March 16, 2026 · 8,215 words · 6 speakers · 142 segments
Testing, one, two, three, test, test, testing, test, test. Testing one, two, test, test.
Okay, perfect. We're all set. So it is Monday, March 16th at 3.37 p.m., and we are doing the review and comment hearing for proposed initiatives 2025-2026, numbers 262, 263, and 264. If we could go around and introduce ourselves to the record, Hamza Seah with Legislative Council staff.
Pierce Lively, Office of Legislative Legal Services.
Martha Tierney, counsel for the designated representatives.
John Retram, designated representative.
Craig Donaldson, designated representative. Perfect. Section 1-48-1051 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 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 statutory requirements of the Directors of Legislative Council Staff and the Office of of legal services to provide is to provide comments and questions intended to aid designated representatives and the proponents they represent in determining the language of the proposals and to avail the public of the content of the proposal. Our first objective is to be sure we understand your intended purposes of the proposal. We hope that the comments and questions in this memorandum provide a basis for a discussion and understanding of the proposal. 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 the purpose of initiative 2025 26 number 262 or the this proposed initiative was submitted by the same designated representatives as a part of a group of related proposal proposed initiatives including proposed initiative 2025 2026 262 to 264. the comments and questions raised in this memorandum do not include comments and questions that were were addressed in the memorandum for proposed initiatives 2022, 2025, 2026, number 263, and 264, except as necessary to fully understand proposed initiative number 262. Comments and questions addressed in this memorandum may also be relevant, and those comments and questions are considered part of this memorandum. Great. The major purposes of the proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and to the Colorado Revised Statutes appear to be, one, to change the method of electing members of the Colorado General Assembly to open list proportional representation. Two, to divide the state into seven senatorial districts and 13 representative districts with five members to be elected from each district. Three, to guarantee that a political party receives at least one seat in a district if its nominees collectively receive more than one-sixth of the votes cast in at least three seats if they receive more than half of the votes cast. Four, to require that all five state senators from a given district be elected at the same general election. Five, to amend the criteria for the Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission by redefining a competitive district as one having a reasonable potential for the party affiliation of at least one of the district's representatives to change. Six, to authorize political parties, joint slates, and unaffiliated slates to nominate up to five candidates in each legislative district to determine the rank order in which they appear on the ballot. Seven, to create petitioning processes for minor political parties and unaffiliated candidates to run as multi-member slates. Eight, to require the ballots group candidates by their political party, joint slate, or unaffiliated slate, and allow voters to vote for one candidate. Nine, to establish the Jefferson method of proportional representation as the mathematical process for tallying votes and awarding seats to candidate slates based on their proportional vote share. And ten, to require that any vacancy in the General Assembly be filled by a member of the same political party as the vacating member. Do the proponents agree with
these stated purposes? Yes, generally. As we go through our discussion today, we're going to be making some changes and they may, as a result, impact some of those purposes. But yes, generally.
Okay. The substance of the proposed initiative raises the following comments and questions. 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?
The single subject is to elect the Colorado General Assembly by open list proportional representation.
Q, the following questions relate to section one of the proposed initiative. A, what is the proponent's intent in stating that the General Assembly shall determine a method of proportional representation while dictating a method of proportional representation in the proposed initiative?
Well, the goal here is that the constitutional revisions need to be changed in order to adopt proportional representation. We did not want to put that level of minutiae in the Constitution, so we put it in the statute. but understanding that yes I suppose later on the General Assembly could alter that method slightly but that's why we did what we did.
Proposed Article 5 Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution guarantees a certain number of a political party's nominees will be elected if certain conditions are met. Do these guarantees apply to unaffiliated slates or writing candidates? Proposed section 1711023A of the Colorado Revised Statute states that each joint slate, unaffiliated slate, and write-in candidate is treated as a separate political party for purposes of tallying the votes.
Yes.
What constitutes a political party for the purposes of elections to the General Assembly is determined by statute. And this measure includes unaffiliated slates and write-in candidates in that definition for certain purposes. C. What is meant by the vote cast in proposed Article 5, Section 2-2? Is it votes cast intended to mean the total number of ballots cast by voters residing in that district, including ballots where the voter left the General Assembly race blank? Or does it strictly mean the total number of valid votes tabulated for that specific General Assembly race? How do undervotes impact the calculation of the one-sixth and one-half constitutional thresholds?
So we will make a change here because votes cast should only include votes cast in the relevant race. It should not include undervotes. And so we'll look at clarifying that.
