Largely symbolic ballot measure to allow convicted felons to run for office fails in Aurora
Voters overwhelmingly voted down ballot initiative 3A in Aurora - which would have changed the language of the city's charter to allow convicts of certain felonies to run for office - Tuesday night, sending a message they don't believe convicted felons should hold political leadership positions in the city. The measure failed with more than 60% of the vote against.
The measure was largely symbolic, as the state's constitution already says some convicted felons can run for office. The ballot initiative would have changed the city's laws to align with Colorado's.
The initiative came about after Candice Bailey tried to run for city council in Aurora last year. She had a previous felony assault conviction, and was told she couldn't run. She filed suit with the Americans Civil Liberties Union, and won in March.
"Our client, Candice Bailey, wanted to run for office, and she couldn't, because of a decades-old felony conviction," said Annie Kurtz, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "There is a pretty clear provision of the Colorado constitution, that says as soon as you finish serving your sentence, you are immediately reinvested with all of the rights of citizenship, which include the right to vote, and the right to run for office. So, the Aurora charter, clearly conflicted with that provision."
Even though the ballot measure didn't pass Tuesday, Kurtz says certain convicted felons will still be allowed to run for office in Aurora, but the language of the city's rules just won't match what's allowed.
"Even the message of exclusion is itself harmful if it stays in the charter," Kurtz said. "These barriers are a huge problem, they entrench and they spread the harmful impacts of mass incarceration, and we need to get rid of them."
The ACLU is now pushing for at least a dozen other municipalities to change their charters to also align with the state's constitution.
"I think these laws that we are challenging here are part of this large web of what are called collateral consequences that attach to a conviction... there are barriers to finding work, to finding housing, serving on a jury, these are kind of like double punishments," Kurtz said.
But opponents feel the state should get tougher on crime, not softer.
"I think we should think long and hard about what this general policy about being soft on crime is doing for our communities, and ask that question about what it means to be a citizen, I don't think we ask that enough anymore," said Jeff Hunt, Director of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University. "If someone's committed a crime, do we lose those rights as citizens... historically we have said yes."
He says this initiative, along with others like reducing bail amounts, fits into an overarching national conversation about crime in the U.S.
"Colorado is front and center as to whether or not these policies are really bearing fruit," Hunt said. "It's absolutely a national conversation... is America doing better with these policy approaches? I don't think we are. I think we're seeing greater crime, we're seeing greater human suffering as a result of this."
The city of Aurora issued the following statement about the initiative:
"3A was a housekeeping measure to bring the city charter into compliance with the Colorado Constitution and to align it with city practice that resulted from litigation filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2021 on behalf of former at-large city council candidate Candice Bailey. We made a commitment to the court to seek voter approval of a charter change. We satisfied that commitment irrespective of the outcome on 3A.
The provision in the city charter is unconstitutional as written. Consequently, City Council voted in Aug. 2021 to add a note to the charter text to indicate that the city cannot enforce it.
While Aurora voters have the sole authority to amend the city charter and may wish to keep unenforceable provisions in charter language, the court can place limits on how charter provisions are applied. As a result, even with a failed vote on 3A, the situation would remain unchanged. Only people convicted of embezzlement of public monies, bribery, perjury, solicitation of bribery, or subornation of perjury would be ineligible to hold public office in accordance with Colo. Const. Art. XII, Section 4.
We have not yet determined if the matter would reappear on future ballots if 3A fails."
Click here to see all results in Arapahoe County.
