The City of Durango took a court action against the petition committee and name of two of its organizers specifically. This page includes links to the City’s documents and the text of the respondents’ documents.
No Secret Police in Durango Correct the Record on City’s Court Filing Regarding “No Secret Police” Initiative
May 12 2026
Respondents Correct the Record on City’s Court Filing Regarding “No Secret Police” Initiative
Durango, Colorado — Ted Wright and Michael Souder, named respondents in City of Durango v. No Secret Police Citizens Initiative Committee, issue this advisory to correct misleading statements in the City of Durango’s May 8 “clarification” notice and to advise the public on the filing of their Verified Response and Motion to Dismiss.
1. The City did file a lawsuit naming residents
Despite the City’s claim that it “is not suing residents,” the official court caption lists:
“Respondent: … Through its Agents TED WRIGHT and MICHAEL SOUDER.”
(La Plata County District Court filing)
2. The City sued a committee that no longer existed
The Citizen’s Committee legally terminated on April 7, 2026, when the Certificate of Sufficiency was presented to the City. The Verified Response states:
“The Citizen’s Committee was terminated on April 7, 2026 and has no function beyond that date.”
The City filed its lawsuit on April 22, two weeks after the committee had dissolved.
3. The City created the ‘controversy’ it now asks the court to resolve
The administrative/legislative question did not originate with the Citizen’s Commitee:
“The administrative/legislative distinction set forth by the City’s Petition originated only in connection with its executive session on April 21st.”
City Council never placed the ordinance on an agenda, never deliberated publicly on its character, and never adopted or rejected it.
4. The City bypassed required public deliberation before seeking judicial intervention
The Verified Response explains that the City cannot claim “uncertainty” without first deliberating in public:
“A claim of uncertainty in advance of receiving public debate… does not respect the spirit of the exception to the rule proscribing premature governmental or judicial interference with initiatives.”
The City avoided public deliberation and instead went directly to court.
5. The City’s lawsuit compromises the special election
The Verified Response states:
“By filing this lawsuit the special election is compromised and the objective of the citizen’s initiative is frustrated.”
The City allowed the 30‑day decision window to expire on May 7, scheduled a June 30 election, and simultaneously asked the court to rule on the ordinance’s legality—before taking a position itself.
6. Respondents have moved to dismiss
Wright and Souder have filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that:
● the City’s indecision does not create a justiciable controversy,
● the City failed to deliberate publicly as required, and
● naming private residents is a misuse of the judicial process under these circumstances.
If dismissal is denied, they request appointment of counsel at City expense, noting:
“The Citizen’s Committee… has no resources, has not retained any lawyers, and has no legal function after delivery of the certificate of sufficiency.”
Wright and Souder’s Court Filing
LA PLATA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
1060 East Second Avenue
Durango, CO 81301
Petitioner: CITY OF DURANGO
V.
Respondent: NO SECRET POLICE CITIZENS
INITIATIVE COMMITTEE Through its Agents
TED WRIGHT and MICHAEL SOUDER
/\ FOR COURT USE /\
Parties Without Attorney
TED WRIGHT Case No. 26CV30070
2701 W. 2nd Avenue
Durango, CO 81301
Tel.: 970.749.3584
Email: tedcwright@gmail.com
MICHAEL SOUDER
226 River Birch
Durango, CO 81301
Tel.: 970.560.0072
Email: micksouder@yahoo.com
VERIFIED RESPONSE, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY BY RESPONDENTS, TED WRIGHT AND MICHAEL SOUDER,
Come Now Ted Wright and Michael Souder and for their Verified Response, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Appointment of Attorney, states as follows.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In December 2025, the Durango City Council communicated to Ted Wright and Michael Souder that it did not intend to address constitutional policing and public safety concerns related to the concealment of identification by armed individuals operating within the City without accountability (the “Concern”).
The Durango City Charter authorizes the introduction of legislation through a citizen-initiated petition process administered by the City Clerk.
In late January 2026, Michael Souder and Ted Wright met with City Clerk Faye Harmer to present a proposed ordinance addressing the Concern (the “Citizen’s Initiative”). The City Clerk provided procedural guidance, assisted in finalizing the petition form, and oversaw the formation and operation of the petitioner’s committee (the “Citizen’s Committee”).
On or about February 4, 2026, 42 circulators executed affidavits and were issued petitions. Ted Wright executed an affidavit as circulator and as chair of the Citizen’s Committee.
The 30-day circulation period commenced on February 4, 2026 and concluded on March 6, 2026. All petitions were returned on March 6. The City Clerk completed verification and issued a Certificate of Sufficiency on March 11, 2026 (the “Certificate”).
On April 7, 2026, the City Council acknowledged receipt of the Certificate during a routine update from the City Manager. The matter was not placed on the agenda as an action item, and no action was taken. Mr. Wright’s request to address Council on behalf of the Citizen’s Committee was denied at the time the matter was introduced by the City Manager, and Council restricted comment to the three-minute public comment period designated for matters not under consideration. During that comment period, Mr. Wright announced that the Certificate of Sufficiency marked the termination of the Citizen’s Committee and represented the beginning of the Council’s 30 day binary decision to adopt or send to special election.
