FIGHTING TO SAVE THE CO GOPGRASSROOTS APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

Grassroots Patriot Cody LeBlanc is asking the Colorado Supreme Court to weigh in on ongoing legal e<orts to save the CO GOP from Chair Brita Horn’s disastrous leadership.

The State Central Committee earlier this fall voted (once again) to opt out of the semi-open

primary. They also voted to fire Horn’s personal attorney Steve Klenda who is racking up

hundreds of thousands of dollars in outrageous legal bills. Chair Horn, or should we say

Dictator Horn refuses to recognize the vote. So, LeBlanc and dozens of other SCC

members filed a lawsuit asking a Judge to order Horn to do her duty and recognize the vote.

The District Court Judge just issued a ruling saying he did not have jurisdiction over the

case. He did not rule on the merits of either side’s argument. Although he did indicate the

issue was a legitimate “controversy” under Party bylaws and also seemed to indicate

Klenda would not be getting any attorneys’ fees he sought from the grassroots plainti<s.

(Seeking attorney fees seems to be Horn’s sole fundraising e<ort these days).

LeBlanc and the other SCC members believe the Judge misapplied the law and have now

appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court to overturn the District Court decision.

Here is LeBlanc’s letter to the SCC explaining the merits of the appeal.

Dear Patriots,

I hope you are doing well and had a blessed Thanksgiving. I’m writing with an important update on our case and the next steps moving forward.

Late in the afternoon on Wednesday, November 26th, after the courthouse had already closed early for the Thanksgiving holiday, the District Court issued an order dismissing our case. I have not yet received any official notice from the Court, but I obtained a copy over the weekend.

I know this will be the first time most of you are hearing this, and while it is certainly a setback, it is far from the end of the road, I have already taken the next step.

This morning, I filed our appeal directly with the Colorado Supreme Court.

The judge dismissed the case based on the principle that courts cannot decide internal political party controversies.

He relied on a 1903 Colorado Supreme Court case that correctly states that internal Party disputes must be resolved within the Party itself.

However, that rule was applied to the wrong situation here.

In our case, the internal controversy had already been fully resolved—first by the State Assembly & Convention, and then again by the State Central Committee. There was no internal dispute left for the Court to “decide.”

The petition asked the Court to enforce the Party’s already-final decisions, which is exactly what §1-1-113 requires when an official fails to perform a duty under the Election Code. Enforcement and adjudication are not the same, and

the judge did not address that distinction.

The appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court argues that:

1. The judge misapplied the 1903 precedent. The internal dispute was already resolved. The Court was

not being asked to choose sides but to enforce a final Party determination.

2. The judge incorrectly declined jurisdiction. §1-1-113 requires courts to act when an official commits or

is about to commit a breach or neglect of duty under the Election Code.

3. Enforcement is different from adjudication. Once the Party’s final tribunal makes a decision, the courts

do not decide the controversy—they ensure it is carried out.

4. The judge did not rule on the pending motion for default judgment. That issue should have been

addressed before dismissing the case.

5. The ruling burdens First Amendment associational rights. A Party’s right to structure and govern itself means little if its own final decisions cannot be enforced.

I believe these issues are substantial, well-founded, and appropriate for Supreme Court review.

Additional Plaintiffs

I spoke with the clerk today. She is working to clarify how additional plaintiffs are handled at the appellate level— whether they automatically carry over, whether any opt-out process applies, or whether a new filing is required. She

expects to have guidance later this week. I will update everyone as soon as I receive it.

While the District Court’s ruling was disappointing, it is a procedural step—not a final outcome. The case now moves to the Colorado Supreme Court, which is exactly where the legislature intended these questions to be answered.

Thank you all for your patience, support, and commitment throughout this process. I will continue to keep you updated as we move forward. Just as a side note, my grandmother is back in rehab again and I have stepped in to cover daily operations at our local food bank for the next couple of weeks, so I greatly appreciate your patience if you

reach out with questions or comments.

Respectfully,

Cody M. LeB