Proposition 131 changes Colorado’s current primary election voting system into a ranked-choice voting system.
In ranked-choice voting, all candidates running for an office who have met the state’s conditions to run, regardless of their political party, get their names on the ballot, and voters rank the candidates in order of preference. The top four vote-getters then advance to the general election.
This is called an “all-candidate primary.”
Here are two examples of what ranked-choice ballots look like:
Proposition 131 would apply to elections for the following state and federal offices:
• U.S. Senator
• U.S. Representative
• Governor and Lieutenant Governor
• Secretary of State
• State Treasurer
• State Attorney General
• Member of the State Board of Education
• Regent of the University of Colorado
• State Senator
• State Representative
Kent Thiry, former CEO and Executive Chairman of DaVita Dialysis offices (Photo: X)
The measure does NOT apply to the offices of U.S. President, district attorneys, or local government offices. Races for these offices will continue to be conducted as they are under current law.
If approved, the measure would take effect in 2026.
A “yes” vote on Proposition 131 is in favor of ranked choice voting. A “no” vote continues the existing primary election system.
Arguments for and against:
This proposition transcends political parties. It has proponents and opponents on both sides of the political spectrum.
Proponents say Colorado’s electorate used to be about 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican and 1/3 registered independents, but now it’s nearly 50% registered independents. They say this is because voters have been rejecting both political parties, in part due to extremism that has emerged in recent years. People who favor Prop. 131 say ranked choice voting encourages balance instead of extremism, gives people more choices in primary elections and discourages decreases polarization in the electorate.
Who’s for it:
CO Gov. Jared Polis supports Prop. 131.
Billionaires and wealthy donors are the top contributors supporting Pro. 131, with very few individual donations below thousands of dollars. One of the big money men behind Prop. 131 is Kent Thiry, the wealthy former CEO of DaVita Healthcare, which operates dialysis centers around the U.S. According to Axios, Thiry has a record of supporting conservative causes, opposing progressive Democrats and backing efforts to overhaul elections. According to public records he has spent about $10 million overall through August, 2024, just in Colorado. Thiry also started the nonprofit group Let Colorado Vote, that supported open primary elections in Colorado. So far, as of September 25, 2024, Thiry has spent $2.8 million advocating for Prop. 131. The overall top donor to Prop. 131 so far in 2024 is Unite America PAC, an election reform political action committee of which Thiry is co-chair. Unite America PAC has donated $4.4 million.
Other donors include Robert Small of Berkshire Partners LLC in Boston, MA, a private equity firm, who donated $200,000. Wilmot Reed Hastings, the Executive Director of Netflix, donated $1,000,000. Ben Walton, a left-leaning, Denver-based grandson of Walmart founder Sam Walton, donated $1,000,000. Kathryn Murdoch of New York, a left-leaning political and climate activist daughter-in-law of Rupert Murdoch, donated $500,000.
Prop. 131 is also supported by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters of Colorado. Former House Speaker Terrance Carroll (D),a former Democratic member of the Colorado House of Representatives who represented District 7 from 2003 to 2011, said, “Prop 131 will make it harder for powerful insiders to determine the results of our elections, and it gives voters more choices in every election. In the states and cities where it’s already used, this system has resulted in candidates of color and women gaining more representation in federal, state, and municipal offices.”
Prop. 131 is also supported by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, former State Senator Don Coram (R) from Montrose and former State Rep. Cole Wist (R).
Arguments against:
Opponents say big money, and in many cases out-of-state big money, is driving the change and that the ranked-choice voting system is too complicated, will confuse voters and exacerbate conspiracies about elections.
Both opponents and proponents say it would reduce the influence of political parties on primary elections.
Who’s against it:
Lauren Boebert carrying an insurrectionist flag in December, 2019
The initiative is strongly opposed by extremist Republican House members U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R), and former State Rep. Dave Williams (R). Williams is the current chair of the fractured Colorado Republican Party. Williams has sent out homophobic and transphobic messages on social media. A complaint submitted to the Federal Election Commission alleges Dave Williams illegally used Colorado Republican Party money for his own congressional campaign and to criticize his opponent.
- U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-3) says of Prop 131: “I will oppose this effort to rig our electoral system in Colorado with everything I have. Ranked choice voting is a scheme launched by well-moneyed interests who are only concerned with their own power and not giving Coloradans a choice at the ballot box.”
- Former State Rep. Dave Williams (R) says of Prop 131: “Self-serving rich liberals shouldn’t be able to buy their way onto a ballot and manipulate democracy with deceptive marketing. Thiry wants to be governor and validate his ego by spending his massive wealth to change the rules of the game so he can have a better chance at winning.”
- Prop. 131 is also opposed by the Democratic Party of Colorado, and the Green Party of Colorado.
Recommended vote on prop. 131: YES
I am, in general, in favor of ranked choice voting. It eliminates expensive and time wasting run off elections.
However, this proposition bothers me. It seems similar to what is called a “jungle primary” in California. One possible consequence is that you could have four winners from the same party, so the general election could be all Republicans, all Democrats or all Independents. A general election with a representative from each party is far and away preferable to a single party general election.
Had the ranked choice primary been proposed to have a ranked choice primary for each party followed by a ranked choice general election, I would have supported this proposition, but as it is written I can not support it.
This was a tough call for me. I believe that ranked choice tends to produce outcomes that are better aligned with the majority of voters. But I’m dubious about the all-candidate primary, particularly if it leads to a very crowded field.
In the end, I voted ‘yes’.
Just today in the weekly e-mail update from Sen. Bennett, he came out strongly against Prop 131, saying that it was too early for Colorado to be a “test case”. I generally value his opinion, so I will be voting “no”.
I got to use ranked choice voting where I used to live. It was so much better! It kept the races from being partisan and they were more focused on the issues – you could have 8 people running instead of one from each party. Then the top vote getters would be chosen by rank choice voting. That prevents something a situation where, say, most voters are conservative, but there are two conservative candidates who split the vote, letting a third, liberal candidate win, even tho’ not the choice of the majority. It is very simple to use. It also lets you make a “protest” vote without throwing your vote away. I sure hope it passes!
I’m for anything Boebert is against.
Too f**king complicated!
PS. There’s an informational meeting about voting against the 29 Road Interchange tonight at 6pm at the main library
So this is opposed by republicans, democrats, and even the greens as well?
Well that makes it an easy yes vote from me.