Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Petitioners Win in Zoning Referendum Hearing
Lakewood has ruled AGAINST PROTESTS challenging zoning referendum petitions – meaning Lakewood ruled IN FAVOR OF THE REFERENDUM. The protesters said they represented the “rule of law” and stood for democracy. Then they argued against the democratic right to referendum. Lakewood and the petitioners cited Colorado Supreme Court case law to uphold the Constitutional right to referendum. Lakewood’s decision means the petitions are sufficient, and City Council must now respond. The first reading of a repeal ordinance is scheduled for 12 January, 2026 Council meeting.
Important note on terminology:
The language in this case is confusing because the protest was filed against the referendum. The referendum itself is a citizen protest to the zoning decision, asking City Council to repeal it.
For clarity in this article:
Petitioners support the referendum.
Protesters support the new zoning and are protesting the referendum.
All Signatures Should Be Disqualified
The protesters alleged that all signatures should be eliminated. They claimed ZERO SIGNATURES were valid. Not one.
The protesters include Kip Kolkmeier, who filed on behalf of Joshua Comden and Reverend Benjamin David Hensley, alleging improper signature gathering and verification. (This is different than the previous complaint which was about campaign finance. Details of the protest allegations can be found in previous Lakewood Informer news.)
The biggest protest was that signatures needed to be legible and verified, rather than just the printed information being legible to verify the voter.
The Hearing Officer aide pointed out early in the hearing that this claim was not made in the officially submitted paperwork. The protestors were talking about a claim that hadn’t really been made. This claim had the potential to disenfranchise 12,000 signers (listen to minute mark 2:26:00)
The official decision did not rule on signature verification claims made in the hearing because they were not part of any official protest (pg 7 of the decision). No signatures were eliminated because they were illegible.
Nonsensical and Unjust
In her opening remarks, attorney Suzanne Taheri, representing the petitioners, emphasized that the right to referendum is protected by the Colorado Constitution and is a core democratic tool. She argued that technical requirements cannot be used to block a constitutional right and cited Colorado Supreme Court precedent supporting that position.
Taheri further explained that technical rules exist to prevent fraud, yet no fraud was alleged by the protesters.
Despite the abundance of case law on the side of the petitioners, the protesters made hours of arguments based on their interpretation of technical requirements.
There were no case law citations, and no examples of where technical arguments were successfully used. Instead, there was repeated – LENGTHY – rhetoric arguing in favor of the rule of law and implying that referendums are undemocratic.
During the hearing, the hearing officer aide pointed out that such arguments were political and useful for social media but not in a legal hearing like this (minute mark 2:22:43). The final decision noted that protesters were “unable to identify any Colorado legal authority in support of this proposition.”
Lakewood’s decision referenced the Colorado Supreme Court case, McClellan v. Meyer, noting that the court has repeatedly rejected efforts to invalidate petitions based on technicalities such as illegible signatures or incomplete addresses, and has called such arguments “nonsensical and unjust.”
“It is not enough that they tried hard. It is not enough that they got a lot of people to fill in information. It is whether the respondents met the legal requirements to put full ordinance repeals on the ballot. Now the petitioners are representing a certain percentage of Lakewood residents. But the protesters are representing the rule of law and representing everyone that resides in Lakewood.” – Kip Kolmeier, opening statement, min 09:24 of the 19 December, 2025, hearing.
“The Right Way” Not Even Possible
In some cases, what the protesters claimed was the only acceptable way to verify signatures was impossible. The protesters claimed that signatures could not be used unless they were compared to the secure, Colorado election ballot signature verification database. City Clerks do not have random access to this state-level database, and so could not comply. NO CITY IN COLORADO COULD COMPLY. This may be a reason that this requirement is not in the municipal code. (listen to minute mark 1:48:43 for audio)
Fishing Expedition
At the hearing, Joshua Comden, a plaintiff, made a prepared presentation describing how he counted signatures and which ones he thought should be thrown out. Comden was presented as something of an expert because he received training.
To find differences in how the protesters and Lakewood verified signatures, the hearing included an intense interrogation of city staff regarding internal processes. However, no one had the final accepted signature lines as evidence. Without the final tally, this line of inquiry was just a fishing expedition that ended in frustration for everyone.
The Hearing Officer aide said, “I don’t think your case is assisted at all by detailing the various ways in which the clerk made the mistake that led to your protest. Your protest stands on its own.” (listen to minute mark 2:19:20 of the hearing)
Regardless of whether Lakewood thought the argument was initially valid, Lakewood re-verified every protested signature.
The protesters also challenged the number of voters on the Jefferson County voter list. The City Clerk said the voter list was previously accepted and cannot be challenged at this point.
No Fraud
All of technical arguments were irrelevant because it didn’t show how any signature was not valid based on fraud. Fraud is traditionally held to be a signature made by someone other than the identified voter (minute mark 2:51:30). Taheri asked if the protesters had contacted anyone who signed the petition or had reason to believe that any signature was made falsely. The answer was always no.
Lakewood cited further case law showing that technical requirements were supposed to prevent fraud, not unduly hamper the right to referendum.
No signatures were eliminated based on fraud.
“Democracy” Gets Redefined
The right to referendum seemed unreasonable to the protesters.
The closing remarks, made by Reverend Ben Hensley (min mark 2:32:30), called the referendum petition a “political temper tantrum” and “ill-conceived.” He said outright what the other protesters hinted at, that the protesters believe these petitions were a “historic abuse” of the initiative and referendum process.
This was an ironic statement coming from the group who said they were fighting for the rule of law and the right to referendum is law according to the Colorado Constitution.
Protesters argued that the democratic process meant abiding by the decisions of elected officials.
Throughout the hearing, the protesters made repeated references to the small group of petition signers rather than the supposed 97% of Lakewood residents who disagreed with the referendum. During questioning of Lakewood staff member, Kolkmeier exclaimed that EVERYONE wanted to know the details of verification to understand how this could have happened.
This discussion of democracy seemed to pick and choose which people were allowed to matter.
Kolkmeier argued vehemently in the previous hearing on campaign finance that public comment should not be allowed during or after the hearing. As an official process, the public have no role. Only evidence presented during the hearing itself should be used for a decision.
This did not stop Kolkmeier from chasing the hearing officer consultant after the hearing to get a final, private word in.
Substantial Compliance
As a final argument, the petitioners proved that they made efforts towards substantial compliance with all the petition requirements. “Substantial compliance” is a legal standard for technical requirements. Invalidating any single signature, let alone whole petitions or groups of signatures, requires a strong legal basis. Protesters offered only technical nitpicking that Colorado courts have already rejected. Courts ruled that people have a right to referendum and no voter should be silenced on a technicality.
Current Status
The protest resulted in an additional 9 signatures being disallowed across the first three petitions. This did not change the result. All petitions are sufficient.
The fourth petition was initially found to be sufficient on Dec 25, 2025. The period for filing a protest is over, with no protest filed. All four petitions are set to be presented to City Council on Monday, January 12, 2026.