Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gessler v. Colorado Common Cause

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 16, 2014No. Supreme Court Case No. 12SC783Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Eid

117 I would largely affirm the court of appeals, but on a much narrower ground than the majority. The majority goes far beyond the court of appeals' opinion by holding that the Secretary may not issue a rule that deviates from the $200 limitation under any cireumstances. But Sempson holds that the Secretary must deviate from that rule in a certain category of cases (involving small-scale issue committees), and contemplates that a bright-line rule would govern such cases. Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247, 1261 (10th Cir.2010). Because the majority has removed the rulemaking option from the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Romer v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1998
  3. Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway AuthoritySupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  4. Sampson v. BuescherCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
  5. Catholic Health Initiatives v. CITY OF PUEBLO, DEPT. OF FINANCESupreme Court of Colorado · 2009

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API