D. The reenacted language in Article 5, Section 2.5 of the Colorado Constitution states that a person appointed to fill a vacancy shall be a member of the same political party, if any, as the person whose termination of membership created the vacancy. If an individual who ran as part of an unaffiliated slate creates a vacancy, what is the mechanism for filling it? How does the mechanism interact with the current procedures in section 112-203?
We'll again consider a clarifying change here.
The unaffiliated slate should have a vacancy committee in its petitions, as described in 14802-1E, and a vacancy in a seat held by an individual ran as part of an unaffiliated slate should be filled in the same manner
that a vacancy would be filled today for an unaffiliated incumbent.
And proposed section 11104.20.5, the calendar by statute states a joint slate is treated as the slate of a single political party when counting votes. If a vacancy is created by a member who was elected on a joint slate, which political
party is entitled to fill the vacancy under article 5, section 2.5?
We will clarify that the party affiliation of the member who vacated at the office at the time, the party affiliation at the time they were elected of the person who vacated the office. All right. The following questions relate to Section 2 of the proposed initiative. Is it possible for one half of the state senators to be chosen biannually if state senators are elected in five member districts?
So no, the language only requires that one half of the senators as nearly as practicable may be chosen by any elite.
And so in this case, because they have to be chosen in chunks of five, we anticipate that 15 will be chosen in some cycles and 20 would be chosen in the alternate cycle. Okay. I just mainly was confirming that that as nearly as practicable was not meant to somehow override the five, because as you point out, you can't possibly be one off.
Right. You have to be five off. Right.
Since state senators currently serve staggered four-year terms, how do proponents intend to handle the transition for sitting senators whose terms extend past the election when the new method of election goes into effect? Will some senators' terms be truncated, or will there be a transition period?
This is a really good question and made us think a lot, so we will make some clarifying change here. We intend to make clear that there will be a transition period, and I think the solution we're going to come up with is that even-numbered districts would get elected first, 15 of them, and there would then be a few senators short of the total number you could have and then that would be made up in the next year when the odd-numbered districts would be elected and then you would be at the full complement of senators thereon. And we have some version of this with regular redistricting as it stands now.
And to my knowledge, there's only one court case that has addressed this, and it did address the state senate. And it's only somewhat applicable because of your different approach, but probably worth considering that the courts have addressed this question at least once, once to my knowledge. Okay, good. Thank you. Four, the initiative has an effective date of January 1st, 2027. Article 5, Section 46 of the Colorado Constitution requires that the Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission convenes and establishes districts after each federal decennial census. Is it the proponent's intent that the commission must convene out of cycle in 2027 to draw the new seven Senate state and 13 state House districts using 2022 census data in time for the 2028 or 2030 elections?
Also a good question. And your question made us think that what we will do is make the effective date after the 2020-30 cycle so that the Independent Commission could draw the new maps in 31, and then they would start electing under this model in 32.
Yeah, I mean, you can also consider whether you want to instead have something like an applicability clause talking about what elections this applies to, if any of this needs to be in effect before 2030. I'm not sure, but it's always an option as well to have some of this in effect before it actually applies to elections. There are many routes to go, but I think as written, it would instantly go into effect on Jan 1. And that seems untenable. I think there's a question at the end that is essentially that question again. Section four of the proposed initiative reduces the number of state Senate districts from 35 to 7. Article five, section one, 2.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires that a petition for an initiated constitutional amendment shall be signed by registered electors who reside in each state Senate district in an amount equal to at least 2% of the total registered electors.
It's the proponent's intent to lower the signature threshold for initiated constitutional amendments.
It is not our intent to lower the signature threshold in terms of the number of signatures that must be gathered, but it would necessarily reduce the geographic diversity because you would have fewer districts in which to have to get 2%. Right. Okay. Five. Section five – or excuse me. Six, right? Yeah six just starts with five Yeah sorry Section five of the proposed initiative amends the definition of competitive to mean having a reasonable potential for a party affiliation of at least one of the district representatives to change
Given the lower vote threshold required to win one out of five proportional seats, will virtually every newly drawn district meet this definition of competitiveness?
Yes, arguably it will, because under proportional representation, nearly every election is competitive. and no matter how you draw the districts. So, you know, that's what proponents would say is one of the benefits of personal representation.
All right. The following questions relate to proposed section 11104, 20.5 of the Colorado-5 statutes. How does this proposed section interact with section 14502, 1, and 2? Is it the proponent's intent to authorize multiple political parties to cross-endorse a single slate of candidates?
So this was also a good question for us to think about, because we think in this measure that joint slates aren't going to work. In 263, they will. So I think when we did one with primary and one without, we didn't realize that we were going to have this problem with joint slates. So that's a great question, and we will make a change.
All right. How are two political parties meant to jointly nominate candidates? How will this process be decided?
So, again, we're going to take joint slates out for this one. Eight.
The following question is related to Section 7 of the proposed initiative. If a joint slate is nominated, how will the rank order of the candidates be determined under Proposed Section 146012A, given that the two different political parties with potentially different party rules are involved?
So, same answer. We are going to be taking out joint slates from 262.
B, for the record, proposed section 146012A directs political parties to determine rank order of each slate of candidates. Our proposed section 1711023C dictates that seats are awarded to nominees of the winning party with the highest vote total that has not yet been elected.
If candidates are selected based strictly on their individual vote totals, does the rank order determined by the party have any legal bearing on who is elected, or is it used exclusively to determine the visual sequence of names on the printed ballot?
It's the latter. It's used just to determine the visual sequence of names on the printed ballot.
Number nine, the following questions relate to Section 8 of the proposed initiative. Opposed sections 1, 4, 802, 1, H3, and 1, I3 require petition signatures equal to the lesser of 1,000 or 1% of votes cast in the district in the most recent general election. Because section 4 of the initiative alters district boundaries, how will the Secretary of State calculate the votes cast for the newly created districts during the initial 2028 election cycle?
Which will now probably be the 2032 election cycle, but we will consider a clarification here. One of the things we're thinking of is that we will just set a signature threshold for that first round of like a thousand signatures, and then after we've got votes going into the future, we can go back to the lesser of a percentage or a thousand signatures.
Okay. Proposed section 148021I allows between one and five unaffiliated candidates to self-nominate as a slate. If an independent candidate wishes to run alone without any affiliations, must they legally declare themselves as a slate of one to appear on the ballot?
Yes.
10. Proposed sections 14802, 1I1, and 1I2 allow unaffiliated candidates to propose a name for their slate in not more than three words. Are any restrictions on what this name can be as an unaffiliated slate proposing the democratic slate?
who imposes and decides on these restrictions? Well this is currently the rule as I understand it for independent candidates in 14802. That language does include the sentence no name of any political party shall be used in whole or in part to identify an unaffiliated candidate. We could port that over and then we'll look at that. I'm not sure we need to but we might. And then, you know, I think there we've seen some litigation about what you can use as a name or not. And so I think those sort of norms would just apply. You can't use, you know, profanity or you probably can't call yourself the Pepsi-Cola candidate or let's go Brandon.
All right. Proposed section 1 for 1304 1.5 C states that if more than five candidates qualify for a minor political party by assembly or petition, the candidates must be nominated at a primary election. What voting method is intended for this primary election to narrow the field down to the final slate of five candidates?
So we envision that this is existing law. So 172014 says that a voter can vote for up to five in such a primary. I think we'll clarify that so that it's crystal clear that you would either vote for one or vote for three or vote for five. We'll make that clear.
12. How is the order of the slate, such as determining whether the Democratic Party slate, Republican Party slate, or unaffiliated slate, appears first on the ballot, determined under this new system?
Well, the intent is that current law would apply. So 15404 resulting in major party candidate slates appearing first, then minor party candidate slates, and then unaffiliated candidate slates. And then with the order of the parties within those categories determined by lot. But again, we might consider clarifying that because if you're asking, others might.
Yeah, I think just in general, there were a number of these questions where the answer is that, and I wasn't entirely sure what was supposed to port over to Slate and what was not. And those are all very reasonable answers, but I think that's where that was coming from.
Okay. Proposed section 175032 states that voters may vote for one candidate. What happens if a votes for two or more candidates? Is the answer different if all of the candidates that the voter votes for belong to the same party's slate? Well, if a voter
is only supposed to vote for one and they vote for more than one, that would be an overvote, just like it is today, and that vote would then be invalidated.
14. The following comments and questions relate to proposed section 1-7-11023. A. Proposed section 1-7-11023A dictates that each writing candidate is treated as a separate political party for purposes of tallying the votes. Are writing candidates permitted to form joint slates with other writing candidates? Furthermore, if a single writing candidate's total vote share mathematically entitles them to two seats based on the Jefferson method, what happens to the second seat since
they are presumably treated as a separate party with only one nominee? So first, no writing slates are allowed so and we can make that clear. As for the second part of the question, the tabulation language provides that if a party's nominees have all been elected then the party score is set to zero. So you can't win more seats than you have party or candidates there and if you want enough votes to get more seats those votes would just go away.
