UPDATE: Rep. DeGraaf spoke extensively with the Colorado Times Recorder soon after publication, clarifying his concept of sovereign citizens as opposed to the broadly understood term. This piece has been updated with his comments.
Appearing on a conservative podcast, Colorado state Rep. Ken DeGraaf declared that individuals are “sovereign citizens,” a term used by anti-government extremists to ignore laws they don’t like.
DeGraaf was discussing the importance of Coloradans testifying before legislative committees in order for lawmakers to hear their opinions on bills. He then outlined his understanding of government structure, with individuals citizens as “sovereign,” then local and state legislative bodies working for the individual and lastly the governor working for the legislature.
“So I think it’s important and it’s important in that regard for people to realize — to approach this with — that they are the Sovereign Citizen,” said DeGraaf. “That the purpose of government is to secure the rights of life, liberty, and and the pursuit of happiness. So in that sense the legislators, they do work for the people. People need to go in and say, ‘Hey, these people, they need to listen to me because they work for me and the governor works for them.’ They need to not be intimidated.”
When host Brandon Wark described the Democratic majority’s management of the session as an “egregious subversion of democracy,” DeGraaf agreed, saying, “They took an oath to it and we remind them that they pledge allegiance to it every day and that’s to the idea that the individual is Sovereign over the state. And everything they promote is making the state Sovereign over the individual.”
Neither the oath taken by elected officials nor the Pledge of Allegiance makes any reference to individuals being sovereign over the state.
DeGraaf repeated his conception of tiered government several times during the interview.
“The entire idea of our Republic where the individual is sovereign and that the layers of government support and secure that sovereignty all the way down,” said DeGraaf. “The governor should be supporting the State Assembly and the State Assembly should be supporting local government and local governments should be supporting, so those are all underneath, but instead what we have is a governor who’s making himself a dictator.”
The term sovereign citizen is widely used by far-right activists as a pseudo-legal excuse to ignore laws. It stems from a false claim, rooted in racist and antisemitic beliefs, that the federal government has no authority and that the county sheriff is in fact the highest authority in any given region of America. It’s largely popular with militia members and gun rights activists who frequently view federal law enforcement from an adversarial perspective.
DeGraaf appears to have contradictory beliefs on the subject. He acknowledges that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution decrees that federal law supersedes those of state and local governments, a fact that he used to say Colorado is only a “semi-sovereign” state. However he also advocated for the Second Amendment Preservation Act, a bill he introduced this past session that died in committee. The bill would have banned any law enforcement agency in Colorado from attempting to enforce any federal gun law. It also would have permitted anyone to sue those police departments or other agencies who did so for $50,000. He argued that it was constitutional in part because it had passed in other states. It indeed passed the Missouri legislature last year, but a federal judge overturned it in March as unconstitutional.
The concept of Sovereignty played a significant role in DeGraaf’s run for office. His campaign website addresses the issue directly, framing in terms of his religious beliefs: “We are ‘Entitled’ (we have the legitimate claim) to individual sovereignty as the image bearers of a sovereign God. Not as something earned, negotiated, or granted, but entitled. The role of government is not to bestow these rights, but to secure them.”
In a phone interview conducted soon after publication, DeGraaf offered a number of clarifications on his beliefs about sovereignty, the role of government and his understanding of the term sovereign citizen. He began by saying he is not supportive of the commonly understood concept of a sovereign citizen, who rejects all federal law.
“As far as the people who [during a traffic stop] stick their driver’s license out the window and say they don’t have to talk to anybody, or say they don’t have to pay taxes, well that’s going to land you in jail. I know what movement you’re talking about, but other than that, I don’t have any involvement with any such group.” says DeGraaf. “As far as the supremacy movement or the extremist thing, no. What I’m talking about is the Declaration of Independence is very clear- the just powers of government are to secure these rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s what government is supposed to do.”
However he also says that while he acknowledges the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, he questions the interpretation that it applies not just to the text of the Constition itself, but to all federal laws. “If you look at it constitutionally, I think it’s on pretty shaky ground. Is the U.S. Constitution supreme? Yes. But if there’s a new federal law, it’s not really it’s not part of the Constitution.”
DeGraaf also noted that in the military, soldiers have a duty to refuse unconstitutional orders, even while recognizing that there are likely immediate consequences for doing so.
“You take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. You’re not taking an oath to support and defend the Pentagon, says DeGraaf.” That same scenario could potentially occur with civilians, who might then also face consequences, such as arrest and trial, though he also mentioned a potential solution for someone who is “hauled into court. A jury has the right to throw out a law.” The concept, known as jury nullification, is widely promoted within the sovereign citizen movement
