Get out your pens and pencils—it’s going to be a long ballot for the November election! Once again, voters will be asked to weigh in on a long list of questions that require public approval.
Some of the questions are technical, some involve narrow interest areas, and most require a lot of information that is beyond our everyday lives. Soon, voters will receive the longest Blue Book in Colorado history—a summary of ballot questions that tries to explain what these ballot questions do and how much they will cost taxpayers.
But there is one measure that will impact most of us and deserves more attention and explanation about how it could impact our democracy: Proposition 131 will upend Colorado’s election system and open the doors wider to special interest hidden money into our politics. It’s not voter-friendly, it’s expensive, and it’s based on false promises.
Let’s start with their first promise – you can vote for any candidate in the primary. False. Only half of the candidates are covered by 131: US Senate and House, governor, and other statewide candidates and legislative candidates. US President, district attorneys, county, city, and other local races will remain the same. That means Colorado voters will get two separate ballots in the primary, two separate ballots in the general, and two separate ways to vote.
Who is behind it? Wealthy Colorado former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry and a cabal of billionaires in a group called United America, including members of the Murdoch family. Who benefits from it? People with money who want to influence elections. And Colorado certainly does not need more money in politics. (This group also pushes similar models in Montana, Nevada, and Idaho this year.)
If you need evidence that this big money will show its hand, just look to June’s primary, when Thiry dumped $1.1 million in PAC dollars into ads for his chosen candidates just three days before the election. Aurora Rep. Mike Weissman, the winner of his state Senate primary, endured this last-minute attempt to influence the race through dark money.
Proposition 131 was written without addressing current campaign finance laws. Colorado has some of the lowest contribution limits in the country, but the US Supreme Court has ruled that there can be no limits on “independent” dark money. So, as moneyed special interests directly fund newly expense campaigns under Proposition 131’s unprecedented, risky way of conducting elections, even more, moneyed special interests will likely further barrage voters with ads paid for by organizations with meaningless names like “Coloradans For a More Awesome Colorado.” The result will diminish the voter’s voice, contrary to Proposition 131’s proponents claim.
That means the candidate with the most money wins, which will come from undisclosed PAC and special interest spending.
Taxpayers will foot the bill for this experiment, to the tune of at least 21 million dollars in state and local money over the first 2-3 years.
Other states’ experiences demonstrate what could go wrong here. A University of Pennsylvania study shows that a vote in a ranked-choice election is 10 times more likely to have a mistake, which means it will be invalidated, and the voter will never know. A University of Minnesota study of ranked-choice elections showed no evidence that ranked-choice voting produced any moderation or diversity of elections, lessened partisanship, or changed the political landscape in any significant way.
In fact, this model is so complicated election results have been delayed up to two weeks past Election Day. Voters in RCV elections have less confidence in the results and find the whole process to be frustrating, especially in traditionally underrepresented communities.
Both Republican and Democratic county clerks, who run our elections statewide, were never consulted about 131 and have raised red flags about whether it can be implemented correctly with the available resources and in the proposed tight time frame. We should take their concerns seriously. They support a commonsense plan to test this model in several different counties before we attempt to implement it statewide.
This is not a partisan battle. This is a democratic battle to ensure our elections remain safe, secure, accurate, and voter-friendly. Vote no on Prop 131.
State Rep. Iman Jodeh, D-Aurora, represents House District 41.
I commend Representative Jodeh for her timely, critical assessment of whit I call the Oligarch’s Election Act of 2024. This proposition will put more influence into the hands of the wealthiest Coloradoans, out-of-staters, and possible foreign individuals and corporations. It will virtually eliminate minor political parties like the Libertarians and the Greens and reduce the choices that Coloradoans have at the ballot box. It is NOT good for Colorado. VOTE NO ON #131.
It sure looks like someone wants voters to know little about the policies and preferences of our candidates.
And that someone sure wants us to vote blind. Kill this nonsense on Election Day.
Agreed! We don’t need more billionaires putting their thumbs on the scale! This isn’t a grassroots effort; this is one man’s idea. It’s confusing because it adds another layer to our election process and invites out-of-state influencers to tamper with Colorado! VOTE NO TO PROP 131!
I’m really excited! I have found one thing that I agree with Rep. Jodeh. For different reasons but still, a beginning.
Likewise to commenter Kane.
I 100% oppose money in politics, but fail to see the correlation between RCV and rich people buying elections. RCV is the only chance 3rd party candidates with far less resources have to challenge a duopoly candidate from either party. And let’s be honest, the wealthy control both parties at this point. RCV is the only real chance to challenge big money in elections.
As I recall, a Chris Rhodes, ran for a local office with socialism as your main agenda. Could that be you?