9-0 for Coffman (Per curiam-March 5, 2007)
Questions presented:
After the 2000 census, Colorado legislators were unable to redraw congressional districts to accommodate an additional U.S. congressman. In response to suits filed in state court, a state court came up with a map. The Colorado legislature then passed a redistricting plan in 2003, which Colorado's governor signed into law.
Colorado's attorney general, however, filed an original action in the Colorado Supreme Court to enjoin the state's secretary of state from implementing the plan. The Colorado General Assembly intervened to defend its plan. The Colorado Supreme Court granted the injunction, holding that "judicially-created districts are just as binding and permanent as districts created by the General Assembly," and that the court-drawn plan must remain in effect until the next decennial census.
Thereafter, four Colorado citizens, none of whom had participated in the state court case, filed suit in federal court, arguing that the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, violates their rights under the federal Elections Clause, that provides that the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
The federal district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court held that the citizen-plaintiffs had standing to bring their Elections Clause challenge, but held that the suit was barred by issue preclusion because the plaintiffs "stand in.
On Mar 5, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion without oral arguments, remanding the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the Elections Clause claim for lack of standing.
In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court reasoned that the only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law, specifically the Elections Clause, has not been followed. "This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past," the Court wrote. "Because plaintiffs assert no particularized stake in the litigation, we hold that they lack standing to bring their Elections Clause claim."
Attorneys in this case:
Attorneys for Appellants:
Brett Robert Lilly
Doyle Zakhem Suhre & Lilly, LLC
(303) 228-1200
700 17th Street, Suite 2000
Denver, CO 80202
Party name: Keith Lance, et al.
Attorneys for Appellee:
Monica M. Marquez
Assistant Attorney General
1525 Sherman Street 5th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Party name: Mike Coffman, Colorado Secretary of State
Related Links:
