Jones v. Samora
2014 CO 4
| Colo. | 2014Background
- Recall election held March 19, 2013 in Town of Center, Colorado to replace three recalled officials; absentee and in-person ballots counted with a box of absentee stubs nearby.
- Jones and Citizen Center filed an election contest under §31-10-1301 et seq. challenging secrecy and counting procedures.
- District Court voided the election, ordering a new recall, and kept recalled officials in office pending appeal.
- Town Clerk Samora and local officials petitioned for review under §31-10-1805, and the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction.
- Court held the district court erred in voiding the recall and ordering a new election.
- Remainder of opinion directs entry of judgment that Sisneros, Garcia, and Martinez were duly elected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by voiding the election for secrecy concerns? | Jones argued counting with stubs attached violated Article VII, §8. | Samora argued secrecy was violated by access to lists during counting. | No; no constitutional secrecy violation found. |
| Was Taylor v. Pile correctly used to void the recall? | Taylor required voiding where secrecy was compromised. | Taylor predates the 1965 code; not controlling. | Taylor misapplied; not requiring voiding. |
| Did statutory violations alone justify voiding the election? | District court relied on secrecy violation to void; statutory grounds insufficient. | Statutory defects present but not a basis to void absent fraud/undue influence. | Statutory defects alone did not justify voiding. |
| Could the district court reinstate officials or order a new recall under contested-election statutes? | Remedy under §31-10-1307 did not authorize reinstatement or new recall. | Remedy implied to address contest defects. | Remedy not supported; voiding improper. |
| Should Erickson substantial-compliance standard apply to constitutional issues here? | Erickson adopts substantial-compliance for election statutes. | Constitutional standard not imported to this topic. | Not applicable; Article VII, §8 not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Pile, 154 Colo. 516 (Colo. 1964) (recall voiding not compelled without secret ballots; precept limited)
- Erickson v. Blair, 670 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1983) (substantial compliance for election statutes)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (S. Ct. 1995) (secret ballot protects right to vote one's conscience)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (S. Ct. 1992) (historical context of ballot secrecy)
- George v. Municipal Election Commission, 335 S.C. 182, 516 S.E.2d 206 (S.C. 1999) (ballot secrecy violations where voting occurred in public view)
- Taylor v. Town of Atlantic Beach Election Commission, 363 S.C. 8, 609 S.E.2d 500 (S.C. 2005) (secrecy concerns but no systemic invasion of privacy to void election)