AURORA | Aurora voters will once again be asked whether they want to allow the ownership of pit bulls after City Council members voted Monday to put the question on the November ballot.
The move comes after an 18th Judicial District Court judge found that the council acted “without authority” when it set aside the city’s ban in 2021, since the ban had already been upheld by voters in 2014, and Aurora’s City Charter specifies that legislation previously placed on the ballot can only be modified by an electoral vote.
“The reason we have to do this in July is we have a deadline to be able to get it on the coordinated ballot for November,” Pete Schulte of the Aurora City Attorney’s Office said Monday.
Three specific breeds are named in the ballot item, which was included in Danielle Jurinsky’s proposal to put the question to voters.
Schulte said the item only names the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier rather than also including other breeds commonly referred to as “pit bulls” because the item needed to reflect the language of the 2005 ban in order to be valid.
The proposal was passed by all of the council members who relocated to the Aurora Room after the Paul Tauer Council Chamber was occupied by protesters Monday night.
Matt Snider, the Aurora resident with back-to-back lawsuits overturned the city council lacking authority to usurp the ballot process. The city recently filed an appeal to set-aside the Districts court’s decision. We are voting again on the same issue this November. So what exactly is the point of having an appeal? Have we not learned anything? If the voters decide pit bulls are illegal in the city, is this the end of it?
Good question. Why appeal this? Laws and ordinances decided by referendum to the voters MUST only be reversed by referendum to the voters. Making that clear seems to be the ultimate goal of the Snider’s lawsuits; a worthy point to make. And a real good moment for the city to acknowledge that and not appeal this.
Why is this even an issue? Aurora has far more significant issues to address than one that has ALREADY been dealt with. Crime, homelessness, and other problem issues plague the city yet leadership chooses to dwell on (and actively support) overturning a ban on dangerous animals.
It was on the ballot. The voting citizens of our city voted to ban these animals — not unanimously (so some did disagree) and so the ban was put in place. While time, education and the emotions of those who love these dogs may have changed who the majority was, removing this ban HAD TO BE a ballot issue. City Council wrongly sidestepped around that necessity. Why? It wouldn’t have been a special election at the time (there was a ballot with other things to add this to). There was no time restraint or urgency to change the law at the time. This ballot measure likely will probably lift the ban as the council did; and this will seem to validate their action. It doesn’t and it won’t. What council did was wrong.
I will be attending my nephew’s wedding in October. I will be bringing my Staffordshire Bull Terrier and staying at a VRBO. There are not breed specific laws in CA. If I walk my dog in public can the police confiscate her?