Colorado Judge Guts State’s Open Meetings Law – Stuns First Amendment Advocates

A Colorado judge singlehandedly gutted the state’s open meetings law by tossing out a citizen’s lawsuit against a local city council, ruling that the citizen who brought it didn’t have legal standing to complain.

The case involved the Arvada City Council using a secret ballot to fill a vacancy, which is a violation of the state’s open meetings law, according to the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition (CFOIC). Arvada resident Russell Weisfield sued, arguing that the appointment of Jerry Marks to the council was illegal and that Marks should be removed.

Weisfield argued that the prohibition against secret ballots “creates in all citizens a legally protected interest in government transparency and/or knowing what is on a ballot concerning a position or formal action,” according to District Court Judge Margie Enquist’s written ruling.

Trending: Undeniable Evidence: “The College Education System Is On The Fast Track To Destruction… An Obvious Sign Of Economic Crisis Waiting To Happen”

But Enquist ruled that because Weisfield himself wasn’t running for the vacant seat, he didn’t suffer any injury because of the secret balloting.

take our poll - story continues below

Has There Been Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election?

  • Has There Been Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Plaintiff does not articulate any direct, specific impact this voting procedure had on him or his legally-protected interests,” Enquist wrote.

She also disagreed with Weisfield that the Open Meetings Law confers legal standing on every citizen of Colorado, even though the law specifically states “the courts of record of this state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of this section upon application by any citizen of this state.”

Despite dismissing the suit, Enquist wrote that use of the secret ballots “may have” violated the law.

The dismissal left First Amendment advocates stunned.

“If left uncorrected on appeal, the judge’s ruling would essentially render the Open Meetings Law a dead letter, unenforceable by anyone who did not suffer a direct injury as a result of a violation of the statute,” attorney Steve Zansberg said in an article on the CFOIC website. “That is plainly not the intent of, nor the statutory text codified by, the General Assembly.”

Zansberg called the ruling “astounding and breathtaking.”

The city of Arvada maintained that it didn’t violate the law because the anonymous ballots were used to eliminate other candidates. The final unanimous vote for Marks was made in public, according to CFOIC.


Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous Exposed: The Myth of Islamic Victimhood
Next Bill Clinton: Aliens Invading Earth "May Be The Only Way To Unite This Increasingly Divided World"

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.