April 20, 2026 · 6,678 words · 6 speakers · 164 segments
Okay. It is Monday, April 20th at 1.15 p.m., and we're doing the review and comment for proposed initiatives number three, four, and five.
If we can go ahead and state our name for the record, Hamza Saib of the Legislative
Council staff.
Jed Franklin, Office of Legislative Legal Services.
Patricia Victor. Proponent. A proponent, sorry.
Yep.
Linda Templin, Designated Representative. Josh Wallin, proponent.
Perfect. Section 1-40-1051 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the Directors of Legislative Council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to review and comment on initiative petitions for proposed laws and amendments to the Colorado Constitution. We hereby submit our comments and questions to you regarding the appended proposed initiative. The purposes of the statutory requirement of the Directors of Legislative Council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services provide comments and questions intended to aid the designated representatives and the proponents they represent in determining the language of their proposal and to avail the public of the contents of the proposal. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intended purpose of the proposal. We hope that the comments and questions in this memorandum provide a basis for discussion and understanding of the proposals. Discussions between designated representatives or their legal representatives and employees of legislative council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is encouraged during review and comment hearings. but comments or discussions from anyone else is not permitted. Proposed initiative 2027-28 number 3 and 4 were submitted by the same designated representatives as a series of proposed initiatives. The comments and questions raised in this memorandum address proposed initiative 2027-28 number 3 and 4 and for the record we are on the memo for proposed initiative 2027-28, 3 and 4 considering proportional representation in elections. On to the purposes. For Proposed Initiative No. 3, the major purpose of the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution and to the Colorado Revised Statutes appear to be 1. To mandate that members of the State Senate and House of Representatives be elected by a system of balloting and proportional representation. 2. To elect members of the State Senate using single-member districts and to elect members of the State House primarily using five-member districts, with exceptions allowing the 10 geographically largest House districts to remain single-member or combine to form two-member districts under certain conditions. Three, to apply the same balloting method used by the State House to the election of statewide officials in single-member districts. Number four, to elect United States Senators using the State House of Representatives single-member balloting method and to elect United States Representatives proportionally in three to five-member districts, accepting the two geographically largest districts to the extent permitted by federal law. Five, to allow the University of Colorado Board of Regents, statutory counties, and school boards to adopt proportional representation marrying the State House of Representatives method by a simple majority vote. Number six, to alter the method of nomination for partisan candidates, allowing major parties to nominate up to three candidates for single-member districts and up to four candidates for multi-member districts, while limiting minor parties to one candidate for single-member districts and up to two candidates for multi-member districts. and seven to create an independent balloting commission to determine whether voters are best served by pick one ballots with an open list reportable representation tally or rank method ballots with a single transferable vote tally do those sound like the purposes of proposed
initiative number three i have a few um a little bit of feedback um one of the things that was suggested by a former county clerk was the wording, and I'll send a memo, to number one, to require instead of to mandate. I can't speak to the logic of that, but anyway, that's what he was suggesting. So one is, not either way it
Okay. To require that members of the Colorado General Assembly and to the extent permitted by federal law, members of the Congress elected from Colorado be elected using a system of proportional representation. to provide...
Let me think into that. Because it is the intent that the Senate, both state and federal, be a single winner and that there be proportional representation for most of the House seats.
So when you say General Assembly, you mean both the House and the Senate?
Yes.
Okay. So for the Colorado and U.S. House of Representatives to be elected proportionally, there are exemptions
for rural counties because it would be onerous to have districts be larger than what they are. So it's like up to 10 of the geographically largest districts would be exempted.
So I'd say that's one. So that is to require.
There is another asterisk, if you will, that kind of that goes in there, which is to say that currently federal law prohibits the use of proportional representation. to seat members of the U.S. House. But we'd like to have that in Colorado law, and then when it is allowed federally to use it, that we're ready to go on day one with this. So that's one. Oh, and then two goes into, so forgive me. To provide was the suggested language that members of the state Senate be elected single member districts and members of the House of Representatives shall be elected primarily from five member districts, except that the 10 geographically largest house districts may remain single member districts and may be combined to form two member districts under specific specified conditions. For instance, Mesa County and Grand Junction. You know, what are you going to add Grand Junction to? You know, there aren't other dense areas around there, so may as well have that in the two representative district. Two. And then. Three, to apply the same voting method of balloting and vote tabulation used for elections to the State House of Representatives for statewide offices. And I would say that that is in both single and multi-member districts, because later on we're allowing seats lower than the state house to be elected proportionally if that's what those bodies want to do. So, you know, Board of Regents. OK, if it makes sense for them, that's. You know, would provide a little. Room for, you know, democracy to do whatever people need it to be doing, you know, to have a consult of body developed. OK, so that is. Sorry, that's extra verbiage. that's explanatory my my apologies uh but i will provide a written version of this um yeah this is
just sort of the generally capture what you okay you know are trying to do okay and we just want to know hey you know we have these seven things here are they okay that do a good job of saying what you are trying to do here yeah and if there's fine tuning i'll later is the time okay because We have a whole other list for number four. And five. Okay. Okay. So I'll start with these. The major purposes of the proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado – oh, yes. I forgot.
There is one that is of larger importance. Number six is if and only if ranked voting is used, then the partisan primaries can be or should be eliminated. But if it's a different system and having multiple candidates would be a problem, then no, don't get rid of the primaries.
Okay. Yeah. Okay. So for number four, the purposes appear to be, number one, to mandate that members of the state senate and house representatives be elected by a system of balloting and proportional representation. Two, to elect members of the state senate using single member districts and to elect members of the state house primarily using five member districts, with exceptions allowing the ten geographically largest house districts to remain single member or combine to form two member districts under certain conditions. Number three, to apply the same balloting method used by the Statehouse to the election of statewide officials in single-member districts. Four, to elect United States senators using the Statehouse of Representatives single-member balloting method and to elect United States representatives proportionally in three to five-member districts except the two geographically largest districts to the extent permitted by federal law. Number five, to allow the University of Colorado Board of Regents, statutory counties, and school boards to adopt proportional representation, mirroring the statehouse's method by a simple majority vote. Six, to alter the method of nomination for partisan candidates, allowing major parties to nominate up to three candidates for single-member districts and up to four candidates for multi-member districts, while limiting minor parties to one candidate for single-member districts and up to two candidates for multi-member districts. Number seven, to establish that, unless otherwise determined by the will of the voters, the method of balloting and tallying shall default to pick one ballot with an open list proportional representation tally. And. Eight, to create a commission specifically tasked with determining the method of open list proportional representation that best serves Colorado voters in the event voters have not adopted an alternative voting method. Do those sound like the major purposes of proposed initiative number four?
Yes, they do.
Okay. On to substantive comments and questions. The substantive proposed initiatives are the following comments and questions. One, Article 5, Section 1, 5.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of each proposed initiative?
Proportional representation.
For both?
Yeah, for both.
Okay.
It's as tailored to Colorado. I mean, you know, not a blanket, but something that makes proportional representation.
All right. Number two, Article 5, Section 1, 4A of the Colorado Constitution requires that when the majority of voters approve an initiative, the initiative is effective on and after the date of the official declaration of the vote and proclamation of the governor. Because the proposed initiatives do not contain an effective date, this would be the default effective date. Does this default effective date satisfy your intent? If not, you should include the desired effective date that is not earlier than the default effective date to comply with the constitutional requirement.
Excellent. That'll be in the follow up memo is because it's rolling. Right. The commission's figuring out how to use open list proportional in the event that rank choice is not used. Then, you know, obviously that happens ahead. So anyway.
Three What is the first election to which the proposed initiatives are meant to apply I believe that is 2032 Number four, a proposed initiative must indicate where the text of the proposed initiative will be located in the Colorado Constitution or the Colorado revised statutes. The proposed initiative makes this indication with some, but not all of the proposed new sections of law. And that's just a statement to be sure to keep that in mind. Okay. The following comments and questions relate to Section 1 of the proposed initiative. A. Proposed Article 5, Section 451 of the Colorado Constitution states that both the State Senate and the House of Representatives shall be elected by a system of balloting and proportional representation. However, proposed Article 5, Section 452 of the Colorado Constitution states that the Senate shall be elected to represent single member districts? One, how can proportional representation be achieved in a district that only
elects a single member? It does not. That would
need to be changed. Two, does the phrase proportional representation strictly apply to multi-member state House of Representative districts, or is there a specific mathematical mechanism intended for the state
Senate? Strictly to the multi-member State House of Representative districts or the other offices that opt in.
E. Proposed Article 5, Section 45.3 of the Colorado Constitution provides exceptions for the 10 geographically largest districts, allowing those districts to remain single-member districts or combine to form a two-member district in the event that a smaller district is within it as mitigated by a corresponding change to reduce the number of members for the geographically largest five-member districts. One, what is the proponent's intent with this provision?
To have, to meet the needs of candidates and representatives that they don't have a hodgepodge of districts that they have to drive between, essentially. So it would be it's it's based on geographic realities of the state.
Two, how does a smaller district exist within a another district?
OK, so it is, for instance, the district that covers Grand Junction is within the district that is Mesa County and areas beyond that. So it's an urban area that is isolated from other urban areas.
Three, what is the specific meaning of mitigated by a corresponding change to reduce the number of members?
Oh, that it... Let me think into why I phrased it like that. Oh, you know, it's just that the total number of members wouldn't change, so that's awkwardly phrased. The total number of members being elected to the General Assembly doesn't change.
And for what conditions would be mitigated?
Yeah, it needs to be rephrased. utilized. You touched on it a bit. Oh, it would remain fixed unless we decide to expand, you know, the number of, I think it would involve some renovations in this building, but, you know, if we decide we need more representatives. But yeah, it would remain fixed. Okay. You touched on this a
bit, but for the record, if the total number of state House representative members fluctuates due to geographic exceptions in proposed Article 5, Section 45.3 of the Colorado Constitution, is the proponent's intent that the constitutionally limited total number of state Senate members also fluctuates given the interlocking balloting methods?
Yeah, so the number for the Senate would also remain fixed.
All right, number six. The following comments and questions relate to Section 3 of the proposed initiatives. A. This section lists the governor and lieutenant governor among those who shall be elected to represent single-member districts. Pursuence Article 4, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution, the governor and lieutenant governor are elected jointly on a single ticket. Is it the proponent's intent to sever the joint election of the governor and lieutenant governor, requiring them to run and be elected separately in their own respective single-member district races?
No, it is not. That is a grammatical error.
You have suggested?
Oh, I don't have the initiative for me.
Okay, we're good. We can give you feedback, but we don't want to write the initiative. Okay.
You know what I mean? It's just sort of our role. Okay. No, I appreciate everything you guys are providing, so thank you.
So B, are you ready?
Yep.
Okay. B, proposed Article 10, Section 10, 1 of the Colorado Constitution requires statewide officials to be elected using the same balloting method to represent single-member districts. Are these races also considered to be conducted via proportional representation?
No, those are – the proportional representation doesn't apply to all of the races.
Okay. See, proposed Article 10, Section 10-2 of the Colorado Constitution states that the University of Colorado Board of Regents, statutory counties, and school boards may adopt proportional representation by simple majority. Does simple majority refer to a simple majority of the voters in a jurisdiction during an election, or does it refer to a simple majority vote by the governing body of a jurisdiction?
You know, I see that does need clarification. It was intended is it would be a simple majority vote by the governing body. And, of course, allowing them to refer it to the voters if they want to, because sometimes that's their preference. So I would then keep both things in. Just use the word. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Seven, the following comments and questions related to Section 4 of the proposed initiatives. A. Proposed Article 10, Section 10-2 of the Colorado Constitution requires that the United States congressional representatives be elected in three to five member districts to the extent permitted by federal law. Specifically, two USC to federal law generally requires states to establish single member districts for the election for the United States House of Representatives. If federal law remains unchanged and prohibits multi member congressional districts, is it the proponents intent that the state will eventually default to single member districts for the United States House of Representatives?
Yes.
Okay. B, Colorado currently has eight United States congressional representatives. By reserving two single member seats, there are only six seats remaining. Is it the proponent's intent to mandate exactly two three member districts for the remainder of the state? How would this mathematical distribution apply if Colorado gains or loses congressional seats as a result of future federal decennial censuses?
There would be directions to the districting board, the nonpartisan redistricting board, to work out how to best serve the priorities laid out by the... the well in three it would revert to letting the independent balloting commission provide a list of like well here's what you need to do to divide the state up proportionally because there's of course many different ways it could happen.
We'll stay out of the math details.
But in four, it would be yep, you're right. It does need further direction to the district and committee.
C. Proposed Article 10, Section 10.3 of the Colorado Constitution states no federal body balloting limitations shall alter the state general assembly balloting. The federal courts rule that a multi-member proportional representation system violates the Federal Voting Rights Act for specific demographics in Colorado. This is the proponent's intent that the Colorado Constitution would prohibit the state from complying with the federal court order regarding state general assembly balloting.
Oh, okay. There's currently... Wait. So the, you know, the current, and I know this is statutory, not constitutional, but there is the State Voting Rights Act, and it leaves open alternative voting methods broadly. So it is the intent is that it would if, you know, the STV doesn't serve the purposes of a Voting Rights Act, then, you know, will open list proportional serve those purposes. So I could we could broaden it to, you know, other proportional methods as determined by the court. I mean, it could be that deferential item. I don't know if I want to, but anyway.
That provides some flexibility. Good point. Let's see. Okay. Okay. Number eight. The amending clauses for Section 5 of the proposed initiatives indicate that the proposed Proposed initiatives intend to amend Article 5, Section 46 of the Colorado Constitution, but those proposed initiatives do not show new or stricken text in this section. Was this intentional? Do the proposed initiatives make any changes to this section of the Colorado Constitution?
I don't know. That was not intentional, and that will need an update.
Okay. Nine, the following comments and questions relate to Section 6 of the proposed initiatives. A. Proposed Section 14502.1.5 states that nominations for single-member districts in statewide offices may be made for up to three candidates for each major party. If a district or statewide office only elects one individual, what is the proponent's intent in allowing a single political party to nominate three candidates for the general election ballot? How will votes be touted if multiple candidates from the same major parties split the vote in single member districts Ah okay So this is another and thank you thank you very much This is another if and only if ranked balloting is used
And also there are workarounds in OLPR, which is not used anywhere in the U.S. which is why nobody knows what it is or I should say most regular people do not know great I can circle back with that
B. Post section 14502.1.5 establishes nomination limits for multi-member districts in statewide races. Since statewide offices are elected by the entire state, in fact, acting as a single jurisdiction, how can there be a multi-member district within a statewide race? Is the proponent's intent for this direction to apply to general assembly races rather than statewide executive offices? Yeah, so, right,
you can't proportionally elect single winners, so, yeah, that is not intended. single. It's just that the single winner races would use the same balloting type, not the same
tally type. C, proposed section 14502.1.5 states that nominations for multi-member districts and statewide races may be made for up to four candidates for each major party and up to two for each minor party. One, since the state house of representatives will primarily be five member districts, is it the proponent's intent that no single major political party could ever run a full of five candidates for a five-member district.
Yeah, that is the intent, and the purpose of that is to accommodate the needs of the county clerks. Now, it's likely that major parties will have fewer candidates than that, but you know we want to give them the flexibility because if they feel that's what they need that's what they need but we don't want to get into a situation and this is also um anyway voter um standard design is if you make the list too long it taxes people's nerves so that's why it's for okay so yes it's the intent
two if a party can only nominate four candidates for five available seats how are voters expected
to fill the fifth seat. Oh, okay. So it would be likely from another party that it wouldn't all be one party winning seats. And so there would likely be another party or an independent.
Three, how do these nominations limits, how do these nomination limits apply to unaffiliated candidates who are not explicitly categorized as a major party or minor party in this subsection?
Oh, okay. There can be as many independent candidates as people who petition onto the ballot. So they count, if you have a minor party and four major parties, that's five.
And the independent comes along, is he sixth or does he kick out somebody?
Okay, so that's not – you would still have five seats elected, but you would have more candidates than that on the ballot, right? Because there's always going to be a few random real estate agents that have their name up for recognition or non-serious candidates. And that's just –
It would be more than five on the ballot.
It would be more than five on the ballot, but you only elect. You only elect five, yeah.
Okay. Okay, so I think it's my turn. Number 10, the following comments and questions relate to Section 7 of Proposed Initiative 2027-2028, number 3. A, what are pick-one ballots with an open list proportional representation tally? Let's see.
I have an entire memo on the topic. So, yes, I will provide more information to explain what is OLPR, how does it work. But it is what it comes to for the voter is it's a pick one ballot. So it looks the same as what people have now. And then anyway, the tally is different because there's slates of candidates. It's a longer explanation, but I can do that memo format.
Okay. Okay. B, what is the rank method ballot with single transferable vote tally as currently described in Rule 26? To what specific body of rules does Rule 26 refer?
Yeah, it's within, I think it's Title I elections.
Okay. But, yeah. So is it like a Secretary of State rule?
You know, it got incorporated into the body of CRS. So it started as a secretary of state's rule and it's so it started under a Republican county secretary of state and it has withstood, you know, a Democratic secretary of state. So, and it is the gold standard nationally for how you write this. So it does, you know, deserve a place within the Constitution. Like, if you're using this, this is how you do it.
So we just might want to make it a little bit clearer. What is that referred to?
Okay. Rule 26 of. So I'll bring the whole thing in.
Sure.
Something like that.
Okay. There's a lot of Rule 26s. Oh, what? Crazy talk. Okay, yes. All right. C, what is the deadline for this commission to convene and make its final determination? Okay. Okay.
Yeah, and I will get the actual date for that because the clerks will have detailed, you know, it's already within current rules. what the redistricting committee needs. Okay.
All right. D, what does it mean to say that the commission shall be compromised in a manner that mirrors the independent redistricting commission? Since the commission is required to have members who are county clerks and tenured professors, which the independent redistricting commission is not required to have. Okay. That is an excellent point.
Yeah, the purpose of having them, anyway, there is a purpose, which is these are subject matter experts. But I guess it means, and I'll provide this in written format, but to explain what the qualifications are, because it was very detailed. So I can get into those details.
Okay. E. The proposed measure requires the committee to use clear criteria for the selection of committee members. Who selects the committee members? What does it mean for the committee to use clear criteria for the selection of committee members?
That is – okay. Yep, I can – I will get into more – provide more detail on that. Thank you.
Okay. F. Because the commission includes an even number of partisan and unaffiliated members, What happens if the commission ties or otherwise fails to reach a consensus on the balloting method?
Who's got the – okay. We'll get in the – make sure we have a means of having an odd number.
Okay. Thank you. G, how is it determined whether a commission applicant has competence in election administration or recent lobbying or candidacy? Okay.
Yeah, so that's part of the qualifications that we'll be providing more detail on. So that is, again, excellent feedback. Thank you.
Okay, great. H. Once the commission decides on a method, does that decision automatically bind the statutory counties, school boards, and the CU Board of Regents if they choose to adopt proportional representation under proposed section 3?
Yes.
Okay. Number 11. What constitutes the will of the voters for purposes of section 7 of the proposed initiative, 27, 27, 28, number 4?
Oh, that there would be a parallel measure for ranked voting. So if the people vote for ranked voting, then it would be used. If that doesn't pass, then we get proportional representation anyway. We just use the pick one ballots.
But does the will of the voters mean like a majority?
Okay.
Thank you.
I believe this will be a statutory because we want people to be able to, again, adjust as human needs change. So I can add in the definitions for passing a statutory measure. Would that satisfy? That would probably help, yeah.
I mean, it's just a question of, I think it's, you could just say, maybe you could say a majority of voters or a majority of the electorate or something like that.
Oh, okay. That's what we're trying to get at is what it just says, the will of the voters, and we're like, well, what does that mean?
Okay. All right, number 12. The following comments and questions relate to section 8 of proposed initiative 2027-2028, number 4. A. Since the open list proportional representation tally is already established as the default in proposed section 7, what specific details is the commission tasked with determining?
Oh, excellent point. So they would be tasked with the rules for open list proportional representation because there are a myriad of complexities and different systems that get used. And this is, again, a thing for political scientists and mathematicians to work out. So that's what it would be. Okay. And is the commission intended to select a specific mathematical formula for allocating seats? Yeah, that's within the methods of like the Jeffersonian method or it's specified within that. So yes, they would be selecting from existent methods.
Okay. Okay, the next part is technical comments, which we do not have to read if you guys are okay with skipping them. Do you have any questions on any of them?
