Jones v. Samora, 2016 COA 191

Recall election in Center, Colorado; mail-in ballots and in-person ballots; stubs attached to ballots to track ballot numbers.
Election judges removed stubs for in-person ballots but not for all mail-in ballots during tallying, revealing stub numbers to staff.
Judges could have compared voter lists to stubs, creating potential to identify voters, but trial court found no such disclosure occurred.
Ballot counting with stubs attached did not change the election tally; no credible evidence of secrecy violations or improper use of voter lists.
Plaintiffs asserted state-law claims and a § 1983 claim; trial court granted Town summary judgment on § 1983 after severing state claims; supreme court later addressed related issues.
Colorado Supreme Court reversed on constitutional voiding of the tally but remanded for standing and § 1983 analysis; trial court summary judgment posture remained central to the dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of Citizen Center vs. trustee	Citizen Center has organizational standing; trustee lacks standing.	Both lack standing or only Citizen Center has standing under law.	Citizen Center has organizational standing; trustee lacks standing.
Law of the case vs. issue preclusion for § 1983 claim	Law of the case should apply to bar re-litigation of secrecy issues.	Issue preclusion applies to bar relitigation; law of the case does not.	Issue preclusion applies; law of the case does not.
Application of issue preclusion to the secrecy issue	Secrecy rights were violated by counting with stubs; precluded by prior decision.	Previous ruling found no actual secrecy violation; preclusion should bar relitigation.	Issue preclusion bars Citizen Center from relitigating secrecy violation.
Summary judgment posture on § 1983 claim	There are triable issues of fact regarding rights violations and state action.	No genuine issue of material fact; Town is entitled to summary judgment.	Trial court’s grant of Town’s summary judgment affirmed; Citizen Center’s cross-motion denied.
Remedies and whether the election results were void	If secrecy issues existed, recall results should be voided or new election held.	Supreme court held no constitutional error; results not voided.	Jones decision reinstated recall results; no constitutional voiding due to secrecy issues.

Jones v. Samora, 2014 CO 4, 318 P.3d 462 (Colo. 2014) (supreme court reinstated recall results; ballot secrecy not violated)
Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 570 P.2d 535 (Colo. 1977) (two-prong standing test; injury and cognizable interest)
Olson v. Board, 687 P.2d 429 (Colo. 1984) (standing analysis framework)
Hickenlooper v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 2014 CO 77, 338 P.3d 1002 (Colo. 2014) (standing; nexus required for taxpayer standing)
Conestoga Pines Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Black, 689 P.2d 1177 (Colo. App. 1984) (organizational standing criteria)
Denver Ctr. for the Performing Arts v. Briggs, 696 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1985) (exceptional circumstances for third-party standing)
Jaffe v. City & Cty. of Denver, 15 P.3d 806 (Colo. App. 2000) (§ 1983; color of state law requirement)
Gelb v. Bd. of Elections, 224 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2000) (equal protection and voting-right considerations)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (equal protection concerns in counting ballots)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (balancing asserted injury to voting rights against state interests)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (equal protection and election administration context)
Dash, 104 P.3d 286 (Colo. App. 2004) (substantive due process standard for fundamental rights)
Eason v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 70 P.3d 600 (Colo. App. 2003) (procedural due process in voting context)