The court may have ended the No Secret Police ballot measure, but it did not end the debate that inspired it.
The movement emerged after Durango residents learned that masked federal agents arrested a Colombian father and his two children on their way to school in October 2025 and then witnessed a confrontation outside the local ICE facility. City Council responded by creating an Immigration Task Force to support immigrant families.
Protesters locked facility gates and attempted to prevent vehicles from leaving. Not every action that day was lawful. But many residents viewed the federal response as disproportionate, aggressive and out of character with our community.
Pepper spray and physical force were used against demonstrators. Youths, seniors and bystanders were caught up in the chaos. Federal officer Nicholas Rice now faces criminal charges stemming from allegations that he grabbed Franci Stagi by the hair, threw her cellphone and pushed her down an embankment.
Those events sparked months of civic engagement.
Community groups expanded rapid-response networks. Volunteers monitor bus stops and neighborhoods where immigrant families fear detentions (Herald, May 26). More than 1,700 residents signed the No Secret Police petition because they believed government agents should identify themselves. They wanted accountability, transparency and a response from local leaders.
The initiative’s path to the ballot ended May 15, when District Judge Reid Stewart ruled that the proposed ordinance was administrative rather than legislative and therefore ineligible for the ballot (Herald, May 16).
The court did not weigh the ordinance’s merits. It answered whether the proposal qualified for the initiative process.
Some residents viewed the city’s declaratory judgment request as a lawsuit against citizens. It was not. Petition organizers appeared in the filing because interested parties had to be named. The city’s request sought judicial guidance on a novel legal question, not damages or punishment. According to City Attorney Mark Morgan, Durango was the first local jurisdiction to confront this issue.
The ruling arrived just as ballots were about to be printed. Without clarification, taxpayers could have spent $60,000 to $70,000 on an election for a measure later found ineligible for the ballot. The city spent about $20,000 on outside legal review rather than risk a far costlier invalid election. Council also faced warnings that moving forward could jeopardize millions of dollars in federal transit and airport funding (Herald, April 27). By then, a federal appeals court in California had concluded similar anti-masking ordinances were unconstitutional and unenforceable. Responsible elected officials could not ignore those risks.
Some believed the city should adopt the ordinance despite those risks, even if it amounted more to a moral statement than an enforceable policy.
District Attorney Sean Murray’s office is pursuing charges against a federal officer after concluding the evidence warranted them. Durango Fire Protection District is challenging major manufacturers over alleged firetruck price-fixing. County Clerk Tiffany Lee continues to stand forcefully for election integrity and against efforts to normalize election denialism. None of these efforts comes with guaranteed success. Each carries risks.
Council could have chosen a similar path. Even if ultimately unenforceable, the ordinance would have sent a clear message about Durango’s values. It would have affirmed what more than 1,700 residents sought to express: that government agents should identify themselves and that families should not live in fear of anonymous enforcement actions.
The organizers may appeal. But the work will not end with the court’s ruling. City Council’s Immigration Task Force was given until May 16 to gather community feedback and develop findings and potential action items for council’s consideration. The question now is how a community responds when federal policies clash with local values.
The initiative is over. The problem is not.
Council chose prudence. We would have preferred a statement of principle.
Primary ballots drop on June 8. The No Secret Police measure will not be on them. But the responsibility to participate, speak out and hold government accountable remains exactly where it has always been: with the people.
