Last Updated: April 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Marks v. Koch
Case Information
Date Filed: October 8, 2009
State: Colorado
Issues: Improper Election Administration, Freedom of Information
Current Court: Colorado Court of Appeals (Case 10CA1111)
Issue:
Whether article VII, §8, of the Colorado Constitution prohibits making cast election ballots available for public inspection pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act
Status:
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted by Colorado Supreme Court 4/16/12. Petition of Certiorari to Colorado Supreme Court filed 11/9/11. Court of Appeals Decision Announced 9/29/11.
See related federal court case: Citizen Center v. Gessler
Pitkin County District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 10-8-09) - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Koch (filed 11-6-09)
- Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed 12-1-09)
- Defendant Koch's Disclosure of Expert Testimony (filed 1-22-10)
- Order dismissing complaint (filed 3-10-10)
Colorado Court of Appeals Documents
- Brief of Appellant Marilyn Marks (filed 10-19-10)
- Answer Brief of Appellee Kathryn Koch (filed 11-30-10)
- Addendum to Appellee's Answer Brief (filed 11-30-10)
- Opinion Reversing and Remanding Judgment (filed 9/29/11)
Colorado Supreme Court Documents
- Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed 11/9/11)
- Petition Granted (see p. 7) (filed 4/16/12)
Related News Articles
-
City files appeal to high court over ballot ruling (11/12/11)
- Ballot transparency a statewide debate (11/28/11)
PDF files in this site require
Commentary
Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
more commentary...