order.” Ex. E, p.5
(injunction denial order).
The rest of the state’s clerks are now in a quandary: some have
decided to await judicial resolution, others are still seeking legal advice.
Meanwhile, state law is being patently ignored and the State is
incurring real and irreparable costs associated with this chaotic
situation. Should more clerks choose to follow the example of Boulder,
Denver and Pueblo, those costs will only increase and additional
litigation would be unnecessarily thrust upon the State with
inconsistent and confusing legal decisions all but a guaranteed result.
There has been confusion enough in other states where a court has
ruled against a state’s marriage laws but not put in place a stay.
3
But in
no other state have the courts allowed the situation going on now in
Colorado to continue – clerks openly defying state law before any court
has issued a binding decision against the laws and in the face of a stay.
Cf. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 (Cal.

3
See Evans v. Utah, No. 14:CV55DAK, (D. Utah, May 19, 2014) (litigation
regarding validity of marriage licenses issued when no stay in place following
marriage litigation), appeal pending No. 14-4060 (10th Cir. July 11, 2014)
(affirming but issuing stay pending appeals to U.S. Supreme Court). The Utah
situation shows the costly mess that this can lead to. This is hardly a scenario
for Colorado’s courts to emulate.
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 24


6


2004);
4
Dep’t of Health v. Hanes, 78 A.3d 676, 690-92 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
2013) (clerks lack authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses, post-
Windsor, while merits are litigated). Whatever one thinks about the
merits of the underlying question of same-sex marriage, the question
about the role of courts versus county clerks is one this Court should
resolve immediately. It can solve this serious and growing problem by
the simple expedient of putting on hold the issuance of licenses while the
appeal of the merits plays out.
REASONS TO GRANT INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
This motion is necessary to preserve the orderly procedures and rule
of law and enforce the separation of powers doctrine by allowing the
judicial branch to resolve critical questions about constitutional rights in
an orderly manner. An injunction is necessary to maintain the status

4
The California Supreme Court aptly described the difference between
addressing the merits of same-sex marriage and the legality of Clerks issuance
of licenses contrary to existing state law:
Although the present proceeding may be viewed by some as presenting
primarily a question of the substantive legal rights of same-sex couples,
in actuality, the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all
individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties
in a manner that respects the limits of the authority granted to them as
officeholders. In short, the legal question at issue---the scope of the
authority entrusted to our public officials---involves the determination of
a fundamental question that lies at the heart of our political system: the
role of the rule of law in a society that justly prides itself on being ‘a
government of laws, and not of men’ (or women). Id. at 1067-68.

Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 24


7


quo pending a final court resolution on the merits. County Clerks lack
legal authority to issue marriage licenses on behalf of the State that are
patently contrary to the Colorado Constitution and statutes that define
marriage as the union of “one man and one woman,” while litigation is
pending – with a stay issued by the district court judge.
C.A.R. 8 gives the Court, or any Justice, the authority to issue
injunctions during the pendency of appeals. While such a request “must
ordinarily be made in the first instance in the trial court,” a request for
such relief directly from this Court may be made if “the trial could has
denied an application.” C.A.R. 8(a); see also Colo. Const. art. VI, § 3. The
State has sought relief in the trial court in a motion for injunction and it
was denied on the morning of July 14, 2014. Ex. E. Additionally, due to
the acts of other Clerks not party to Brinkman who continue to issue
same-sex marriage licenses, any relief afforded by the trial court would
not be practicable in resolving the broader issue for the state’s other 63
clerks.
Generally, to obtain injunctive relief, a party must prevail on the
merits, suffer irreparable injury, show that the harm to the movant
outweighs the harm to the opposing party and show that the injunction
would not be adverse to the public interest. Romero v. City of Fountain,
307 P.3d 120, 122 (Colo. App. 2011) (adopting federal factors for
injunction); Campbell v. Buckley, 11 F. Supp.2d 1260, 1262 (D. Colo.
1998), aff’d, 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2000) (same factors).
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 24


8


When it is brought on behalf of the public to benefit the public,
however, the party requesting the injunction must show only that it is
correct on the merits. Conway-Bogue Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass’n,
135 Colo. 398, 409-10, 312 P.2d 998, 1003 (1957); see also Port of New
York Authority v. City of Newark, 85 A.2d 815, 818-19 (N.J. Sup. Ct
1952).
Thus, the only question this Court must answer to properly resolve
whether to grant this motion should be whether the state’s clerks are
authorized, prior to any final, binding court decision, to ignore state law
in carrying out their ministerial functions. That is the issue presented in
this motion.
I. County clerks do not have the authority to issue licenses
that do not comply with state law.
By definition, the issuance of marriage licenses is a ministerial act; it
is “one which the person performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed
manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to
or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being
done.” Hamma v. People, 94 P. 326, 328 (Colo. 1908). Under the Uniform
Marriage Act, County Clerks are given the power to issue licenses by the
State on behalf of the State, but only if the requirements set by the state
are met. See C.R.S. §§ 14-2-104, 14-2-106, and 14-2-110. Put another
way, if certain requirements are met, all 64 County Clerks must issue
the marriage license; conversely, if certain requirements are not met
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 24


9


(e.g., an individual is under age, or the couple is not comprised of one
man and one woman), County Clerks must not issue a marriage license.
Clerks are authorized to issue marriage licenses by state law. They are
not authorized to pick and choose which state laws governing that
delegated authority they will abide by.
Until this Court or the United States Supreme Court finally resolves
the question, Colorado’s Marriage Laws remain in effect. Whether
Colorado’s marriage limitations will survive Constitutional scrutiny in
the final analysis is highly in doubt. But until we reach that final
analysis, the clerks’ actions must be based on the current state of the
law, not what it may be in the future. See Beedle v. Wilson, 422 F.3d
1059, 1069 (10th Cir. 2005) (right violated must be established at the
time of the defendant's actions). See Ex. B (Hall Order – finding State
satisfied likelihood of success on the merits based on current law).
Thus, other courts, even those that end up ruling in favor of same-sex
marriage, recognize that until those laws are repealed or overturned by
final court action, local officials have no authority to ignore them. See
Lockyer, 33 Cal.4th at 1073 (“Pending our determination of these
matters, we directed the officials to enforce the existing marriage
statutes and refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not
authorized by such provisions.”); Hanes, 78 A.3d at 692.
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 24


10


II. Clerks’ ignoring state law prior to judicial rulings causes
irreparable harm and is against the public interest.
Even if the State were required to prove the additional Romero
factors, it would prevail. These factors align with the factors for a stay,
and have already been carefully adjudicated by Judge Crabtree. He
recognized that even though he ruled against the State on the
underlying constitutional merits, the State had established a likelihood
of success on the merits for a stay, given the stay issued in similar
litigation by the U.S. Supreme Court and four Federal Courts of
Appeals.
5
See also Ex. A at 46. Likewise for federal district courts in
Oklahoma, Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
6


5
Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S.Ct. 893 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2014) (stay pending appeal
granted); Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, slip op. 64-65 (10th Cir. June 25,
2014) (same); Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420 (9th Cir. May 20, 2014) (Idaho case -
same) attached as Exhibit F; DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 25,
2014) (Michigan case - same) attached as Exhibit G; see also Tanco v.
Haslam, No.14-5297 *2 (6th Cir. April 25, 2014) (Tennessee case) (per curium)
(“Because the law in this area is so unsettled, in our judgment the public
interest and the interests of the parties would be best served by this Court
imposing a stay on the district court’s order until this case is reviewed on
appeal.”), attached as Exhibit H; Baskin v. Bogan, No. 14-2386 (7th Cir. June
27, 2014) (Indiana case - granting stay pending appeal), attached as Exhibit I.
6
District Court decisions granting stay: Bishop v. United States, ex rel. Holder,
962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13cv395, 2014
WL 561978 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, No. SA-13-CA-00982-
OLG, 2014 WL 715741 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014); Bourke v. Beshear, No.3:13-
CV-750-H, 2014 WL 556729, at *14 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014) (stay granted,
noting “[i]t is best that these momentous changes occur upon full review,
rather than risk premature implementation or confusing changes. That does
not serve anyone well”); Henry v. Himes, No. 14-cv-129, 2014 WL 1512541, *1-
2 (S.D. Ohio April 16, 2014) (stay pending appeal granted); Wolf v. Walker, No.
14-cv-64-bbc, 2014 WL 2693963 *12 (W.D. Wis. June 13, 2014) (“I do not
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 24


11


Permitting County Clerks to ignore some state laws while using the
power granted by other state laws causes significant irreparable harm to
the state and the public interest – particularly when it is a handful of
clerks while the majority continues to enforce state law. There are at
least five types of harm that letting these few clerks’ actions go
unchecked will cause.
First, there is the inherent harm courts have uniformly recognized in
rejecting duly enacted laws. Judge Crabtree recognized as much,
following Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 718, 719 (9th
Cir. 1997); O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao De Vegetal. v. Ashcroft,
314 F.3d 463, 467 (10th Cir. 2002); Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex.
Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 134 S.Ct. 506, 506 (2013); New Motor
Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist,
J., in chambers) (“It also seems to me that any time a State is enjoined
by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its
people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.”). Ex. A at 47.
Second, the harm caused by the confusion the clerks’ action has
caused is real and widespread. As Judge Crabtree noted, “The public has
an interest in the orderly determination of the constitutionality of its
laws and granting a stay will effectuate that end.” Id. Judge Crabtree

interpret Geiger as undermining the Court’s order in Herbert...Because I see no
way to distinguish this case from Herbert, I conclude that I must stay any
injunctive relief pending appeal.”).
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 24


12


expressly noted that a stay was “necessary to avoid the instability and
uncertainty which would result in the State of Colorado if the Court did
not stay its ruling,” noting with disfavor the “continued issuance of
marriage licenses in Boulder” as the type of instability and uncertainty
that should be avoided. Id. at 48 n.18. The Denver Clerk, however, has
been emboldened by Judge Hartman’s views to the contrary to ignore
this judicial finding in the case in which she is a party. Apparently this
Court’s intervention is necessary.
Third, the clerks’ action cannot be isolated, as Judge Hartman
seemed to hope. The State’s system for processing and acknowledging to
the public (that is to say, recognizing, marriages) does not allow for the
Registrar to double-check compliance with state law. The continued
issuance of invalid same-sex marriage licenses harms the State by
forcing other divisions of the State to recognize, contrary to the current
law and constitution, the legal validity of the improperly issued licenses.
See C.R.S §§ 14-2-109(1) (“Either the person solemnizing the marriage
or…a party to the marriage shall complete the marriage certificate form
and forward it to the county clerk and recorder[.]”); 14-2-109(3) (“Upon
receipt of the marriage certificate, the county clerk and recorder shall
register the marriage.”); 25-2-106 (“Each county clerk and recorder shall
prepare a report…with respect to every duly executed marriage
certificate that is returned in accordance with 14-2-109, C.R.S. On or
before the tenth day of each month…such clerk and recorder shall
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 24


13


forward to the state registrar all such marriage reports for all marriage
certificates returned in the preceding period.”); 25-2-104 (“Promptly
upon the receipt of each vital statistics report..., the state
registrar…shall register the statistical event described therein…and
shall place the same…in the permanent files of the office.”).
So whatever licenses clerks submit will become part of the record that
the State recognizes. The system is dependent on clerks’ carrying out
their duties pursuant to law; it does not contemplate having to second-
guess their compliance. Thus, the clerks’ actions effectively mean that
the State itself is being forced to violate its own laws by recognizing
marriages that are not – at least not yet – valid.
Fourth, third parties rely on this system for various reasons. To be
sure, practical, real-world harm will result from third-parties’ –
including the courts, private corporations, and other governmental
entities – unknowing reliance on the invalid marriage licenses currently
being issued in the name of the State. For example, the following acts
turn on the ability to prove the existence of a valid marriage: (1)
establishing spousal benefits under the Social Security Act; (2) obtaining
a legal name change on a driver’s license, passport, social security card,
or other government-issued identification; (3) establishing the
presumptive legitimacy of children; (4) establishing relationships
necessary for determining probate, inheritance, and unclaimed property
matters; (5) establishing eligibility for health, life, and disability
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 24


14


insurance coverage and benefits; and (6) establishing the existence of a
legal marriage in dissolution proceedings for purposes of spousal support
and/or maintenance, child support, the division of marital assets; and
the custody of minor children. In short, because the legalization of
marriage turns on the performance of ministerial acts by both State and
county officials, the County Clerks’ issuance of invalid marriage licenses
sends ripples of harm throughout our society that cannot be undone by
the State either easily or with absolute legal certainty.
Fifth, if this Court refuses to use its broad powers, see C.A.R. 8 & 21,
Colo. Const. art. VI, § 3, to ensure that government officials carry out
their ministerial duties while controversial litigation is ongoing, it will
provide perverse and dangerous incentives. What about a sheriff who
believes limits on felons or minors obtaining a concealed carry permit
violates the right to bear arms? A DMV clerk who does not believe
undocumented immigrants are entitled to a driver’s license? Both would
be encouraged to put their personal opinions above their duties to follow
the law should this Court countenance the ongoing actions of the clerks.
Each day that County Clerks continue to issue same-sex marriage
licenses – and publicly declare those licenses’ validity, despite the State
Marriage Laws and the Attorney General’s statements to the contrary –
greater social and legal chaos ensues because the public is left confused
and uncertain about the legal validity of such marriages and the role of
clerks versus the role of the courts or other government officials in
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 24


15


determining whether to enforce state law.
7
Each and every day that
County Clerks continue to issue same-sex marriage licenses in direct
contravention of the State Marriage Laws, Coloradans’ confidence in
their government diminishes in view of the fact that, as public officers,
County Clerks are refusing to abide by and enforce still-valid Colorado
laws.
The public confidence is further irreparably undermined by the fact
that, as public officers, County Clerks who issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples are issuing false certificates, in further violation of
Colorado law. See C.R.S. § 18-8-406 (stating that “a person commits a
class 6 felony, if, being a public servant authorized by law to make and
issue official certificates or other official written instruments, he makes
and issues such an instrument containing a statement which he knows
to be false.”); see also People v. Buckallew, 848 P.2d 904 (Colo. 1993)
(concerning the statute’s application to county officials).
This is not to ignore the harms to couples who, if the State is wrong
on the ultimate constitutional merits, have been denied the right to a
government marriage certificate. One can understand and sympathize
with the desire to shortcut the normal processes and get that certificate,
even if it comes with the disclaimer or cloud of legal uncertainty. But
that is not enough to overcome the reasons that favor the Court’s

7
See http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/marriage-licenses-for-
same-sex-couples-still-in-question
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 24


16


temporarily suspending the issuance of licenses while this appeal on the
merits plays out. Indeed, the moving concerns of same-sex couples in
Colorado are not unlike the concerns of same-sex couples around the
United States, and those couples are, pursuant to the standard legal
process, awaiting a final judicial determination before same-sex
marriage licenses are issued.
Most importantly, even if the State does prove to be wrong on the
constitutional question, that does not mean that prematurely issued
certificates will be validated. See Lockyer, 33 Cal.4th at 1116
(“[Accordingly, we view Family Code section 300 itself as an explicit
statutory provision establishing that the existing same-sex marriages at
issue are void and invalid.”). Thus, even if the State loses this appeal,
the couples obtaining these certificates likely would not be the winners.
8

Second, to the extent this were an immediate and irreparable harm, the
couples could have brought actions for preliminary injunctive relief.
That they chose not to reveals that they recognize, as the heavy majority
of courts have, that this harm is but temporary and reparable.
9
If they

8
Indeed, the Hall Order seems to set aside substantial legal difficulties
created by licenses that are not valid by speculating that additional litigation
and lawyers in the future may sort things out. This is a strong reason to follow
the orderly administration of the judicial process – not ignore the process and
hope it can be fixed later.
9
Compare, for example, the Seventh Circuit’s lifting of the stay it imposed in
Baskin for a couple when it was shown that one of them was suffering from
terminal cancer. See Ex. I. There has been no such showing or allegation here.
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 24


17


prevail on the merits, a real, no-disclaimer, no-questions-asked marriage
certificate will be theirs for the asking.
The relief requested in this motion will not decide the merits of
claims for a federal right to same-sex marriage that would invalidate
Colorado’s Constitution and statutes – those substantial and weighty
claims will be decided for Colorado either by the federal courts, where
Colorado has now been sued and will be bound by the outcome of a Utah
case in Kitchen v. Herbert, or by this Court (subject to petitions to the
U.S. Supreme Court by the loser) in the merits of this appeal. Either
way, the merits can and should be decided in due course for all of
Colorado. The relief here requested, however, is immediately necessary
to preserve the status quo pending those appeals and to affirm the legal
responsibility of County Officials to comply with Colorado law. Colorado
is hardly the only state where the constitutional right to same-sex
marriage is being actively litigated. Colorado stands alone, however, in
its courts permitting a handful of clerks to issue marriage licenses
contrary to law before the courts have made a final, binding
determination of the merits. States defending their marriage laws (like
Colorado) have all asked for stays pending appeal to protect the status
quo and avoid legally indeterminate marriage licenses from being issued
by eager clerks. As detailed above, see n. 5-6 supra, courts have
repeatedly imposed stays in same-sex marriage litigation – resulting in
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 24