Section 114.1 states that electors may cast a write-in vote for a candidate who has filled an affidavit of intent of write-in candidacy pursuant to Section 1.4.1101. Do the proponents intend to allow write-in candidates to file a joint affidavit to form a write-in slate to pool their voters or votes, or must all write-in candidates comply strictly as a single member entities?
So latter, all write-in candidates are strictly single member entities.
C. Proposed section 1711023B states that if all nominees of a political party have been elected, the party score shall be zero. If a party or an unaffiliated slate runs fewer candidates than the number of seats they mathematically win based on their vote share, is the proponent's intent that the extra seat is effectively forfeited and passed to the party with the next highest score?
Yes, and we just talked about that, so yeah.
D. Proposed section 171102C dictates that ties are resolved by lot. Does this apply to ties between political parties competing for the highest score, ties between candidates within the same party competing for the highest individual vote total, or both? Who is responsible for conducting the lot drawing?
So both, and we would say ties are resolved for 111-101, which as I understand it, those ties are decided by the Secretary. I believe so. Yeah.
You said 111-101. Sorry, what was the site you gave?
111-101. Oh, 111-101. Yeah, okay. Yeah, that makes sense.
All right. The proposed initiative takes effect on January 1, 2027, but it describes a different process for the election of members of the General Assembly. Is it the proponent's intent that this new process is followed for the 2028 general election? Does the new process require new elections before the convening of the General Assembly in January of 2027?
Good question. As we discussed earlier, we'll look at applicability to be pushed out so that it makes more sense.
That's it for our questions. We do have some comments. We do have to go over any of them.
Let me just take one quick. I think I'm okay.
Do you have any other comments or questions on Proposed Initiative 262?
No, I don't.
Perfect. Going on to Proposed Initiative 2025-2026, number 263, concerning electing members of the General Assembly by open list proportional representation. For the record, all of the proponents and budget council and office legal services are the same. This proposed initiative 2025-2026-263 was submitted by the same designated representatives as part of a group of related proposed initiatives, including proposed initiatives 2025-2026, number 262 through 264. The comments and questions raised in this memorandum do not include comments and questions ever addressed in the memorandum for Proposed Initiative 262 and 264, except as necessary to fully understand Proposed Initiative 263. Comments and questions addressed in those memorandum may also be relevant, and those comments and questions are considered part of this memorandum. Okay. The major purposes of the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution until the Colorado revised statutes appear to be one, to change the method of electing members of the Colorado General Assembly to open list proportional representation. Two, to divide the state into seven senatorial districts and 13 representative districts, with five members to be elected from each district. Three, to guarantee that a political party receives at least one seat in the district if its nominees collectively receive more than one-sixth of the votes cast, and at least three seats if they receive more than half of the votes cast. Four, to require that all five state senators from a given district be elected at the same general election. Five, to amend the criteria for the independent legislative redistricting by redefining a competitive district as one having a reasonable potential for the party affiliation of at least one of the district's representatives to change. Six, to eliminate primary elections for candidates for the General Assembly and require instead that all political party nominations for the General Assembly be made by assembly or convention. Seven, to authorize political parties, joint slates, and unaffiliated slates to nominate up to five candidates in each legislative district and determine the rank order in which they appear on the ballot. with the ballot order of the slates to be determined by lot. Eight, to create petitioning processes for minor political parties and unaffiliated candidates to run as multi-member slates. Nine, to require that ballots group candidates by their political party joint slate or unaffiliated slate and allow voters to vote for one candidate. Ten, to establish the Jefferson method of proportional representation as the mathematical process for tallying votes and awarding seats to candidate slates based on their proportional vote share. And 11, to require that any vacancy in the General Assembly be filled by a member of the same political party as the vacating member. Do the proponents agree with this statement of the purposes?
Yes, generally. Again, we may have a discussion here today that changes some of that, but I think we generally agree. And I just want to put on the record that we adopt our responses to the memo in 262 into the record for 263 and I make another representation for 264
Maybe if you take the odd questions this time, I'll get the ones with all the paragraphs in the light on you. I think it's a little shorter one, this one.
On to subsequent comments and questions. Article 5, Section 1501 of the Colorado Constitution requires all proposed initiatives to have a single subject. What is the single subject of the proposed initiative?
The single subject is to elect the Colorado General Assembly by open list proportional representation.
Okay. The following questions relate to Section 10 of the proposed initiative. Proposed Section 14702.51 eliminates primary elections for the General Assembly and mandates that party nominations are made by Assembly or Convention. Section 146012A states that the candidates receiving 30% or more of the votes at an Assembly are designated for the primary ballot. Because the primary election is eliminated for these candidates, if more than five candidates meet a party's threshold for nomination at the assembly, what is the statutory mechanism for reducing the field to the maximum slate size of five candidates?
So we'll consider making a clarifying change here. The intent is that the parties would adopt their own party rules on how to conduct the general assembly nominations by assembly. And it is the intent, although it wouldn't have to be. So the intent is that they could do the assembly by a separate, could be on the same day, but it's a separate process, right? And so we don't think that those sections that you reference are applicable, but we will make that clear. All right.
How does the requirement in proposed section 14702.5 to nominate a rank ordered slate of up to five candidates interact with section 14601, which mandates a 30% delegate vote threshold for designation to a primary ballot that no longer exists for this office?
So somewhat similar answer, right? We will consider a change here to make clear that the parties should adopt their own party rules on how to conduct this general assembly. Assembly. General assembly. Assembly. Yeah. The assembly of general.
All right. Proposed section 14702.53 allows political parties to jointly nominate the same rank order to slate the candidates. Two political parties agree to jointly nominate a slate, but the respective assemblies or party rules result in a different rank order for the same five candidates. How is the final rank order for the joint slate determined?
We will make a clarifying change here. So if two parties' assemblies result in a different rank order for the same five candidates, then they have not nominated a joint slate. Okay. And so we'll, I think, spell that out a little bit more here in terms of how the joint slate works.
Okay. So thank you for that question. Proposed section 14702.52 dictates that the ballot order of the political party slate shall be determined by law. Which specific election official is responsible for conducting this law? And is there a statutory deadline for when this law must occur?
We will make a clarifying change to make clear that the process outlined in 154035 and 15404 and 15407 and any other process related to unaffiliated candidates would be followed here.
Okay. Does the requirement in proposed section 1 for 702.52 to determine ballot order by law apply exclusively to political party slates or does it also dictate the ballot arrangement for joint slates and not affiliated slates? The process outlined in 154035, 15404, and 15407 and any other process related to unaffiliated candidates will be followed.
But again, your question signals that we probably need to port that over or make a cross-reference so that it's very clear how that works.
Proposed section 14702.52 requires political parties to make their nominations public not later than 75 days before the general election. Does this new timeline conflict with or override the timeline in Section 14604?
So I'm looking at that. You know, we changed the law a couple years ago to back up unaffiliated petition deadlines, but they used to be pretty late. It was late. I don't remember. So we'll look at that. We might – it's certainly not our intent to slam the designated election official's ability to certify their ballots and all of that. So we'll look at whether or not we'd need a small adjustment there.
Great. The following questions related to sections 11 and 12 of the proposed initiative. A, proposed section 14802-1I3 requires that petitions for unaffiliated slates must be filed no later than 5 p.m. on the 16th day after the primary election. Since the primary election is held on the last Tuesday in July, this deadline would fall in late August. Does the late August deadline provide county clerks and the Secretary of State sufficient time to verify petition signatures and certify the general election ballot?
Yeah, so same answer. We'll look at whether or not we need to tweak that timing a little bit so that we aren't jamming them up.
And B, this section amends Section 148011 and 2B to explicitly exclude candidates for the General Assembly from designating party candidates by petition. When combined with proposed section 14702.51, which states that party nominations shall be made by assembly or convention, is that the proponents intend to completely eliminate the ability of a major political party candidate or the general assembly to access the ballot via petition. If a candidate fails to make the slate at the assembly, do they have any alternative statutory route to appear on the general election ballot?
So, yes, and we will make that clearer. So, as we discussed above, if a candidate fails to make – actually, we didn't discuss it. My note says we did, but I'll discuss it now. If a candidate fails to make the slate at the assembly, they should be able to petition onto the general election as an unaffiliated candidate, and we make an exception for unaffiliated affiliation or unaffiliation to allow for that. But not under the party. Right. Right. Okay.
Following questions relate to Section 13 of the proposed initiative. Proposed Section 1 for 1304.1.5b.1 requires that a minor political party assembly shall be held no later than 73 days preceding the primary election. However, Proposed Section 1 for 702.52 allows political parties to finalize nominations up to 75 days before the general election. Because candidates for the general assembly no longer participate in the primary election, are minor political parties still required to nominate their legislative slates prior to the primary election deadline, or are they subject to the later general election deadline?
So we'll clarify. They would be subject to the later general election deadline.
Proposed Section 13 of the initiative amends Section 1 for 1304.1.5b.2 to explicitly exempt candidates for the General Assembly from the requirement that a candidate receive 30% of Assembly votes to be designated. Because the initiative removes the 30% threshold for legislative candidates and eliminates the primary election, what are the statutory voting mechanics within a minor political party assembly to narrow down a field of candidates to a maximum slate of five?
So the intent is they can adopt whatever they want by their own party rules, and they couldn't use discriminatory processes, but they should be able to, for example, require geographic diversity, or they could require that their nominees alternate between gender and non-binary, maybe. or, you know, they could choose. Whatever. Okay.
Yep, that's the end of our substantive conference questions.
Do you have any, do you want to go through the tab? I'm going to just look at them really quickly again to make sure I don't have any. I think they're all the same. I don't know if they're exactly, but they're very close to exactly the same. I'm good.
That'll be it for number 263. On to Proposed Initiative 2025, 2026, 264, concerning elect general assembly through mixed member proportional representation for the record all proponents and designated representatives are the same um this proposed initiative 2025-2026 number 264 was submitted by the same designated representatives excuse me as a part of a group of related proposed initiatives including proposed initiative 2025-26 number 262 through 264. the comments and questions raised in this memorandum do not include comments of questions that were addressed in the memorandum for the proposed initiatives 262 and 263, except it's necessary to fully understand this proposed initiative 264. Comments and questions addressed in those memorandum may also be relevant, and those questions and comments are considered part of this memorandum. Okay. The major purposes of the proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and to the Colorado revised statutes appear to be, one, to change the method of electing members of the Colorado General Assembly to a system of mixed member proportional representation. Two, to divide the composition of both the state Senate and the State House of Representatives into a mix of single-member district seats and statewide proportional seats. Three, to cap the number of single-member senatorial districts at 25 and the number of single-member representative districts at 45. Four, to create at least 10 statewide seats in the state Senate and at least 20 statewide seats in the State House of Representatives. Five, to require that the statewide seats be allocated in a manner that ensures a political party's total number of statewide seats in the chamber is proportional to the party's share of the statewide party vote. Six, to authorize the General Assembly to establish a minimum vote threshold of up to 5% that a party must receive to qualify for statewide seats. Seven, to provide each voter with a single statewide vote for a political party that serves as their vote for the statewide seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Eight, to require that nominations for statewide seats be made by rank-ordered lists determined at a party, assemblies, or conventions held no later than 30 days after the primary election. Nine, to allow candidates to run for both a district seat and a statewide seat, provided they are removed from the statewide list if they win their district election. Ten, to establish the Jefferson method as the mathematical formula for tallying the statewide vote and awarding statewide proportional seats. And, eleven, to create a specialized vacancy committee structure to fill vacancies that occur in statewide general assembly seats.
The proponents generally agree with the statement of the purposes. Yeah, we're going to, as we talk, we're going to make some changes that will change those purposes slightly, but yes, generally. And I'll just, for the record, incorporate my responses to your questions from 262 and 263 to the extent they're relevant here in 264.
On to the 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 initiatives?
The single subject is to elect the Colorado General Assembly by mixed member proportional representation.
The following questions relate to Section 1 of the proposed initiative. Proposed section 45-2 of the Colorado Constitution limits the State Senate to having not more than 35 members, while mandating no more than 25 members shall be elected from senatorial districts and no fewer than 10 members shall be elected statewide. If the redistricting commission draws exactly 25 districts and the proportional math outlined in proposed section 1-7-1102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes necessitates awarding 11 statewide seats to achieve proportionality, the Senate would have 36 members. Does the not more than 35 members limit override the proportional math, or is it the proponents' intents that the chamber size could be expanded?
We do not intend that the chamber would be expanded. So under the proposal, the state senate would always have 35, and the state house would always have 65. Because otherwise, you'd have to build a new capital. Yeah.
We have those overflow rooms. All right. Proposed section 45.2 of the Colorado Constitution reduces the number of states and districts from 35 to no more than 25. Article 5, section 1, 2.5 of the Colorado Constitution requires that a petition for an initiated constitutional amendment shall be signed by registered electors who reside in each state senate district in an amount equal to at least 2% of the total registered electors. Is the proponent's intent to lower the signature threshold for initiated constitutional amendments?