On April 21, 2026, the City Council convened an executive session for the stated purpose of receiving legal advice from outside counsel regarding the Citizen’s Initiative. Following this session, the City for the first time publicly introduced the question of whether the proposed ordinance was administrative or legislative, with the importance being that only legislative citizen’s initiatives are eligible for special election.
On April 21, 2026 the City Council voted 4-1 against introducing the Ordinance for possible adoption. Adoption of the Ordinance never came before the City Council for consideration. The administrative/legislative distinction is not applicable to ordinances adopted by City Council.
On April 22, 2026, the City of Durango filed the present action naming the Petitioner’s Committee, through Michael Souder and Ted Wright, as respondents. The pleadings emailed to Ted Wright and Michael Souder for acceptance of service did not bear a Case No. A case number was requested from the City Attorney’s office and received on April 28, 2026. No summons has been served upon either Ted Wright or Michael Souder.
At the time the City Attorney filed the subject Petition, the Citizen’s Committee had terminated and possessed no authority to take any position in this litigation. All agency for the Citizen’s Committee expired upon its termination on April 7, 2026. Participation in the determination of the controversy claimed to exist by the City was never within the purview or authority of the Citizen’s Committee.
The administrative/legislative distinction set forth by the City’s Petition originated only in connection with its executive session on April 21st and was not thereafter considered for resolution or public deliberation.
From its outset, the Citizen’s Initiative process, including petition format, circulation, verification, and termination was conducted under the administration, oversight and full awareness of the City pursuant to the City Charter.
By filing this lawsuit the special election is compromised and the objective of the citizen’s initiative is frustrated.
The 30 day period for action by the City Council on the Citizen’s Initiative expired on May 7, 2026.
The City has scheduled a special election for June 30, 2026.
There is injury to Respondents in the actions and inactions of the City.
RESPONSE, and Argument for Dismissal, and/or Appointment of Counsel:
MOTION TO DISMISS. Respondents do not dispute the facts as currently plead in this proceeding with the exception of the City’s claim that there is a mature and justiciable controversy. A claim of uncertainty in advance of receiving public debate on a touchy public issue does not respect the spirit of the exception to the rule proscribing premature governmental or judicial interference with initiatives (the “Exception”). The facts bear out that this is an unwillingness to decide by the City dressed up as an “uncertainty”. A public governing body cannot pass off its responsibilities to the judiciary to avoid publicly airing unwelcome and difficult issues. To reach a level of uncertainty capable of supporting judicial interference it must be preceded by public deliberation that terminates in uncertainty. Determination of an administrative/legislative distinction is not exclusive to the courts. Late stage “discovery” of this issue does not relieve City Council of its governance responsibilities. If this is not the case, all citizens' initiatives can be called into question after the fact.
City Council must engage in public deliberation of the administrative/legislative issue preliminary to establishing an uncertainty satisfying the Exception. The possibility that the City Council can be persuaded that the subject ordinance (the “Ordinance”) is legislative and eligible for election is denied to Respondents and the people to their consequent injury.
The Citizen’s Initiative Petition summarizes the Ordinance by stating that it:
“prohibits masking of law enforcement officers and requires visible identification, keeps policing local and returns constitutionality and trust to policing and the People. Signing this petition sets the matter of our safety in first place before the City Council, requiring their approval or forcing a special election on the matter.”
The Ordinance represents constitutional and legislative policy meant to assure constitutional policing. It sets citizen safety on equal footing with policing. City of Colorado Springs v. Bull, 143 P.3d 1127 (2006) states that a proposed ordinance's classification as administrative or legislative is largely an “ad hoc” determination, meaning “for the particular end or purpose at hand and without reference to wider application or employment.”
The cases cited by the City offer guidance for the determination of the issue, but the City refused to apply that guidance or allow any public deliberation before rushing to the Court.
This lawsuit injures the Respondent, the election and the people. The City is evading its responsibility to face the public by secretly claiming uncertainty and then prematurely engaging the judicial system.
For the above reasons, Ted Wright and Michael Souder respectfully move the Court to dismiss the City’s Petition as against the No Secret Police Citizen’s Committee through Ted Wright and Michael Souder and award costs to Respondents.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. If dismissal is denied, Ted Wright and Michael Souder request that an attorney be appointed to represent them with all costs being paid by the City. The Citizen’s Committee was terminated on April 7, 2026 and, unlike the City, it has no resources, has not retained any lawyers, and has no legal function after delivery of the certificate of sufficiency.
Ted Wright and Michael Souder attest to the foregoing as true and correct to the best of their knowledge and information.
Dated May 12, 2026
__________________________ ____________________________
Ted Wright Michael Souder
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ted Wright and Michael Souder emailed this pleading to Mark Morgan at Mark.Morgan@durangoCo.gov on May 12, 2026 and mailed a copy of same in the first class mail on May 12, 2026 addressed to Mark C. Morgan, City Attorney, City of Durango 949 E 2nd Ave., Durango, CO 81301.
__________________________ ____________________________
Ted Wright Michael Souder
STATE of COLORADO )
)ss
County of La Plata )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of May, 2026 by Ted Wright and Michael Souder:
My commission expires:___________ Witness my hand and official seal
___________________________________
Notary Public