2014 CO 24
Colo.2014Background
- Adams 12 held a coordinated nonpartisan school board election (Nov. 5, 2013). Two candidates (Figueroa and Speers) were certified for director district 4; ballots had already been printed and mail voting had begun.
- The designated election official later concluded Speers did not reside in district 4 and thus was ineligible; she did not file a withdrawal affidavit and disputed eligibility was not adjudicated in court before election day.
- On election day the Colorado Secretary of State promulgated emergency Rule 10.7.5: if a designated election official determines after ballots are printed that a person on the ballot is not qualified, votes for that person are invalid and must not be counted. County clerks followed the Rule and excluded Speers’ votes from reports.
- Plaintiffs (registered electors) filed for expedited APA review of Rule 10.7.5 and sought an order directing county election officials to complete and certify the count. The district court held the Rule conflicted with statute and ordered votes counted; the count showed Speers received the most votes.
- The Secretary appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the Rule filled a statutory gap and that courts — not election officials — need not be the exclusive forum in this context; the Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction to resolve whether Rule 10.7.5 conflicted with the election code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Rule 10.7.5 under APA / Secretary's rulemaking power | Rule exceeds Secretary's authority because statutes narrowly limit when ballots for a certified candidate may be treated as not counted (death or withdrawal) and courts, not election officials, must determine eligibility | Rule fills a gap: allows officials to invalidate votes for a mistakenly certified ineligible candidate and preserves election integrity; emergency rule justified | Rule 10.7.5 is void: it conflicts with statutory provisions (notably § 1-4-1002(2.5)) and improperly lets election officials usurp courts on eligibility determinations |
| Conflict with § 1-4-1002(2.5) (partisan-vacancy rule) | The Rule cannot be applied generally because statute requires votes for certain disqualified partisan nominees to be counted and recorded (allowing party vacancy process) | Secretary: the statute’s "no-count" circumstances are not exclusive; Rule can apply generally | Rule conflicts with § 1-4-1002(2.5) because as a rule of general applicability it would contradict the statutory command to count votes for disqualified partisan candidates; conflict renders the Rule void |
| Whether eligibility determinations after certification must be made by courts | Plaintiffs: election code provides multiple statutory checkpoints and expressly vests courts with authority to determine post-certification eligibility; officials cannot unilaterally invalidate votes | Secretary: officials’ determinations are subject to judicial review (e.g., via § 1-1-113) and Rule 10.7.5 simply creates an administrative mechanism to address mistakes discovered after ballots printed | Court: statutes vest the power to resolve certified-candidate eligibility disputes in courts (various provisions); Rule 10.7.5 impermissibly permits officials to usurp that judicial role |
| Jurisdiction to review district court order (procedural) | Plaintiffs proceeded under APA and § 1-1-113; district court properly issued relief and order to complete count | Secretary contended § 1-1-113(3) relief is limited to pre-election controversies so district court lacked jurisdiction for post-election acts | Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction under Colo. App. R. 21 to review the APA-based invalidation of the Rule; affirmed district court’s result though on different statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Fognani v. Young, 115 P.3d 1268 (Colo. 2005) (standards for exercising extraordinary appellate/original jurisdiction)
- People v. Voth, 312 P.3d 144 (Colo. 2013) (factors supporting exercise of original jurisdiction)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of San Miguel Cnty. v. Colo. Pub. Utils Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2007) (deference to agency interpretations but review of legal questions de novo)
- Colo. Consumer Health Initiative v. Colo. Bd. of Health, 240 P.3d 525 (Colo. App. 2010) (rule conflicting with statute is void)
- Romero v. Sandoval, 685 P.2d 772 (Colo. 1984) (voter registration page provides prima facie evidence of residency; other evidence may establish residency)
- Vail Assocs. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 19 P.3d 1263 (Colo. 2001) (interpret statutes and regulations harmoniously where possible)