News
Opinion
It is prescribed under Sec. 5, Art. II of the Constitution of the state of Colorado that all elections shall be free and open. No power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. “Suffrage” is the right to vote in all elections without interference by a civil authority or power.
Assuming that the Colorado Constitution has application to elections held by the town of Eagle by way of referendum, may the municipality interfere or intrude into the electoral market place to curry favor for the purpose of accrediting or validating its legislative fiat (approval of the ERS application)?
It would seem that the municipality, as a body politic, may not do so.
But what about the activities of its governmental representatives (the trustees) themselves? May they, as individuals, campaign, remonstrate or publicly support or oppose an election issue for which they legislated into being as the result of their official capacity in government (as trustees)?
I would certainly hope that they could and would, since it is Constitutionally mandated that elections be open. Furthermore, representatives must be accessible to the people, not only for enlightenment, but also to provide explanation for prior legislative acts.
So why did Scott Hunn and Yuri Kostick vote against approval? Or why did Ed Woodland et al vote for its approval?
After the majority of trustees approved the ERS application, and referred it to the people for final resolution, they (trustees) were not disenfranchised as citizens with rights of suffrage merely because they previously acted as representatives. The republican authority to legislate subsumes the citizen's democratic right of suffrage in the first place.
After many years, I have observed that the electoral process is rather fragile, and fraught with occasions for abuse, such as biased ballot language, manufactured votes, civil rights violations, voter disqualifications, etc. Therefore, governmental authorities must be chary about interfering in the process. The vote must be that of the people free from the influence of governmental offices.
If we assume that the town of Eagle used its offices and assets to enter into the electoral process, either by way of cooperation and/or coordination with a private political organization (proponents of ERS), or provided a ministerial or secretarial service thereto for the purpose of swaying public opinion to justify or cooberate its legislative act of approval, then it would appear that the mandated open and free election process has been compromised -- not by the individual trustees as resident/citizens, but by the offices they hold.
For the upcoming election to be fair, free and open, the opponents of ERS (as a political organization) must not be disadvantaged by the town's unwarranted cooperation with the proponents or supporters of its decision of approval.
In 1916 the Supreme Court of Colorado held that there can be no free and open election in precincts where the legitimate activity of a political organization is interfered with, and its members excluded either by private interests or public agencies, or by the cooperation of both.
Where the proponents of ERS solicited and received the benefit of the town's cooperation in arranging pro-ERS meetings with prospective voters through e-mail lists compiled by the town via taxpayer funds, then by judicial definition there can be no free and open election on the issue come Jan. 5, 2010.
Were I allowed to vote in this election, I would be that uninvited opponent of ERS at the developer's party for want of being on its list of preferred voters, compliments of the town of Eagle.
Fredric Butler
Eby Creek Mesa
Assuming that the Colorado Constitution has application to elections held by the town of Eagle by way of referendum, may the municipality interfere or intrude into the electoral market place to curry favor for the purpose of accrediting or validating its legislative fiat (approval of the ERS application)?
It would seem that the municipality, as a body politic, may not do so.
But what about the activities of its governmental representatives (the trustees) themselves? May they, as individuals, campaign, remonstrate or publicly support or oppose an election issue for which they legislated into being as the result of their official capacity in government (as trustees)?
I would certainly hope that they could and would, since it is Constitutionally mandated that elections be open. Furthermore, representatives must be accessible to the people, not only for enlightenment, but also to provide explanation for prior legislative acts.
So why did Scott Hunn and Yuri Kostick vote against approval? Or why did Ed Woodland et al vote for its approval?
After the majority of trustees approved the ERS application, and referred it to the people for final resolution, they (trustees) were not disenfranchised as citizens with rights of suffrage merely because they previously acted as representatives. The republican authority to legislate subsumes the citizen's democratic right of suffrage in the first place.
After many years, I have observed that the electoral process is rather fragile, and fraught with occasions for abuse, such as biased ballot language, manufactured votes, civil rights violations, voter disqualifications, etc. Therefore, governmental authorities must be chary about interfering in the process. The vote must be that of the people free from the influence of governmental offices.
If we assume that the town of Eagle used its offices and assets to enter into the electoral process, either by way of cooperation and/or coordination with a private political organization (proponents of ERS), or provided a ministerial or secretarial service thereto for the purpose of swaying public opinion to justify or cooberate its legislative act of approval, then it would appear that the mandated open and free election process has been compromised -- not by the individual trustees as resident/citizens, but by the offices they hold.
For the upcoming election to be fair, free and open, the opponents of ERS (as a political organization) must not be disadvantaged by the town's unwarranted cooperation with the proponents or supporters of its decision of approval.
In 1916 the Supreme Court of Colorado held that there can be no free and open election in precincts where the legitimate activity of a political organization is interfered with, and its members excluded either by private interests or public agencies, or by the cooperation of both.
Where the proponents of ERS solicited and received the benefit of the town's cooperation in arranging pro-ERS meetings with prospective voters through e-mail lists compiled by the town via taxpayer funds, then by judicial definition there can be no free and open election on the issue come Jan. 5, 2010.
Were I allowed to vote in this election, I would be that uninvited opponent of ERS at the developer's party for want of being on its list of preferred voters, compliments of the town of Eagle.
Fredric Butler
Eby Creek Mesa
