Bird v. City of Colorado Springs

Supreme Court of Colorado

Bird v. City of Colorado Springs

507 P.2d 1099, 181 Colo. 141, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 783

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedMarch 26, 1973

Docket25950

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 507 P.2d 1099 (Bird v. City of Colorado Springs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bird v. City of Colorado Springs, 507 P.2d 1099, 181 Colo. 141, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 783 (Colo. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE GROVES

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*142 Article II, Section 4 of the Colorado Springs City Charter provides as follows:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of Mayor or Councilman unless he be a citizen of the United States, at least twenty-five (25) years of age, and shall have been for five years immediately preceding such election a citizen of the City of Colorado Springs, and for two years immediately preceding his election, shall have paid City taxes.”

The plaintiff submitted a petition for nomination for the position of Colorado Springs city councilman, together with an affidavit which stated that at the time of the election he would have resided in the City for four years and six months. His petition and affidavit were not accepted by the City on the ground that he had not attested to having resided within the City for five years immediately prior to the City’s April 3, 1973 election.

Upon complaint filed by the plaintiff, the District Court of El Paso County ruled that the five year residency requirement in Article II, Section 4 of the Colorado Springs City Charter was unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court issued a mandatory injunction ordering that the plaintiff’s name be placed upon the ballot.

The City has sought review under 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 49-25-135. We elect to assume jurisdiction, and agree that the five-year residency requirement in the charter provision is unconstitutional, McKinney v. Kaminsky, 340 F. Supp. 289 (M. D. Ala. 1972) and Zeilenga v. Nelson, 4 Cal.3d 716, 94 Cal. Rptr. 602, 484 P.2d 578 (1971).

Amicus Curiae asks that we pass upon the constitutionality of a durational residence requirement of less than five years. We decline to do so.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE does not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI