( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Denver, CO – Judge Catherine Lemon granted a preliminary injunction today against Amendment 54 after plaintiffs arguing for the repeal of the amendment concluded their testimony in Denver District Court. The plaintiffs alleged that the amendment, which was narrowly approved by Colorado voters last fall, would have been unconstitutional.
Amendment 54 would have prohibited campaign contributions from labor unions and holders of sole source government contracts, and the plaintiffs contended that the prohibition violated their rights to free speech and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs requests that the defendants – Governor Bill Ritter and the Executive Director of the Department of Personnel and Administration – be enjoined from implementing or enforcing Amendment 54. Judge Lemon sided with the plaintiffs and granted the preliminary injunction.
While issuing the order of injunction, Judge Lemon stated, “In my mind, it’s not a close case.”
Next steps may include a full hearing on the merits of the case or the defendants may appeal the injunction.
“We are excited that the injunction has been granted and feel confident that we laid out the facts of the case in a way that clearly demonstrates that Amendment 54 is unconstitutional” stated Jean Dubofsky, former Colorado Supreme Court Judge and one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. “We are confident that future court rulings will agree.”
Over the course of the two-day hearing, three witnesses testified for the plaintiffs and the defense called no witnesses.
###
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Gabe Evans Is The New Cory Gardner, And That’s Not A Compliment
BY: unnamed
IN: Gabe Evans Is The New Cory Gardner, And That’s Not A Compliment
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Gabe Evans Is The New Cory Gardner, And That’s Not A Compliment
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Jeff “Bread Sandwich” Hurd is Off to a Weird Start
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Jeff “Bread Sandwich” Hurd is Off to a Weird Start
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Jeff “Bread Sandwich” Hurd is Off to a Weird Start
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
methinks the judge can’t grant such relief
the parts of the amendment prohibiting campaign contributions from certain groups. The judge issued an injunction against enforcing that.
…an injunction against enforcement of the law is not the same as repeal of the law, as I understand it. The diary is poorly worded.
It is in the Constitution. The judicial results prevent it from being enforced. Sometime in the far future it may be removed from the Constitution in a cleanup bill.
What you say might be true in the long run, but this is far from over.
The first step is the prelim injunction. We did not expect it to come from the bench, so this is a surprise (at least to some of us).
All depends on the appeals. If it is appealed then it will go forth after the next step. If it is not appealed, then nothing.
The classic amendment challange is Amend 2, Romer v. Evans. That battle went from a temporary injuction to the Supreme Court. About 4 years, but during that time it was covered by the injunction and not enforced.
…even if the ruling is not appealed, the trial judge has more to do in the case. A trial? A permanent injunction, even?
The next step is to hold a full blown trial and decide whether to issue a permanent injunction. If that is entered then those who want to uphold Amendment 54 can appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Once they file with the Court of Appeals they can then file additional papers and ask the Colorado Supreme Court to take the case bypassing the Court of Appeals. My best guess is the Supreme Court would immediately take the case if they were asked.
I haven’t seen the decision but I think it was the right decision. In my humble opinion it violates the First Amendment.
1. A grant of a preliminary injunction is one of a small number of trial court orders that can be appealed prior to completion of the case. Historically, the AG has taken that opportunity in similar cases.
I don’t recall off the top of my head, whether the appeal of the preliminary matter is to the Colorado Court of Appeals or the Colorado Supreme Court, although my gut tells me (without looking it up first) that the Colorado Supreme Court is the place to appeal a grant of a preliminary injunction in this case.
2. A direct appeal from a final trial court decision that rests upon a finding that a statute or part of the state constitution in unconstitutional bypasses the Colorado Court of Appeals and goes directly to the Colorado Supreme Court.
So, if the government wins, the appeal is to the Colorado Court of Appeals, but if the Plaintiffs win, the appeal is to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The problem with Amendment 54 is not that is bans pay to play contributions, but that it also bans contributions by contractors seemingly unrelated to the contracts that they have or seek, and also bans contributions by people with fairly remote links to the contractor.
The strict strutiny afforded laws that regulate political speech normally require a close nexis between the legitimate ends to be served and the means used to achieve them.
One of the biggest questions ultimately will be severability. In other words, will the judge ultimately in a permanent injunction, strike down only the parts of the measure found to violate the constitution (blue penciling it), or will the judge simply throw out the entire thing because it is all of a piece.
..not this judge, perhaps, but the Denver court. Didn’t this court rule against Amend. 41, only to get reversed by the supremes? Did this court rule against the Ritter-mill-levy freeze thingy, and get slapped down again by the supremes? It seems like people shouldn’t get too giddy or confident about a ruling from this court at this point.
I’m giddy just because I got to use stuff I read in the papers to act as if I know things!
n/t
…it’s all the same; I get the gist of stuff, as far as I know/care.
because it is a proper venue to bring a lawsuit to have a Colorado statute declared unconstitutional. Almost all rulings in these cases, good, bad and indifferent, come out of Denver, when there is a reversal is a reversal of a Denver trial court rulings.
There are lots of cases where Denver trial judges rule that laws are constitutional and are affirmed on appeal, but those tend not to make headlines, or even published opinions.
…but I understand your point. My point was to emphasize that it’s not reasonable to get too giddy over this one preliminary ruling.
It’s an atrocity. Shame on the people who foisted it on easily duped Coloradans.
were involved in passing this debacle to take away our First Amendment rights. This is another example of why it is bad business to make policy through the initiative process. Its a take it or leave it proposition. If 54 were a piece of legislation, it would be vetted through at least one committee (probably two) in each house of the General Assembly and debated on the floor of the House and Senate. By going through that process either it would fail or it would be found to be meritorious,passed and sent to the Governor.
The real purpose behind 54 was to give certain kinds of politicians an advantage (Republicans) while putting road blocks in front of others (Democrats). It was never, as it was sold, about taking money out of campaigns. I guess the moral of the story is if you have no ideas to offer the public on substantive policy, then try and take the other sides campaign funds away from them and stifle their message.