So same as we discussed before, so no, not to lower the number, but it would necessarily lower the number you would have to gather in the different Senate districts because there are fewer.
Wait, what? I mean, meaning there are, because ten of them are statewide, right?
So you'd only have to gather in 25 different districts instead of 35 different districts okay proposed article 5 section 45 4 45 4 of the colorado constitution
and proposed section 1 7 503 2 of the colorado by statute state that each voter may cast a single vote for a political party that dictates the statewide proportional seats for both the state senate and the state house of representatives simultaneously does mandating a single vote for two distinct legislative chambers conflict with the voters ability to split their ticket or vote for different parties for different off or for different offices and does this conflict with any provisions of the Colorado Constitution regarding free and open
elections so we will consider making a clarifying change here we're definitely going to change so this is one of the purposes that is going to change that your vote isn't gonna you get to have a different vote for Senate and a different vote for House. And I think that resolves the issue because you're not binding one vote across both chambers.
Post Article 5, Section 45 for A of the Colorado Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to establish a minimum share of the statewide party vote that a party must receive to qualify for statewide seats. What is the effective threshold for the initial election conducted
under this system? Does the threshold default to 0% until the General Assembly passes implementing legislation? So we're going to look at this, but I think it's provided by statute in the new section 1711023A at 5%. Okay.
And that applies to the initial election, so it's not...
not okay i i just was making sure that it was porting over from one election and again as as we're finding we probably need since this is an entirely new system we probably need to be really careful about porting things over yeah i mean i thought in coming up with these questions that are of an abundance of caution i would assume that most things didn't unless explicitly called out
which just seems safest to let you state your intent but that certainly makes sense that you don't intend to ignore everything that's not presented in the initiative. Proposed Article 5,
Section 45, 4b of the Colorado Constitution states that the General Assembly may establish rules to prevent manipulation of the system of mixed member proportional representation. Because the term manipulation is undefined, does this provision grant the General Assembly broad constitutional authority to alter the mechanics of the voter-approved proportional representation system
without subsequent voter approval? Maybe, but we're going to look at that. I mean, the idea is you don't want people to be gaming the system, but at the same time you also don't want the General Assembly to be gaming the system. So we'll look at either deleting that manipulation provision or defining the term.
Three. Proposed Article 5, Section 45, 2 and 3 of the Colorado Constitution establish maximums and minimums for district and statewide seats. seats. The proposed article 5, section 46-2 of the Colorado Constitution directs the independent legislative redistricting commission to divide the state into as many senatorial and representative districts as there are members of the Senate and House of Representatives, excluding statewide members. Because the Constitution provides ranges rather than fixed numbers, which entity has the legal authority to determine the exact number of district versus statewide
seats prior to redistricting. So it's my understanding that that's also under current law right it's up to we can again we kept the current language up to and the intent is that the maximum number of district seats will be the default just because less changes in the Constitution the better but we'll look
at that. Proposed section 1310316 of the Colorado Revised Statutes creates a vacancy committee for statewide seats that includes all of the statewide party officers, various elected members of the General Assembly, and the county party chairs from the same party as the vacated member. Does county party chairs refer to all 64 county party chairs across the state, and if so, what constitutes quorum
for this newly established committee? So, great question. You know, we've all been dealing with lots of discussion around vacancy appointments and how controversial they can become, so the idea here was for statewide seats to have a bigger vacancy committee but I do think you raise a really important point about the burden on establishing a quorum and so we may lower make a specifically lower quorum threshold just for those committees just so that they can still act if they don't get you know the county party chair from a county that
isn't focused on this. Five following questions related to section five the proposed initiative. A proposed section one four five oh one point five B states that if a party fails to publish a statewide list of nominees it defaults to a list of all part of all the parties district nominees ordered by the raw number of votes those nominees earned in the primary election. Candidates in heavily contested primaries are likely to receive a higher volume of raw votes than candidates running in uncontested district primaries. Does the statutory default inadvertently penalize district candidates who run unopposed
in their primary by automatically forcing them to the bottom of state by proportional list of nominees? Yeah that was a great question and I think what we would do to fix this because it is pretty arbitrary is to just say that the order will be chosen by lot and then it will everybody will be treated the same and the unintended consequence that you raised would be avoided.
