NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/bi/15503

Text File | 1992-11-24 | 27.5 KB | 639 lines

Newsgroups: soc.bi
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!gtoal
From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Martina Navratilova and CO lawsuit
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: soc
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 04:26:17 GMT
Lines: 623

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sue Patterson) writes:
>Hi, I missed the recent post of a news article on Martina and the federal
>suit against CO-2.  My newsreader seems to have expired it.   Could somebody
>please e-mail me a copy?  Thank you very much
>
>Sue
>[e-mail]

Thought I was the only one who noticed.  I sent a copy of the below to
the Guardian today.  Haven't seen it mentioned in the press.

G


Article 29 of co.politics.amend2.info:
Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!csn!boulder!ucsu!rintintin.Colorado.EDU!gina
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
Subject: (very very long) Complaint files against amendment 2
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:20:26 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Followup-To: co.politics.amend2.discuss
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 591
Approved: [e-mail] (Amend2-Info Co-moderator)
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: rintintin.colorado.edu

SMRY: Amendment 2 Lawsuit-Complaint

For those who are interested in the Complaint filed in connection with
the Amendment 2 lawsuit, but who do not wish to make a trip to the
courthouse:  I've obtained a copy of the Complaint and am posting it
here in its entirety.


IN THE DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO

Civil Action No. ________________, Courtroom __________
________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

------------------------------------------------------------------------

RICHARD G. EVANS, ANGELA ROMERO, LINDA FOWLER, PAUL BROWN, MARTINA
NAVRATILOVA, BRET TANBERG, PRISCILLA INKPEN, THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
DENVER, THE CITY OF BOULDER, THE CITY OF ASPEN, and THE CITY COUNCIL
OF ASPEN,

     Plaintiffs,

v.

ROY ROMER as Governor of the State of Colorado and GAIL NORTON as
Attorney General of the State of Colorado,

     Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________

     Plaintiffs Richard G. Evans, Angela Romero, Linda Fowler, Paul
Brown, Martina Navratilova, Bret Tanberg, Priscilla Inkpen, the
City and County of Denver, the City of Boulder, the City of Aspen,
and Aspen City Council, through counsel, in Complaint against the
Defendants, state as follows:

                          INTRODUCTION

     This is an action seeking a declaration that Amendment 2, approved
by the Colorado electorate in the general election of November 3, 1992,
violates the constitution of the United States and the State of
Colorado.  The proposed amendment relegates gay men, lesbians and
bisexuals to a second class citizenship contravening the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution as well as other state and federal constitutional
provisions.

     Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from proclaiming, declaring,
or acknowledging the proposed amendment to be part of the Constitution
of Colorado, and from enforcing or implementing it in any way.

                       JURISDICTION AND VENUE

     This action for declaratory and injunctive relief is brought under
the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-51-101, et
seq., Rules 57 and 65 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, and 42
U.S.C. 1983.

     State courts have jurisdiction over claims arising under 42 U.S.C.
1983 by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Article IV of the United
States Constitution.

     Venue is proper in this Court under Rule 98(c) of the Colorado
Rules of Civil Procedure.

                          GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

                             Background

     1.  On November 3, 1992, the following proposed amendment to
Article II of the Colorado Constitution was submitted to the voters as
Amendment 2:

     Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
     branches or departments, nor any of its agencies,
     political subdivisions, municipalities or school dis-
     tricts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute,
     regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual,
     lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
     relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis
     of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have
     or claim any minority status, quota preferences,
     protected status or claim of discrimination.  This
     Section of the Constitution shall be self-executing.

     2.  On November 5, 1992, the Denver Post reported that  811,479
electors had voted for the proposed amendment and 707,525 electors had
voted against the proposed amendment.

     3.  On information and belief, a proclamation giving effect to
the proposed amendment will take place on or before January 4, 1992.

                          PLAINTIFFS

     4.  Plaintiff Richard G. Evans is a citizen of the United States
and a resident of Denver, Colorado.  He is employed by the City and
County of Denver.  Plaintiff Evans is a gay man.

     5.  Plaintiff Angela Romero is a citizen of the United States and
a resident of Denver, Colorado.  She is employed by the City and County
of Denver as a police officer.  Plaintiff Romero is a lesbian.

