Colorado Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Discriminatory Campaign Finance Law

On the afternoon of September 27, the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral argument in Riddle v Ritter, 11-sa-12. The issue is whether a Colorado law, passed in 2004, violates the Colorado Constitution. The law says individuals may contribute $400 per year to candidates for the legislature who are nominated by primary, but only $200 per year to candidates for the legislature who get on the general election ballot by petition, or by being nominated in convention. In effect, the law gives higher contribution limits to Democrats and Republicans, relative to virtually everyone else. See this story.

The plaintiff, Joelle Riddle, is the individual who wanted to give $400 to an independent write-in candidate for the legislature, Kathleen Curry. Curry, an incumbent, was defeated for re-election in 2010 in a close election. She came close to winning, even though she was forced to be a write-in candidate in the general election. She couldn’t get on the ballot as an independent because she had changed her registration from “Democrat” to “independent” less than a year before the 2010 primary. The hearing seemed to go well for Riddle and Curry. This case had began in U.S. District Court, but that court had it removed to the State Supreme Court because it involved interpreting the State Constitution.


Comments

Colorado Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Discriminatory Campaign Finance Law — No Comments

  1. Would the Brits have loved to have campaign finance stuff in 1761-1776 to stop those bothersome anti-Brit folks from being elected to the Brit-American colony legislatures ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.