Plaintiffs say that they’re appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals, so Lamborn isn’t guaranteed a spot on the primary ballot yet.
By the way, the legal issue isn’t whether someone domiciled in California but living temporarily in his mom’s house in Colorado is a resident of Colorado for purposes of the state’s election law—the Supreme Court of Colorado said “no,” and a U.S. District Court would not have jurisdiction to overturn that decision—it’s whether Colorado’s requirement that petition-signature gatherers be residents of Colorado is a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. I think that the federal judge’s ruling is quite a stretch, given that Article I of the Constitution authorizes states to establish the time, place and manner of congressional elections (subject to Congress’s right to alter such regulations, which Congress has not done in the case of petition-gathering requirements), and the Colorado law does not abridge a potential candidate’s right to obtain access to the ballot so long as he follows the same rules that apply to everyone else. I hope that this terrible ruling is overturned by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals so that it doesn’t become a precedent for future judicial skulduggery.
Update: Three-judge panel of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals uphekd District Court ruling that Colorado’s requirement that petition-signature gatherers be state residents was unconstitutional, so Lamborn is being added back to the primary ballot. https://coloradopolitics.com/appeal-fails-to-remove-lamborn-from-primary-ballot/ I think that it’s a bad ruling that will lead to worse results in the future. I have nothing against Congressman Lamborn (although my preferred candidate in the primary is 2016 U.S. Senate nominee Darryl Glenn), but I don’t think that federal courts should tell states how to regulate the gathering of petition signatures (so long as there’s one set of rules for all candidates).