Election 2024: Arvada, Jeffco and state ballot guide

RTD 7A ballot language:

Without imposing any new tax or increasing any tax rate, shall the regional transportation district’s (“RTD”) authorization to collect, retain and spend all revenues it receives from all sources, including its sales tax revenues, grant funds and other moneys lawfully received by RTD from the state of Colorado or any other source, originally approved by the voters in 1999, be continued to permit RTD to retain revenue necessary to provide vital RTD services, including but not limited to: 

• Providing transportation choices to local residents by maintaining and growing current levels of bus, and rail services; 
• Repairing and improving rail lines, buses, bus stops and stations and other infrastructure to preserve the public’s investment in transit; 
• Maintaining the availability of services for people with disabilities; 
• Continuing to provide cleaner, more efficient methods of transportation other than driving on roads and highways; and
• Providing transportation services for youth 19 years of age or younger at reduced or no fares;

With all funds subject to independent audit and overseen by the elected RTD board; as a voter approved revenue change and exemption from any revenue and spending limitations under article X, section 20 of the Colorado constitution?

APA recommends a YES vote on 7A

Here’s why:

Ballot Issue 7A asks voters within the boundaries of the eight-county Regional Transportation District for the authority to permanently keep revenue raised in excess of a limit set under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).

RTD gets a 1% sales tax within the RTD District, and in 1999 voters granted RTD an exemption from TABOR revenue caps in order to help pay off bonds that were used for the Southeast and Southwest Light Rail Lines, but that exemption expires next year when bonds are paid off. Without the passage of this de-Brucing measure from TABOR, RTD could be required to refund tens of millions of dollars in revenue annually.

RTD currently serves over 3 million people in the metro area. This ballot measure will ensure RTD can continue to provide transportation choices, maintain current levels of bus and rail services, repair and improve rail lines, buses, bus stops, stations, and other infrastructure, maintain the availability of services for people with disabilities, provide transportation services for youth 19 years of age or younger at reduced or no fares, fund security and safety measures on RTD rail lines, and more. This measure does not raise taxes. It allows RTD to keep the money they already raise every year.

7A supported by:  Keep Colorado Moving, and has been endorsed by a long list of transit and environmental advocacy groups, local elected officials, transit advocacy groups, and others.

CO PIRG has an excellent summary in favor of 7A.

Amendment G ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the expansion of eligibility for the property tax exemption for veterans with a disability to include a veteran who does not have a service-connected disability rated as a one hundred percent permanent disability but does have individual unemployability status?

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

APA recommends a YES vote on Amendment G

Here’s why:

This ballot measure was referred to the ballot in the 2023 legislative session by a unanimous vote. Colorado currently has the “homestead tax exemption” for seniors 65 and older who have lived in their homes for at least 10 years; veterans with certain service-related disabilities; and the surviving spouse of a U.S military member who died in the line of duty.  The homestead tax exemption exempts 50% of up to $200,000 in a home’s value from taxes. Amendment G would change and expand the criteria to include veterans who meet the VA’s criteria for TDIU, total disability individual unemployability- an inability to work a job that financially supports the veteran. Analysts expect around 3,700 veterans would become qualified for the tax break if Amendment G passes.

Impact: $1.8 million less collected in property taxes. (Due to Tabor requirements, this would impact the amount refunded to taxpayers, not the budgets of state or local government).

As of this date, there are no groups who have formed exclusively to support or oppose this ballot measure. This amendment appears to have almost universal support from both sides of the aisle, including the League of Women Voters and Mike Rosen, a conservative talk radio host.

Ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judicial discipline, and in connection therewith, establishing an independent judicial discipline adjudicative board, setting standards for judicial review of a discipline case, and clarifying when discipline proceedings become public?

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

APA recommends a YES vote on Amendment H

Here’s why:

Background: The ballot measure was referred by the legislature because of recommendations by the Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline. In the current system, the Supreme Court of Colorado is responsible for disciplinary actions but is not bound by any transparency rules and can keep all proceeding from the public. In 2021, there were allegations of judicial misconduct that “was handled leniently or went unpunished”. The Interim Committee was formed in response to those allegations and has recommended these changes. Those supporting this measure feel the current system lacks transparency, accountability, and independent oversight. Those opposed feel the current system is not only adequate but preferred as it keeps the power in the hands of those who are familiar with the law and the legal system.

Pro Argument: The Colorado Supreme Court Justices themselves support it, according to a 2022 article in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Judicial discipline in Colorado has historically been mostly self-regulated, leading to challenges in oversight and self-protection. This amendment would enhance transparency and public confidence and trust in the courts.

Anti Argument: Financially, this amendment would cost around $50k per year. The biggest non-financial impact would be removing the CO Supreme Court from immediate oversight and placing them in a role to decide appeals. They would be replaced with a committee made up of citizens, lawyers and judges. The Judicial Integrity Project  opposes the measure, arguing that that it is too weak and far stronger measures are needed, saying “If Amendment H passes, it will be almost impossible to obtain necessary reforms because legislators will allege they did the job with Amendment H.”

Support: Independence Institute, CO Democrats, CO Republicans, League of Women Voters

Opposed: Judicial Integrity Project

Ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning creating an exception to the right to bail for cases of murder in the first degree when proof is evident or presumption is great?

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

APA recommends a YES vote on amendment I

Here’s why:

The Colorado Constitution says the accused has a right to bail unless they are held for a capital offense. But…

In 2020, the General Assembly passed a law that abolished Colorado’s death penalty. As a result, there is no longer an exception to the bail requirement for first degree murder, and differing interpretations emerged on whether or not judges must set bail in first degree murder cases. 

Amendment I would change the Constitution to say that bail may be denied in murder cases WHEN PROOF IS EVIDENT OR PRESUMPTION IS GREAT THAT THE PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME. Judges can still assign bail if the evidence of guilt is not clear.

Pro: Restores long standing precedent inadvertently eliminated (CO Dems agree)

Con: Pretrial detention means an innocent person could be jailed; BAIL=JUSTICE

Amendment J ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution removing the ban on same-sex marriages?

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

APA recommends a YES vote on Amendment J

Here’s why:

Amendment J proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to repeal the definition that states only a union of one man and one woman is a valid or recognized marriage in Colorado.

Pro Amendment J Arguments

• In 2006, voters approved that only the marriage of one man and one woman is considered valid.
• This current language in the Colorado Constitution has been ruled as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
• If the US Supreme Court overturns its previous rulings (the definition of marriage would revert to the states), voting “YES” would not allow same-sex marriages to be prohibited in Colorado.
• “All Coloradans deserve the freedom to marry the person they love!”
• Current language is behind the times. Marriage is about bonding.

Anti Amendment J Arguments

• “Marriage should be a union between one man and one woman”  Keep the existing language in the Colorado constitution.

Supported by: Many mental health, progressive, and faith organizations freedomtomarryco.com

Amendment K ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the modification of certain deadlines in connection with specified elections?

• Make deadlines one week earlier for citizens to submit signatures for initiative and referendum petitions, and for judges to file declarations of intent to seek another term; and
• Require that the content of ballot measures be published in local newspapers 30 days earlier than under current law. 

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

APA recommends a YES vote on Amendment K

Here’s why:

Background: The Colorado County Clerks Association asked the legislature to put Amendment K on the ballot, so they can get an additional week to build, review, proof, translate, and test hundreds of different ballot types needed for each election. As Colorado’s ballots get longer and more complicated, county clerks need more time to ensure that the ballots voters get are accurate.

Pro Arguments: The Colorado County Clerks Association asked the legislature to put Amendment K on the ballot, so they can get an additional week to build, review, proof, translate, and test hundreds of different ballot types needed for each election. As Colorado’s ballots get longer and more complicated, county clerks need more time to ensure that the ballots voters get are accurate.

Anti Arguments: Extra time to ensure ballots are accurate should not make it more difficult for citizens to collect signatures. The content of ballot measures is already publicly available and is often covered by the media. More time for this mandatory publication is unnecessary.

Supported by: Colorado Democratic Party, the Colorado League of Women Voters, and the Colorado Working Families Party.

Opposed by: Colorado Republican Party

Ballot language:

Without raising taxes, may the state keep and spend all sports betting tax revenue above voter-approved limits to fund water conservation and protection projects instead of refunding revenue to casinos?

APA recommends a YES vote on Proposition JJ

Here’s why:

What it means: Seeks to eliminate a current cap of $29 million (Set by a previous proposition DD) on the amount of sports betting tax revenue the state allocates for water conservation and management projects. This allows the state to retain and allocate all sports betting tax revenue for water protection initiatives.

Pro Arguments: This will support much needed water projects. Water is scarce in Colorado, and demand will continue to increase as the state’s population grows. Colorado’s economy and way of life suffer if the state cannot meet water demands. Retaining all of the collected tax revenue from sports betting will strengthen financial support for water conservation.

Anti-Arguments: State water projects already receive the full amount of money approved with Proposition DD. If the state refers a ballot question with a limited amount of new taxes, it should stay within that limit.

Supported by: Jeffco Dems, Reason Foundation

Opposed by: Colorado Republican Party

Ballot language:

Shall State taxes be increased by $39,000,000 annually to fund mental health services, including for military veterans and at-risk youth, school safety and gun violence prevention, and support for victims of domestic violence and other violent crimes by authorizing a tax on gun dealers, gun manufacturers, and ammunition vendors at the rate of 6.5% of the net taxable sales from the retail sale of any gun, gun precursor part, or ammunition, with the state keeping and spending all of the new tax revenue as a voter-approved revenue change?

APA recommends a YES vote on Proposition KK

Here’s why:

What it does: Creates a new state tax on firearms sellers equal to 6.5 percent of their sales of 3 firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition, and exempts this money from the state’s revenue limit as a voter-approved revenue change; and uses the new tax revenue to fund crime victim support services, mental health services for veterans and youth, and school safety programs.

Why Vote Yes: Gun violence causes substantial physical, mental, emotional, and financial harm. Taxing firearm and ammunition sellers is an appropriate way to fund programs that reduce the negative impacts of gun violence.

Colorado PTA supports a yes vote for Proposition KK

Jeffco Colorado Education Association (JCEA – teachers union) supports a yes vote for Proposition KK

Jeffco Dems support a yes vote for Proposition KK

Everytown for Gun Safety supports a yes vote for Proposition KK

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado constitution recognizing the right to abortion, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state and local governments from denying, impeding, or discriminating against the exercise of that right, allowing abortion to be a covered service under health insurance plans for Colorado state and local government employees and for enrollees in state and local governmental insurance programs?

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

APA recommends a YES vote on Amendment 79

Here’s why:

A constitutional amendment will be on the November 2024 ballot to protect abortion from government interference.

Amendment 79 makes abortion a constitutional right in Colorado and prohibits state and local governments from denying, impeding, or discriminating against exercising that right.  Amendment 79 also repeals an existing Colorado constitutional provision banning the use of public funds (Medicaid and health insurance plans for state and local government employees) for abortion services.

Pro Amendment 79 Arguments

• Abortion is healthcare. Coloradans deserve the freedom to make personal, private healthcare decisions – and that right shouldn’t depend on the source of their health insurance or who is in office.
• Protects Our Rights: People enrolled in state health insurance plans – teachers, firefighters, and other state employees – should have access to abortion coverage.
• Coloradans should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion, without interference by anyone.

Learn more at ColoradansForReproductiveFreedom.com

Anti-Amendment 79 Arguments

• There are Coloradans who are opposed to abortion for personal, religious, and moral reasons. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for services which they object to. State law does allow exceptions in cases where the mother’s life is in danger.
• This amendment could prevent Colorado from passing statutes to restrict or regulate abortion in any way. Abortion is already legal in Colorado and a constitutional amendment is not necessary for abortion access.

APA Opinion:

• The mental and physical health of Coloradans will be much better if abortion access is guaranteed in the Constitution. Decision-making involving one’s own body is none of anyone else’s business.  
• Having a choice is critical to well-being. If one is morally or personally opposed to abortion, then they should choose to not have an abortion.
• Children who are not wanted are at higher risk of physical and mental challenges than those who are wanted.

Supported by: League of Women Voters, Colorado Democratic Party

Ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing the right to school choice for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, and, in connection therewith, declaring that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, and private schools; home schooling; open enrollment options; and future innovations in education?

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

APA recommends a NO vote on Amendment 80

Here’s why:

What it does: Amendment 80 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:

• create the right to school choice for children in kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) and create the right for parents to direct the education of their children; and
• define school choice to include public neighborhood and charter schools, private schools, home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.

While this measure seems to simply expand options that parents may choose for their children’s education, school choice is already legally available in Colorado. This measure is really about opening the door for educational vouchers and the “right for parents to direct education” which opens the doors to lawsuits.

It is deceptive.

• Parents already have the right to choose any of the options listed in the initiative – neighborhood, charter, private, or home schools. There is no need to codify this in the state Constitution.
• Putting school choice in the state Constitution would override many education laws, policies, and protections, as well as future legislation, and could have vast unintended consequences.
• Although the word “voucher” does not appear in the initiative’s language, it is a voucher proposal because it would allow per-pupil funding to be used for private and religious institutions and homeschooling, diverting already scarce funding from public schools. Colorado already has one of the lowest-funded school systems in the nation.
• It includes “any future innovations in education,” which is not defined and could allow for forms of schooling that could be discriminatory or radical.
• Very little school choice is available in rural areas, but the statewide funding effects of this measure would impact rural schools significantly.

It is misleading. 

• Putting school choice in the state Constitution would override many education laws, policies, and protections and could have vast unintended consequences. 
• Allowing parents to “direct the education” of their children is very vague. It could be misinterpreted, creating conflicts between different parents’ demands and violating the rights of other students. 
• It would open the door to costly legal battles because every disagreement a parent had with a local policy or current law could end up in court.

It is dangerous.

• There is no guarantee that students with special needs who attend private schools or home schools will receive the protections or services afforded by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
• It could encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination, as well as discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.
• Paying for homeschooling or for students to attend private schools would create a devastating budget deficit in Colorado, like similar measures have done in Arizona.

Colorado PTA opposes Amendment 80 School Choice in K-12 Education 

Colorado League of Women Voters opposes Amendment 80 School Choice in K-12 Education

Great Education Colorado opposes Amendment 80 School Choice in K-12 Education

Jeffco Colorado Education Association (JCEA – teachers union) opposes Amendment 80 School Choice in K-12 Education

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a prohibition on the hunting of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the intentional killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging or releasing of a deadly weapon at a mountain lion, lynx, or bobcat; creating eight exceptions to this prohibition including for the protection of human life, property, and livestock; establishing a violation of this prohibition as a class 1 misdemeanor; and increasing fines and limiting wildlife license privileges for persons convicted of this crime?

APA recommends a YES vote on Proposition 127

Here’s why:

Background: Colorado encouraged hunting of mountain lions with a $50 bounty until 1965; note the state defines such as “big game;” 440-540 are “harvested” per year. Bobcat hunting is not limited from December through February: 880 are “harvested” per year for fur. Lynx are a protected species since 2000, so mentioning them is a red herring unless they go off of the Endangered Species List.

Reasons to consider voting YES: It will protect wildlife. When people hunt mountain lions and bobcats (often using an outfitter who guarantees a kill) they use dogs with GPS units to tree the cats. There will not be a cat overpopulation if Prop 127 passes; California outlawed trophy hunting with no effect on population. Ten studies show that killing the biggest lions for trophies leads to younger males (who cannot take down large deer and elk) moving into areas where humans provide easier food sources. In other words, the mentors are removed by hunters, leaving reckless and unskilled youth in charge. In addition, mountain lion tags contribute only 0.1% of Colorado’s wildlife operations budget.

Reasons to consider voting NO: This is “ballot box biology,” substituting the voters’ uninformed opinions in place of wildlife professionals at state agencies. It is a foot in the door, leading eventually to all hunting being targeted. State law already requires hunters to eat the meat of any mountain lions they kill: this is not trophy hunting. Finally, ranchers who lose livestock to big cats share $50,000 per year budgeted as compensation. If mountain lions come off of the “big game” list, ranchers will no longer be compensated.

Supported by: catsarenttrophies.org

Proposition 128 ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?

APA recommends a NO vote on Proposition 128

Here’s why:

What it does: 

• After Jan. 1 2025 requires a person convicted of certain crimes of violence to serve at least 85% of their sentence before they are eligible for parole
• Crimes: murder (2nd degree); sexual assault (1st & 2nd degree); aggravated robbery; assault (1st degree); kidnapping (class 2 felony); arson (1st degree); and burglary (1st degree).
• Brings back the 3 strikes rule, a third conviction for violence and they are not parole eligible
• An example: adds about 2 years to a person’s sentence of 20 years but with earned behavior time is really 1 year
• State Board of Parole has final decision-making power

Pro Arguments:

• Increase public safety; Violent individuals should be kept from society
• Ensure justice is served
• Victims and their families deserve a sense of security that a longer sentence may provide

Anti Arguments: 

• Removes the opportunity to achieve earned time so there is less incentive for prisoners to comply with prison rules
• The prison population will increase; costing money
• Staff shortages will be even greater
• Huge fiscal impact: from computer upgrades to increased staffing needs an estimate is $12-28M increase

APA Leadership Opinion:

• Removing incentives for good behavior in prison is a bad idea
• Colorado’s budget is already in trouble thanks to TABOR
• The people who ran this initiative are TABOR proponents and want to “keep the government in check”
• This whole initiative seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Violent crime is down, this is just another attempt to make people fearful

Opposed by: Jeffco Dems

No position: Pueblo Republicans

Proposition 129 ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating a new veterinary professional associate profession, and, in connection therewith, establishing qualifications including a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care or the equivalent as determined by the state board of veterinary medicine to be a veterinary professional associate; requiring registration with the state board; allowing a registered veterinary professional associate to practice veterinary medicine under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian; and making it a misdemeanor to practice as a veterinary professional associate without an active registration?

APA recommends a NO vote on Proposition 129

Here’s why:

What it does:

• Creates the new, regulated profession of veterinary professional associate
• State board will decide what specific tasks this professional may perform
• There is some feeling out there that there are not enough animal care providers, especially outside of the metro area

Pro Arguments:

• May increase access to veterinary care in rural and agricultural areas of Colorado
• Adding Veterinary PAs to the workforce will allow overworked veterinarians to delegate some tasks & take better care of animals
• Masters degree from an accredited veterinary school
• Adding Veterinary PAs will allow clinics to provide more affordable and accessible care

Anti Arguments:

• Training is inadequate for procedures the proponents want VPAs to perform. Inadequate care may lead to misdiagnosis, delayed treatment, repeat visits, increased cost and stress.
• There already is a category that can be trained and effectively used
• The career path is touted as an advance for Vet Techs but will be out of reach for most. Less than 30% of vet techs have a 4 yr. degree. The additional need for a 4 yr degree plus a masters will be unattainable for the majority
• Current federal regulations prohibits prescribing meds by anyone other than the licensed Veterinarian
• There is no current accreditation for VPAs

APA Leadership Opinion:

• Ill conceived, vague, high risk for vet practices. Maybe created looking for a mid-level professional for spay/neuter clinics
• Pushes the notoriously underpaid profession of certified vet tech farther down the salary scale
• Corporate ownership of vet practices is on the rise for specialty clinics which may be where this push is really coming from…

Opposed by: Colorado Association of Certified Vet Techs. Nine other veterinary medical associations for animal practitioners are opposed to this initiative.

