On Louisville’s Ballot Questions

Louisville’s registered voters will decide on seven City ballot questions on Election Day (3 November 2026). Ballot question 2B asks voters to continue Louisville’s historic preservation sales tax, and ballot questions 2C through 2H ask voters to amend Louisville’s City Charter. City Council referred all of these questions to November’s ballot following a series of discussions spanning most of the past year. You can review the City’s (forthcoming) information on these ballot questions at this website, and you can find further information on these ballot questions in this City Council meeting packet. Below I review the content of, provide some relevant information on, and explain my perspective on each ballot question. As I summarize at the end of this newsletter, I support some of these ballot questions, and I oppose some of these ballot questions. Louisville’s registered voters will also weigh in on three Boulder County ballot questions and fourteen Colorado State ballot questions, so prepare to persevere. I may explain my perspectives on (some of) these ballot questions in a future newsletter.

Before engaging with each ballot question, I wish to make two general comments on the ballot questions that propose Charter amendments. First, some—or even all—of these ballot questions have been characterized (at times) as housekeeping: cleaning up provisions in the City Charter that have not stood the test of time. I would argue that only ballot question 2H is plausibly housekeeping while all of the other ballot questions present substantive decisions to Louisville’s registered voters. Second, recall that, after Louisville’s registered voters decided that the City should became a home-rule municipality, these voters elected a Charter commission, this commission drafted a City Charter through an established public process, and these voters then adopted this City Charter at the ballot. This past summer at the conclusion of City Council’s discussions, I felt that City Council should have organized a task force—if not another Charter commission—to work through the proposed Charter amendments (and potentially others); for, I am not convinced that City Council sufficiently deliberated and received public input on some of the proposed Charter amendments.

Ballot question 2B

In 2008 Louisville’s registered voters decided to establish a ten-year City sales tax of 0.125% to fund historic preservation; in 2010 Louisville’s registered voters decided to establish a permanent City use tax of 0.125% to fund historic preservation; and in 2017 Louisville’s registered voters decided to continue this sales tax for another decade. The City established a historic preservation program that spends the sales and use tax revenue on landmarking, preservation, and restoration of historic residential and commercial buildings, primarily in Old Town and Downtown Louisville. When voters continued the sales tax in 2017, they also dedicated 20% of its revenue to Louisville’s Historic Museum. With the sales tax expiring at the end of 2028, City Council decided to investigate asking Louisville’s registered voters for a continuation on this November’s ballot. City Council established a task force of diverse residents to explore this possibility. Over two meetings this past summer the task force coalesced around specific recommendations, now reflected in ballot question 2B. In part, these recommendations aim to render the disbursement of the sales tax revenue more equitable and inclusive.

Ballot question 2B asks voters to continue the City’s existing historic preservation sales tax for another decade. While the sales tax would remain at 0.125%, ballot question 2B also asks voters to approve two changes to how its revenue is spent: first, Louisville’s Historic Museum would receive 30% of the sales tax revenue, and, second, some of the remaining sales tax revenue could fund programs and projects the promote and preserve the City’s history and cultural heritage (outside of the City’s historic preservation program for residential and commercial buildings). I voted to refer this question to November’s ballot; all other City Council members also voted to refer this ballot question. Louisville’s historic preservation program depends entirely on this revenue, and Louisville’s Historic Museum depends substantially on this revenue. Louisville’s historic preservation program has proved quite successful, and Louisville’s Historic Museum is a cherished community asset; both warrant our continued support. Accordingly, I still support this ballot question.

Ballot question 2C

An executive session is a meeting of a governmental body, like City Council, that is closed to the public; at an executive session a governmental body can only discuss—but not make decisions about—certain prescribed subjects. City Council holds executive sessions on an irregular basis as the need arises; any City Council member and certain City staff members can request an executive session, but a supermajority of City Council members must agree to convene the meeting. Colorado State law establishes the potential subjects of executive sessions for all governmental bodies within the State. Certain jurisdictions within the State, like home-rule municipalities governed by charters, may decide to allow their local governmental bodies to hold executive sessions on all of these subjects or on any subset of these subjects. Louisville’s City Charter only permits City Council to hold executive sessions on the following subset of subjects: matters legally required to remain confidential under federal or State law, certain City personnel matters, waters rights, property acquisitions and dispositions, and pending litigation. (The Charter further constrains the nature of discussion permitted on these subjects.) Louisville’s City Charter also only permits City boards and commissions to hold executive sessions on pending litigation.

