Colorado § 1-11-213 - Rules for conducting contests in district court.

§ 1-11-213. Rules for conducting contests in district court.

(1) The style and form of process, the manner of service of process and papers, the fees of officers, and judgment for costs and execution shall be according to the rules and practice of the district court.

(2) Change of venue may be taken from any district court for any cause in which changes of venue might be taken in civil or criminal actions. The decisions of any district court are subject to appellate review as provided by law and the Colorado appellate rules.

(3) Before the district court is required to take jurisdiction of the contest, the contestor shall file with the clerk of the court a bond, with sureties, running to the contestee and conditioned to pay all costs in case of failure to maintain the contest. The judge shall determine the sufficiency of the bond and, if it is sufficient, approve it.

(4) The contestor, within ten days after the official survey of returns has been filed with the designated election official, shall file in the office of the clerk of the district court a written statement of the intention to contest the election, setting forth the name of the contestor, that the contestor is an eligible elector of the political subdivision, the name of the contestee, the office or ballot issue or ballot question being contested, the time of the election, and the particular grounds for the contest. The statement shall be verified upon information and belief by the affidavit of the contestor or of an eligible elector of the political subdivision. If the contest is based upon a ballot issue or ballot question, the political subdivision or subdivisions for which the ballot issue or ballot question was decided shall be named as a contestee. If a written statement of intent to contest the election is filed more than ten days after the completion of the official survey of returns, no court shall have jurisdiction over the contest.

(5) The clerk of the district court shall then issue a summons in the ordinary form, in which the contestor shall be named as plaintiff and the contestee as defendant, stating the court to which the action is being brought, the political subdivision for which the contest is filed, and a brief statement of the grounds for contest as set forth in the contestor's statement. The summons shall be served upon the contestee and political subdivision in the same manner as other district court summonses are served in this state, within ten days after the statement of intention is filed.

(6) The contestee, within ten days after the service of the summons, shall file an answer with the clerk of court, which admits or specifically denies each allegation of the statement and asserts any counterstatement on which the contestee relies as entitling him or her to the office to which elected.

(7) If a contestor alleges the reception of illegal votes or the rejection of legal votes as the grounds for the contest, a list of the eligible electors who so voted or offered to vote shall be set forth in the statement of the contestor and likewise in the answer of contestee if the same grounds are alleged in the counterstatement.

(8) When the answer of the contestee contains a new matter constituting a counterstatement, within ten days after the answer is filed, the contestor shall file a reply with the clerk of court admitting or specifically denying, under oath, each allegation contained in the counterstatement.

Source: L. 92: Entire article R&RE, p. 790, § 14, effective January 1, 1993. L. 94: (4) and (5) amended, p. 1177, § 66, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 1-11-210 as it existed prior to 1992.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

Timing requirement for an election contest not met by a lawsuit for injunctive relief filed prior to the election. The phrase "within ten days after" imposes two sequential conditions on an election contest: (1) "[A]fter" certification of election results, and (2) "within" 10 days. Neither condition was met. Taxpayers Against Congestion v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 140 P.3d 343 (Colo. App. 2006).

This section governs the time for appeal concerning challenges to election results. Cacioppo v. Eagle County School District Re-50J, 92 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2004); UMB Bank v. Landmark Towers Ass'n, 2017 CO 107, 408 P.3d 836.

This section is a non-claim statute that prohibits absolutely the initiation of litigation after a specific period of time as a jurisdictional matter. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is therefore not available to save an election contest if the contestor fails to file a written statement of intent to contest the election within the ten-day limit specified in subsection (4). UMB Bank v. Landmark Towers Ass'n, 2017 CO 107, 408 P.3d 836.

Claim that ineligible voters participated in an election and that eligible electors did not receive notice of the election and therefore were deprived of the opportunity to participate in it is not a challenge to the substance of the ballot issue. Instead, it is a challenge to the means by which the election results were obtained and is thus subject to the requirement of subsection (4) that the contestor file a written statement of intent to contest an election within ten days after the official survey of returns has been filed with the designated election official. UMB Bank v. Landmark Towers Ass'n, 2017 CO 107, 408 P.3d 836.

Subsection (4) barred claims that a notice required by art. X, § 20, of the Colorado Constitution that accompanied a ballot title contained inaccurate financial data and had a misleading purpose, because the claims did not involve the legality or constitutionality of the ballot issue's substance but instead concerned only the means by which election results were obtained. Cacioppo v. Eagle County Sch. Dist. RE-50J, 92 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2004).

Subsection (6) mandates factual specificity. Where the cause of a contest in an action challenging a school bond issue is that illegal votes have been received, subsection (6) mandates factual specificity. Abts v. Bd. of Educ., 622 P.2d 518 (Colo. 1980).