Opinion: Municipal courts in Colorado reflect safety as a community

If bad facts make bad laws, then there is no better reason for members of the Colorado General Assembly to reject House Bill 1147, the so-called Fairness & Transparency in Municipal Court bill sponsored by Reps. Javier Mabry and Elizabeth Velasco and Sens. Judy Amabile and Mike Weissman.

In their opinion column (“Fairness in Colorado’s courts should not depend on your ZIP code,” March 26), the senators recycle inaccurate arguments and only present some of the facts. They conveniently omit that Colorado’s 108 home rule municipalities enjoy the constitutional guarantee to set penalties for violations of municipal ordinances to protect their residents and businesses and to run their courts free from state interference. 

Importantly, just because the state chose to arbitrarily reduce or eliminate penalties for state law violations does not mean that home rule municipalities can’t take reasonable steps to protect the people who live and work in them from crimes that are especially troublesome or harmful at home. 

Whether legislators understand or respect home rule is irrelevant, as only Colorado courts can determine any overriding state interest. Art. XX, Sec. 6 of the Colorado Constitution grants home rule municipalities the power to control local matters, including “[t]he imposition, enforcement and collection of fines and penalties for the violation … of any ordinance adopted in pursuance of the charter.” House Bill 1147 represents the state’s inappropriate attempt to declare how this power is a matter of statewide concern.

In an odd twist of logic, the senators inaccurately state the bill “does not violate local control” because counties support it. They quote one county commissioner, speaking on behalf of Colorado Counties, Inc., who suggests that municipal offenders sent to county jail require “county taxpayers to blindly foot the bill,” which conveniently omits the fact that municipalities pay counties for the costs of housing municipal offenders and always have. Since the vast majority of “county taxpayers” reside in municipalities, it is an exceptionally disappointing position for counties to take.

The position also exposes a blind spot. Municipalities spend millions of dollars annually operating their courts to ensure that key local laws are given proper attention. 

If House Bill 1147 is enacted and survives inevitable legal challenges, municipalities may decide to stop supplementing the state justice system with local budgets and choose to only charge crimes under state laws. That would mean thousands of more cases each year for the overburdened, underfunded state court system. This would be a justifiable choice as to how to prioritize local taxpayer funds. 

The bill’s fictitious origin stories seek to villainize municipal courts by suggesting they are a black hole where defendants have no rights and are sent to jail for months for minor crimes. 

The senators repeat falsehoods about a case in Grand Junction where the defendant was allegedly jailed nine months just for “allegedly stealing $10 worth of food and a dog harness.” The rest of the story is that the municipal court afforded the defendant his constitutional rights and made exceptional efforts to accommodate him, even though he regularly ignored accountability for his admitted crimes. 

In that case, according to Grand Junction’s review, the defendant pleaded guilty, and the municipal court imposed a suspended sentence, unsupervised probation and fines — hardly an unjust or burdensome outcome. When the fines went unpaid, the court then allowed for community service as an alternative, but the man failed to do that service or even show up for court. 

Finally, the senators also parrot a misleading proponent talking point about “equal protection” by stating “Coloradans shouldn’t face a 30x longer sentence for minor offenses depending … what side of Sheridan Boulevard they happen to be on.”

Colorado’s equal protection doctrine has never been applied between a municipal ordinance and a similar state law — only two state laws. Like crimes with enhanced penalties for commission in a particular place, a municipal crime has an additional element — commission in the municipality — that distinguishes it for constitutional purposes. Finally, the constitution allows different treatment when there is a rational basis for the distinction, like the need to address criminal activity with more severe negative impacts on a particular community.

Whether state legislators like it or not, residents in municipalities largely support ensuring violations of municipal ordinances are enforced by their local court under policies established by their city council or town board. Those local officials hear directly from residents and business owners, not special interest groups that want a “one size fits all” approach to addressing local crime.

On behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and our 271 member cities and towns — 215 of which operate their own municipal court — I urge legislators to support the principles of home rule and local decision-making and vote “no” on House Bill 1147.

Kevin Bommer, of Arvada, is the executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing all 271 Colorado cities and towns.