U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 16, 2010 08:45 PM UTC

Will Norton Make The Ballot?

  • 27 Comments
  • by: MountainDem

Not sure if this is legit or not, but one of my old Republican buddies sent this over to me this morning.  If it is legit and Jane was as sloppy as it appears she was in gathering signatures then I don’t think we’ll be seeing her name on any ballot anytime soon.

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER , COLORADO

Address of Court: 1437 Bannock Street ,

Denver, CO 80202

___________________________________________

Plaintiff/Petitioner:         THOMAS BJORKLUND

v.

Defendant/Respondent: THE HONORABLE BERIE BEUSCHER, Colorado Secretary of State            

___________________________________________

Attorneys for Petitioner

Adam B. Kehrli (#33210)

PATTERSON, NUSS & SEYMOUR, P.C.

5613 DTC Parkway, Suite 400

Greenwood Village , Colorado 80111

Phone Number:   (303) 741-4539

Fax Number: Not designated  

       D COURT USE ONLY D

Case Number: 07 CV 127

Division: A

VERIFIED PETITION FOR REVIEW

COME NOW, the the Petitioner, Thomas Bjorklund, by and through his attorneys, Patterson, Nuss, & Seymour, P.C., and herby submits his Verified Petition For Review.  In support, the Petitioner states and avers as follows:

1.      Thomas Bjorklund is a citizen of the State of Colorado .

2.      The Honorable Bernie Beuscher (hereinafter “Beuscher”)is the Secretary of State, for the State of Colorado, whose business address is 1700 Broadway, Suite 200, Denver, CO 80290.

3.      Jurisdiction is conferred pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-113(1).

4.      Venue is appropriate in this judicial district by virtue of C.R.C.P. 98(c).  

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5.      On or about June 9, 2010, Beuscher issued a Statement of Sufficiency , pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-4-908, verifying that Jane Norton, proposed Republican Candidate for the United States Senate, submitted a sufficient number of signatures to be placed on the August 10, 2010 primary election ballot.

6.      Specifically, Ms. Norton submitted a total of 33,336 signatures, of which 20,133 were accepted by Beuscher’s office.

7.      Beuscher has a duty to substantially comply with the provisions of C.R.S. § 1-1-101 et seq., in certifying the signatures to the petition submitted by Ms. Norton and/or her campaign.  

8.      In certifying the sufficiency of the number of signatures,  Beuscher, and/or his office, failed to comply with his duty as more fully set forth herein.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Notarial Acts Disqualification)

9.      Petitioner Bjorklund incorporates the prior allegations as if fully set forth herein.

10.  The Colorado Notaries Public Act, C.R.S. § 12-55-101, et seq., provides, among other things, that a Notary Public may not perform any notarial act in connection with a transaction in which the notary has a disqualifying interest.    

11.  The notaries used by the Jane Norton for U.S. Senate Campaign (“Campaign”) performed notarial acts in which the notaries had a disqualifying interest, to wit:

a.       The notaries used by the Campaign to obtain signatures were parties to the transaction; and/or

b.      The notaries used by the Campaign received an advantage, right, title, interest, cash or property, as a direct result of the notarizations;

12.  By certifying the sufficiency of the signatures obtained and notarized, Beuscher failed to perform his duty, and said signatures must be disallowed.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Ineligible Circulators)

13.  The Petitioner Bjorklund incorporates all previous allegations as if set forth fully herein.

14.  To be a valid circulator, a person must, among other things, be a resident of the State of Colorado, a citizen of the United States, and be registered to vote and affiliated with the political party mentioned in the petition at the time the petition is circulated.  C.R.S. § 1-4-905.  

15.  The signature circulators used by the Campaign were ineligible to obtain signatures because:

a.       One or more of the circulators listed multiple residence addresses as their residence,

b.      one or more of the circulators do not reside in the State of Colorado ,

c.       one or more of the circulators are not a citizen of the United States ;

d.      one or more of the circulators are not registered to vote, nor affiliated with the political party mentioned in the petition.

