April military and overseas ballots potentially delayed by marijuana repeal
According to a spokesperson, on Tuesday, Feb. 11, the City filed with the District Court an Emergency Motion to Stay Order Pending Appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, in an effort to keep a repeal of Ballot Question 300 on the April municipal ballot.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Judge finds repeal of marijuana question unconstitutional
Ballot Question 300 was approved in November by voters, allowing recreational marijuana to be sold by existing medical dispensaries after an application process. However, some City Councilmembers argued that the question's wording may have been confusing to voters, and therefore the repeal in April was necessary to determine the true will of the people. Council voted on Jan. 28 in favor of placing the repeal on the April ballot.
A judge blocked that repeal on Feb. 10, however, ruling that the City Council's vote to place the question on the municipal ballot violated the Colorado Constitution. Then on Wednesday, Feb. 12, a judge granted the City's stay order, stipulating that the wording of the April ballot question must be changed.
According to the city, the judge's order was not received by the City's 2 p.m. deadline on Wednesday for printing of ballots for overseas U.S. citizens and active-duty military. The printing deadline ensured ballots would be mailed by the City Code-mandated deadline of Friday, Feb. 14.
'As a result of receiving the judge's order on the stay past the City's printing deadline and the uncertainty of the form of the ballot language amid pending litigation, the City will not be able to mail overseas U.S. citizens and active-duty military ballots on Friday,' the city said in a statement. '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. The City is working as quickly as possible within the court system to resolve this issue.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hearing held, no recall election date of Jackson County Executive set
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Jackson County judge wants to take the weekend to review testimony and other cases mentioned in arguments Friday, before coming to a decision, about a potential recall election date of Jackson County Executive Frank White Jr. Recently, two lawsuits seeking different outcomes were consolidated. One lawsuit demands the election be held at the end of this month, or as early as possible. The other, filed by two election offices, argues it's best to wait until November, such as November 4, since it's already a set election date. Kansas City air deemed 'unhealthy' as wildfire smoke casts haze across skies 'I think that all the parties agreed today, except for the County Executive. I don't think that he's going to agree with this, but I think one thing we all walked out knowing that there is going to be an election,' Attorney Phil LeVota shared with FOX4 Friday. Different perspectives and arguments surround when a recall election of Jackson County's Executive Frank White Jr. should take place if it were set to happen. 'My clients, the (Jackson County) citizens, are lock step with the Jackson County Legislature that it should be as soon as possible,' LeVota added. Friday, evidence was presented, and testimony was given. The election boards say they are committed to conducting a fair election and have no position on the recall, and add, in compliance with law, the next election date this could happen is November 4. They claim not enough time is given for alerting and securing polling locations, or finding an adequate number of polling judges, among other things. Council for County Executive Frank White Jr. says the process should be fair. White Jr. had no comment for FOX4 on Friday. 'My taxes went up 341%. I want the man gone. Gone from the county. Our people can't handle this. He has to go. The sooner, the better. People are being rooted out of their homes by Frank White,' Mark Anthony Jones, a Jackson County resident, said. Jones, a plaintiff, was unknowingly called to the stand on Friday. 'I am one of those 60,000 people who still haven't got our tax assessment figured out for 2023,' Jones added. OSHA investigating deadly collapse at Family Dollar in Kansas City One side argues the charter states it should take place within 60 days of receiving the signatures, or the next feasible date. Another says it's still an election and should fall on an already set election date, such as November 4. 'If that 10 weeks is an issue, that date could be September 30 or October 7. We don't believe we should fall back on, 'Well, there's one in November just waiting.' The people want a recall election. They want it expediently done. They want it quick,' LeVota shared. Others say there's harm in waiting and understand a recall election is rare. 'If they want to recall someone, they want to vote to take someone out of office. They don't want them to sit around for four more months still doing things that they don't think they should be doing,' LeVota added. A potential recall election date is anticipated for Monday or Tuesday of the coming week. LeVota is confident a date will likely be set soon. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh emphasizes the role of an independent judiciary
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh on Thursday emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, calling that 'the crown jewel of our constitutional democracy.' Judges and attorneys alike have a role in 'maintaining a consistent and principled rule of law throughout the United States,' Kavanaugh said. The justice made his remarks at the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference. With a crowd of 400 packing the room, he participated in a friendly conversation with District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk, a former Kavanaugh law clerk who sits on the bench in Missouri.
New York Times
2 days ago
- New York Times
Someone Is Defying the Supreme Court, but It Isn't Trump
Since President Trump returned to the presidency for a second term, legal scholars and political writers have wrestled with a particular preoccupation: What if he defies court orders? When actual examples of the administration violating court orders turned out to be hard to find, and contestable in any given case, some commentators broadened the notion of defiance to include so-called malicious compliance (or legalistic noncompliance). The idea here is that even if the president or his agents did comply with the terms of court orders, however unreasonable, they might be doing so in bad faith, with the covert motive of actually evading or circumventing the point of the order. The issue of defying court orders is still with us — but it has taken a twist. Now the defiance is coming from inside the judicial branch itself, in the form of a lower-court mutiny against the Supreme Court. District Court judges, and in some cases even appellate courts, have either defied orders of the court outright or engaged in malicious compliance and evasion of those orders, in transparent bad faith. In the past decade or so, increasing judicial overreach has caused harm to our constitutional order by limiting the ability of the executive branch to implement the program it was elected by the American people to pursue. It has been a scourge for both recent Republican and Democratic presidents, and it may provoke extreme measures to restore order. The recent defiance goes even further, threatening to damage the internal integrity of the judiciary, which ultimately relies on lower courts to follow the Supreme Court's direction. Consider Judge Brian Murphy of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts. Judge Murphy issued a preliminary injunction against the transfer of removable aliens to third countries, in cases in which the transfer was expressly permitted by federal law. So far, this was just an ordinary example of judicial overreach. But after the Supreme Court issued an order to stay — that is, to stop — the preliminary injunction while litigation proceeded (over a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor), Judge Murphy went beyond overreach. He decided that his order enforcing the injunction that the court had stayed nonetheless remained in effect — a proposition for which his only cited authority was the dissent from Justice Sotomayor. This seemed to be malicious, whether or not it counts as 'compliance' at all. The Supreme Court, with the notable concurrence of Justice Elena Kagan, then had to stay this second order and explain that Judge Murphy's renewed effort was also illicit. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
