Feb 13, 2025
Adistrict court judge said Thursday afternoon that Colorado Springs must “take all actions necessary” to remove from the April ballot a referred question to repeal a voter-approved ordinance on recreational marijuana “to avoid disenfranchising and confusing the electorate.”
Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Hilary Gurney’s order came amid a flurry of court orders and after the city missed a critical deadline to send ballots for the April 1 election to nearly 5,000 citizens and active-duty military members living overseas on Friday.
On Wednesday, Gurney had ordered the city to modify the “misleading and deceptive” language on the April 1 ballot, which was asking voters whether to repeal Question 300. That ordinance was passed by voters in November and legalizes recreational marijuana sales by existing medical marijuana dispensaries.
But her order arrived 24 minutes after the city’s 2 p.m. Wednesday printing deadline. The deadline was set to assure ballots could be mailed overseas by Friday.
The city said Thursday morning that it was working “as quickly as possible within the court system” to resolve the issue. The city had appealed the lower court decision to the state’s Supreme Court. On Thursday morning, the higher court responded to the city’s appeal saying it would not reverse the district court’s ruling.
“The city does not want to treat its 4,848 overseas active-duty military and overseas citizens differently than its domestic electorate. It is important for them to have the same clarity and content on their ballot,” Vanessa Zink, a spokesperson for the city said in an email. No ballots had been printed as of Thursday morning, she said.
Then came the order Thursday afternoon from the lower court to remove the question completely. The city said it plans to follow the order and plans to mail ballots to overseas citizens and active-duty military on Tuesday.
This week’s court orders came amid a series of motions filed between the city and two Colorado Springs residents who sued the city Jan. 31. They alleged the city’s referred ballot question, asking voters to repeal Question 300, which passed by a 22,373-vote margin, was unconstitutional.
(City council members voted 7-2 on Jan. 28 to add a measure on the April 1 ballot, saying that a second vote was needed because voters were “confused.”)
Siding with the residents, Gurney on Monday blocked the city from placing the question on the ballot. The judge ruled that the question violated Amendment 64 of the Colorado Constitution, which states that any local ballot measure to prohibit the operation of licensed recreational marijuana businesses may appear only on a general election ballot during an even-numbered year.
The city then filed an emergency motion asking the district court judge to temporarily halt legal proceedings, pending a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Editor’s picks
“Without immediate relief, a substantial portion, and potentially all, of the city’s citizens will be denied the fundamental right to vote on repealing a recently passed initiated ordinance which saddles them with the potentially unintended consequence of forever legalizing retail marijuana sales in the City,” city attorneys wrote in its Feb. 11 appeal.
The city argued that repealing Question 300 does not “revive any previous prohibition” and therefore, the district court was wrong in ruling that the referred ballot measure on the April 1 ballot would prohibit retail marijuana sales if it is approved by the voters.
“The Referred Ballot Question is not a prohibition because it does not prohibit retail marijuana; it merely asks the voters to repeal the initiated ordinance, thus restoring City Council’s legislative authority on this topic,” the city wrote in its appeal.
The city also argued that the district court ruling “disenfranchises” and prevents Colorado Springs residents from ever repealing an initiated ordinance, like Question 300, which under the city’s charter, can only be repealed by a vote at a general municipal election, which falls on odd-numbered years.
The city asked the Supreme Court to reverse the district court’s injunction to avoid disenfranchising overseas and military voters, who the city is required to send ballots to at least 45 days prior to the April 1 election.
“The harm in delay or denial of the right to vote is pronounced, immediate, and potentially irretractable,” the city wrote.
On Wednesday, the district court judge responded to the city’s request and granted a stay pending the Supreme Court’s ruling. The district court judge ruled that the ballot issue could be printed on the ballot, only if the language is modified to include language that was similar to language used on the November ballot to reduce confusion among voters.
The language proposed by the city had “material and significant omissions” and the “potential to cause confusion among voters,” District Court Judge Hilary Gurney wrote.
Gurney also wrote she was concerned about the “potential disenfranchisement of the electorate” and ordered the city and plaintiffs to agree on a way to alert voters of the legal status of the ballot question, such as a notice inside voter education materials that would notify residents of its pending legality.
Following Gurney’s ruling Thursday afternoon, Adam Gillard, one of the plaintiffs who sued the city, said he felt it was time for city council “to move on.”
“The city has been willing to do anything and everything to overturn the will of the voters, who overwhelmingly supported Question 300. In fact, city officials appeared to consider disenfranchising thousands of our military service members who, along with combat veterans, were a key part of our winning coalition in November,” said Gillard, executive director of El Paso County Progressive Veterans.
“It’s time for the city council to move on and start representing their constituents instead of standing in their way.”
Comments