CCP Presents Oral Arguments in Free Speech Case

May 7, 2013   •  By Sarah Lee
Default Article

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson will argue before the Colorado Supreme Court tomorrow, May 8, at 10:00am. The case is Coalition for Secular Government v. Gessler.

The case stems from the activities of a Colorado non-profit, the Coalition of Secular Government (“CSG”), which promotes a secular understanding of individual rights, including freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. In 2010, CSG founder Diana Hsieh, Ph.D., and her friend Ari Armstrong authored a lengthy public-policy paper discussing philosophical objections to the personhood movement and its political activities, including a ballot initiative put before Colorado’s voters that year.

The CCP legal team originally filed a complaint alleging that, even though CSG planned to raise no more than $3,500, nearly all of which would go toward updating and disseminating an expanded and updated copy of itspublic policy paper, the state of Colorado appears to demand that CSG register as an issue committee, with all the paperwork burdens and restrictions that status entails. Dickerson noted at the time that such a result is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and burdensome, particularly for a small group seeking only to exercise their right to speak.

In that case, Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asked the state Supreme Court to “provide clear guidance… as to the scope and meaning” of the state provisions challenged by CSG. The Supreme Court agreed to the request. 

Tomorrow, the Court will consider four questions:

1. Is the policy paper published by the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG) in 2010 “express advocacy” under Art. XXVIII, § 2(8)(a) of the Colorado Constitution?

2. If the policy paper is express advocacy, does it qualify for the press exemption found at Art. XXVIII, § 2(8)(b)?

3. Is the policy paper a “written or broadcast communication” under § 1-45- 103(12)(b)(II)(B), C.R.S.? If not, did it become a “written or broadcast communication” when it was posted to CSG’s blog or Facebook page?

4. In light of Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2010), what is the monetary trigger for Issue Committee status under Art. XXVIII § 2(10)(a)(II) of the Colorado Constitution?

A copy of the court order is available here.

Dickerson will argue that these questions should be answered so as to exclude CSG’s activities from the state’s regulation of “issue committees.” Co-counsel Tyler Martinez noted that “because the Supreme Court agreed to answer the federal judge’s questions, we hope that it intends to provide clear guidance to CSG.”

Following the state Supreme Court’s ruling, the case will return to federal court for consideration of CSG’s First Amendment claims.  

For more information or to interview Allen or Tyler, please contact CCP Communications Director Sarah Lee at 770.598.7961.

The Center for Competitive Politics promotes and defends the First Amendment’s protection of the political rights of speech, assembly, and petition. It is the nation’s largest organization dedicated solely to protecting First Amendment political rights.

####

Sarah Lee

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap