Colorado Springs sued over “do-over vote” on recreational marijuana sales

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KRDO) - A local veteran and medical marijuana store owner is suing the City of Colorado Springs over a ballot measure that could overturn previous results legalizing recreational marijuana sales.

In November, voters passed Ballot Question 300, which allowed for recreational weed sales. It passed by 54.68%. There was also another ballot measure opposing recreational marijuana sales which failed by 50.67%.

Some city council members said they felt as though voters may have been confused by the two conflicting questions.

This week, Colorado Springs City Council voted to put the measure back on the ballot in April to clarify; essentially a "do-over vote." On Friday, the group Citizens For Responsible Marijuana Use announced a lawsuit.

The main argument of the lawsuit is that the Colorado Springs City Council violated the Colorado Constitution by deciding to bring the measure to voters once again this coming April.

Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana use statewide in 2012, says cities can prohibit retail marijuana stores, but it must go to voters during a general election in an even-numbered year. The next election in April is not during an even-numbered year.

"It's so specific and direct on this situation. How could anybody have decided to spend the time and energy to refer an initiative to April 1st? My assumption is they just missed it," Tom Scudder is the President of the Colorado Springs Cannabis Association.

The lawsuit also argues that the city violated a city statute by using vague language when adding the measure to the April ballot. Read the full lawsuit here.

As for the city's rationale for holding another vote, Councilman Dave Donelson told KRDO13 several weeks ago that citizens were confused by the language of the two competing ballot measures. Scudder doesn't buy it, pointing to the vote margins of the two respective questions decided last November.

A spokesperson for the city said they will not comment on pending litigation.