2013 COA 115
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marilyn Marks filed a Colorado state HAVA administrative complaint alleging Title III federal HAVA violations in the 2010 Saguache County election; Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (CDOS) dismissed it without a hearing for lack of standing under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-1.5-105(2)(b).
- Marks sued in Denver District Court seeking (1) judicial review of the dismissal, (2) § 1983 relief for deprivation of federal HAVA complaint and hearing rights, and (3) a declaration that state standing provision conflicts with federal HAVA § 15512(a)(2)(B).
- The district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, held state standing provision conflicted with federal HAVA and that Marks was entitled to a hearing, and remanded to the agency; defendants appealed and Marks cross-appealed the § 1983 dismissal.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction (appeal from the district court addendum remanding for a hearing) and that APA judicial-review principles apply in district court, even though APA adjudicatory procedures are excluded at the agency level by the state HAVA.
- The court ruled the federal HAVA standing standard (§ 15512(a)(2)(B)) preempts the narrower Colorado standing rule, and remand for the agency to apply the federal standard and provide a hearing was proper.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Marks’s § 1983 claim: § 15512(a)(2)(B) and § 15512(a)(2)(E) do not create individually enforceable federal rights under § 1983.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court's addendum was a final appealable order | Marks: original order was final; addendum merely clarified it | Defs: addendum modified relief and was the appealable order | Addendum was final; appellate court had jurisdiction to hear appeal |
| Whether APA judicial-review principles apply in district court review of CDOS HAVA determinations | Marks: APA review available for agency final actions | Defs: state HAVA excludes APA procedures and thus APA judicial review not applicable | APA governs judicial review in district court; state HAVA only limits agency-level adjudicatory procedures |
| Whether federal HAVA standing (§ 15512(a)(2)(B)) preempts Colorado’s narrower standing (§ 1-1.5-105(2)(b)) | Marks: federal HAVA allows any person who believes a violation occurred to file; federal law controls where conflict exists | Defs: Colorado statute governs standing at agency level; Marks lacked standing under state HAVA | Federal HAVA standing controls; Colorado dismissal for lack of standing was erroneous; remand for hearing required |
| Whether §§ 15512(a)(2)(B) and (E) create individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Marks: these provisions create enforceable federal rights to file complaints and to a hearing, entitling her to § 1983 relief and fees | Defs: the provisions concern state obligations tied to federal funding and do not create private rights enforceable via § 1983 | Court held those HAVA provisions do not unambiguously create individual federal rights; § 1983 claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- City & County of Denver v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 947 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1997) (courts reviewing under § 24-4-106 have plenary authority to remand when agency acted contrary to law)
- ISG, LLC v. Arkansas Valley Ditch Ass'n, 120 P.3d 724 (Colo. 2005) (sua sponte summary judgment may be affirmed where losing party had adequate opportunity to present evidence)
- Goodwin v. Homeland Cent. Ins. Co., 172 P.3d 938 (Colo. App. 2007) (timing rules for filing notice of appeal; final judgment trigger)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (test for when statutory provisions create federal rights enforceable under § 1983)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (only unambiguously conferred rights support § 1983 suits)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state officials sued in their official capacities may be persons for some § 1983 purposes)
- Sandusky Cnty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (HAVA provisional ballot right held enforceable under § 1983)
- Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5 (2008) (Supreme Court reversed likelihood of private enforcement for certain HAVA provisions)