Eve, from section 14501.5 requires a political party to have at least one candidate running in any district election in order to nominate candidates for these statewide seats. What happens to a party statewide candidate list if their sole district candidate withdraws,
is disqualified, or passes away after the statewide list has been finalized? Another great question. I think what we would like to do to fix that is to change running to nominate, meaning if a candidate has been nominated and then, you know, something happens to that candidate, they would still have qualified to have statewide seats. Let's see.
for a minor party that has not participated in a primary election. Again, we will make this clear that it will be done by lot. All right, the following questions relate to sections 12 and 13 of the proposed initiative. Proposed section 1.7503.2 states that the general election ballot shall display the names of the first five candidates on the party's rank order list for each chamber. Because proposed section 1.4502.1.5a allows the party to nominate candidates up to the total size of the chamber, is it the proponent's intent that the voters will only see the top five names on the
the ballot even if a party might mathematically win more than five statewide seats yes um and that goes to the issue of they aren't going to get more seats anyway so they can nominate them and but they won't be on the ballot they won't be listed on the ballot okay proposed section 1 7 11
0 2 3d states that if a party wins more statewide seats than it has candidates on its list a vacancy is created and filled pursuant to section 112 203 however section 112 203 generally relies on vacancy committees established during the candidate petition and assembly process does the vacancy committee newly created and proposed section 131 103 16 legally function as the vacancy committee
referenced in section 112 203 for the purposes of filling these exhaustive list yes and we will
make that clear okay seven the following questions related to section 13 of the proposed initiative A proposed section 1711023 requires that the mathematically, the mathematical allocation of statewide proportional seats occurs after the state Senate district and state House of Representatives district seats have been elected. Pursuing to section 110.5101, certain district races are required to have recounts that can delay the certification of winners for weeks. If a single district race requires a recount, how does this delay the calculation and certification of the entire statewide promotional seat allocation for that chamber? Or can the statewide seats be calculated using provisional district results?
So this, the statewide seats can't be elected with finality until after all the district seats are elected with finality. And so, yes, you know, we could release provisional results, but they're going to be provisional.
The proposed section 171-0238 establishes the scoring formula for awarding proportional seats. It states the score is the party's votes divided by one plus the number of seats the political party has won so far in the same election, including both district and statewide seats. Because proposed Section 175032 creates a single statewide party vote that applies to both chambers, does this formula require aggregating a party's one state House seats and state Senate seats together into a single denominator, or is it the mathematical calculation executed separately for the State House and the State Senate? If it is meant to be calculated separately, the proposed statutory text currently fails to specify in the respective chamber.
What does one so far mean since the provisions begin with after the State Senate District and State House, the representative district seats have been elected? So this goes back to that issue of we will be having a separate vote for each chamber. And so we would definitely have a different score for each chamber in terms of the denominator. And I had to chuckle because one so far is probably not a good technical term for legislation. We'll try to clear that up a little bit more in terms of what we mean by that. And the idea is, you know, it includes members elected in districts for the relevant chamber as well as statewide seats already won. So, but I think that that could be stated clearer.
See, the proposed initiative builds a proportional system based exclusively on statewide votes for recognized political parties. If an unaffiliated candidate wins a single-measure district seat, how does the mathematical formula proposed section 171102 account for that seat? Does an unaffiliated district victory reduce the total number of proportional leveling seats available to the recognized political parties, or is it the unaffiliated seats completely excluded from the proportionality of math?
So the intent is the total number of available seats is never queried in the mathematical formula. So some of those seats being won by unaffiliated candidates doesn't really affect anything. Again, you know, because a party must earn 5% of statewide votes to earn any statewide seats, it is also possible for a party to win one or more district seats and also be disqualified from winning any statewide seats. But I think we'll try to clear that up a little bit.
D. Proposed section 14502.1.5B states that a candidate who wins their district seat is disqualified from the statewide candidate list. If a candidate appears to lose their district race and is subsequently awarded a statewide proportional seat but a later recount flips the district race in their favor, how is this discrepancy resolved? Is the statewide
proportional seat retroactively vacated and awarded to the next person on the party's list so no this is in part why statewide seats cannot be elected until all the district seats have been finalized so given that sequencing your hypothetical
should never happen that's it for all our subs or comments and questions do
you have would you like us to go through any of the technical comments no okay you have any other further comments or questions on proposed initiative 264. No, but I just want to say thank you because it was really thoughtful and you can tell that when coming up with new systems, it's a lot.
Thank you. Yeah, with that, we will end the review and comment hearings for proposed initiative 262, 263, and 264. Thank you.
Thank you.