AURORA | Aurorans will be asked this fall whether they support replacing the city’s ban on people with any felony convictions running for City Council with a ban targeting convictions for crimes related to corruption, after a court ruled the existing ban is unconstitutional.
The proposed change to Aurora’s home-rule charter is more or less a formality, as the city is unable to enforce its existing ban, and the state’s constitution already disqualifies candidates who have been convicted of the crimes enumerated in the new ban.
George Koumantakis, an attorney for the city, told the City Council during a meeting in June that the item had to go on the fall ballot regardless in order for the city to comply with a district court order.
Aurora’s charter states in part that “a person who has been convicted of a felony shall not become a candidate for nor hold elective office.” Candice Bailey — an Aurora activist leader who in 1999 was convicted of second-degree assault and sentenced to two years in prison — challenged the charter rule last year with the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union.
In March, 18th Judicial District Judge John Scipione sided with Bailey and the ACLU, saying that generally disqualifying felons from holding office violated the state’s constitution.
The proposed charter change, coming before voters this fall as City of Aurora Ballot Question 3A, would disqualify candidates who have been convicted of embezzlement of public money, bribery, perjury, solicitation of bribery or subornation of perjury, rather than all felons.
The item will appear on the general election ballots of Aurora voters. Colorado’s general election is scheduled to take place Nov. 8.
What a mess. Bureaucracy is so silly. So the state says we can’t stop felons from running for Council, and the state also says we can’t comply with the state unless the voters amend the charter. So what happens if the majority of Aurora voters don’t understand and they vote to defy the Colorado constitution? Are we all just lawbreakers then? Are the state troopers going to charge the Aurora Council or something – or are we going to have to pay fines to the state forever because we can’t comply?
My understanding is nothing will happen if voters don’t approve the item. The current ban on all felons running for office is unenforceable, and the state’s ban targeting people who have been convicted of those specific crimes is already in effect. Aurora is just complying with a court order.
– Max
careful with those facts, Max. our aurora conservative uniformed republicans can’t understand facts.
I bet they understand spelling better than you do. Unless there are Republicans on the council wearing uniforms.
“Committing a felony crime can put a black mark on your record that could potentially last a lifetime. Unfortunately, as serious as a felony crime is, they are wide spread, and often the guilty party has no idea that they are committing a felony. So, to help sort it all out, below is a list of 14 of the most common felonies along with the punishments they bring.
Some felony crimes are obvious to identify, while others you may not have realized are classified as felonies rather than misdemeanors. There is a massive difference in the punishments for a misdemeanor compared to a felony. For example, a misdemeanor comes with a maximum of one year in prison. Perpetrating a felony can often lead to federal imprisonment with considerable jail time. If you’re fortunate enough to have a quality lawyer, though, a felony could be reduced to a misdemeanor resulting in a fine rather than jail time.
I would like to see the change banning specific felonies rather then just those related to political office.
Herb, a good question. It sounds as from the state’s perspective of general guidance and oversite from the state AG’s office, they should have sued Aurora, not Bailey. The Ag’s office is deep into the overseeing operations in APD already, so why hesitate to take on this? I’m curious when Bailey was turned away from her being denied on the ballot if she asked AG Weiser to see to that the state laws were enforced. Thats what they do. Bailey ended up at the ACLU. We never saw any letters of her denial from Aurora, it was communicated over the phone, I guess.
I think it is a start and it certainly isn’t any worse than voters electing incompetent candidates as we see over and over again based on their fears and biases.
I guess what I don’t understand is how it’s unconstitutional not to allow a convicted criminal to run for an elected office.