Colorado Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal From Housing Activists Who Claimed Inaccurate Election Guidance Doomed Their Ballot Initiative

City officials repeatedly gave activists false information about the requirements for getting their initiative on the ballot.


Activists in Boulder, Colorado, wanted to eliminate their city's restrictions on unrelated people living together. Unfortunately, city officials and the state Supreme Court have prevented their initiative from being on the ballot come November.

In late August, the Supreme Court had initially agreed to hear an appeal from Boulder activists arguing that inaccurate election guidance from city officials prevented their measure from receiving a public vote. On Friday, the court dismissed the appeal, saying in a three-sentence order that "unresolved factual disputes" precluded it from properly ruling on the case.

"It's pretty stunning. Clearly the court took up the case because there was an injustice here," Eric Budd, one of the activists suing Boulder officials on behalf of the Bedrooms Are For People campaign, tells Reason. "The facts were laid out; the facts were agreed to by both parties…our appeal to the Supreme Court was the argument that it should correct this injustice here."

Friday's decision means that Boulder's existing occupancy regulation—which caps the number of unrelated people who can live together at three or four in most areas of the city—will be safe from a popular test at the ballot box.

These occupancy limits are commonly used in college towns like Boulder to prevent single-family homes from being used as student housing. They also limit the supply of housing available to renters and leave tenants and landlords who do violate these occupancy limits vulnerable to evictions or fines.

In March, the Bedrooms Are For People campaign received permission to start collecting signatures for an initiative that would amend the city's charter. Their measure would establish a new occupancy limit of one person per bedroom plus one additional occupant. Homes with fewer than four bedrooms could have up to four occupants under their initiative, which would not impose any limits on related people living together.

Complicating things is whether state election law or Boulder's own city charter should control how many signatures must be collected to be placed on the ballot, how long those signatures must be collected, and when they must be turned in.

Exclusive reliance on state law would have required the Bedrooms Are For People campaign to collect either 4,048 or 8,096 signatures (depending on whether this year's election counted as a special election) by June 22, and then turn those signatures in to the city clerk by August 5. The city's charter and local regulations would have required 3,337 signatures to be collected and turned in by June 5.

Initial election guidance issued by City Attorney Tom Carr relied on a blend of state and local election law to give petitioners as much time as possible to qualify for the ballot. In official city guidance and communications from city staff, the Bedrooms Are For People campaign was told they had until August 5 to turn in 4,048 signatures.

On July 29, the campaign submitted 7,764 signatures to the City Clerk.

However, beginning in April, opponents of the initiative complained that the city's decision to pick and choose a mix of state and local standards was improper and that the Bedrooms Are For People campaign should be forced to meet more stringent state requirements.

Throughout May and June, city officials insisted that, regardless of the legal confusion, their initial guidance of turning in 4,048 signatures by August 5 was all that was required of the Bedrooms Are For People campaign.

But in an early July email, Carr reversed himself, saying that Boulder's local regulations controlled the conditions for qualifying initiatives for the local ballot. That meant that the Bedrooms Are For People overshot its June 5 deadline to turn in signatures by over a month.

Later in July, seemingly to add to the confusion, five members of Boulder City Council indicated they believed that state law controlled the qualifications for charter amendments being placed on the local ballot.

In response, Bedrooms Are For People activists sued in early August, arguing that because they had reasonably relied on the initial election guidance, the city was bound to honor that guidance, regardless of the differing standards in state or local law.

In an August 14 opinion, Boulder District Court Judge Andrew Macdonald disagreed, saying that while "there is no doubt that the city repeatedly provided incorrect information to plaintiffs," this incorrect information was a misinterpretation of the law, not a misstatement of facts. And because the city didn't provide activists with any materially untrue information (only legally incorrect guidance), MacDonald reasoned that the campaign wasn't entitled to any relief. He also noted that had the city relied on either state or local election law, the Bedrooms Are For People campaign would have failed to qualify for the ballot.

The Bedrooms Are For People campaign filed an appeal less than a week later to have the Supreme Court review the case, which the court initially accepted. Their Friday decision to dismiss the appeal means that the lower court's decision stands, and the Bedrooms Are For People initiative will remain off the ballot.

"Our appeal was really about how we trusted city election officials and city council members to give us accurate guidance and uphold direct democracy by standing by the guidance that was provided," says Chelsea Castellano, a plaintiff in the Bedrooms Are For People lawsuit. "The system didn't work for us at all at any point during this process of trying to exercise our right to direct democracy."

