On July 26, 2024, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the matter. That TRO was subsequently dissolved after the Court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under CRS §1-3-106.
Following dissolution of the TRO, the Court requested briefing from both parties on a threshold question: whether the Court has jurisdiction over any of the remaining claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
Under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. In evaluating a 12(b)(1) challenge, the Court is not limited to the face of the pleadings.
The Colorado General Assembly has enacted a specific statutory framework governing the resolution of internal political party disputes. The controlling provision is CRS §1-3-106(1):
The state central committee of each political party shall have full power to pass upon and determine all controversies concerning the regularity of the organization of any assembly or convention and of any committee of the party and concerning the right to the use of the party name. All determinations upon the part of the state central committee shall be final. CRS §1-3-106(1)
The statute vests exclusive and final authority in the state central committee to resolve two categories of disputes: (1) controversies concerning the regularity of organization, and (2) controversies concerning the right to use of the party name.
Separately, CRS §1-3-108 provides that no person or organization shall use the name of any political party without the permission of the party's executive committee. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants used the Republican party name without authorization when soliciting support for a special meeting.
No person or organization shall use the name of any political party without permission from the executive committee of such political party. CRS §1-3-108
The Court considered whether this provision creates an independent basis for judicial jurisdiction, or whether it falls within the scope of §1-3-106's delegation of party-name disputes to the state central committee.
The Executive Committee issued a "Decision" on July 12, 2024, finding the petition for a special meeting "insufficient" and concluding that Defendant Watkins had no authority to call a meeting. However, the Court determined that this was not a "Final Decision" by the Colorado Republican Committee (CRC) — the body vested with ultimate authority under the party's own bylaws.
The Court examined three provisions of the COGOP Bylaws that establish the relationship between the Executive Committee and the CRC:
Upon the written request of one-quarter of the voting members… The meeting shall be called by the Chairman within ten days… COGOP Bylaws, Art. VII §D.3
[Executive Committee duties include] hearing controversies “subject to review by the CRC.” COGOP Bylaws, Art. IX.B
[Executive Committee] decisions may be appealed to the CRC, and “the determination of the CRC shall be final.” COGOP Bylaws, Art. XV.C
Taken together, these provisions establish a clear internal appellate structure: the EC hears disputes in the first instance, but its decisions are reviewable by the full CRC. Only CRC determinations carry finality under the bylaws.
[The statute] deprives courts of jurisdiction over internal political party disputes. The central committee is the “sole tribunal” vested with authority to resolve such controversies. People ex rel. Lowry v. District Court, 31 Colo. 4 (1903)
The Court found this 1903 Colorado Supreme Court decision directly controlling. The statutory language has remained substantially unchanged since that ruling, and the Supreme Court's interpretation has not been disturbed.
Plaintiff's separate claim regarding unauthorized use of the Republican party name under CRS §1-3-108 was also found to be an internal party dispute falling within the scope of §1-3-106's grant of exclusive authority to the state central committee.
This ruling established that efforts to resolve the COGOP leadership dispute through the judicial system were procedurally foreclosed. The statutory framework directs all such controversies to the party's own central committee for final resolution — a body that had not yet been convened to hear the matter at the time the lawsuit was filed.