Supported by: Eight animal welfare groups support this initiative and five large clinics and/or management groups support the measure

Proposition 130 ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning state funding for peace officer training and support, and, in connection therewith, directing the legislature to appropriate 350 million dollars to the peace officer training and support fund for municipal and county law enforcement agencies to hire and retain peace officers; allowing the fund to be used for pay, bonuses, initial and continuing education and training, and a death benefit for a peace officer, police, fire and first responder killed in the line of duty; and requiring the funding to supplement existing appropriations?

APA recommends a NO vote for Proposition 130

Here’s why:

What it does: This measure sets up a fund with a one time amount of $350 million dollars for police officer training, pay and bonuses. Funds will be distributed by the Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS). It also requires a one million dollar death benefit to the family of each officer killed in the line of duty.

The Blue Book States: “Currently, spouses and children of most law enforcement officers receive ongoing survivor benefits through the officer’s pension. For example, the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) pays beneficiaries at least 70 percent of a fallen officer’s base salary when the officer is killed in the line of duty. Most local law enforcement officers in Colorado are members of FPPA, but there are exceptions. Some local law enforcement agencies provide their own death and disability benefits that are less extensive. State law enforcement officers are covered under the Public Employees’ Retirement Association.”

Pro Argument: This measure increases funding for law enforcement without raising taxes. The state has a vested interest in ensuring that local governments can recruit and retain the best police officers possible. Local law enforcement agency death benefits differ, with some providing fewer benefits than others.

Anti Argument: This $350 million is a new cost with no new funding source. Funding Proposition 130 would necessitate budget cuts to vital services and programs. With no new revenue source, money would have to come from K-12 education, healthcare, transportation, prisons, affordable housing, food security and other services. Some of these cuts will increase crime. Given the limits under TABOR providing services would become even more difficult. The $350 million is to be allocated to the Colorado Department of Public Safety with no guidelines for equitable distribution across the state or accountability requirements.

This is a funding mandate that bypasses the budget process and will limit the ability for the state to provide services.

Opposed by: Colorado Fiscal Institute

Supported by: Independence Institute

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new election processes for certain federal and state offices, and, in connection therewith, creating a new all-candidate primary election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education, and the Colorado state legislature; allowing voters to vote for any one candidate per office, regardless of the voter’s or candidate’s political party affiliation; providing that the four candidates for each office who receive the most votes advance to the general election; and in the general election, allowing voters to rank candidates for each office on their ballot, adopting a process for how the ranked votes are tallied, and determining the winner to be the candidate with the highest number of votes in the final tally?

APA recommends a NO vote on Proposition 131

Here’s why:

What it does: This measure would change election for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education, and the Colorado state legislature. It would setup an open primary where all candidates for each office would be included. The top four candidates would then be on the general election ballot. Voters would rank the each candidate in the general election as first choice, second choice, third choice or fourth choice. If no candidate gets over 50% of the first choice votes then the second choice votes of the candidate with the fewest votes would be added to the appropriate candidate. This is repeated until a candidate gets over 50% of the votes.

 It would increase costs to the counties by about 9 million. State costs would increase about 6 million per year.

Pro Argument: Ranked choice voting allows voters who prefer a less popular candidate to vote for that candidate without helping elect someone they really don’t like. Boulder used ranked-choice voting in their mayoral election in 2023. It worked as intended.

Anti Argument: While ranked-choice voting gives voters more choices, the open primary would allow moneyed interests to have greater influence. Open primaries have been abused by Big Money in other jurisdictions to flood the race with “straw candidates” who dilute the Party votes and allow those with lots of TV advertising to rise to the top. Supporters have raised 17.6 million dollars. Opponents have raised 209,000 dollars. Kent Thiry, the former CEO of DaVita Dialysis is the prime supporter. Unaffiliated voters already get to vote in primary elections. It could produce areas where there are 4 democrats or there are 4 republicans that come out of the primary into the general election. Counties may have to mail separate ballots in the general because one would be ranked choice and the other not. This could be confusing.

This measure is using the rising popularity of Ranked Choice Voting as a cover to give us a “jungle primary” (all candidate/open primary) which is not a good idea.

Opposed by: Working Families Party, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Green Party, and Jeffco League of Women Voters (APA member Op-Ed)

Supported by: Colorado League of Women voters