Dispelling mask ban myths
The folks trying to get the visible ID/no masks ordinance passed would like to clear up some concerns and misrepresentations.
• Misrepresentation No. 1: “States and local governments have no power over federal law enforcement.”
This overstates the Supremacy Clause and ignores what the Durango ordinance actually does. Cities regulate how all actors – federal, state, private – operate in their streets, parks and facilities: noise ordinances; traffic rules; permitting; restrictions on demonstrations; etc. Durango already sets conditions for conduct within city limits. This ordinance fits that tradition by requiring visible identification and banning masked, anonymous policing in public spaces.
The ordinance regulates conduct, not federal jurisdiction. The measure doesn’t claim power over federal investigations, prosecutions or law. It says: if you operate as “law enforcement” in Durango, you don’t get to do it secretly, with your identity concealed.
Constitutional values are local, too. The citizen’s ordinance “returns constitutionality and trust to policing and the people” and “keeps policing local.” The Supremacy Clause doesn’t erase a city’s duty to protect residents’ due process, equal protection and freedom from unreasonable seizures – especially when anonymous, masked officers are involved.
The real question is where is the line between valid, local regulation and impermissible interference with federal functions? This ordinance is carefully drafted to stay on the conduct/accountability side.
• Misrepresentation No. 2: “Federal courts overturned a California law banning masks by federal LEOs … this will be upheld all the way to SCOTUS.”
This treats an unspecified case as a universal, automatic death sentence for any local accountability rule and ignores how Durango’s ordinance is tailored. Whatever happened with a California statute doesn’t automatically control a narrowly drawn Durango ordinance. Courts look at:
- What the law actually prohibits.
- Whether it targets federal authority or sets neutral, generally applicable rules.
- Whether it leaves room for federal operations while protecting local interests.
Durango’s ordinance is narrow and purpose-driven emphasizing:
- Visible identification of officers.
- No masking that conceals identity.
- Keeping policing local and constitutional.
That’s a far cry from “you can’t do your job here.” It’s: “You can’t do it secretly, without accountability.”
When the Constitution is enforced, this ordinance is enforceable.
• Misrepresentation No. 3. “We could lose all federal dollars – transit, highways, schools, Medicaid, etc.”
This is a fear that goes far beyond what’s been threatened and what’s legally realistic.
The ordinance is about masks and identification. This is an ordinance that “prohibits masking of law enforcement officers and requires visible identification, keeps policing local and returns constitutionality and trust to policing and the people.” It is not a refusal to cooperate with all federal agencies or a declaration of non-compliance with federal law.
Federal funding threats are political tools, not automatic switches. Many federal programs are governed by statute and can’t be cut off just because a regime dislikes an ordinance.
Risk must be weighed against real, present harms of secret policing. The core argument is that allowing masked, unidentifiable officers – especially from outside agencies like ICE – to operate in Durango erodes trust, chills speech and undermines constitutional protections. That is not hypothetical; it’s a direct threat to residents’ rights and the legitimacy of policing. When policing is “out of compliance” with the Constitution, resistance is not unconstitutional.
• Misrepresentation No. 4: City Council has framed the ordinance as symbolic and empty, when in fact it directly changes how law enforcement may operate.
This is a concrete policy change. It bans masked, identity-concealing law enforcement operations in the city. It requires visible identification for officers, including those from outside agencies. That’s not a “moral stand with no policy change.” It’s an operational rule that residents can see and experience.
Local democracy is working as designed. The petition drive gathered the required signatures to force Council to adopt the ordinance or send it to a vote. That’s not reckless; it’s the charter-provided mechanism for residents to set policy when they believe Council hasn’t.
Fiscal analysis is appropriate – but not the only lens. Of course, Council should discuss potential fiscal implications. But voters also have to weigh constitutional values such as transparency, accountability and the right to know who is exercising state power over you.
Durango’s own police already operate with visible identification and clear accountability. The ordinance simply insists that outside agencies meet that same standard.
If Durango accepts secret, masked policing now out of fear, it sets a precedent that rights can be bargained away whenever funding is threatened.
– Ted Wright and Mick Souder, Durango