Budd and Castellano say that with their legal challenge now at a dead end, they will devote their energies to electing city council members who are more amenable to reforming the city's occupancy limits. Doing so is imperative to keeping people housed in a city that's long suffered from a lack of affordable units, they say.

NEXT: How Are Social Media Companies Supposed To Handle Government-Sponsored Misinformation?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink… strive it, you HERE? Read More

  2. If the IRS gives you bad advice, you are still paying the fines and penalties, and maybe going to jail.


    1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h…MIc someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

      strive it, you HERE?…..

  3. Democrats. Feh.

  4. We had an apartment down the street rented to a woman who ended up never living there but 20 or more adults were there. The old bag who owned the place started losing money but couldn’t get rid of them until the lease was up. There were two sets of washers in the house, going day and night, my understanding that someone was taking in laundry. Seems everyone there had a car, one guy had three. The kicker was it was section 8.

    1. How was she losing money?

      1. The water and other utilities.

      2. Also she couldn’t rent out the other apartment due to the mess with the first.

  5. Hey, you f*cked up. You trusted us.

  6. This is the right decision. If incorrect guidance by city officials could override law, it would mean that city officials could simply make up law. They could even give favorable terms to people they like and unfavorable terms to people they don’t like.

    1. At the same time, they should have an obligation to provide correct information, and the campaign wasn’t wrong in relying on what city officials told them.

      I don’t believe the ‘it was just guidance’ nonsense. The campaign asked the city what the law is. The city told them. The city told them the wrong thing, but that’s on the city, not the campaign.

      The correct court decision would have:
      1. Corrected the city on what the law actually is
      2. Still let the campaign’s question go on the ballot, because they got an official answer that was wrong and that they reasonably relied on.

      This isn’t a ‘the city can make up whatever they want’, it’s ‘the city screwed the pooch, but the campaign shouldn’t be held responsible for that’. And now everyone knows going forward what the law actually is. (And the city sure as heck better not get it wrong again).

    2. I would agree in general. They should follow the law. However, we also should rely on the principle of good faith. The city made a large scale mistake in interpreting their own law, which they SHOULD be experts in. They repeatedly confirmed this mistake when asked. (As an aside, though, they should have gone with the most restrictive requirements, submitting the 3700 signatures by June 5th and as many as possible by the state deadline)

      Then, as a secondary factor, the fact that they greatly exceeded the number of signatures needed also indicates that the June 5th deadline would have been possible if the campaign had not received the false information.

      I agree, this sort of interpretation would be very exploitable, and if it was deliberate, I would agree with your thoughts, NOYB2. However, since it appears to be a clear and honest mistake, we should let it on the ballot in the interest of Justice.

  7. While the Boulder city government is trash, there’s little chance Boulder voters would have approved a measure that would have ensured falling property values. Even if, by some miracle, they managed to get their measure passed they would have come back with another set of signatures, from college students, trying to get rent frozen within a year.

    Also, last I checked, you can rent a lot cheaper if you don’t want to live in Boulder, which is going to be massively expensive no matter what. Doubling the occupancy so people can live in the laundry room isn’t a great solution.

    Sometimes, both sides really are retarded.

    1. “While the Boulder city government is trash, there’s little chance Boulder voters would have approved a measure that would have ensured falling property values.”

      Irrelevant. Most likely students are able to vote.

  8. Was there a way for a reasonable person, or even a lawyer, to determine unambiguously what the requirements were? Or was it a situation where the court actually decided what the law was, and it was unsettled until then? Could the litigants have gotten a declaratory judgment?

    1. In general, when you have multiple requirements, the most restrictive applies. That’s an almost universal rule.

      In this case, they should have submitted the 3377 signatures by June 5th. If they didn’t have all 4,048 on 6/5, they should have submitted the remainder by the state deadline.

  9. After being fired from my old job 4 months ago, i’ve had luck to learn about this great company online that was a lifesaver for me… They offer online home-based work. My last month payment after working with them for 6 months was 12000 bucks… Great thing about it was that only requirement for the job is basic typing and reliable internet…If you think this could be for you then find out more here…


  10. The Colorado Supreme Court has historically been opposed to citizen initiatives and referenda, and has routinely found reasons to block citizen legislative efforts. The Court thinks that citizens should do what they are told and leave law-making to elected “representatives.” It is never a surprise when they rule against citizen efforts.

  11. Ya’ll smoked too much of yo fine weed and didn’t read da fine print. Werd.

  12. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…Click here.

  13. This an exceptionally useful blog I am feeling cheerful perusing this post. I am glad to discover your blog I was searching for data like this. Great work continues composing like this later on. Much appreciated.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.