16.  Because the circulators violated C.R.S. § 1-4-905, they were not authorized to circulate the petitions for the Campaign and any signatures obtained must be disallowed.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Signature Disqualifications)

17.  The Petitioner Bjorklund incorporates all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.

18.  Section 1-4-904, C.R.S., requires, among other things that a petition shall be signed only by eligible electors.

19.  One or more of the signatures on the petitions were not signed by eligible electors.

20.  One or more of the signatures on the petitions were not signed by a person affiliated with the Republican Party.

21.  Because one or more of the signatures obtained by the Campaign were not signed by eligible electors, the signatures must be disallowed.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner Thomas Bjorklund, respectfully requests that this Court declare that the Honorable Bernie Beuscher violated his duties as required by C.R.S. 1-1-113 and 1-4-904, invalidate those signatures unlawfully obtained, and for other such relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 14th day of June, 2010.

                                                           PATTERSON, NUSS & SEYMOUR, P.C.

                                                           __________________________________

                                                           Adam B. Kehrli, #33210

                                                           Attorneys for Petitioner Bjorklund

           Petitioner’s Address:

           1430 E. Sherwood Dr .

           Grand Junction , CO 81501

VERIFICATION

           I, Adam B. Kehrli, hereby verify the foregoing to be true and accurate.

                                                                              _________________________

                                                                              Adam B. Kehrli, #33210

                                                                              Attorney for Thomas Bjorklund

STATE OF COLORADO       )

)ss.

COUNTY OF DENVER         )

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 14th day of June, 2010, by Adam B. Kehrli.

Witness my hand and official seal.

My commission expires:

__________________________

Notary Public

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of June, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed via Court Link, addressed to the following:

Colorado Secretary of State

1700 Broadway, Suite 200

Denver , CO 80290

Colorado State Attorney General

1525 Sherman Street

Denver , CO 80203

Original Signature on File

____________________________

                                                                                               Adam B. Kehrli

Tweet
Share

Comments

27 thoughts on “Will Norton Make The Ballot?”

  2. Bjorklund just missed being on the primary ballot and his wife previously ran against Beuscher. Given the BS complaint filed against Buck by a Norton supporter with the FEC, it would be interesting to see if Norton managed to screw this up.

  5. So exactly what is Bjorklund’s interest in this? Can anyone shed some light?

    Anyone know if this has actually been filed and served on the SOS ? The case number does look fishy – you don’t get a case number until its filed.  

    1. so it seems to me that it is probably legit. I can’t imagine Penry alleging that Norton’s circulators were invalid. I’ll do some checking.

  8. There are enough screw ups in this to make me question things.  The lawyer is not listed on the law firm’s website.  Goes from second claim for relief to fourth, skipping third, etc.

    Penry has been know to try to set up people who are opposed to Norton to undermine their credibility.

    Penry is both sick and evil.

    So, is it Josh?

    1. Filing # doesn’t make sense, like you say goes from 2nd claim to 4th claim, etc.

      The allegations themselves lack the specificity usually found in Complaints with good merit. They are of a general nature, lacking factual basis and I get the sense the intent is to is “fish” for information (or perhaps simply raise unfounded suspicions for PR purposes).

      Again, has this this actually been filed and served? If not filed, then the filing # is bogus.  

    2. I am not sure how Repubs play dirty politics, but I am not friends with Josh Penry (check out my last diary).  My Republican friend who shall remain nameless was a Frazier supporter way back when he was in the race, not sure who he supports now or if he cares.

      This wasnt a ploy to try and set someone up, but I do hope Jane loses the primary.

  9. The case file number suggests to me they used a form from a prior c ase to get the format right but forgot to delete the previous case number. Sloppy but not condemning

    Since the number of signature being challenged are for the various reasons are not mentioned, there is no way to tell from this document the merit of it.

