Frazier v. Williams, 2017 CO 85

Background

Ryan Frazier sought to appear on the 2016 Republican primary ballot for U.S. Senate but Secretary of State Wayne Williams determined his nominating petition lacked sufficient valid signatures (some invalidated for being collected by nonresident circulators).
Frazier filed a verified petition under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-1-113 seeking an order of "substantial compliance" under the Colorado Election Code and also asserted a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim challenging Colorado's nonresident-circulator rules as unconstitutional; he requested attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The district court initially ruled against Frazier; Colorado Supreme Court remanded some signature issues for reconsideration under the Election Code standard, and the district court later found Frazier had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot; the §1983 claim was not adjudicated on the merits in that expedited process.
Frazier then sought §1988 fees as the prevailing party on his §1983 claim; the district court awarded fees, relying on Colorado Court of Appeals precedent allowing §1983 joinder in §1-1-113 proceedings.
The Secretary challenged that award, arguing §1-1-113 proceedings are limited to alleged breaches or wrongful acts under the Colorado Election Code and do not permit joinder of federal §1983 claims; the Colorado Supreme Court granted review and made its rule to show cause absolute.
The Colorado Supreme Court held that §1-1-113 is limited to controversies involving breaches, neglects of duty, or other wrongful acts under the Colorado Election Code and therefore §1983 claims cannot be brought in §1-1-113 proceedings; to the extent Brown v. Davidson held otherwise, it was overruled; the §1988 fee award could not stand in that context.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §1983 claim may be joined in a §1-1-113 expedited election proceeding	Frazier: the statute's phrase "breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act" is broad and permits federal constitutional claims to be raised in the summary election process	Secretary: §1-1-113 repeatedly refers to "this code" (the Colorado Election Code); the statute's scope, remedies, party limits, and appellate truncation show it is limited to Election Code violations, not §1983 claims	The Court held §1-1-113 actions are limited to alleged breaches or wrongful acts under the Colorado Election Code; §1983 claims cannot be brought in §1-1-113 proceedings (Brown v. Davidson overruled)
Whether plaintiff could recover attorney's fees under §1988 based on a §1983 claim asserted in the §1-1-113 proceeding	Frazier: as prevailing party on related matters and having pleaded §1983, he is entitled to fees under §1988	Secretary: because §1983 claims cannot be adjudicated in §1-1-113 proceedings, §1988 fees tied to that claim are improper	The Court held the §1988 fee award could not stand because §1983 claims may not be litigated within §1-1-113; district court should dismiss §1983 claims without prejudice and allow refiling in a separate action if desired

Key Cases Cited

Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988) (state procedural requirements that condition or impair §1983 remedies may be preempted under the Supremacy Clause)
Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009) (state laws that shut the courthouse door to federal claims violate the Supremacy Clause)
City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986) (purpose of §1988 fee awards is to encourage competent counsel to vindicate civil rights)
Carson v. Reiner, 370 P.3d 1137 (Colo. 2016) (interpretation of remedies and substantial compliance language under Colorado election law)
Brown v. Davidson, 192 P.3d 415 (Colo. App. 2006) (Court of Appeals precedent permitting joinder of §1983 claims in §1-1-113 proceedings; overruled by Colorado Supreme Court)
Williams v. Libertarian Party, 401 P.3d 558 (Colo. 2017) (companion decision addressing similar joinder issue; reversed)
Board of Cty. Comm’rs v. Sundheim, 926 P.2d 545 (Colo. 1996) (state procedural deadlines cannot be applied to §1983 claims when inconsistent)
Espinoza v. O’Dell, 633 P.2d 455 (Colo. 1981) (state damage limitations cannot restrict §1983 remedies)