1437 Bannock St . Denver , Colorado 80202 - Brennan Center for ...

stated, “‘An inference drawn from congressional silence certainly cannot be credited when it iscontrary to all other textual and contextual evidence of congressional intent.’” Id. at 516-517(quoting Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 136, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991)(Emphasis added) Thus, a court may consider context when determining legislative intent. If thecourt determines that the legislative body was aware of a particular interpretation andsubsequently rejected it, it may conclude that the legislative body intended to affirm theexecutive’s interpretation. Schlagel v. Hoelsken, supra.Clerk Johnson also contends that the statutory interpretation at the time H.B. 12-1267was introduced was that proffered by Judge Whitney. (Clerk’s Motion for Summary Judgment,p. 16) According to Clerk Johnson, Judge Whitney rejected the Secretary’s interpretation. Thisargument is incorrect. To the contrary, Judge Whitney concluded that the Secretary had proved areasonable probability of success on the merits:The burden under the Rathke factors talks about reasonableprobability of success on the merits, which goes into legalrequirements, and it goes a lot to what Mr. Knaizer talked aboutwith the background information and all of the laws that have goneinto effect concerning elections.It is (sic) fairly easy burden to reach, and I do believe the Peoplehave reached the first prong of that, which is that there is—there’sa reasonable possibility of success on the merits. There’s areasonable possibility of non-success on the merits. A reasonablepossibility is really not that hard to get to, and so I think that factorweighs in on behalf of the State.(Clerk’s Motion for Summary Judgment, exhibit 15, p.87, ll. 9-20)v. The Court Must Consider the Secretary’s Recently-Promulgated RulesGuidance can be obtained from the interpretation given to a statute by the implementingagency. Colorado Mining Association v. Board of County Commissioners, 199 P.3d 718, 73127