DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202

Plaintiffs: Colorado Common Cause and Colorado Ethics Watch v. Defendant: Scott Gessler

▲COURT USE ONLY▲

Case Number: 2011CV4164 Courtroom: 414

ORDER

(re: Secretary of State’s Motion to Dismiss)

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court held

oral argument on September 8, 2011, and issued its ruling in open court at the conclusion of that argument. The Court held that both Colorado Common Cause (“CCC”) and Colorado Ethics Watch (“CEW”) have standing, and therefore DENIED the Motion. The Court’s oral findings and conclusions are incorporated herein, and are summarized below.

The Court concluded that CCC has standing to challenge Campaign Finance Rule 4.27 under the Administrative Procedures Act, because the Complaint contains sufficient allegations to establish that CCC, as an organization, has been subject to the relevant campaign requirements in the past, and will be subject to the new rule. The Court concluded that CCC would have standing even if the APA imposes stricter standards for standing, as Defendant asserts; however, the Court did not decide whether a stricter standard applies. The Court rejected Defendant’s argument that CCC will not be harmed by the new rule; CCC alleges it has complied with the previous requirements, it would continue to do so, and is potentially harmed if others are allowed to proceed under the reduced requirements of the new rule. Additionally, because the Court found that CCC had organizational standing, it did not reach the question of whether CCC had associational standing through its members.

As to CEW, the Court concluded it too has standing, but on a different basis. The Court interprets the Complaint as asserting a claim under Rule 57, and concluded that – at a minimum – CEW has standing under the more lenient requirements provided by that rule (for example, in assuring compliance by the government with constitutional

requirements). In so doing, the Court again declined to determine whether standing under the APA is a more onerous standard, and whether CEW meets that standard.

Having concluded both plaintiffs have standing to bring a challenge to the new rule—whether via the APA or Rule 57—the Court declined to reach the parties’ other arguments.

Dated this day 16th day of September 2011.

BY THE COURT:

__________________

A. Bruce Jones District Court Judge