Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 1
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-4-909 (2024)

Protest of designations and nominations

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A petition or certificate of designation or nomination that has been verified and appears to be sufficient under this code shall be deemed valid unless a petition for a review of the validity of the petition pursuant to section 1-1-113 is filed with the district court within five days after the election official's statement of sufficiency is issued or, in the case of a certificate of designation, within five days after the certificate of designation is filed with the designated election official.

(1.5) If the election official determines that a petition is insufficient, the candidate named in the petition may petition the district court within five days for a review of the determination pursuant to section 1-1-113.

(1.7) (a) If a candidate submits a petition to the secretary of state at least fourteen days prior to the deadline to submit the petition and the secretary of state determines that the petition is insufficient, then the petition is insufficient unless the candidate files a protest in writing under oath in the office of the secretary of state within seven days after the secretary of state determined the petition was insufficient.

(b) In the protest, the candidate must identify with particularity the signature lines that the candidate believes the secretary of state should have accepted but that the secretary of state rejected. A candidate may not include in the protest signature lines that the secretary of state rejected solely for a signature discrepancy under section 1-4-908 (1.5) that the candidate did not cure.

(c) After a candidate files a protest, the secretary of state may convene a hearing, which must be held before the secretary of state or a designee of the secretary of state is appointed as the hearing officer. The secretary of state shall provide notice of the date and time of the hearing to the candidate by e-mail or mail no later than five days prior to the hearing. The testimony in every hearing must be under oath. The hearing must be summary and not subject to delay.

(d) The candidate filing a protest has the burden of sustaining the protest by a preponderance of the evidence. In determining whether any signature line should be accepted or rejected, the secretary of state may consider whether the signature on the petition matches the signature of the eligible elector identified by the candidate and whether the signer otherwise substantially complied with the requirements of this section when signing the petition. The secretary of state shall decide the protest no later than seven days before the deadline to certify ballot content pursuant to section 1-5-203 (1) for candidates to be placed on the primary election ballot and no later than fourteen days before the deadline to certify ballot content pursuant to section 1-5-203 (1) for any other candidate in any other election.

(e) The decision upon matters of substance is open to review, if application is made within five days, in the manner provided in section 1-1-113, to the district court. The remedy in all cases must be summary, and the decision of any court having jurisdiction is final and not subject to review by any other court; except that the supreme court, in the exercise of its discretion, may review any judicial proceeding as provided in section 1-1-113.

(2) This section does not apply to any nomination made at a primary election.

Source: L. 92: Entire part R&RE, p. 690, § 7, effective January 1, 1993. L. 93: (1) amended, p. 1407, § 35, effective July 1. L. 95: (1) amended, p. 833, § 37, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1) amended, p. 1002, § 6, effective August 8. L. 2007: (1) amended and (1.5) added, p. 1971, § 10, effective August 3. L. 2023: (1.7) added, (SB 23-276), ch. 399, p. 2378, § 13, effective June 6.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 1-4-901 as it existed prior to 1992.

Cross references: For designation of candidates by assembly, see § 1-4-601; for designation of party candidates by petition, see § 1-4-603; for nomination of candidates by convention, see § 1-4-701.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2014–2018 · leading case: Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30, 418 P.3d 478.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30, 418 P.3d 478. · cites it 15× “(2017), does require the Election Code to be liberally construed, but this requirement is independent from the issue of whether a protester may challenge the validity of a petition under section 1-4-909 by presenting evidence regarding an individual's residency status or other…”
Hanlen v. Gessler, 2014 CO 24, 333 P.3d 41. · cites it 3× “See §§ 1-4-909(1), 1-4-501(8), and 1-11-201(1), C.”
Figueroa v. Speers, 2015 CO 12, 343 P.3d 967. · cites it 5× “Neither the sufficiency of Speers's petition nor her certification to the ballot was challenged within the respective five-day windows under section 1-4-909(1), C.R.S. (2014) (allowing five days to challenge the sufficiency of a petition before certification), or section…”
Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 3M. · cites it 32× “The supreme court holds that although the Secretary properly relied on the circulator’s affidavit and information in the voter registration system in verifying the petition and issuing a statement of sufficiency, the Petitioners nonetheless had the statutory right to challenge…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-4-909(1): 4 cases
Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30, 418 P.3d 478. “(2017), does require the Election Code to be liberally construed, but this requirement is independent from the issue of whether a protester may challenge the validity of a petition under section 1-4-909 by presenting evidence regarding an individual's residency status or other…”
Hanlen v. Gessler, 2014 CO 24, 333 P.3d 41. “See §§ 1-4-909(1), 1-4-501(8), and 1-11-201(1), C.”
Figueroa v. Speers, 2015 CO 12, 343 P.3d 967. “Neither the sufficiency of Speers's petition nor her certification to the ballot was challenged within the respective five-day windows under section 1-4-909(1), C.R.S. (2014) (allowing five days to challenge the sufficiency of a petition before certification), or section…”
Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 3M. “The supreme court holds that although the Secretary properly relied on the circulator’s affidavit and information in the voter registration system in verifying the petition and issuing a statement of sufficiency, the Petitioners nonetheless had the statutory right to challenge…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.