Griff v. City of Grand Junction Ex Rel. Tuin
262 P.3d 906
Colo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Griff and Clark filed a petition to suspend a zoning ordinance adopted by the City of Grand Junction under the city charter §136.
- The petition sought to suspend the ordinance until it could be reconsidered or placed on a city-wide vote, requiring 1,860 valid signatures (ten percent of gubernatorial electorate).
- Clark helped draft, circulated, notarized several sections, and signed as an elector; she was designated as petition representative after filing the petition with the clerk.
- The city clerk certified 1,864 signatures; Schwenke protested, and the clerk ruled that Clark’s notarizations were improper under §12-55-110(2), invalidating the section Clark signed as an elector but not all sections she notarized.
- Appellants challenged the clerk’s rulings in Rule 106 actions; the district court upheld the clerk and denied cure processing; Griff and Clark appealed,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notary disqualification statute was misapplied | Griff/Clark argue Clark was not named individually | City asserts Clark’s roles created a disqualifying interest | Clerk abused discretion; notaries are not disqualified merely for involved roles, must be named individually |
| Whether signing as an elector makes a notary 'named, individually' to the transaction | Signing as elector does not render Clark a named party | Clark’s elector signature created a disqualifying interest in the petition | Signing as an elector does not make one a named party; Clark was not individually named |
| Whether the petition cure rights were correctly handled following protest | Appellants should be entitled to cure within a ten-day window after protest ruling | No cure right after protest ruling under the city procedures | Remand needed to address cure rights; district court ruling on cure is unsettled |
| Whether the estoppel and other mootness issues affect the outcome | Estoppel should potentially bar invalidation | Estoppel moot post-reversal on signatories | Estoppel issue deemed moot; no ruling on cure-related issues on remand |
| Attorney fees allocation on remand | Fees should be allotted given merits | Fees denied unless frivolous | Attorney fees denied to appellees; no frivolous filing determined |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 5 P.3d 280 (Colo. 2000) (give effect to unambiguous statutory language; avoid surplus terms)
- City & Cnty. of Denver v. Taylor, 292 P.2d 594 (Colo. 1930) (words not to be rendered superfluous)
- Lackey v. McDowell, 415 S.E.2d 902 (Ga. 1992) (named requires affirmative identification)
- Waterwatch of Ore., Inc. v. Boeing Agri-Industrial Co., 963 P.2d 744 (Or. App. 1998) (named requires affirmative act beyond mere association)
- Carole Clarke & Peter Kovach, Disqualifying Interests for Notaries Public, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 965 (1999) (theoretical discussion of notary disqualification broader context)
- In re Berg, 973 A.2d 447 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009) (candidates disqualified from notarial acts on nomination petitions)
- Wolfe v. Switaj, 106 Pa. Cmwlth. 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985) (signing as elector indicates general citizen interest, not direct personal stake)
- Chilcutt, 968 P.2d 117 (Colo. 1998) (initiative must demonstrate threshold support; not merely technical)
- Meyer, 830 P.2d 894 (Colo. 1992) (circulator notarization and initiative process integrity)
- Colorado Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1 (1972) (petition provisions liberally construed to facilitate ballot access)