“[B]y 1896, the vast majority of states had adopted the Australian [secret] ballot system.” – Opinion. The Town of Center held an election recalling its mayor and trustees. A recalled trustee sued to have the election declared void, arguing that leaving absentee ballot stubs attached during the counting process violated the secrecy guarantee of the CO Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 8. The trial court, relying on precedent set in Taylor v. Pile voided the election, even though the election’s fundamental integrity remained uncompromised. After reviewing the history of ballot secrecy and changes to Colorado election law, the Court reversed. The Court held 1) Sec. 8 applies only to marking ballots, not to detachable stubs, and 2) an election must be set aside only when an entire election is not secret. The statutory violations of CRS 31-10-607 and 1007 were not sufficient.
Tag Archives: void
In Re: Maurice C. Jones, and and Citizen Center, v. Christian R. Samora, Treasurer; Town of Center; Herman Dickey Sisneros; Edward W. Garcia; and Geraldine Martinez, 2014CO4 (Jan. 27, 2014, as modified Feb. 24, 2014)
CapitalValue Advisors, LLC v. K2D, Inc., d/b/a Colorado Premium Foods; Kevin LaFleur; Don Babcock; and Triton Capital Partners, Ltd., 2013 COA 125 (August 15, 2013)
It is the promise, not the paper it’s written on, that makes a contract. Plaintiff is a capital advisory firm. It had an agreement with Defendants to help them find financing. Defendants later contracted with another firm that did secure financing for Defendants. Plaintiff sought to enforce a provision that entitled it to 4.5% of the financed amount. Defendants argued the agreement was void because two of three provisions violated CRS 12-61- 101 (brokerage laws) and CRS 11-51-604 (securities laws), and thus the whole agreement was void. The trial court agreed; the court of appeals did not. Looking to the number of promises in the agreement, the court held that, in essence, each provision was its own “contract” even though they were all memorialized in the same agreement. The two unlawful provisions were severed so the agreement was not void, and judgment for Defendants was reversed.