Douglas County voters have begun to receive ballots for a June 24 special election that could change how the county is governed.
Introduced by county commissioners in March, the home rule vote has grown into a countywide conversation marked by division and debate. The ballot asks whether the county should write its own home rule charter — and if so, who should help write it.
Nearly 9,000 residents attended or livestreamed a county-hosted town hall on May 28 designed to explain the home rule process. Commissioner Abe Laydon opened the meeting by framing the measure as a chance to reclaim local autonomy.
“It’s not that deep. This is all about local control,” he said. “Are we OK with how the state handled the COVID pandemic? And are we OK with how the state has enabled illegal immigration?”
County Attorney Jeff Garcia followed with a 30-minute presentation on the legal and procedural mechanics of home rule. But as the meeting moved into public comment, tensions rose. Only six questions were taken, leaving more residents in line, and the session ended with commissioners calling for order as attendees demanded additional time to speak.
One resident who did get to ask a question during the public comment period challenged both the need for structural change and the tone of the presentation.
“It was very clear to me … that you’re trying to sell this to us, and that’s not your job as a county attorney,” the attendee said.
In response, Garcia acknowledged that the process could bring legal risk — but said that the potential benefits to residents outweigh the uncertainty.
“There’s a chance the charter oversteps and we have to defend ourselves,” Garcia said. “But if it’s for the betterment of the residents, I know our … commissioners are OK with my office taking that on.”
Garcia also acknowledged the financial reality of the June election, which is expected to cost up to $500,000.
Some residents have criticized the decision to hold a special election instead of waiting until November, when a general election is already scheduled. At a May 27 Douglas County School District meeting in Highlands Ranch, several residents raised concerns over the election’s price tag and whether home rule could expand county power in ways that threaten school funding, safety planning, and public education.
A group called Stop the DougCo Power Grab has staged multiple protests ahead of the special election, citing similar concerns.
“We’re not anti-home rule. We honestly don’t even know enough about it,” said member Kelly Mayr in an interview with CBS Colorado. “The problem is they pushed for a special election in June … What’s the rush?”
In the same segment with CBS Colorado, Commissioner George Teal said he believes “there is a silent majority that is very much in favor of home rule.”
A recent survey of 3,617 residents found public opinion divided. When asked whether they support a home rule charter, 54% said no and 44% said yes. Support weakened when specific policy proposals were introduced. For example, 61% said they would be less likely to support home rule if it included a ban on employee unions, and 52% said the same about a proposal to expand immigration enforcement. One exception was a provision to protect gun rights, which received 53% support.
The Yes on Local Control committee, which supports the establishment of home rule in Douglas County in the June 24 special election, has received about $110,000 from its five donors.
Several elected officials — including Commissioners Abe Laydon, George Teal and Kevin Van Winkle; Sheriff Darren Weekly; Treasurer Dave Gill; and Assessor Toby Damisch — are not only endorsing the home rule measure, but running for seats on the charter commission. There are more than 40 candidates for the commission listed on the county’s home rule information page.
Because the charter hasn’t been written yet, its potential contents have fueled speculation from both home rule supporters and opposition.
During the May town hall, Weekly said a home rule charter could allow Douglas County to codify public safety standards, such as minimum staffing levels for law enforcement. Damisch added that it could give the county more leverage in disputes with the state over property taxes.
Commissioners said they would not support changes to term limits, elected positions or officials’ salaries being written into a charter.
They also responded to questions about how a county-level charter might interact with municipal governments. One resident asked whether it would impact home rule towns like Castle Rock or Parker. Laydon clarified that it would primarily affect unincorporated areas, such as Highlands Ranch, unless municipalities opted into certain aspects of the charter.
“They already have methods laid out in their municipal charters on how to adopt changes,” he said. “The effect on any of our municipalities … will be very minimal.”
Some residents wondered whether home rule could revive past development battles — namely the controversial Renewable Water Resources (RWR) proposal to import water from the San Luis Valley. Laydon and Teal rejected that claim.
“RWR is dead,” Teal said. “Home rule will have no effect on engaging with Renewable Water Resources … It’s only being brought up as a fear-mongering technique by those opposed.”
If a majority of voters approve the June 24 measure, the newly elected commission will begin drafting the charter this summer. The drafting process will include three mandatory public hearings to provide opportunity for public comment. A final version would go before voters again in November.
Until then, the county remains in a holding pattern — debating not just whether home rule is a good idea, but who should decide how Douglas County governs itself.