Ballot question 2C asks voters to amend Louisville’s City Charter by expanding the set of prescribed subjects that City Council may discussion in executive session and allowing City Council to set by ordinance the subjects that City boards and commissions may discuss in executive session. Specifically, if approved, ballot question 2C would allow City Council to discuss the full set of subjects established by State law. For instance, City Council would be allowed to discuss City personnel matters, property acquisitions, and property dispositions somewhat more broadly, receive legal advice on any specific legal questions, and strategize on negotiations among a few other additional subjects; the meeting packet linked above contains the detailed language.

I hesitantly voted to refer this question to November’s ballot; all other City Council members also voted to refer this ballot question. My hesitancy stemmed from two primary concerns. First, this Charter amendment would potentially reduce governmental transparency to some degree: City Council could discuss in executive session certain subjects that City Council must now discuss in public. I voted for referral allayed by the fact that any decision on these subjects would still occur in public: the public would still hear (and have the opportunity to comment on) City Council’s deliberations on the decision, though the public might not hear the full depth of these deliberations. Second, Louisville’s Charter Commission was evidently surgical in its recommendation for executive session subjects, and I must presume that this recommendation represents the culmination of considerable thought. Some City Council members maintain that the current limits on executive session subjects have at times disadvantaged the City, particularly the prohibitions on broadly receiving legal advice and strategizing on negotiations. In my almost two-year tenure on City Council, I have yet to encounter a situation in which I would have wanted to convene an executive session on a subject not currently allowed, but all of my fellow City Council members are longer serving. Still, City Council could have been surgical in its recommended expansion of executive session subjects. I also have several secondary concerns about ballot question 2C. For instance, ballot question 2C would diminish Louisville’s local control by tying further changes in executive session subjects to changes in State law, and ballot question 2C could saddle City boards and commissions with legal issues if City Council does not restore their rights to hold executive sessions on pending litigation. In light of these considerations, I no longer support ballot question 2C, but I do not object to ballot question 2C as strongly as I do to some other ballot questions.

Ballot question 2D

Louisville’s City Charter requires that newly elected officials—City Council members and the mayor—be seated at the first City Council meeting following Election Day. (This meeting typically occurs one week later.) With allowances for cured ballots, overseas ballots, and such, the modern election certification process is almost never complete by the time of this meeting. Followed to the letter, this Charter provision could result in the seating of a candidate who is not subsequently certified as the election winner. In this circumstance the candidate would be removed from office and the election winner would be seated; prior to removal, the seated candidate would likely participate in making decisions as part of City Council. To the best of my knowledge, the City has never seated a candidate who did not end up being certified as the election winner. Interestingly, though, when I was first elected to City Council, I won by a narrow margin. Although I was leading the election results at the time of the first meeting following Election Day, the City decided to delay my seating, and outgoing City Council member Bierman graciously volunteered to continue for a few weeks. I suppose that, on the basis of the City Charter, I could have insisted on being seating.

Ballot question 2D asks voters to amend Louisville’s City Charter by requiring that newly elected officials be seated at the first City Council meeting following election certification. For the most part this ballot question admits a straightforward decision: the City should not seat a candidate who has not been certified as the election winner. Yet, by approving ballot question 2D, we would create a lame-duck period of a few weeks for outgoing elected officials. Do the potential downsides of a lame-duck period outweigh the upside of being certain to seat the election winner? A lame-duck period and its potential issues is not ideal, but seating the certified election winner trumps these issues. Accordingly, I voted to refer this question to November’s ballot, and I continue to support this Charter amendment; all other City Council members also voted to refer this ballot question.