     6.  Plaintiff Paul Brown is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of Denver, Colorado.  He is employed by the State of Colorado.
Plaintiff Brown is a gay man.

     7.  Plaintiff Linda Fowler is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of Denver, Colorado.  She is employed as a contract administ-
rator by a private employer.  Plaintiff Fowler is a lesbian.

     8.  Plaintiff Martina Navratilova is a citizen of the United States
and a resident of Aspen.  She is a professional tennis player.
Plaintiff
Navratilova is a lesbian.

     9.  Plaintiff Priscilla Inkpen is a citizen of the United States
and a resident of Boulder, Colorado.  Plaintiff Inkpen is an ordained
minister.  Plaintiff Inkpen is a lesbian.

    10.  Plaintiff Bret Tanberg is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of Evans, Colorado.  He is currently afflicted with Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome.  Plaintiff Tanberg is a heterosexual.

    11.  Plaintiffs City of Boulder and City of Aspen are duly
established and constituted home rule municipal corporations under
Section 6 of Article XX of the Constitution of Colorado.  Plaintiff City
and County of Denver is a duly established and constituted home rule
municipal corporation under Sections 4 and 5 of Article XX of the
Constitution of Colorado.

    12.  Plaintiff City Council of the City of Aspen is the duly
authorized legislative and governing body for the City of Aspen pursuant
to Article III of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Aspen.

                            DEFENDANTS

    13.  Defendant Roy Romer is Governor of the State of Colorado.
Defendant Romer is required by Article IV, Section 2 of the Colorado
Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Defendant Romer is also required by Article V, Section 1, Paragraph (4)
of the Colorado Constitution to make a proclamation, the effect of which
will be to enact the proposed amendment, not later than thirty days
after the vote has been canvassed.  The vote is to be canvassed by the
Secretary of State within 21 days after the election.

    14.  Defendant Gail Norton is Attorney General of the State of
Colorado and required by Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-31-101(1)(a) to "prosecute
and defend all actions and proceedings, civil and criminal, in which the
state is a party or is interested when required to do so by the
governor."

                         FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

    15.  Sections 28-93 of the Denver Municipal Code courrently protect
plaintiffs Evans, Romero, Brown, and Fowler against discrimination in
employment, educational institutions, real estate transactions, public
accomodations, and health and welfare service on the basis of their
sexual orientation.  If the proposed amendment repeals these sections of
as they apply to gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, plaintiffs Evans,
Romero, Brown, and Fowler will be exposed to the real, immediate and
substantial risk of discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation in educational institutions, real estate transactions,
public accomodations, and health and welfare services.

    16.  Rules and Regulations of the Denver Police Department, RR-122,
and 117.01 ("Officer's Bill of Rights") in the Police Department
Operations Manual currently protect plaintiff Romero from discrimination
on the basis of her sexual orientation.  Following enactment of the
proposed amendment, Plaintiff Romero will lose these protections and be
exposed to the real, immediate and substantial risk of discrimination in
her employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

    17.  An executive order issued by Governor Roy Romer and dated
December 10, 1990, and policy 11-1 of the Code of Colorado Regulations
currently protect plaintiff Brown from discrimination in his employment.
Following enactment of the proposed amendment, Plaintiff Brown will lose
these protections and be exposed to the real, immediate and substantial
risk of discrimination in his employment on the basis of his sexual
orientation.

    18.  On November 28, 1977, the City of Aspen, by and through the
City Council for the City of Aspen, adopted Ordinance No. 60 (Series of
1977) prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, public services
and public accomodations within the City of Aspen on the basis of race,
color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, marital
status, physical handicap, affectional or sexual orientation, family
responsibility, or political affiliation.  The ordinance has been
codified in section 13-98 of the Aspen Municipal Code.

    19.  Plaintiff Navratilova currently is protected from
discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation by Aspen Municipal
Code section 13-98.  If the proposed amendment repeals this section as
it applies to gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, Plaintiff Navratilova
will be exposed to the real, immediate and substantial risk of

Plaintiff Navratilova will be exposed to the real, immediate and
substantial risk of discrimination on the basis of her sexual
orientation.

