OUR VIEW: Majorities should not always rule (vote in poll)

Tuesday’s City Council meeting revealed a disturbing view about democracy by some leaders in our community.

It first became apparent when the council discussed a failed request to create the Wood Avenue Historic Street Light Local Improvement District in the Old North End neighborhood. Advocates wanted the district in order to impose a fee of about $1,200 on residents in order to buy and install decorative streetlights. The streetlights may be a great amenity, but they are not a need. They should be paid for by raising funds from those who want them, not by burdening others with a hefty fee that could cost them their homes if the fees go unpaid.

Opponents said it’s unfair for a majority to impose a fee on people who do not want to pay it or cannot afford to pay it, simply because they own property in a particular location. The fee would violate property rights by possibly pricing some people out of their homes.

Advocates said majorities have rights in a democracy, and opponents countered that we’re a country that protects against tyranny of the majority.

“The tyranny of the majority argument doesn’t make sense,” said one advocate of the decorative lights. “If the majority votes, we’re all to obey the laws they make.”

Councilman Bernie Herpin explained his view of democracy, saying: “I don’t have kids in school, but I still pay school taxes.”

First of all, councilman, a fee for decorative lights is not the same as a tax for the purpose of investing in kids who will provide our future workforce. Second, majorities are not allowed to violate all rights of minorities. Much to his credit, Herpin is a tireless gun-rights advocate. It's highly unlikely he would argue that a majority of voters could decide to undermine his Second Amendment gun right. That right, like a property right, is inalienable. A mob cannot hold a vote and take it away.

The issue of democracy and the rights of majorities came up again when the council debated medical marijuana. In Colorado, the Colorado Constitution forbids majorities or local governments from impeding an individual from obtaining or using medical marijuana with a physician’s recommendation. Yet several council members, as this is written, are advocating a vote of the public to determine the ultimate fate of medical marijuana in Colorado Springs.

(Please vote in poll to the lower right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)

A Chamber of Commerce representative showed up to argue for a community vote on medical marijuana, claiming with questionable evidence that a majority of chamber members want an election.

“Let democracy be the deciding factor,” he said.

Really? Despite the teachings of bad elementary school textbooks and too many confused teachers, this country is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic of law in which one democratic tool, the election, is used to choose politicians and create laws that don’t conflict with inalienable rights. An election cannot deprive individuals of rights protected by constitutional law, unless the election is one that amends a constitution.

Quite frankly, it shouldn’t matter what a majority thinks about imposing fees for decorative lights or denying patients their constitutional rights to obtain and use medical marijuana in Colorado Springs. Constitutional law trumps majority sentiment anywhere in the United States.

— Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board. Friend him on Facebook