Council nearer to referring impound initiative to voters
By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 08:53 p.m., May 12, 2008
Updated 11:43 p.m., May 12, 2008
An initiative that would require Denver police to impound the vehicles of unlicensed drivers - a measure aimed at illegal immigrants - is one step closer to appearing on the August ballot.
The City Council voted 9-3 on first reading Monday to refer the initiative to voters. It is up for a second reading next week.
The three who voted in opposition - Rick Garcia, Chris Nevitt and Judy Montero - violated the city charter in the process.
By charter, the council has only two options when dealing with a citizen's initiative: refer it to voters or adopt it by ordinance.
Montero said she couldn't vote any other way because the proposal goes against her moral conscience.
"I feel so strongly because I feel that the intent is unfair," she said. "The intent is to target a certain group of people and I think that that is inherently wrong."
Some of the other council members who voted in favor shared a similar sentiment but said they had no other choice.
Council members have been in a similar predicament before.
Last year, for example, council President Michael Hancock abstained from voting on whether or not to refer to voters an initiative that would make adult possession of less than an ounce of marijuana Denver's "lowest law enforcement priority."
The initiative was approved by voters, but police are still making arrests under state law.
The council may be able to skip the ministerial duty in the future under a proposal by Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz, who has asked Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell to draft a referred charter amendment that would take the council out of the process.
"This has been building," she said.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
May 12, 2008
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Note the last names of two of the councilpersons....
They have shown that they are loyal to the Red, White and GREEN.
Maybe they should make a " run for the border "...
May 12, 2008
9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Milehighguy writes:
Sanctuary cities and those that blatantly defy enforcing the law (driving without a license is against the law, last time I checked), will slowly become obsolete.
Law abiding citizens are begining to speak up and have always outnumbered those that want to protect illegal aliens or create laws that favor illegals. I am surprised at how far some will go, even shaming their own selves and city positions, in favor of their Amigos.
May 12, 2008
9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Well I think it is a fair law to enact having been hit twice by uninsured motorist.Also what is fair to me when I have to pay for insurance to be legal.If it is good enough for me to be insured why not them.It is not against one group it is against many of the uninsured drivers.This means if you are uninsured red,purple,green no matter what you color it is the law.What was fair when I got hit and my cars was totaled and I had to ride a bike to work because my insurance refused to pay a settlement on the loss of my car.The second time it was a old african american woman who said it was my fault I'll pay for everything.Then her nephew called and threatened me and said I would die if I did not leave her alone.So what was fair about that.The law is more fair no insurance lose your car seem fair to me.Also how about a law against old junky smoking cars to.I always seem to be following some low economic person in a smoking heap.How about take that one off the road and save the enviroment and my lungs.
May 12, 2008
10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
280Pagoda writes:
So, they debate water bottles for weeks, and s-l-o-w-l-y come to the conclusion over a period of months that $117,000 a year for bottled water isn't green, so they buy reusable bottles.
Meanwhile, about those pesky voters wanting something done about all those uninsured cars (estimated up to 30%) and cars without licensed drivers (estimated at 10%)... Gee, I guess if you make me I will vote to let the voters vote. That's leadership? With three of the "decision-makers" violating the City Charter to preserve the status quo? Montero declares it goes against her moral conscience?
Maybe there is something in the water. These folks are all wet.
May 12, 2008
11:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
gethoht writes:
I like the idea of letting the voters vote on these initiatives. It seems to make for good law. I don't see the harm in impounding unlicensed motorist's cars. Other places I've lived had similar laws. I guess it doesn't bother me because I'm an insured, licensed motorist. As for it "targeting a certain group of people"... this law most certainly is targeting a certain group of people, it's targeting people who drive without a license.
May 12, 2008
11:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Coloheart writes:
Are they to be considered unlicensed if they have a Mexican drivers license?
Are we talking insurance here or licenses?
May 13, 2008
5:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Isn't having a Mexican drivers license sort of like having a Kmart credit card? It's only good at one place.
May 13, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
airbornebigfoot writes:
you can make all the laws you want, when these targeted people dont speak, read, or write in the english language, it really doesnt matter.
I wish they would impound all of their vehicles when they are caught.
then the state could have vehicle auctions, and use the revenue
to hire more officers to enforce the law.
May 13, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
On the spot ..impound / tow.