    20.  Plaintiff Inkpen is currently protected from discrimination on
the basis of her sexual orientation by sections 12-1-2 through 4 of the
Boulder Revised Code which prohibits discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accomodations.  The
proposed amendment purports to repeal these provisions as they apply to
gay men, lesbians and bisexuals.  If the proposed amendment repeals
these sections as they apply to gay men, lesbians and bisexuals,
plaintiff Inkpen will be exposed to the real, immediate and substantial
risk of discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation in
housing, employment and public accomodations.

    21.  Plaintiff Tanberg is currently protected against discrimination
based on his illness by 29 U.S.C. 794 and Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-34-402(a).
Plaintiff Tanberg is a heterosexual but suffers discrimination based on
a perception that he is a gay man.  If the proposed amendment is
enacted, Plaintiff Tanberg will be exposed to the real, immediate and
substantial risk that such perceptions will be used as a pretext to
discriminate against him on the basis of his illness.

    22.  The defendants are state officials acting under the color of
state law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

    23.  Following the enactment of the proposed amendment,
heterosexuals will be able to take advantage of the above stated prot-
ections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
provided that the discrimination is not based on a perception that the
person discriminated against is a gay man, lesbian or bisexual, but gay
men, lesbians and bisexuals or persons so perceived will not be able to
avail themselves of the protections.

    24.  Following enactment of the proposed amendment, citizens of
Colorado, including plaintiffs, will be unable to seek legislation,
executive policies, and judicial determinations in the interest of gay
men, lesbians or bisexuals in state, municipal or school district forums
regardless of the merits of, or need for, such legislation, policies or
determinations.  This diminished status does not extend to any other
group or class of citizens under the laws or constitution of the State
of Colorado.

    25.  Following enactment of the proposed amendment, the force of
state law will have the effect of coercing plaintiffs to adopt, or
profess to adopt, beliefs and status promoted by a particular religion.

    26.  Following enactment of the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs
will have to guess as to the proposed amendment's scope and meaning and
will thereby be deterred from engaging in lawful and constitutionally
protected activities.

    27.  Following enactment of the proposed amendment, plaintiffs will
face the real, immediate and substantial risk of subjective, arbitrary
and viewpoint-based enforcement of its prohibitions.

    28.  The proposed amendment stigmatizes Colorado citizens on the
basis of their sexual orientation, a characteristic or trait that is
immutable.

    29.  Following enactment of the proposed amendment, plaintiffs will
be deterred from holding and expressing views consistent with their
sexual orientation.

    30.  Following enactment of the proposed amendment, plaintiffs will
be deterred from associating in ways consistent with their sexual
orientation.

    31.  Following enactment of the proposed amendment, the state will
affirmatively authorize, encourage and may in fact require
discrimination on the basis of gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation.

    32.  The proposed amendment has no secular purpose.  Instead its
purpose, and primary effect, is to advance a particular religious
belief.

                          CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

                       FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                      EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES

    33.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 32.

    34.  The proposed amendment purports to forbid the courts of the
State of Colorado from enforcing federal or state statutes or
constitutional provisions that recognize or protect gay men, lesbians or
bisexuals.

    35.  The proposed amendment affirmatively authorizes and encourages
public and private discrimination on the basis of perceived gay, lesbian
and bisexual orientation and establishes the right to discriminate
against gay men, lesbians and bisexuals as one of the basic policies of
the State of Colorado.

    36.  By prohibiting state and local government entities and school
districts from enacting legislation granting minority or protected
status to gay men, lesbians and bisexuals or from banning discrimination
against gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in the exercise of their
fundamental right to vote and to participate equally in the process of
government regardless of circumstances that may already exist or arise
in the future, the proposed amendment on its face invidiously
discriminates against these groups.

    37.  For the above states reasons, the proposed amendment deprives
the plaintiffs of their rights to equal protection of the laws as
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constituion
in violation of  42  U.S.C. 1983, and by the Due Process Clause in
Article  II,  Section  35  of the Colorado Constitution.

                       SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND EXPRESSION

    38.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 37.

