Supreme Court of Colorado, 2025

Andrew Kline, in his official capacity as Colorado Deputy Secretary of State; and Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State v. No on EE - A Bad Deal for Colorado, Issue Committee.

Andrew Kline, in his official capacity as Colorado Deputy Secretary of State; and Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State v. No on EE - A Bad Deal for Colorado, Issue Committee.
Supreme Court of Colorado · Decided August 4, 2025

Andrew Kline, in his official capacity as Colorado Deputy Secretary of State; and Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State v. No on EE - A Bad Deal for Colorado, Issue Committee.

Opinion

2

Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA2245

Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding the registered agent disclosure requirement facially unconstitutional where the plaintiff (1) made no facial challenge in its complaint, (2) developed no record and made no argument in support of a facial challenge before the district court, and (3) presented no argument in support of a facial challenge to the court of appeals.

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding the registered agent disclosure requirement facially unconstitutional where disclosure serves compelling public interests and imposes no meaningful burden on issue committees.

Opinion

1

Andrew Kline, in his official capacity as Colorado Deputy Secretary of State; and Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State, Petitioners
v.
No on EE - A Bad Deal for Colorado, Issue Committee. Respondent

No. 24SC540

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc

August 4, 2025


2

          Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA2245

         Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.

         Whether the court of appeals erred by holding the registered agent disclosure requirement facially unconstitutional where the plaintiff (1) made no facial challenge in its complaint, (2) developed no record and made no argument in support of a facial challenge before the district court, and (3) presented no argument in support of a facial challenge to the court of appeals.

         Whether the court of appeals erred by holding the registered agent disclosure requirement facially unconstitutional where disclosure serves compelling public interests and imposes no meaningful burden on issue committees.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.