Riddle v. Hickenlooper
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1245
10th Cir.2014Background
- 2010 Colorado House District 61 race: Kathleen Curry (write-in), Roger Wilson (Democrat), Luke Korkowski (Republican). Major-party nominees could accept $400 per contributor (effectively $200 primary + $200 general fungible); write-ins/minor-party/unaffiliated candidates were limited to $200 for the general.
- Colorado constitutional amendment (Amendment 27) set per-election limits of $200 for state legislative primary and $200 for general; a 2004 statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-45-103.7) allowed candidates with primaries to accept and spend both $200 contributions across election stages, creating a practical $400 advantage for major-party candidates.
- Plaintiffs (contributors to Curry and similarly situated minor-party/unaffiliated supporters) sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection and First Amendment violations; district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- Tenth Circuit majority reversed as-applied on equal-protection grounds, holding the statutory scheme unconstitutionally discriminated among contributors supporting candidates competing for the same office when each candidate was unopposed for nomination.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiffs on their as-applied Fourteenth Amendment claim and declined to resolve the First Amendment summary-judgment ruling in light of that disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contributors to Curry are similarly situated to contributors to major-party opponents | Contributors are alike in all relevant respects; only political preference differs | Distinguish contributors by the candidates they support: major-party nominees face primaries (a constitutional distinction) while Curry did not | Contributors are similarly situated for equal-protection analysis (statutory classification, not the state constitution, controls) |
| Proper level of scrutiny for a statutory classification that affects contributions | Classification implicates the fundamental right to political expression; heightened (at least First-Amendment-level) scrutiny required | No suspect class; statute treats all contributors alike in application to candidates who have primaries | Heightened scrutiny applies because contribution limits impinge a fundamental right (analysis at least as rigorous as First Amendment standard) |
| Whether the statutory classification is justified (narrowly tailored/closely drawn to an important/compelling interest) | State has not shown a link between the classification and corruption-prevention; favoritism among candidates running for same seat is not closely drawn to anti-corruption objectives | State asserts anti-corruption interest and argues primaries impose costs that justify larger collections for major-party candidates | Classification fails: allowed differential limits for candidates competing against each other, not closely drawn to prevent corruption (analogous to Davis v. FEC) |
| Remedy / scope (as-applied vs. facial) | Plaintiffs sought relief for as-applied discrimination when candidates unopposed in nominations | State defended statute as consistent with its constitutional scheme and anticorruption goals | Court reversed district court and remanded with instruction to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs on as-applied Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim; did not decide facial challenge or resolve First Amendment ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (establishes "similarly situated" = "in all relevant respects")
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (contribution limits implicate First Amendment interests; limits must be closely drawn to anti-corruption)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (contributions as a form of political expression)
- Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724 (struck statute that imposed different contribution limits on candidates competing for same seat)
- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (classification affecting political expression requires narrow tailoring to compelling interest)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (government bears burden to justify contribution limits as closely drawn to important interest)
- Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (Equal Protection requires narrow tailoring when statutes affect First Amendment interests)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (discusses limits on contribution regulation and equal-protection concerns)
- Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (context on contribution/expenditure doctrine; noted but not controlling for equal-protection portion)