    39.  The proposed amendment disadvantages and discriminates against
persons who hold a particular point of view by excluding a particular
idea or belief about sexual orientation from being acted on through
normal legislative, executive and judicial processes in Colorado.

    40.  The proposed amendment has the purpose and effect of limiting
meaningful individual and collective advocacy of political, social and
economic change on behalf of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in securing
equal rights for these persons.

    41.  The proposed amendment has the purpose and effect of coercing
persons to adhere or profess to adhere to a single, state-approved
belief respecting gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation.

    42.  For the above stated reasons, the proposed amendment violates
the plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article II, Section  10  of the Colorado Constitution.

                        THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                         Establishment Clause

    43.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 42.

    44.  The proposed amendment is based upon and embodies a particular
religious view regarding gay, lesbian and bisexual orientation.  The
primary effect of the proposed amdendment is to advance a particular
religious belief with respect to sexual orientation.

    45.  For the above stated reasons, the proposed amendment violates
the plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article  II,  Section  4  of the Colorado Constitution.

                        FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                           Petition Clause

    46.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 45.

    47.  By prohibiting state and local government entities from
adopting legislation or policies granting minority or protected status
to, or banning discrimination against gay men, lesbians or bisexuals,
despite any showing of need that may exist now or in the future, the
proposed amendment prevents plaintiffs from petitioning their
government, including access to the courts and to the legislative and
executive branches of government, for a redress of grievances in
violation of their rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article  II,  Section  10  of the Colorado
Constitution.

                        FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                              Vagueness

    48.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 47.

    49.  The proposed amendment provides no definitions of the terms
contained in it, nor specifies the intended sweep of its prohibitions.

    50.  Plaintiffs and others are forced to guess as to the proposed
amendment's scope and meaning.

    51.  The proposed amendment invites subjective, arbitrary, and
viewpoint-based enforcement.

    52.  By imposing impermissibly vague prohibition, the proposed
amendment on its face violates the plaintiffs' rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution, as well as the Due Process Clause of
Article  II,  Section  25  of the Colorado Constitution and Article  II,
Section  4  of the Colorado Constitution.

                        SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                    Republican Form of Government

    53.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 52.

    54.  By allowing the Colorado voters to deprive plaintiffs of
certain fundamental rights, as elsewhere alleged in this complaint, the
use of the initiative as a means for adopting the proposed amendment is
a violation off Article  IV,  Section  4  of the United States
Constitution, under which each state and the citizens of each state, are
guaranteed a republican form of government, and of the Enabling Act to
the Colorado Constitution that also guarantees to the plaintiffs a
republican form of government.

                        SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                         Limits on Initiative

    55.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 54.

    56.  An initiated constitutional amendment that places certain
legislation beyond the reach of the general assembly violates Article
V,  Section 1(4)  of the Colorado Constitution, which provides that
"[t]his section [reserving to the people the power to initiate
amendments to the constitution] shall not be construed to deprive the
general assembly the power to enact any measure."

                         EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                 Article XX of the Colorado Constitution

    57.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 56.

    58.  The cities of Denver, Aspen and Boulder have exercised the home
rule powers granted to them by Section 6 of Article XX of the Colorado
Constitution to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in
various settings.  A construction purporting to void these ordinances as
they apply to gay men, lesbians and bisexuals would be in conflict with
the limitation stated in Article XX of the Colorado Constitution.

    59.  A constitutional amendment placing certain legislation,
regulations and policies beyond the reach of municipalities when such
legislation, regulations and policies are required by local conditions
would usurp the powers granted to home rule cities by Article XX,
Section  6  of the Colorado Constitution.  Article  XX  protects those
powers except when there is an explicit declaration to the contrary.
The proposed amendment is not such a declaration.

    60.  Article  XX  of the Colorado Constitution, enacted in 1902 and
establishing home rule authority, operates as an implied limitation on
Article  V,  which reserves to the people the power to initiate
amendments to the constitution, enacted as part of the original
constitution in 1876.

                       NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

               Supremacy Clause and Access to Courts

    61.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 60.