    The first claim won’t go anywhere. The job of the Notary in this case is to witness the signature of the circulator. That task is unrelated to how involved the Notary is with the campaign. It is pretty standard procedure for the campaign or company running a petition drive to have a Notary or two on hand to witness signatures of the circulators.

    The second claim is the meat and potatoes. If Bjorklund can prove the circulators were not residents, citizens or registered voters, and to enough petition sections to eliminate enough names, that cold potentially disqualify Norton. However, it is hard to prove a negative, especially the SoS’s office as positivwe evidence of the opposite.

    The third claim…um, never mind.

    The fourth claim would take a lot of individual signatures to be tossed to be successful.

    1. Is a lot.

      Just to play devil’s advocate though, wouldn’t there just have to be enough signatures from one CD to be thrown out for the challenge to work? Not sure how many sigs from each CD they got, but if they were weak in a particular CD, it might not have to be 10,000 sigs thrown out.

      Not that that’s what I think will happen. I still think Norton will make the ballot easily.

      1. Service of process for the initial complaint by mail?

        Attorney not listed with firm?

        Docket number from an old filing?

        More questions than answers.

    1. My conclusion, this is a draft complaint that may or may not get filed after it is cleaned up.  Review time of 5 days after certification is very significant.  Likely much to do about nothing.

      RSB- With Norton’s numbers I am not sure very many people going to be throwing good money after bad.  

      Here are the favorables/unfavorables as reported by Magellan:

      Buck Favorables-39%

      Buck Unfavorables – 13%

      No Opinion – 32%

      Norton Favorables – 37%

      Norton Unfavorables – 31%

      No Opinion – 24%

      Buck is up 42% to 32% with 26% undecided.

      In April Buck was up 32% to 29% with Wiens at 16% and 23% undecided.  It looks like the undecided and others are breaking about 3:1 in Buck’s favor.  Josh’s makin’ stuff up campaign is reflected in Norton’s unfavorables.  For this to be close the remaining undeciceds need to break 3:1 in Norton’s favor.  There is nothing to suggest that will be happening.

      1. I think the kinds of people (NRSC people, not the NRSC itself as they are officially neutral, but who’s kidding who?) that put the money into these races will be sticking with Norton. Poll numbers be damned.

        Part of the reason that Buck’s unfavorables are so low, too, is that nobody has been on the air directly attacking him. Plus there’s the issue of Magellan being in the tank for Buck (based on the article attacking Norton that was on their blog the week before the poll was released.)

        Norton is throwing enough red meat to the conservatives right now that the Ref. C thing may not matter. It’s hard to tell where she really stands with the activists since she bypassed the assembly. I think her support among the minority of them, combined with the heavy support she’ll be getting from out of state, will make this a more competitive primary than you’re betting.

  11. 1. The Review is required to be filed within five days after the SOS certifies the petitions.

    2. Here are the actual votes certified by precinct from Norton’s webpage:

    On May 26, Norton submitted more than 30,000 signatures to ensure her candidacy. The minimum number of required signatures is 1,500 per congressional district. The Secretary of State reported the following numbers for the certification process: Congressional District (CD) 1 – 2,516; CD 2 – 2,444; CD 3 – 2,890; CD 4 – 3,191; CD 5 – 3,709; CD 6 – 3,132; and CD 7 – 2,251.

    Given the numbers actually certified two things come to mind. These numbers present a more vulnerable number than the “30,000” signatures obtained.

    The Secretary of State may have already thrown out all the signatures that are the subject of this review.

    1. if Norton has something to worry about, it would be CD-7. However, it would still have to be 752 signatures tossed there to have any effect whatsoever. 751 and she’s still on the ballot.

    1. Way to go CP for making the news (again).  I hope for his sake that Bjorklund’s lawyers stop making dumb mistakes like they made on the initial complaint, or this thing’s not long for the world.

      Also hope to see some clarifying documentation shortly, so we know if this is just fishing or an actual complaint.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

78 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!