18


Clerks in those States being compelled to wait for final judicial action.
Colorado should join this wise course of action.
CONCLUSION
The question of the constitutionality of limitations on state
recognition of same-sex marriage like Colorado’s is undoubtedly headed
for a final resolution soon. And the excitement felt by those who support
same-sex marriage, including the Respondent Clerks and the plaintiffs
in the various related cases is more than understandable – momentum is
on their side. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on the
substantive question before the Kitchen case becomes final and binding,
the Attorney General has already recognized that Colorado’s laws will
not stand. See Ex. D.
But the immediate question is whether that excitement and that
momentum will be allowed to overwhelm the various legal and
constitutional processes and structures and divisions of power the state
has put in place for carrying out ministerial duties like issuing marriage
licenses or profoundly non-ministerial ones like deciding constitutional
questions. Those processes and divisions can be cumbersome, unwieldy,
and downright frustrating. They may even seem pointless in a particular
case when the “right” outcome may be so obvious to so many.
Yet true as that might be in the immediate term, the long-term
stability of our system of government and rule of law depends on those
structures and divisions standing up in the face of pressure, even where
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 24


19


the immediate result might appear unjust. This case shows the wisdom
of that fundamental understanding: the Brinkman and Burns cases were
moving along as our system requires, and were on track to final
resolution as soon as possible. That process is not as fast or simple as
anyone may want, but they are the process our system of laws and
divided power depends on. A rush to get to the “right” result by
shortcuts, no matter how well-intentioned, is a precedent this Court
should refuse to set.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The State specifically requests an order pending appeal prohibiting
the Defendants, including the State and those acting pursuant to state
law, from: (1) issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the State that do not
comply the Uniform Marriage Act, § 14-2-104(1)(b) or Colo. Const. art. II,
section 31; and (2) submitting or processing any marriage licenses that
do not comply with state law to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics,
pending further order of the Court. See See C.A.R. 8(a); C.A.R. 21.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of July, 2014.


Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 24


20


JOHN W. SUTHERS
Attorney General

/s/ Michael Francisco
DANIEL D. DOMENICO, 32083*
Solicitor General
MICHAEL FRANCISCO, 39111*
Assistant Solicitor General
LEEANN MORRILL, 38742*
First Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for the State of Colorado
*Counsel of Record













Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 24


21


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have duly served the foregoing
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
upon the following parties or their counsel electronically via ICCES, or
via electronic mail, at Denver, Colorado this 14th day of July, 2014,
addressed as follows:

Plaintiffs/Appellees in Adams County District Court Case:
Ralph Ogden, Reg. No. 13623
M. Anne Wilcox, Reg. No. 13604
WILCOX & OGDEN, P.C.
160 Lafayette Street
Denver, Colorado 80218

Professor Thomas Russell, Reg. No. 34771
1001 16th Street B180 #175
Denver, Colorado 80265

Plaintiffs/Appellees in the City and County of Denver District Court
Case:

John M. McHugh, Reg. No. 45456
Anthony L. Giacomini, Reg. No. 26057
Amy R. Gray, Reg. No. 40814
Michael Kotlarczyk, Reg. No. 43250
Tess Hand-Bender, Reg. No. 42681
Jason M. Lynch, Reg. No. 39130
REILLY POZNER LLP
1900 16th Street, Suite 1700
Denver, Colorado 80202

Marcus Lock, Reg. No. 33048
LAW OF THE ROCKIES
525 North Main Street
Gunnison, Colorado 81230
Ann Gushurst, Reg. No. 29187
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 24


22


GUTTERMAN GRIFFITHS, P.C.
10375 Park Meadows Blvd., Suite 520
Littleton, Colorado 80124