    62.  The proposed amendment prevents state courts and municipal
courts from hearing cases raising claims or defenses that involve
federal or state statutes, local ordinances and policies, or
constitutional provisions that recognize or protect existing or future
rights of gay men, lesbians or bisexuals.  The proposes amendment places
the state government and municipalities in the position of incurring
legal liability for violation of the constitutional provisions.

    63.  For the above states reasons, the proposed amendment violates
the Supremacy Clause of the Unites States Constitution, Article  VI,
Section  2  and the access to the courts provision of the Colorado
Constitution, Article  II,  Section  6.

                       TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

         Limitations on Amendments to State Constitution

    64.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 63.

    65.  Although the People of the State of Colorado retain the power
to amend the state constitution, the state constitution prohibits an
amendment that conflicts with the federal constitution.  The proposed
amendment conflicts with the federal constitution.

    66.  The proposed amendment unlawfully attempts to limit the
constitutional authority of home rule cities as granted under Article
XX  of the Colorado Constitution to adopt and enforce legislation or
regulations protecting rights as granted to citizens under the
Constitution of the United States, including legislation and regulations
prohibiting discrimination within their municipal boundaries on the
basis of sexual orientation.  For the above stated reasons, the proposed
amendment violates Article  II,  Section  2  of the Colorado
Constitution.

    WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows:

    A.  to declare that the proposed amendment to Article  II  of the
Colorado Constitution violates the United States Constitution,  12
U.S.C.  1983, and the Colorado Constitution on the above enumerated
grounds;

    B.  to enjoin defendant Romer from proclaiming the vote which would
otherwise give effect to the proposed amendment;

    C.  to enjoin defendant Romer from enforcing the proposed amendment;

    D.  to enjoin defendant Norton from enforcing the proposed
amendment;

    E.  to declare that the protections adopted by various state and
local governmental entities prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation remain in force as adopted by the respective
entities;

    F.  for costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees as my be
allowed by law; and

    G.  for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

    Respectfully submitted this 12th day of November, 1992.

                               JEAN E. DUBOFSKY, P.C.


                               _________________________________________
                               Jean E. Dubofsky, #0880
                               William S. Stuller, #22082
                               1881 Ninth St, Suite 210
                               Boulder, CO  80302
                               (303)  447-3510

                               Jeanne Winer, #8538
                               Attorney at Law
                               1942 Broadway, Suite 404
                               Boulder, CO  80302
                               [phone]

David H Miller
Attorney at Law
American Civil Liberties
Union of Colorado
815 E. 22nd Avenue
Denver, CO  80205

William B. Rubenstein
Ruth E Harlow                  Clyde J Wadsworth
American Civil Liberties       Lamda Legal Defense and Education
Foundation                     Fund, Inc.
132 W. 43rd Street             Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
New York, NY  10036            2 Palo Alto Square
[phone]                 Palo Alto, CA  94306
                               [phone]

Mary Newcomb
Lynn Palma, #8851
Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund, Inc.
606 S. Olive St., Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA  90014
[phone]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS RICHARD G. EVANS, ANGELA ROMERO, LINDA FOWLER,
PAUL BROWN, MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, BRET TANBERG, AND PRISCILLA INKPEN.

                               CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
                               Daniel E. Muse, City Attorney
                               Darlene M. Ebert, Ass't City Attorney

                               _________________________________________
                               Darlene M. Ebert, #8262
                               1445 Cleveland Pl., room 303
                               Denver, CO  80202
                               [phone]

                               ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
                               DENVER


CITY OF ASPEN                  OFFICE OF BOULDER CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney                  Joseph N. de Raismes, III, City Attorney

_____________________          ________________________________
Edward M Caswell, #10435       Joseph N. de Raismes, III, #2812
John Paul Worcester, #20610    P. O. Box 791
Attorneys for Aspen Plaintiffs Boulder, CO  80306
130 South Galena Street        [phone]
Aspen, CO  81611               ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF BOULDER

Plaintiffs' addresses:

City and County of Denver           City of Boulder
350 City and County Building        P.o. Box 791
Denver, CO  80202                   Boulder, CO  80306

City of Aspen
Aspen City Council
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO  81611


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: [e-mail]
Administrative comments                     : [e-mail]
General Discussion                          : [e-mail]