Free Speech v. FEC: Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Amici Brief of CLC & Democracy 21 in Support of the FEC and Urging AffirmanceFeb 11, 2013
A brief answering the question of whether Free Speech must provide full disclosure of its electoral advocacy to the American public.
- Sep 25, 2014
On September 2, 2014, the Independence Institute filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s “electioneering communication” disclosure provisions, which require a group spending over $1,000 on television, radio or print ads that mention the name of a state candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election to disclose its donors...
- Dec 8, 2014
Appellants respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tenth Circuit Local Rule 27.3, for an order to revise the case caption to identify Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., Phillip G. Sapien, and Antonio Maestas as Appellants in this case and to lodge Appellants’ Brief (attached as Exhibit A) on their behalf. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ Motion should be granted.
- Dec 16, 2014
On October 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado challenging Colorado’s electioneering communication disclosure requirements as facially overbroad, and challenging the associated $1,000 reporting threshold and the state’s private enforcement scheme for campaign finance violations under the First Amendment...
- Feb 17, 2015
As the district court found, Plaintiffs and their former attorneys filed this civil rights suit in good faith, alleging violations of the federal and state constitutions and the Voting Rights Act. Only five-and-a-half months later, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss this case without prejudice, and the district court agreed that the record at that time did not support a dismissal with prejudice. This case barely left the starting block before both parties agreed it should be dismissed, and the fact that two years later it is still the subject of court proceedings leaves one wondering “how did we get here?”
Independence Institute v. Williams: Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Amici Brief of CLC et al. in Support of Williams and Urging AffirmanceMar 4, 2015
Appellant Independence Institute (the “Institute”) challenges the constitutionality of Colorado’s “electioneering communication” (“EC”) disclosure provisions, Colo. Const. art. XXVIII §§ 2(7)(a), 6(1), as applied to an ad it proposed to run on local broadcast television shortly before the 2014 general election. The ad referred to Governor John Hickenlooper who was a candidate for office. It is thus an EC under Colorado law and the challenged statutory provisions would have required the Institute to make disclosures about its spending for the ad.
- Jun 5, 2015
Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellees Phillip Patrick Baca, Mary Molina Mescall, Bernadette Miera and Ron Romero (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) hereby move for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in the amount of $66,980.651 against both the City of Albuquerque 2 and its attorneys, Luis G. Stelzner, Jamie L. Dawes, Sara N. Sanchez3 and Patrick J. Rogers. The city and its attorneys filed and pursued a frivolous cross-appeal in bad faith, forcing Plaintiffs to endure months of financial uncertainty and angst, Plaintiffs’ pro bono counsel to expend significant unnecessary time and money, and this Court to waste valuable judicial resources.
- Jun 18, 2015
Defendant reply in support of Motion for Sanctions. It is argued that the city and its attorneys came nowhere close to showing that the cross-appeal was non-frivolous and filed in good faith. Nor have they convincingly argued that Plaintiffs’ counsel seek an unreasonable amount of attorneys’ fees. The Court should therefore sanction the city and its attorneys under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and order them to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel the full amount requested.