Defendant Karen Long, Clerk and Recorder for Adams County, Colorado:

Heidi M. Miller, Reg. No. 33923
County Attorney
Jennifer D. Stanley, Reg. No. 33084
Assistant County Attorney
4430 South Adams County Parkway
5
th
Floor, Suite C5000B
Brighton, Colorado 80601-8206

Defendant Debra Johnson, Clerk and Recorder for the City and County of
Denver, Colorado:

Wendy J. Shea, Reg. No. 26253
Assistant City Attorney
Denver City Attorney’s Office, Litigation Section
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. No. 1108
Denver, Colorado 80202-5332

Defendant John W. Hickenlooper, Jr., Governor of the State of Colorado:

Jack Finlaw, Reg. No. 11681
Benjamin Figa, Reg. No. 41302
Governor’s Office of Legal Counsel
121 State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203

Amicus Curiae Alliance Defending Freedom:

Michael J. Norton, Reg. No. 6430
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 100
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111

Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 24


23


Byron J. Babione, Pro Hac Vice
David Austin R. Nimocks, Pro Hac Vice
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
15100 N. 90
th
Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260


s/Michael Francisco






























Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 24


24



Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-1 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 24


Colorado Supreme Court
2 East 14th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203

Appeal fromthe District Court
District Court, Adams County, 2013CV32572
(Consolidated with District Court, City and County
of Denver, 2014CV30731)
Plaintiffs-Appellees:

Rebecca Brinkman and Margaret Burd,

v.

Defendant-Appellant:

State of Colorado,

and

Defendant:

Karen Long, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of
Adams County,



and

Plaintiffs-Appellees:

G. Kristian McDaniel-Miccio and Nan McDaniel-Miccio,
Sandra Abbott and Amy Smart, Wendy Alfredsen and
Michelle Alfredsen, Kevin Bemis and Kyle Bemis, Tommy
Craig and Joshua Wells, James Davis and Christopher
Massey, Sara Knickerbocker and Jessica Ryann Peyton, Jodi
Lupien and Kathleen Porter, and Tracey Macdermott and
Heather Shockey,

v.

Defendant-Appellant:

Supreme Court Case No:
2014SA212
DATE FILED: July 18, 2014
CASE NUMBER: 2014SA212
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-2 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
A-2
State of Colorado,

and

Defendants:

John W. Hickenlooper, Jr. in his official capacity as Governor
for the State of Colorado and Debra Johnson, in her official
capacity as Clerk and Recorder for the City and County of
Denver.
ORDER OF COURT


Upon consideration of the Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending
Appeal, the Adams County Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Objection to the State’s
Emergency Motion For Injunctive Relief, Response In Opposition To Emergency
Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal filed by the Denver County Plaintiffs and
the Denver Clerk, the Jefferson County Clerk And Recorder’s, Douglas County
Clerk And Recorder’s, La Plata County Clerk And Recorder’s, Arapahoe County
Clerk And Recorder’s, And Mesa County’s Clerk And Recorder’s Amicus Brief in
Relation to the Attorney General’s Emergency Motion For Injunction Pending
Appeal, the Update to Notice of Appeal, Denver Plaintiffs/Appellees’ Response to
the State’s Update to Notice of Appeal, the Request for Oral Argument on the
State’s Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief, and the Response to Motion for
Oral Argument on State’s Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief, and now being
sufficiently advised in the premises,

IT IS ORDERED that said Request for Oral Argument on the State’s Motion
for Emergency Injunctive Relief shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-2 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the stay entered by the Trial
Court, Defendants Karen Long, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of
Adams County and Debra Johnson, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder
for the City and County of Denver, are hereby stayed under C.A.R. 8 from issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples pending resolution of this appeal.

BY THE COURT, EN BANC, JULY 18, 2014.



Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-2 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
COLORADO SUPREME COURT

Colorado State J udicial Building
2 East 14th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203







▼ COURT USE ONLY ▲


________________________

Case No. 2014SA000212



Appeal from District Court, Adams County,
Colorado
Hon. C. Scott Crabtree
Case No. 13CV32572
APPELLANTS: STATE OF COLORADO, et al,

APPELEES: REBECCA BRINKMAN, et al.