You know, there were... Let me think. Questions. No, most of them are... I don't have questions about them.
Do you have any other comments, questions, or statements you'd like to make on proposed initiatives three and four?
Thank you.
Perfect. We're going to move on to proposed initiative number five, considering ranked choice voting in elections, all proponents and designated representatives are the same. There's some copies of this one. Okay, on to Proposed Initiative number five. Section 1-40-1051 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that directors of legislative council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services to review and comment on initiative petitions to propose laws and amendments to the Colorado Constitution We hereby submit our comments and questions to you regarding the appended proposed initiative The purpose of the statutory requirement of the directors of legislative council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services is to provide comments and questions intended to aid the designated representatives and the proponents they represent in determining the language of their proposals and to avail the public of the contents of the proposals. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intended purposes of the proposal. We hope that the comments and questions of this member are in a providing basis for discussion and understanding of the proposal. Discussion between designated representatives or their legal representatives and employees of legislative council staff in the Office of Legislative Legal Services is encouraged during review and comment meetings, but comments or discussions from anyone else is not permitted. On to the purposes. The major purpose of the proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes appear to be, one, to require elections for statewide offices to be conducted using ranked voting method. Two, to allow the University of Colorado Board of Regents, statutory counties, and school boards to adopt the ranked voting method. Three, to change nominations for candidates for the United States Senator, Representative of Congress, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, Member of the State Board of Education, Regent of the University of Colorado, member of the General Assembly, district attorney, and county officer, said nominations can only be made by assembly, convention, or petition for nominations that can no longer be made by primary election. Okay, oh, right, my turn. Number four, to allow for up to three candidate nominations for each major political party for single-member districts for elections for statewide office, and only one nomination for each minor political party for single-member districts for elections for statewide office. Five, to allow for up to four candidate nominations for each major political party for multi-member districts for elections for statewide office and up to two nominations for each minor political party for multi-member districts for elections for statewide office. Number six, to allow if the University of Colorado Board of Regents, a statutory county, or a school board has adopted proportional representation. For up to four candidate nominations for each major political party for multi-member districts for elections for members of the adopting entity. And up to two nominations for each minor political party for multi-member districts for elections for members of the adopting entity. Those sound like the purposes of your initiative.
Yes, they do.
Okay. We're going to have substantive comments and questions. One, Article 5, Section 1, 5.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of the proposed initiative?
Ranked voting method.
Number two, Article 5, Section 1, 4a of the Colorado Constitution requires that when the majority of voters approve an initiative, the initiative is effective on and after the date of the official declaration of the vote and proclamation of the governor. Because the proposed initiative does not contain an effective date, this would be the default effective date. Does this default effective date satisfy your intent? If not, you should include the desired effective date that is not earlier than the default effective date to comply with the constitutional requirement.
Okay. Yeah, I will get the exact date, but the target is 2030.
Okay. Three, the amended clause for Section 1 of the proposed initiative proposes to amend Section 45 of Article 5 of the Colorado Constitution. Constitution. For the section head note reads, Section 10, Ranked Voting Methods, and none of the text from the current Section 45 or Article 5 of the Colorado Constitution appears in strike text. Did you intend to amend Section 45 of Article 5 of the Colorado Constitution or to add a new section of the Colorado Constitution? If you were intending to add a new section,
consider changing the amending clause for Section 1. Yeah, this was errors in the actual section citations.
Number four, what is the first election to which the proposed initiative is meant to apply?
The 2030 election.
Five, the following comments and questions related to section one of the proposed initiative. A. Subsection one refers to Rule 26, but is not specific as to what this means. Do you have a tender for Rule 26 of 8 CCR 1505-1 election rules as established by the Colorado Secretary of State? Consider specifying the rule to which you are referencing. Thank you.
Do I simply say Rule 26 of 8 CCR 1505-1? Do I simply say that or do I bring the whole text in?
Because if they. I think that you don't need to put election rules as established by the Secretary of State, but you should put in the 8 CCR 1505-1.
You know, I said it out loud and then I realized, why don't I port the whole thing in because somebody could mess it up later?
Well, if you did put the whole thing in, it's not the end of the world.
I mean, it is descriptive.
It wouldn't kill it.
You know what I mean?
It makes sense.
It doesn't hurt?
Okay.
It doesn't hurt.
It's maybe not perfect statutory drafting in office, but for what you're trying to do, it makes sense because you're trying to explain to people what rule is coming from. Okay. Oh, okay.
Got it. Thank you.
B, subsection 1 provides that the Constitution incorporates those rules. To which rules does this sentence refer? Are you referring to certain rules that are already incorporated elsewhere in the Constitution, or are you intended to incorporate certain rules with the inclusion of that sentence?
I believe that is a grammatical error.
So, C. I'm sorry. C. Rules can be easily changed or amended, but changing the Colorado Constitution requires voter approval. Is it your intent that these rules changes? The requirement of the Colorado Constitution would also change without a vote due to the rules being incorporated by reference into the Colorado Constitution. And that's the problem with citing the rule in the Constitution, because if the rule changed, just as it does from time to time, it would be incorporated into the Constitution, that change.
So you wouldn't have any control over what ended up happening. Got it. Okay. Thank you.
D. Subsection 2 provides that the University of Colorado Board of Regents, statutory counties, and the school boards shall have the option to adopt ranked voting methods. For which provisions or offices did you intend these entities to adopt ranked voting?
Yes, I can put in the titles of the actual seats being elected.
Okay, got it. E. Subsection 2 references a majority vote of those bodies, but the proposed initiative does not refer to a body in connection with the statutory counties. Would the Board of County Commissioners or a statutory county have the authority to adopt a ranked voting method for the statutory county? If not, which body would have that authority?
It is the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of the statutory county would have the authority. So I will spell that out.
All right. Number six, the following comments and questions relate to Section 2 of the proposed initiative. a. The amendment to subsection 1 of section 1-4-502 of the Colorado Revised Statutes adds the phrase, for state, senate, and state house of representative districts, after the phrase, member of the general assembly. Given that member of the general assembly directly applies to a member of the state senate or a member of the state house of representatives, what is the purpose of adding that language? There is no purpose. It should be deleted. Okay. 6B, in current law,
subsection 1 of section 1-4-502 of the Colorado Revised Statutes contains text that does not show
up in the proposed initiative. Did you intend to repeal that text? If so, amend the proposed initiative so that the text appears in strike type. Okay, thank you. Yeah, we don't intend to
repeal segments of CRS. Okay. 6C, the proposed initiative refers to single-member districts and
multi-member districts. What do these terms mean and to what types of districts are the terms referring. Okay, great. So I can provide better verbiage for that. Single member districts means
it has one seat being elected and multi-member districts means there's multiple seats being elected in the same, for the same district. Okay. 6D. How will the number of candidate
nominations proposed in subsection 1.5 fit within the new process of voting that the initiative of it proposes? Oh, okay. So it's the why, essentially. So part of the purpose of the
primaries is to avoid vote splitting between similar candidates, and using the rank voting method, that is no longer a hazard because people can rank, you know, additional choices. So they're not wasting their vote. They just say who they love, who they like, who they can live with. And then the tally finds the consensus of a majority. So either single winner or proportionally. So the primaries would no longer be necessary. And some of the parties have expressed that they don't care for non-party members telling them who their candidates are.
and this would make anyway this is getting into the politics anyway it makes the parties a little bit stronger because then they can say well this is our platform so if you're not trying to you know further our platform do you belong on our party line or maybe you need to petition on and not use party resources to do stuff that is not what the party is planning to do so anyway that's kind of the larger purposes of it thank you
And E, what does the term proportional representation in subsection 1.6 mean?
Okay. So I can provide additional verbiage. The outline of the thumbnail of it is if a third of the people in a district have a viewpoint, then they should have a third of the seats in the governing body. so that's why it's proportional it's more of a um a granular image so a higher resolution if you will image of how do the people in that district think and believe and what what are their wants and needs so um that is so i can get into um language that expresses that better okay
That is it for all of our special comments and questions. Do you have any comments or questions on our technical comments?
I do not.
Okay. Do you have any other comments or questions for Proposed Initiative number five?
Excuse me. I do not.
Okay. With that, we'll end the review and comment for Proposed Initiative five, and then the overall three, four, and five. Thank you all.
Thank you so much.