A judge has ruled that Colorado Springs’ attempt to ask voters to repeal recreational marijuana sales, six months after its approval, is unconstitutional.
Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Hilary Gurney sided with two residents who filed a lawsuit against the city, issuing an injunction to block the city from placing the repeal measure on the April 1 ballot. The measure in question, known as Question 300, was approved in November by a margin of 22,372 votes, allowing existing medical marijuana dispensaries to sell recreational marijuana.
According to Amendment 64 of the Colorado Constitution, local ballot measures to prohibit the operation of licensed recreational marijuana businesses may appear only on a general election ballot during an even-numbered year. The city’s plan to hold a repeal vote in April would have violated this provision.
The effort to overturn the measure began after Councilmember Dave Donelson stated at a January 13 meeting that residents found the ballot language confusing. He argued that Question 300 was poorly worded and that another vote was needed to determine if residents truly wanted recreational marijuana sales in Colorado Springs. The council subsequently voted 7 to 2 on January 28 to add a repeal measure to the April 1 ballot.
The push to repeal led to standing-room-only meetings in city council chambers, with dozens of residents—including attorneys, marijuana shop owners, and veterans—voicing their concerns over the council members’ anticipated decision to overturn the November vote and set a troubling precedent for future elections.
“The city council was in such a rush to overturn the will of Colorado Springs’ voters that it just ignored state law. Now, the court has held the council accountable for its outrageous and unconstitutional actions,” said Adam Gillard, a plaintiff in the case and a U.S. Air Force veteran. “We hope city council members received the judge’s message that they do not have absolute authority over their residents. We also hope they won’t disregard the law again.”
It’s unclear if the city plans to appeal.
