1-4-911. Review of a protest
Overview of Statute
The party filing a protest has the burden of sustaining the protest by a preponderance of the evidence. The remedy in all cases will be summary.
Statute
The party filing a protest has the burden of sustaining the protest by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision upon matters of substance is open to review, if prompt application is made, as provided in section 1-1-113.
The remedy in all cases shall be summary, and the decision of any court having jurisdiction shall be final and not subject to review by any other court; except that the supreme court, in the exercise of its discretion, may review any judicial proceeding in a summary way.
Source: L. 92: Entire part R&RE, p. 691, § 7, effective January 1, 1993.
Editor’s note: This section is similar to former § 1-4-901 as it existed prior to 1992.
- Cross-References:
- Ballot Access
- Election Offenses & Judicial Proceedings
- Remedies
1. Definition for Section
A bound compilation of initiative forms approved by the secretary of state, which shall include pages that contain the warning required by section 1-40-110 (1), the ballot title, the abstract required by section 1-40-110 (3), and a copy of the proposed measure; succeeding pages that contain the warning, the ballot title, and ruled lines numbered consecutively for registered electors’ signatures; and a final page that contains the affidavit required by section 1-40-111 (2). Each section shall be consecutively prenumbered by the petitioner prior to circulation.
Cases
Colorado Cases
Case Name: Ray v. Mickelson
Citation: 584 P.2d 1215, 196 Colo. 325 (1978)
Year: 1978
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/5085a3214f9ade5f800fddf5238f85d4
Case Summary: Holding that a candidate could not represent a political party if not a member of the party for at least 12 months immediately preceding the election. Not important that county assembly mistakenly designated candidate as the primary nominee, party voters properly nominated the candidate, and the contestor improperly filed the complaint. Lastly, the trial court acted within its discretion to permit the contestor to supply additional evidence demonstrating a right to bring the contest.
Case Name: In re Weber
Citation: 525 P.2d 465 (Colo. 1974)
Year: 1974
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/efcc30c9f79775c673344750d20c0632
Case Summary: Holding that statute prohibiting transfer of party affiliations from without the state does not violate the constitutional rights of free association and right to travel but is a proper exercise of a compelling state interest: reasonable regulation of political party primaries.
Case Name: Luedke v. Todd
Citation: 109 Colo. 326, 124 P.2d 932 (1942)
Year: 1942
Case URL: https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/74ea41968e2f9d6437b2908724fc3004
Case Summary: Holding that the required timeframe for filing a certificate of nomination before a general election excluded election day but included the date of filing. Thus, the court should have accepted petitioner's certification of nomination.
Case Name: Leighton v. Bates
Citation: 50 P. 856 (Colo. 1897)
Year: 1897
Case PDF: Leighton v. Bates
Case Summary: Setting aside judgment of dismissal of petitioners' protest against the filing of another certificate of nominations for their party, because the district court refused to hear evidence.