Attorneys for Jefferson County:
J EFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY
ELLEN G. WAKEMAN, #12290
Writer Mott, #33148
David Wunderlich, #39365
Assistant County Attorney
J efferson County Attorney's Office
100 J efferson County Parkway, #5500
Golden, CO 80419-5500
Phone: 303-271-8932
Fax: (303) 271-8901
wmott@co.jefferson.co.us
dwunderl@co.jefferson.co.us


JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S, DOUGLAS
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S, LA PLATA COUNTY CLERK
AND RECORDER’S, ARAPAHOE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S,
AND MESA COUNTY’S CLERK AND RECORDER’S AMICUS BRIEF IN
RELATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR INJUCTION PENDING APPEAL


DATE FILED: July 16, 2014 2:43 PM
FILING ID: EE3F13ED3BBE1
CASE NUMBER: 2014SA212
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
A-3
2
Interested Third Parties, J efferson County Clerk and Recorder Pam
Anderson, Douglas County Clerk and Recorder J ack Arrowsmith, La Plata County
Clerk and Recorder Tiffany Lee Parker, Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder
Matt Crane, and Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Sheila Reiner (collectively, the
“Interested Clerks”), by and through counsel, respectfully request this Court issue
an order on the Attorney General’s Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending
Appeal (the “Injunction Motion”) providing guidance to the County Clerks
regarding the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Colorado.
The legal landscape governing the rights of same-sex couples to be married
in Colorado has dramatically shifted in the last few months in light of the trial
court’s decision in this case, the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. 2014) (striking
down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages), and the decision of the Boulder District
Court denying the Attorney General’s request to enjoin the Boulder County Clerk
and Recorder from issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Colorado v. Hall, No.
14CV30833 (Boulder Cnty. Dist. Ct. J uly 10, 2014). These decisions have created
uncertainty amongst the county clerks about the propriety and legality of issuing
same-sex marriage licenses and have resulted in a patchwork of inconsistent
policies and procedures, with some county clerks issuing same-sex marriage
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
3
licenses and others waiting for more definitive and binding precedent to resolve
this constitutional issue.
The Interested Clerks are separately elected County Officials who are
statutorily responsible for issuing marriage licenses in accordance with State law.
See Colo. Const. Art. 14, Sec. 8 (creating the office of County Clerk and
Recorder); C.R.S. § 14-2-106 (establishing a non-discretionary duty upon county
clerks to issue marriage licenses if certain state requirements are met). The county
clerks in issuing marriage licenses act in a ministerial role enforcing state law. See
Echols v. Parker, 909 F.2d 795, 801 (5th Cir. 1990) (“A county official pursues his
duties as a state agent when he is enforcing state law or policy.”); Bethesda
Lutheran Homes & Services, Inc. v. Leean, 154 F.3d 716, 718 (7th Cir. 1998)
(“When the municipality is acting under compulsion of state or federal law, it is the
policy contained in that state or federal law, rather than anything devised or
adopted by the municipality, that is responsible for the injury.”). See also
Injunction Motion, pg. 8 (“By definition, the issuance of marriage licenses is a
ministerial act…. Under the Uniform Marriage Act, County Clerks are given the
power to issue licenses by the State on behalf of the State, but only if the
requirements set by the state are met.”).
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
4
The Interested Clerks are now confronted with several State and Federal
Court decisions, including the trial court decision in this case, holding Colorado’s
constitutional and statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage to be
unconstitutional, casting doubt on the continued legality and enforcement of
Colorado’s same-sex marriage ban. However, none of these reported decisions
constitute a final, binding order on the county clerks on this issue as all of the
decisions have been stayed pending appeal.
The Interested Clerks, therefore, seek affirmative guidance from this Court
and are hopeful that this Court will provide clear direction to the county clerks
regarding whether they should begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses or
whether they should, as advocated by the Attorney General, be enjoined from
issuing same-sex marriage licenses pending a final determination on the merits of
this appeal. An order addressing this single issue will allow the county clerks to
once again uniformly and consistently issue marriage licenses throughout the State
and would provide much needed clarification on this important issue of state and
constitutional law.
The Injunction Motion provides this Court with the important and historic
opportunity to provide direction and clarity to the county clerks, as well as to the
public at large, as to whether the county clerks should or should not be issuing
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
5
same-sex marriage licenses in Colorado. The Interested Clerks respectfully request
that this Court, in its order addressing the Injunction Motion, provide explicit
direction to the county clerks to either begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses or,
in the alternative, cease issuing marriage licenses pending final determination of
the merits of this appeal challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on
same-sex marriage.

Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
6
Dated this 16th day of J uly, 2014.

J EFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY
ELLEN G. WAKEMAN


s/ David Wunderlich
David Wunderlich, #39365
Writer Mott, #33148
Assistant County Attorney
100 J efferson County Parkway, Suite 5500
Golden, CO 80419
Telephone: 303-271-8932
dwunderl@co.jefferson.co.us
wmott@co.jefferson.co.us

MESA COUNTY ATTORNEY


s/ Andrea Nina Atencio
Andrea Nina Atencio, #33351
Assistant County Attorney
P.O. Box 20,000
Grand J unction, CO 81502
Telephone: 970-244-1612
Nina.atencio@mesacounty.us

DOUGLAS COUNTY ATTORNEY
LANCE INGALLS

s/ Kelly Dunnaway
Kelly Dunnaway, #31896
Deputy County Attorney
100 Third Street
Castle Rock, CO 80104
Telephone: 303-660-7414
KDunnawa@douglas.co.us
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
7

LA PLATA COUNTY ATTORNEY
SHERYL ROGERS

Sheryl Rogers
Sheryl Rogers, #20962
County Attorney
1099 Main Ave, Suite 313
Durango, CO 81301
Telephone: 970-382-8600
rogers@lpcattorney.org

ARAPAHOE COUNTY ATTORNEY
RON CARL

s/ John Cristofferson
J ohn Cristofferson, #35292
Assistant County Attorney
5334 S. Prince Street
Littleton, CO 80120


Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 16th day of J uly, 2014, I filed the foregoing
JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S, DOUGLAS
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S, LA PLATA COUNTY CLERK
AND RECORDER’S, ARAPAHOE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER’S,
AND MESA COUNTY’S CLERK AND RECORDER’S AMICUS BRIEF IN
RELATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR INJUCTION PENDING APPEAL via ICCES and served as follows:

Michael Francisco
Leeann Morrill
Dan D. Domenico
Attorney General’s Office
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Michael.francisco@state.co.us
Leeann.morrill@state.co.us
Dan.domenico@state.co.us

Ralph Ogden
M. Anne Wilcox
Wilcox & Ogden, P.C.
160 Lafayette Street
Denver, CO 80218
irishcorky@aol.com

Professor Thomas Russell
1001 16
th
St. B180 #175
Denver, CO 80265
Tdrlaw@comcast.net

J ohn J . McHugh
Anthony L. Giacomini
Amy R. Gray
Michael Kotlarczyk
Tess Hand-Bender
J ason M. Lynch
Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
9
Reilly Pozner LLP
1900 16th Street, Suite 1700
Denver, CO 80202
jmchugh@rplaw.com
agiacomini@rplaw.com
agray@rplaw.com
mkotlarczyk@rplaw.com
thandbender@rplaw.com
jlynch@rplaw.com

Marcus Lock
Law of the Rockies
525 North Main Street
Gunnison, CO 81230
mlock@lawoftherockies.com

Ann Gushurst
Gutterman Griffiths P.C.
10375 Park Meadows Blvd., Suite 520
Littleton, CO 80124
ann@ggfamilylaw.com

Heidi M. Miller
J ennifer D. Stanley
Adams County Attorney’s Office
4430 South Adams County Parkway
5th Floor, Suite C5000B
Brighton, CO 80601-8206
hmiller@adcogov.org

J ack Finlaw
Benjamin Figa
Governor’s Office of Legal Counsel
121 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203
J ack.finlaw@state.co.us
Ben.figa@state.co.us

Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
10
Wendy J . Shea
Denver City Attorney’s Office
Litigation Section
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. No. 1108
Denver, CO 80202-5332
Wendy.shea@denvergov.org

Michael J . Norton
Alliance Defending Freedom
7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
mjnorton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

Byron J . Babione, Pro Hac Vice
David Austin R. Nimocks, Pro Hac Vice
Alliance Defending Freedom
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Facsimile: 480-444-0025

/s/ Briana McCarten

Briana McCarten, Paralegal



Case 1:14-cv-01817-RM-KLM Document 40-3 Filed 07/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful