Colorado mask-prohibition proposal hits snag after California 'vigilante' ruling

DURANGO, Colo. (CN) — The southwest Colorado city of Durango is asking a state court to review whether a citizen group’s petition to ban law enforcement from wearing masks can be legally placed on the ballot.

The No Secret Police Citizens Initiative Committee, which includes some 60 residents, in February started circulating petitions proposing a city prohibition on the masking of law enforcement officers. Such a rule “keeps policing local and returns constitutionality and trust to policing and the people,” members wrote on their website.

The initiative comes after agents for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement began donning masks this year during interactions with citizens. California and Washington state passed similar statewide legislation.

The Colorado group presented its proposed ordinance with a certificate of sufficiency at a city council meeting on April 7. After the council rejected the measure on a 4-1 vote, the city would likely be required to place the issue on the ballot. However, Durango’s legal counsel is raising questions about whether the measure is administrative or legislative — the former of which would be blocked by state Supreme Court precedent — and whether a recent federal appeals court ruling would bar the ordinance altogether under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

The Ninth Circuit published an opinion on Wednesday blocking California’s own “No Vigilantes Act.”

That evening, the city of Durango presented its questions to the court. Named as defendants are Ted Wright and Michael Souder, along with the No Secret Police Citizens Initiative Committee.

“The supremacy clause does not ‘bar all state regulation which may touch the activities of the federal government,’” city attorney Mark Morgan wrote in the petition. “Rather, it applies exclusively to law enforcement agencies and their officers, including federal law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement officers.” And a cop mask ban might do just that.

In asking for clarity, the city in its petition doesn’t try to convince the court one way or the other whether the ballot measure is “legislative in nature” and eligible for the ballot or “administrative in nature” and ineligible to process.

In the petition, Morgan asked the court to issue a speedy response so the city can place the issue on the ballot by the required July deadline.

Morgan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Over email, Souder called the city’s concerns of losing federal funding over the mask rule “a maximalist fear scenario.”

Souder will continue to work to get the proposition on the ballet, where he believes it will pass.

“Local democracy is working as designed,” he wrote. “The petition drive gathered the required signatures to force council either to adopt the ordinance or send it to a vote. That’s not reckless; it’s the charter‑provided mechanism for residents to set policy when they believe council hasn’t.”

Follow @bright_lamp