Opinion ID: 162002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appropriate Level of Fourteenth Amendment Scrutiny

Text: 15 Save Palisade argues that Colorado's decision to provide the initiative power to home rule counties but not statutory counties is subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.). If strict scrutiny applies, Colorado's statute must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Goetz v. Glickman, 149 F.3d 1131, 1140 (10th Cir.1998). If no heightened scrutiny applies, the statute need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir.2001). We subject governmental classifications to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause only if they target a suspect class or involve a fundamental right. Goetz, 149 F.3d at 1140.
16 When legislation categorizes persons based on suspect classifications, such as race and national origin, we apply strict scrutiny. Okla. Educ. Ass'n v. Alcoholic Beverage Laws Comm'n, 889 F.2d 929, 932 (10th Cir.1989). When legislation categorizes persons based on quasi-suspect classifications, such as gender and illegitimacy, we apply intermediate scrutiny. Id. Finally, when legislation categorizes persons on the basis of a non-suspect classification, we apply rational basis review. Id. In deciding whether to recognize additional classifications as suspect, courts traditionally look to see if the classification is based on characteristics beyond an individual's control, id., and whether the class is saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). 17 The classification here is statutory counties, in contrast to home rule counties, and citizens of the two types of counties are treated differently in Colorado. Status as a statutory county, however, has not been recognized as a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Moreover, citizens of statutory counties lack the characteristics of a suspect class. Id. Being a statutory county is not a characteristic beyond Mesa County's control, as it can choose to become a home rule county. Cf. Okla. Educ. Ass'n, 889 F.2d at 932. Mesa County's citizens are free to work to effect this change. Neither the county nor its citizens claim to suffer disabilities, have a history of unequal treatment, or be politically powerless. Cf. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 28, 93 S.Ct. 1278. Thus, Save Palisade and its members are not entitled to heightened scrutiny on the basis of a suspect classification.
18 Even though citizens of statutory counties are not a suspect class, we will still apply strict scrutiny if the state's classification burdens the exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Okla. Educ. Ass'n, 889 F.2d at 932. Save Palisade argues that its inability to bring an initiative in Mesa County burdens its members' fundamental constitutional rights to free speech and to vote. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 336 n. 1, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995) (acknowledging that free speech is a fundamental right); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (acknowledging that the right to vote is a fundamental right). 19 Here, there are two contexts within which the appellants' rights to free speech and to vote arguably could be implicated. First, it could be argued that the fundamental rights to speech and to vote are implicated within a broader right to bring an initiative, and that the power of initiative is therefore a fundamental right. However, nothing in the language of the Constitution commands direct democracy, and we are aware of no authority supporting this argument. In fact, every decision of which we are aware has held that initiatives are state-created rights and are therefore not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. E.g., Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291, 295 (6th Cir.1993) (citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 424, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988)); Kelly v. Macon-Bibb County Bd. of Elections, 608 F.Supp. 1036, 1038 & n. 1 (M.D.Ga.1985). We agree with these courts' reasoning and reject this argument. 20 Second, it may be argued that regulations on the power of initiative violate the fundamental rights to free speech and to vote. It is true that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and voting may be implicated by attempts to regulate initiative schemes. See, e.g., Meyer, 486 U.S. at 424-25, 108 S.Ct. 1886. The mere fact that the state created a right to an initiative process in home rule counties, however, does not require that an initiative process be granted to all political subdivisions or with respect to all subjects. Skrzypczak v. Kauger, 92 F.3d 1050, 1053 (10th Cir.1996) ([Plaintiff's] right to free speech in no way depends on the presence of [her initiative] on the ballot. Moreover, she cites no law, and we find none, establishing a right to have a particular proposition on the ballot.). In other words, the right to free speech and the right to vote are not implicated by the state's creation of an initiative procedure, but only by the state's attempts to regulate speech associated with an initiative procedure, which is not the case here. 4 There is no initiative scheme in place in statutory counties, so there cannot be an unlawful attempt to regulate that scheme. 