AURORA | An Arapahoe County district court judge on Sunday turned back a request from an Aurora voter to intervene in an underway local ballot question election, alleging the city didn’t go far enough to transmit criticism of the questions to voters.
Aurora resident and voter Jeff Brown filed an emergency court order last week in an effort to force the city to provide more state-mandated arguments against three local November ballot questions that would raise tax revenue for city projects.
District Court Judge Don J. Toussaint said in his ruling that Brown failed to make compelling arguments that the city’s handling of pro and con arguments, required by state law in city-provided election background material, was cause for court intervention.
Brown “offers no argument to demonstrate that granting preliminary injunctive relief — a mere thirty days prior to Election Day — would serve, rather than disserve, the interests of the City of Aurora’s 250,000+ registered voters,” Toussaint said in his opinion. “Additionally, (Brown) offers no argument or evidence showing that the current summary poses a risk of real, immediate, and irreparable harm.”
Brown’s complaint was that the city’s election-law mandated explanation and arguments for and against the ballot measures are insufficient. The summaries, and pro and con statements, often called “TABOR opposition summary,” are part of voter-guide “blue books” offered to all voters in the state.
City officials on Friday declined to comment, citing city policy on withholding comment on pending litigation.
Brown said he’ll consider his options as the election moves forward, including possible litigation after the election, depending on the outcome, although he currently sees the option as “too extreme.”
City council in June unanimously approved three bond measure questions for the November ballot, asking voters for a sales tax increase to fund $264 million in transportation, public safety and city facility capital improvement projects.
Lawmakers agreed to ask voters to approve what would amount to a 0.325% sales tax increase, or three cents for every $10 in purchases.
The proposals would fund 65 projects across three areas, including transportation, public safety and city facilities, which include parks, recreation centers and libraries. Some of the major projects include the replacement of the Peoria Street bridge, construction of a new fire station, library and recreation center, improvements to police and fire facilities and park renovations.
In his district court complaint, Brown said the city is permitted 500 words for pro and con assessments of the ballot questions and the 90 words the city used to spell out arguments against ballot questions 3A, 3B and 3C are insufficient.
“This is not a request that the court decide whether the tax measures are good or bad, nor am I asking that my comments be published verbatim,” Brown said in a statement to the Sentinel last week. “The issue is whether the City substantially complied with Colorado’s requirement to summarize relevant opposition comments.”
Brown said he first saw the local TABOR election requirements from the city on Tuesday as part of voter material supplied by Adams County.
The city’s published “con” statement outlines a variety of arguments against voting for the measures.
“Opponents state that the proposed sales tax increase would add to residents’ financial burdens amid rising costs for housing, food, fuel, utilities, and property taxes. Some commenters argue that infrastructure costs should be shared more by developers and facility users through higher development or user fees,” Brown said in a statement, quoting the “con” arguments. “Others favor private investment, public-private partnerships, and economic growth to expand Aurora’s tax base rather than relying o n tax increases. Additional concerns include city spending priorities, transparency and accountability, the public-engagement process, library and facility investments, infrastructure planning, and whether the proposed projects represent the city’s highest priorities.”
Brown argues that arguments against the measures should be far more substantive.
In his court filing, Brown says the city missed what he believes are three “materially distinct arguments” not mentioned:
• A long-term city infrastructure funding problem. Aurora has identified more than $2 billion in priority infrastructure needs, while the projects funded by the three measures represent only about 13% of those needs.
• Measuring and addressing Aurora’s retail-tax-base performance. “The opposition comments called for updating Aurora’s decade-old retail-activity-per-resident benchmark, publishing that benchmark regularly with the City budget, and establishing a measurable objective of reaching at least the per-resident average of Colorado cities.”
• Regional draw and visitor spending as an alternative revenue strategy, arguing that Aurora can expand its retail tax base by attracting outside spending through private investment, public-private partnerships and destination entertainment.
He is representing himself in the matter and said in his statement he created the filing using ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence agent.
Touissant noted the pro se filing and offered caution.
“While the right to self-representation is fundamental, it comes with significant risks, as pro se litigants may lack the legal expertise to effectively present their case, potentially hampering their own cause,” Toussaint said in his ruling.
He said for Brown to have won a hearing, he would have had to satisfy six requirements of the case, all focusing on irreparable harm without court intervention. Toussaint said Brown’s arguments satisfied none of the requirements.
Court Documents
Click here for the petitioner’s motion
Click here for the court exhibits