Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Charter Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City council denies protest over ballot title for citizen-initiated charter amendment
Summary
The city council voted to deny a protest that challenged the council’s use of a resolution to set the ballot title for a citizen‑initiated home‑rule charter amendment on election methods, rejecting arguments that an ordinance was required despite calls to revise the process for future petitions.
The City Council on Thursday denied a protest challenging the council’s use of a resolution to set the ballot title for a citizen‑initiated home‑rule charter amendment on the city’s method of elections, and directed staff to certify the title for the November ballot.
The protest, filed Sept. 3 by a registered elector identified in the hearing as Mr. Kaplan, argued that state law requires the governing body to adopt an ordinance rather than a resolution when submitting a charter amendment to voters. Deputy City Attorney Victoria McDermott told the council the protest challenged the council’s legislative process rather than the wording of the ballot title and therefore fell outside the scope of the local protest procedure.
McDermott said the petition had been certified Aug. 26 and that council set the ballot title by resolution on Sept. 2 to meet the county’s Sept. 5 certification deadline. “State law told us when to act, not how,” McDermott said, and the council’s use of a resolution is legally sufficient, she told members.
The protester, Mr. Kaplan, told the council he filed quickly because the protest deadline was short. “We were given a less than 24 hours essentially because it was by 5PM the next business day, to file a protest,” he said. Kaplan also cited Colorado Revised Statutes 31‑2‑210 (procedure to amend or repeal a charter) in support of his view that an ordinance is the appropriate vehicle.
Council members asked staff for legal citations and timing details during the hearing. Staff and the city clerk explained that state statute establishes deadlines tied to the 90‑day pre‑election filing window and that a verification period and county certification schedule constrained how council could act. McDermott noted the charter does not expressly require an ordinance for a citizen‑initiated charter amendment and that the council has previously used resolutions to set titles for charter amendments in 2024.
Council discussed an alternative: sustaining the protest and curing the process by adopting an emergency ordinance to set the same ballot title, a route that staff said could introduce additional risk and would require unanimous council approval under the charter’s emergency ordinance rules. McDermott said staff had drafted an emergency ordinance and described the procedural steps and protest timeline that would follow if the council chose that path.
After discussion, Member Pring moved to deny the protest as drafted by the deputy city attorney; a second was made and the motion proceeded to a vote. The transcript records members expressing support for denying the protest while several also said the city should revisit its election timelines and protest periods so future charter‑amendment petitions offer more consistent opportunity for review.
The council’s formal motion directed staff to certify the ballot title for the November coordinated election. The transcript does not include a roll‑call vote tally in the record provided.