21 The cases that Save Palisade cites in support of its argument are inapposite. First, none of these cases involves an equal protection claim. Second, and perhaps most important, all of these cases involve situations where a political subdivision had already been granted the power of initiative and the state attempted to regulate the speech associated with the initiative process. For example, in the primary First Amendment case cited by appellants, Meyer v. Grant, the Court struck down a law banning payments to petition circulators. Unlike the instant case, however, Meyer involved a situation where the state had already granted electors the power of initiative. 486 U.S. at 424, 108 S.Ct. 1886. Moreover, the Meyer Court struck down the law not because of anything unique to an initiative scheme, but rather because it limited the number of messengers available to spread core political speech. Id. at 422-23, 108 S.Ct. 1886. 22 The other free speech case cited by Save Palisade, Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999), is likewise distinguishable. There, the Court held that a state's requirement that circulators of initiative petitions wear name badges infringed upon the circulators' rights to anonymous free speech. Id. at 199-200, 119 S.Ct. 636. Like Meyer, Buckley involved an unconstitutional regulation of speech that happened to occur in the context of an existing initiative scheme. 23 Meyer and Buckley thus establish that, where the people reserve the initiative or referendum power, the exercise of that power is protected by the First Amendment. Stone, 173 F.3d at 1175 (9th Cir.1999); see also Austin, 994 F.2d at 296-97 (Unlike the challenged provisions in Meyer, Michigan's initiative system does not restrict the means that the plaintiffs can use to advocate their proposal.). They do not establish that when the power of initiative is created for one political subdivision, it must necessarily be created for all political subdivisions. 5 The Colorado Court of Appeals determined in Dellinger that the citizens of Colorado have not reserved the power of the initiative as to statutory counties, and that statutory counties therefore do not have the power of initiative. Because we are unpersuaded that the Colorado Supreme Court would disagree, we follow the Dellinger court's determination of state law. Comm'r v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 465, 87 S.Ct. 1776, 18 L.Ed.2d 886 (1967); Daitom, Inc. v. Pennwalt Corp., 741 F.2d 1569, 1574 (10th Cir.1984). 6 Because there is no petition process being regulated, and because there is no federal right to have such a process created, we find that the Meyer and Buckley analysis provides no basis for strict scrutiny. 24 Nor are the right-to-vote cases cited by petitioner any more persuasive. These cases establish conclusively that the right to vote in an election is protected by the United States Constitution against dilution or debasement.' Hellebust v. Brownback, 42 F.3d 1331, 1333 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Hadley v. Junior College Dist., 397 U.S. 50, 54, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970)). They do not establish that every political subdivision must decide questions in the exact same manner. Reynolds v. Sims, the first case cited by appellants, dealt with a situation where legislative districts were apportioned with grossly disproportionate numbers of voters in each district. 377 U.S. 533, 537-53, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). As a result, individual voters in districts with small numbers of citizens effectively had disproportionate representation in the state House and Senate as compared to voters in districts with large numbers of voters. See also Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379-80, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) (invalidating Georgia primary scheme where candidates were selected under a county unit system that effectively weighted rural votes more heavily than urban votes). The other case cited by appellants, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000), involved a situation where ballots for a statewide post from different counties were recounted under disparate standards, raising the possibility that voters who cast identical ballots would have their votes treated differently when choosing electors for president. Id. at 106-09, 121 S.Ct. 525. 25 Both of the cases Save Palisade cites thus involve situations where two or more classes of voters cast votes on the same issue or for the same office, and one class's votes were effectively diluted. That is simply not the case here. While voters in home rule counties may have the ability to vote directly on county-wide measures affecting their own county — an ability not shared by their statutory county analogues — this in no way dilutes the votes of the electors of statutory counties. The reason is simple: Unlike the voters in Bush and in Reynolds, the voters in statutory and home rule counties never have their votes weighed differently on the same question. A statewide ballot is the only opportunity for true comparison. When that occurs, all voters, whether they reside in statutory or in home rule counties, are given an opportunity to vote. We can find no burden on a fundamental right to vote under such a scheme. 26 Like the appellant in Skrzypczak v. Kauger, Save Palisade and its members are still free to express their view that Mesa County's land use process needs to be changed, and they have thus suffered no burden on their right to free speech. 92 F.3d 1050, 1053 (10th Cir.1996) ([T]he Oklahoma Supreme Court has not prevented Skrzypczak from speaking on any subject. She is free to argue against legalized abortion, to contend that pre-submission content review of initiative petitions is unconstitutional, or to speak publicly on any other issue.). Nor have their rights to vote been diluted with respect to any other citizens of Colorado. Therefore, no fundamental right has been burdened.