Decision: Olsen & Harrington v. Tancredo, Miller, ACP & CO Secretary of State
Excerpt:
D. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Argument Does Not Alter The Court’s Conclusions
Plaintiffs seem to contend that the Court’s construction of the statutory framework somehow implicates Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. They point to Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974), Colo. Libertarian Party v. Sec’y of State of Colo., 817 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1991), and Riddle v. Daley, 2010 WL 2593927 (D. Colo. June 23, 2010) and Curry et al v. Buescher, slip. op. 10-1265 (10th Cir. August 31, 2010). First, Plaintiffs do not explicitly assert a constitutional claim in their Second Amended Petition. Second, the law is clear that a court “should not decide a constitutional issue unless the necessity for such decision is clear and inescapable.” People v. Lybarger, 700 P.2d 910, 915 (Colo. 1985). Third, the associational, speech and ballot access rights at issue, if any, belong to ACP, Mr. Tancredo and Ms. Miller. Fourth, the facts of the cases on which Plaintiffs rely are distinguishable. They involve independent candidates seeking direct access by petition to a general election ballot. Such candidates are not similarly situated to candidates selected through the processes available to major and minor political parties. Finally, Plaintiffs seem to invoke these cases to make a policy argument about what they perceive as the political instability that would result from allowing someone such as Mr. Tancredo late entry into a race. It is not appropriate, however, for this Court to decide public policy. For all these reasons, Plaintiffs’ constitutional argument is not ripe for the Court’s consideration.
The GOP sponsors of this lawsuit consider Tancredo’s candidacy in the governor’s race an infringement of their 1st Am. right to free speech because Tancredo’s candidacy creates political instability for them. A more clear nanny-state predisposition could hardly be conceived. The Colorado Republican Party should be voted into obscurity for prosecuting such an offensive view.