While the election law indicates that many election offenses are dealt with through administrative or criminal charges, this seems unlikely in this case. 

Who committed a crime?  Legislative Council members?  DEA or FBI agents who offered comments?  There are immunity arguments for both.  For the legislative council this might flow from state law, for the DEA agent it might flow from the supremacy clause saying that states can't tell federal officials what to do (that was the answer to a similar question on the bar exam when I took it).

Who would bring criminal or administrative charges?  Gigi Dennis, the Secretary of State?  John Suthers, the Colorado Attorney General?  Mitch Morrisey, the Denver District attorney?  Mr. Eids, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado?

What would the crime be?  Failure to follow election laws?  Surely, it is not a federal crime to violate a state election law, in a non-federal election, even if a criminal state election law is violated.  So, this would rule out Eids, and the Secretary of State ordinarily brings only administrative charges, not criminal ones.

The next steps in terms of a criminal action would have to be made by one of the officials listed above.  The supporters of the measure could make a criminal complaint, but that doesn't cause anything to happen except for causing a government prosecutor to consider whether or not to bring charges, which in this case would be a mixed political and legal question. 

Since the Legislative Council had its own private lawyer (Dick Coffman) in the case, rather than the attorney general's office, the likelihood that a special prosecutor would be appoinited to make a decision rather than the AG or DA due to some theoretical conflict of interest is low.

I doubt that any of the people above would initiate criminal or administrative charges — a decision generally vested in their discretion.

Civil Remedies?

Normally, governments and government officials are immune from money damages in a situation like this one, and that certainly wasn't an important remedy (if any) in this case.

The normal remedy when a government agency doesn't something it has a legal duty to do, is to seek a court order that it do something different, which would normally be brought, in the case of state government, in the state district court in Denver (where it was).  There was a respectable argument that this court could have ordered the Legislative Council to act, but that argument lost.

In the face of a defeat there, the next step would normally be to a state appellate court. 

Unlike many appeals, this would be pretty short and sweet.  The trial court record would only be a few dozen pages long and could be prepared quickly, since the case was so short lived and there was only one brief hearing with little, if any, evidence presented.  There might only be one legal issue, which is whether the matter should be considered by the courts on the merits, to address in the appeal, and the case would likely be put on the fast track.

The rights in question arise solely under state law, so a federal court wouldn't ordinary have a say in the matter.

There is a question regarding whether the appeal would be to the Court of Appeals, or to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Normally, election appeals are fast tracked to the Colorado Supreme Court, but that special rule applies only to candidate races and municipal elections, not statewide intiatives.  So, the normal place to appeal “of right” would be the Colorado Court of Appeals.

An appeal could go to the Colorado Supreme Court directly, in what used to be known as a mandamus action, something normally used only when no other method of appeal is available (such as before proceedings in the trial court are completed, unlike this case), or as an actual appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, with permission of the Colorado Court of Appeals, if the Colorado Court of Appeals feels that this is really a job for the Colorado Supreme Court, and not it.

If the Colorado Court of Appeals took up the case, there could be a further appeal, once it was decided, to the Colorado Supreme Court, if the Colorado Supreme Court felt like considering the case, assuming there was time left to act at that point.

A key decision point in the case would be whether the trial court (unlikely) or the Colorado Court of Appeals (more likely) would issue some sort of temporary injunction pending an appeal.

The next step in terms of an appeal would be a call to be made by lawyers for the defeated party in the trial court. 

While the election law indicates that many election offenses are dealt with through administrative or criminal charges, this seems unlikely in this case. 

Who committed a crime?  Legislative Council members?  DEA or FBI agents who offered comments?  There are immunity arguments for both.  For the legislative council this might flow from state law, for the DEA agent it might flow from the supremacy clause saying that states can’t tell federal officials what to do (that was the answer to a similar question on the bar exam when I took it).

Who would bring criminal or administrative charges?  Gigi Dennis, the Secretary of State?  John Suthers, the Colorado Attorney General?  Mitch Morrisey, the Denver District attorney?  Mr. Eids, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado?

What would the crime be?  Failure to follow election laws?  Surely, it is not a federal crime to violate a state election law, in a non-federal election, even if a criminal state election law is violated.  So, this would rule out Eids, and the Secretary of State ordinarily brings only administrative charges, not criminal ones.

The next steps in terms of a criminal action would have to be made by one of the officials listed above.  The supporters of the measure could make a criminal complaint, but that doesn’t cause anything to happen except for causing a government prosecutor to consider whether or not to bring charges, which in this case would be a mixed political and legal question. 

Since the Legislative Council had its own private lawyer (Dick Coffman) in the case, rather than the attorney general’s office, the likelihood that a special prosecutor would be appoinited to make a decision rather than the AG or DA due to some theoretical conflict of interest is low.

I doubt that any of the people above would initiate criminal or administrative charges — a decision generally vested in their discretion.

Civil Remedies?

Normally, governments and government officials are immune from money damages in a situation like this one, and that certainly wasn’t an important remedy (if any) in this case.

The normal remedy when a government agency doesn’t something it has a legal duty to do, is to seek a court order that it do something different, which would normally be brought, in the case of state government, in the state district court in Denver (where it was).  There was a respectable argument that this court could have ordered the Legislative Council to act, but that argument lost.

In the face of a defeat there, the next step would normally be to a state appellate court. 

Unlike many appeals, this would be pretty short and sweet.  The trial court record would only be a few dozen pages long and could be prepared quickly, since the case was so short lived and there was only one brief hearing with little, if any, evidence presented.  There might only be one legal issue, which is whether the matter should be considered by the courts on the merits, to address in the appeal, and the case would likely be put on the fast track.

The rights in question arise solely under state law, so a federal court wouldn’t ordinary have a say in the matter.

There is a question regarding whether the appeal would be to the Court of Appeals, or to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Normally, election appeals are fast tracked to the Colorado Supreme Court, but that special rule applies only to candidate races and municipal elections, not statewide intiatives.  So, the normal place to appeal “of right” would be the Colorado Court of Appeals.

An appeal could go to the Colorado Supreme Court directly, in what used to be known as a mandamus action, something normally used only when no other method of appeal is available (such as before proceedings in the trial court are completed, unlike this case), or as an actual appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, with permission of the Colorado Court of Appeals, if the Colorado Court of Appeals feels that this is really a job for the Colorado Supreme Court, and not it.

If the Colorado Court of Appeals took up the case, there could be a further appeal, once it was decided, to the Colorado Supreme Court, if the Colorado Supreme Court felt like considering the case, assuming there was time left to act at that point.

A key decision point in the case would be whether the trial court (unlikely) or the Colorado Court of Appeals (more likely) would issue some sort of temporary injunction pending an appeal.

The next step in terms of an appeal would be a call to be made by lawyers for the defeated party in the trial court.