DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF

DENVER, COLORADO
Court Address: 1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202


Plaintiff: COLORADO REPUBLICAN PARTY

v.

Defendant: SCOTT GESSLER, in his capacity as
Colorado Secretary of State

and

Proposed Intervenor Defendant: COLORADO
ETHICS WATCH

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor Defendant
Colorado Ethics Watch:
Luis Toro, #22093
Margaret Perl, #43106
Colorado Ethics Watch
1630 Welton Street, Suite 415
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 626-2100
Fax: (303) 626-2101
E-mail: ltoro@coloradoforethics.org
pperl@coloradoforethics.org

















COURT USE ONLY

Case Number:2014CV031851



Division: 409
Courtroom:
COLORADO ETHICS WATCHS UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANT

Proposed Intervenor Defendant Colorado Ethics Watch, by its undersigned attorneys,
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24 hereby moves the Court for an order permitting it to intervene as a
defendant in this action pursuant to Rules 24(a) and 57(j) of the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure. In accordance with Rule 24(c), Ethics Watch contemporaneously submits its Answer
to the Complaint. In support of this Motion, Ethics Watch states as follows:

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH C.R.C.P. 121, 1-15

1. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, 1-15, undersigned counsel certifies that they have
conferred with counsel for the parties and are authorized to state that neither party is opposed to
this motion to intervene.



2

ARGUMENT

2. Ethics Watch is the registered trade name of Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit organization authorized to conduct business in Colorado.
Ethics Watch has filed and litigated several campaign finance complaints under the private-party
enforcement system established in Section 10 of Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution.

3. This action for declaratory judgment was filed by the Colorado Republican Party
(CRP) after Defendant Secretary of State Scott Gessler (the Secretary) denied the CRPs
administrative petition for a declaratory order to authorize the CRP to establish an independent
expenditure committee (colloquially known as a Super-PAC) connected to the CRP, but
raising funds without regard to Colorados contribution limits and source prohibitions applicable
to political party committees.

4. After the CRP filed its declaratory order petition, Ethics Watch filed a Petition for
Rulemaking with the Secretary, arguing that the declaratory order petition was procedurally
improper and that because the CRP was in effect asking for creation of a rule of general
application, the Secretary should proceed through rulemaking. See Verified Complaint at 16.
The Secretary added Ethics Watchs petition to the record of the CRPs declaratory order petition
and did not initiate rulemaking.

4. An essential allegation of CRPs complaint is that Ethics Watchs participation as
a non-party to the declaratory order proceeding implies that Ethics Watch will challenge the
[CRP]s independent expenditures by filing a campaign finance complaint, with resulting large
potential fines and the need for costly litigation expenses. Verified Complaint at 16. This
allegation is key to CRPs contention that an actual controversy exists for the court to resolve
through a declaratory judgment.

5. A party is entitled to intervene as of right in a pending action when the applicant
claims an interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of the action, the applicant is so
situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his or her
ability to protect that interest, and the applicants interest is not or may not be adequately
represented by existing parties. C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2); Mauro v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
2013 COA 117, 12. The Rule should be liberally interpreted to allow, whenever possible and
compatible with efficient and due process, issues related to the same transaction to be resolved in
the same lawsuit and at the trial court level. Id. (citations omitted).

6. In a declaratory judgment case, all persons shall be made parties who have or
claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. C.R.C.P. 57(j). A court should
insist that jurisdiction be obtained of all parties whose rights would be adversely affected either
personally or in an appropriate class action. Bancroft-Clover Water & Sanitation Dist. v.
Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal Dist. No. 1, 670 P.2d 428, 430 (Colo. App. 1983)
(internal brackets, ellipsis and quotation omitted).

7. In Colorado, the enforcement of campaign finance laws is left primarily to
private parties. Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, 2012 CO 12, 10 n.2; Colo.
3

Const. 9(2)(a). Article XXVIII, the Campaign Finance Amendment, establishes a two-track
enforcement system, under which the appropriate officer (in most cases, the Secretary)
imposes $50 per day fines for late filings by registered committees, while all other alleged
violations are enforced by private parties before an administrative law judge. Patterson Recall
Comm., Inc. v. Patterson, 209 P.3d 1210, 1215 (Colo. App. 2009); see Colo. Const. art. XXVIII,
9-10. Plaintiff is asking the Court for permission to violate the political party contribution
limits in Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, 3(3) and the prohibition of corporate or labor union
contributions to political parties in Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, 3(4). Any violation of those
provisions would be enforced, if at all, exclusively through the private-party enforcement
system. Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, 9(2).

8. Plaintiffs Complaint makes no allegation that the Secretary might file a private-
party enforcement action against Plaintiff. To the contrary, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Secretary issued an advisory opinion arguably supportive of Plaintiffs position and encouraged
Plaintiff to file a declaratory judgment action. Complaint at 17-18. Only Ethics Watch is
alleged to present a litigation threat to Plaintiff. If a real controversy exists that a declaratory
judgment could resolve, it is between Plaintiff and Ethics Watch, not the Secretary. Moreover,
because the Secretarys enforcement authority does not reach the potential campaign finance
violations at issue, see Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, 9(2), Ethics Watchs interest will not or may
not be adequately protected by the Secretary. See C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2).

9. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(c), Ethics Watch is attaching a proposed Answer to
Plaintiffs Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Colorado Ethics Watch respectfully requests that the Court enter an order
permitting it to intervene as a party defendant in this action, accepting the attached Answer of
Intervenor Defendant, and granting such further relief as the Court deems proper.

DATED: June 17, 2014

COLORADO ETHICS WATCH



_____[Original Signature On File]______
Margaret Perl, #43106

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on June 17, 2014, I served a true copy of the above and foregoing through
ICCES on the following:

Richard A. Westfall, Esq.
Allan L. Hale, Esq.
Peter J. Krumholz, Esq.
Hale Westfall, LLP
1600 Stout St., Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202

And via United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:

John W. Suthers, Esq.
Matthew Grove, Esq.
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80203

_____[Original Signature On File]______
Margaret Perl