Ballot question 2E

Colorado’s State Constitution guarantees the rights of initiative and referendum to all residents. The right of initiative allows residents to propose legislation of their own crafting as a ballot question provided that sufficiently many residents indicate their support by signing an initiative petition. The right of referendum allows residents to challenge a governmental body’s decision as a ballot question provided that sufficiently many residents indicate their support by signing a referendum petition. The State Constitution allows for some freedom of implementation of these rights. In particular, home-rule municipalities may set the number of signatures required for an initiative or referendum petition within a prescribed range. Louisville’s City Charter requires a number of signatures for initiative petitions equal to 5% of the number of registered voters and a number of signatures for referendum petitions equal to 2.5% of the number of registered voters. Ballot question 2E asks voters to amend Louisville’s City Charter by increasing the percentage for initiatives to 7.5% and the percentage for referendums to 5%.

I voted against referring this question to November’s ballot; all other City Council members voted to refer this ballot question. My vote did not reflect a preference for direct—as opposed to representative—democracy of which initiatives and referendums are prime examples; quite the contrary, I would argue that our representatives should make most decisions. Indeed, the opposition of direct and representative democracy is not relevant: the State Constitution guarantees these two forms of direct democracy as I have explained above. Rather, at question is a threshold for these two forms of direct democracy. My vote reflected a lack of convincing arguments for raising this threshold at present.

Some have argued that Louisville residents can too easily file initiative and referendum petitions, especially in comparison to residents of nearby municipalities. Ultimately, this argument does not have a definite resolution—how can one define ‘too easily’ in a rigorous way?—but, in my personal opinion, its proponents have not provided convincing evidence. (The comparison to nearby municipalities is also more nuanced than an initial analysis suggests.) First of all, as the only sitting City Council member possessing direct experience with City initiatives and referendums, I will attest that collecting signatures is not particularly easy. For my initiative to limit the number of gasoline stations in Louisville, my team of volunteers and I had only collected a few hundred signatures when we abandoned the effort in response to City Council’s adoption of a similar ordinance. For the Redtail Ridge referendum, having only lived in Louisville for about two years, primarily during the COVID pandemic, I only managed to collect about a dozen signatures. Furthermore, since the City clerk will be unable to certify some number of collected signatures, a petitioner must overcollect signatures by a fair margin. Some have argued further that technological innovations (since adoption of Louisville’s City Charter), like social media, have facilitated signature collection. This argument is likely valid, yet such innovations have been available for decades; why should we increase the petition signature thresholds only now? Second, over the past fifty years on the order of ten initiatives and referendums have garnered sufficient signatures to reach City Council or the ballot. This rate of direct democratic activity does not strike me as particularly high. Moreover, the initiatives and referendums approved at the ballot have largely benefited Louisville, for instance, by establishing an ethics code for elected officials and leading to the creation of cherished open spaces. Some have argued specifically that the situation surrounding last year’s ballot questions 300 and 301, both of which resulted from initiatives, lends particular support to this line of reasoning. Both of these initiatives failed at the ballot by significant margins, yet these margins were not nearly so significant as to prevent these initiatives from garnering sufficient petition signatures to reach the ballot even with increased thresholds.

My vote not to refer this question to November’s ballot also reflected a concern for the political appearances of raising the petition signature threshold for initiatives at present. Across the United States our rights to representation are under attack in many cases by those we elected to represent us. I am most definitely not suggesting that ballot question 2E is a prong of this attack, yet ballot question 2E has the semblance of just such a prong. In concert with many others, these attacks have eroded and continue to erode the system of checks and balances built into our government. Initiatives and referendums serve as checks on the power of our representatives. Increasing the signature requirements for initiative and referendum petitions shifts the balance of power from residents to our representatives. Again, some may be comfortable with this shift, but we should at least clearly recognize this shift, and we should resist this shift unless well-motivated. Across the United States the influence and power of monied interests continues to mount. Increasing the signature requirements for initiative and referendum petitions also shifts the balance of power from residents-led groups to monied interest-led groups. While the latter are typically advantaged for any petition signature threshold, this advantage probably increases nonlinearly with this threshold. Residents should retain their power, not give their power away, most especially at present.

For these reasons I continue to oppose ballot question 2E.

Ballot question 2F

Louisville’s City Charter requires that all public meetings of the City’s governmental bodies—City Council, boards, commissions, task forces, et cetera—occur in public buildings within Louisville. While this Charter provision is eminently justified for the vast majority of meetings, there is at least one circumstance in which the provision proves restrictive. City Council, boards, and commissions occasionally hold joint meetings with governmental bodies from other jurisdictions like our neighboring municipalities of Lafayette and Superior; the City Charter requires that these joint meetings occur in a public building within Louisville. If we occasionally host a governmental body from another jurisdiction, then another jurisdiction should be allowed to occasionally host a governmental body from Louisville.

Ballot question 2F asks voters to amend Louisville’s City Charter by allowing public meetings of the City’s governmental bodies to occur in any location accessible to all members of the public. The members of one of the City’s governmental body would vote to hold a public meeting of their body at a location other than a public building in Louisville. The decision to hold a public meeting elsewhere would not affect requirements like proper notice, public participation, and required documentation. I voted to refer this question to November’s ballot; all other City Council members also voted to refer this ballot question. Subsequent conversations and further consideration have led to me conclude that City Council did not craft satisfactory language for this proposed Charter amendment. The stipulation of “locations accessible to all members of the public” is necessary but not sufficient: locations must also be inclusive of and safe for all members of the public. For instance, one of the City’s governmental bodies could decide to hold a meeting at a place of worship, but some members of the public might not find such a location to be welcoming. Of course, in debating whether to hold a meeting at an another location, one of the City’s governmental bodies could—and should—weigh these other criteria, but this body could still disregard, purposefully or ignorantly, such criteria. I would support a narrower expansion of permissible meeting locations—for instance, allowing meetings in public buildings in neighboring municipalities—but I no longer support ballot question 2F.

Ballot question 2G

Louisville’s City Charter dictates procedures for residents to follow in pursuit of an initiative or referendum. Schematically, a resident must file a draft initiative or referendum with the City clerk, and the City clerk must determine whether this draft meets the established criteria. If the City clerk disapproves the draft’s form, then the resident must file a revised draft; if the City clerk approves the draft’s form, then the resident may begin to collect petition signatures. The resident (potentially aided by others) has a fixed period of time to collect signatures starting from submission of a first draft. Ballot question 2G asks voters to amend Louisville’s City Charter by including an additional step in this process for initiatives: a nonbinding review of the proposed initiative by City staff at a public meeting prior to filing with the City clerk.

I voted against referring this question to November’s ballot; all other City Council members voted to refer this ballot question. The idea that ballot question 2G attempts to capture has merit: any resident pursuing an initiative would benefit from the insights of City staff, and all other residents would benefit from the opportunity to learn about a potential initiative. I remain unconvinced, however, that this idea is appropriately implemented in ballot question 2G. First of all, this process could become an unintended form of gatekeeping, effectively dissuading residents from pursuing initiatives, especially those who might be intimidated by having their proposals critiqued by City staff at a public meeting. Moreover, this process could become an unintended form of delay, effectively stalling initiatives by requiring additional public review of revised proposals. Even if such issues could be effectively addressed, the review by City staff at a public meeting lacks guardrails and guidance. For instance, should the City clerk be allowed to participate? Or, if the proposed initiative would affect a certain City department, then should City staff from this department be allowed to participate? While I can imagine supporting a more thoroughly considered version of this ballot question, I still cannot support the proposed version.

Ballot question 2H

Since Louisville’s registered voters adopted the City Charter (and some subsequent amendments), language preferences and governmental practices have changed. Ballot question 2H asks voters to amend Louisville’s City Charter by replacing instances of gendered pronouns with nongendered pronouns, two instances of “citizens” with “members of the public”, “City offices” with “City clerk’s office and City website”, and instances of “on television” with “virtually”. The first replacement, while perhaps not completely uncontroversial, represents an update to modern standards. The second replacement, although representing a clear change of intent, renders the Charter more inclusive. The third replacement provides more specific, updated locations, and the fourth replacement represents an update for modern meeting practices. I voted to refer this question to November’s ballot; all other City Council members also voted to refer this ballot question. I continue to support this Charter amendment.

To summarize, I support ballot questions 2B, 2D, and 2H, and I oppose ballot questions 2C, 2E, 2F, and 2G.