Thank you, Rep. Emily Sirota for ensuring that Colorado voters and county clerks are not overwhelmed with massive election changes that moneyed interests hope to foist on us through the ballot box this November.
Sirota’s amendment to Senate Bill 210, an election reform bill, will ensure the rollout of ranked-choice voting, should it pass by voter initiative, will be implemented thoughtfully. The amendment, which passed unanimously, would require a dozen Colorado municipalities of varying sizes and demographics to conduct ranked-choice voting before it goes statewide.
The phase-in will allow cities to develop best practices before all jurisdictions are required to implement a complicated and wholesale change. Just as mail-in voting was phased in over several years, the Sirota amendment will give clerks time to develop policies, purchase software, train employees, and educate their constituents.
It also gives voters the opportunity to see how ranked choice voting works and gives them a chance to repeal it after the new car smell fades and they see how confusing and unfair it is. This election, Alaska voters are looking to repeal the ranked-choice voting system they approved just four years ago. They would have saved themselves a lot of money and frustration if the system had been implemented in a dozen jurisdictions instead of going all in from the start.
A ranked-choice voting system for Colorado is being sought by the wealthy former CEO of DaVita, a Denver-based kidney dialysis provider, Kent Thiry. His proposal, which has been approved for signature collection, would impose an open primary and ranked-choice general elections on the state.
Here’s how it would work: Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could run in the primary with the top four contenders advancing to the general election. In the general, voters would be asked to rank candidates in order of preference.
It’s a confusing system, so I’ll put names to an example. Let’s say that out of a gubernatorial primary former Sen. Cory Gardner, current Sen. Michael Bennet, former Rep. Ken Buck, and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston advance to the general.
I vote in the general for Bennet, Johnston, Buck, and Gardner in that order. If nobody gets 50% of the statewide vote, the votes are retallied. Let’s say that in the first tally, Bennet gets the least number of votes and is eliminated. Johnston, my second choice will get my vote. If Johnston is eliminated in round two, Buck will get my vote and either he or Gardner will emerge from the final round.
In some elections, after all the tallying is done the most popular candidate (the one most voters ranked first) will go home empty-handed. In the 2010 Oakland mayoral race, the candidate who received the most votes in round one ultimately lost the election after nine rounds of vote redistribution. How fair is that to candidates or voters?
If you’re confused, imagine how much effort, time, and money the Secretary of State and county clerks will have to expend to educate voters. It is likely the complexity will persuade some voters to chuck their ballot. Then there will be less voter participation.
Being confusing isn’t the only problem with ranked-choice voting. Let’s say you picked only Johnston and Bennet and neither of them made it to the third round; your ballot will be considered exhausted and tossed out. Only those who voted for Buck and Gardner in whatever order, will be counted in the final tally.
This has happened. In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, the candidate who got the most votes ultimately lost to the second-place candidate. The Maine Secretary of State threw out more than 14,000 exhausted ballots from people who did not vote for the top two candidates. Sound fair?
Proponents of ranked-choice voting think that such a system will reduce the number of extremist candidates and help voters coalesce around a mainstream candidate. This is a solution looking for a problem that isn’t a problem.
Colorado does not have a problem with extreme candidates or officeholders. I did not vote for either of the state’s U.S. senators, my congressman, my representatives in the Colorado General Assembly, the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state or the treasurer. While they are wrong on most issues, not one of them is extreme. Not one. Fanatics do come along but the current system is self-correcting.
Extreme Democrats like Reps. Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernández face formidable primary opponents this year and extreme Republicans like Ron Hanks and Dave Williams are unlikely to win in their primaries. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert had to flee her home district because voters yearned for normalcy and were poised to turn her out in the primary or general.
While we’re popping illusion balloons, the Sirota Amendment was not some sneaky last-minute ploy. County clerks and the Colorado Clerks Association approached Sirota with the concerns they have about implementing the Thiry proposal if it passed and she listened. Matt Crane, executive director clerks association, told me that organization “strongly support[s] the amendment and appreciate[s] Rep. Sirota’s willingness to include it in the bill.”
Sirota explained the reasoning behind the amendment and the language was displayed for all to read. It passed unanimously on voice vote. Every member of the House had the opportunity to read the bill before the final vote which passed easily. Later that day, the Senate voted unanimously to concur with the House amendments. Republican and Democratic leadership all voted for the bill as amended. If any have second thoughts, it’s on them.
Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
Originally Published: June 18, 2024 at 5:01 a.m.
