2026 CO 56
Colo.2026Background
- Unite for Colorado was created in January 2020 and said it was an issue advocacy organization supporting economic opportunity and government transparency. 1
- In the 2020 election cycle, Unite spent $17.17 million total, including about $4.03 million, or 23.4%, on advocacy involving Propositions 113, 116, and 117. 2
- After a complaint, the Elections Division initially sought dismissal, but the Deputy Secretary of State ordered administrative proceedings and the ALJ found Unite was an issue committee. 3
- The Final Agency Order imposed a $40,000 fine and required Unite to register and make disclosures as an issue committee. 4
- The district court reversed, holding Unite was not an issue committee and rejecting aggregation across the three ballot measures. 5
- The court of appeals reversed the district court, adopted a seven-factor major-purpose test, and held Unite qualified as an issue committee; the supreme court granted certiorari. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “a major purpose” 7 | Unite said the phrase is too vague for broad multifactor review. | Secretary said it calls for a fact-specific totality analysis. | The phrase requires a holistic, fact-specific analysis of creation, spending, and campaign activity. 8 |
| Whether “any ballot issue or ballot question” permits aggregation 9 | Unite argued courts must assess each ballot proposition separately. | Secretary argued spending may be assessed across all ballot issues collectively. | The phrase permits aggregation across multiple ballot issues. 10 |
| Whether Unite had a major purpose of ballot issue advocacy 11 | Unite was mainly an issue-advocacy group, so it was an issue committee. | Unite spent too little of its overall budget on ballot advocacy. | Unite did not have a major purpose of ballot issue advocacy in 2020. 12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (introduced the major-purpose concept in campaign-finance law 13)
- FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1986) (applied major-purpose analysis to a nonprofit's facts and spending 14)
- Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson, 995 P.2d 748 (Colo. 2000) (declined to read a major-purpose test into the pre-Amendment 27 statute 15)
- Independence Institute v. Coffman, 209 P.3d 1130 (Colo.App. 2008) (upheld the issue-committee definition and approved fact-specific inquiry 16)
- Cerbo v. Protect Colorado Jobs, Inc., 240 P.3d 495 (Colo.App. 2010) (defined major purpose as a considerable or principal portion of activities 17)
- Colorado Ethics Watch v. Gessler, 363 P.3d 727 (Colo.App. 2013) (rejected a rigid 30% threshold as inconsistent with pattern-of-conduct analysis 18)
- Gessler v. Colorado Common Cause, 327 P.3d 232 (Colo. 2014) (constitutional interpretation is reviewed de novo 19)