Promises, promises. Ballot measure ads are full of promises, but mostly don’t deliver.
Take for instance, Proposition 131 promising better elections. If other states’ experiences are any indicator, Colorado will get a confusing mess that will cost taxpayers about $21 million in the first two-three years and likely won’t deliver on those promises.
About half of Colorado candidates would be covered by 131, which means voters will essentially vote in two different elections both in the primary and general elections. The primary for president will remain as it is now.
Confused? Join the crowd — that’s what a lot of voters say about this gerry-rigged “jungle primary/ranked choice voting” system.
County clerks, who run our elections statewide, were never consulted about the proposed changes and have raised red flags about whether it can be implemented correctly with the available resources and in the tight time frame in Proposition 131. We should take their concerns seriously. They support a commonsense plan to test this model in several counties before we attempt to implement it statewide.
Here’s how Colorado voters would cast ballots if this plan passes: In the primary election, you would cast one vote per race for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, statewide candidates and the state legislature, regardless of affiliation. But for district attorneys, county races (commissioners, clerks, assessors, sheriffs, etc.) and other local races, you would vote either a Republican or Democratic ballot. Unaffiliated voters would continue to choose which ballot to vote. The presidential primary is held on another date in Colorado and would stay the same.
In general elections, voters would cast four ranked votes in each race in the federal, statewide and state legislative races that would go to an instant runoff if no one gets a majority in the first round. If you vote only for one candidate you would lose your vote in subsequent computer runoff rounds. A second ballot for president, district attorneys and local races would be under the current rules with one vote per race.
It’s so confusing, votes cast in ranked choice elections are 10 times more likely to have a mistake that will invalidate a vote and the voter will never know. Also, fewer people vote because of the unnecessary complexity and voter turnout decreases.
This proposal was written without addressing current campaign finance limits. Crowded primaries of six to eight primary candidates and four in the general election require more money to break out of the pack. Colorado has particularly low campaign finance limits, and that’s an invitation for undisclosed “dark money” and special interests to intervene.
Add to all this, election results are delayed under this model due to the complexity of the instant computer runoff. In Alaska, it was two weeks before the 2022 congressional race was settled. In New York City, incorrect results were announced initially. Overall, voter confidence levels about accuracy and transparency are reduced.
In 2023, the University of Minnesota studied ranked choice voting election campaign ad promises versus results. That research found there was little to no evidence that the new model did anything about moderating partisanship, increasing diversity in candidates, lessened partisanship or reduced negative campaign behavior.
Kent Thiry, the wealthy Colorado former CEO of DaVita behind Proposition 131, and his billionaire buddies are also pushing this same model in Nevada, Idaho and Montana this year in addition to Colorado. But Thiry showed his true colors when he dumped $1.1 million into TV and online ads into Colorado’s June primary just days before the election to support his hand-picked candidates. His proposed model benefits himself and other wealthy people/organizations to make these changes to Colorado’s elections.
Thiry spent millions on a 2018 campaign to change Colorado’s redistricting process to make districts more competitive and now he’s complaining the districts aren’t competitive. Why would we trust him to upend our election system?
In the end, this is not a partisan issue. It is a democracy issue to keep more money out of our politics. Elections do belong to the voters, not to the wealthy. Vote “no” on Proposition 131.
Joan Fitz-Gerald is the former Colorado Senate President, former Jefferson County Clerk and former President for America Votes.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.