By Laureen Boll | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
As a 30-year resident of Douglas County, I’ve witnessed our community’s strength, resilience, and commitment to individual liberty. Yet, I was stunned in 2020 and 2021 when some community members surrendered their parental rights to government bureaucrats during the COVID-19 response, advocating for government-backed mandates on virtual learning, masking, and vaccinations.
Five years later, we face a similar battle with the proposed Home Rule ballot initiative. This is our chance to reclaim local control, and voters must consider the source of opposition to understand what’s at stake.
The Promise of Home Rule
Home Rule would empower Douglas County to design a government that reflects our values, not Denver’s one-size-fits-all directives. It would allow us to opt-out of state regulations that don’t serve our unique needs and craft laws tailored to our community’s priorities—whether that’s protecting parental rights, fostering economic growth, or preserving our way of life.
Home Rule isn’t about chaos; it’s about trusting us, the residents, to govern ourselves via locally-elected officials accountable to Douglas County, not distant state bureaucrats.
Lessons from the COVID Fight
In 2021, Douglas County stood up to overreach from the Tri-County Health Department (TCHD), a regional authority formed in 1966 to serve Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties. TCHD wielded state-backed power to enforce mask mandates and other measures, often ignoring local realities.
When Douglas County’s commissioners pushed back against TCHD’s mandatory mask order in July 2020, citing our community’s 75% voluntary mask compliance rate and favorable health data, TCHD initially agreed to allow opt-outs. But in August 2021, TCHD reneged, imposing a sweeping mask mandate on students as young as two, dismissing our local agreement and parental choice.
Douglas County’s commissioners fought back.
On August 19, 2021, after hearing from over 50 residents, they unanimously passed a resolution to opt-out of TCHD’s mask order, emphasizing “the blessings of liberty.” Commissioner George Teal championed parental choice, reflecting the will of our community. Yet, the Douglas County School District, led by then-Superintendent Corey Wise, ignored this resolution, bowing to TCHD’s authority.
By September 7, 2021, our commissioners voted to exit TCHD entirely, ending a 55-year partnership to reclaim local control.
Parents were furious. At school board meetings in August and September 2021, they pleaded for the right to make decisions for their children, citing data showing minimal COVID risk to kids and questioning the efficacy of masks.
One parent declared, “Do not let authoritarian bureaucrats at TCHD strip away our ability to make medical decisions for our children.” A small but vocal group disagreed, praising TCHD’s mandates and the school district’s compliance, arguing that collective safety trumped individual rights.
The Opposition’s Ideological Roots
This same group opposing parental choice in 2021 now campaigns against Home Rule, labeling it a “power grab.” Their accusations lack evidence—no commissioner has proposed extending term limits or increasing compensation.
Instead, these activists reveal a deeper ideology: a preference for centralized control over local autonomy. Many supported the school district’s Educational Equity Policy in March 2021, which prioritized “historically marginalized” groups over individual needs, echoing collectivist philosophies like Marxism that subordinate personal freedom to group mandates.
Their rhetoric dismisses the Constitutional principle that government exists to protect individual rights, not grant special privileges to select groups.
These opponents fear Home Rule because it empowers Douglas County to reject state overreach, just as we rejected TCHD’s mandates. They distrust our community’s ability to govern itself, preferring state officials to dictate our future.
But Douglas County has proven we can make decisions that reflect our values—our high voluntary mask compliance in 2020 showed responsibility without coercion.
Why Home Rule Matters
Home Rule is about trust—trust in Douglas County residents to elect leaders who prioritize our needs. It’s about ensuring our government serves us, not a distant bureaucracy.
Imagine a Douglas County where businesses thrive without burdensome state regulations and where our unique character as a community is preserved. Home Rule makes this possible.
The opposition’s fearmongering mirrors their 2021 stance: they’d rather outsource decisions to “experts” than trust neighbors to govern wisely. But we’ve seen what happens when we cede control—our voices are silenced, and our freedoms erode. Don’t let history repeat itself.
Call to Action
When you vote on the Home Rule ballot initiative, consider who opposes it: the same voices who championed government overreach in 2021. They don’t trust you, but I do.
Douglas County deserves a government as strong, independent, and principled as its people. Vote YES for Home Rule. Let’s take back control and build a future that reflects our values, not the state’s.
Laureen Boll is a long-term Douglas County resident, retired healthcare executive, and active champion of classical liberalism. As the founder and CEO of MeritFirst Solutions, she leverages over 20 years of experience in organizational strategy, human capital development, and policy research to help businesses refocus on their core mission while fostering an environment where talent and achievement drive success. Laureen has served on the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Libraries Foundation since 2019, reflecting her commitment to community engagement and education. A Coloradoan since the 1970s, Laureen is a dedicated parent and advocate for individual dignity and academic excellence in K-12 education, and she is passionate about preserving the independent spirit and values of her beloved home state.f
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.