NO on Colorado Proposition 131
NO: Colorado Proposition 131 - Establishing an All-Candidate Primary & Ranked Choice Voting
Boulder Progressives opposes Colorado Proposition 131. Here’s why:
By forcing Democrats to compete against not only each other, but also Republicans, and independents in both the primary and general elections, this measure diverts resources from competitive districts. This measure weakens political parties in a way that makes it harder for good candidates to win, and that strengthens moneyed interests and undermines long-term democratic health. Additionally proposition 131 is being promoted by wealthy donors like Kent Thiry, the former CEO of DaVita who is known for his big-money spending on Colorado politics.
Why Vote NO on 131?
Hear why it’s important to vote NO on Prop 131 directly from Colorado House Representative (HD-1), eviction defense attorney, and leading Progressive champion, Rep. Javier Mabrey:
“Proposition 131 is not a way to improve our democracy; it is a way for billionaires to buy politicians.
Almost 15 years ago, the Supreme Court declared in Citizens United that money was speech and, since then, the wealthy have had a stranglehold on American elections and an outsized influence with elected officials. Our government has become far more responsive to the concerns of the wealthiest companies than the needs of their constituents, who struggle to put food on the table and pay their rent.
Proposition 131 makes that problem worse and increases the influence of wealthy donors and corporations in Colorado.
The same people behind Proposition 131 spent a million dollars trying to swing the outcome of this year’s primary elections. Monied interests haven’t been able to completely dominate our primaries, so now they are financing a complete overhaul to our election system. Changing the rules because they have not always gotten the results they want under our current system.
Proposition 131 makes significant and expensive changes to our election system. It establishes a jungle primary system – the top four candidates from the primary move on to the general. In the general election, voters rank the candidates and, if no one gets fifty percent, a computerized runoff begins to declare the winner. The same candidates run against each other in both the primary and the general elections.
Take for example my friend and colleague Rep. Mike Weissman’s primary campaign this summer. Mike is a champion for working Coloradans, fighting against payday lenders and debt collectors and for stronger consumer protections. He faced an avalanche of dark money spending against him. He won, beating his corporate-backed opponent. Under Propositions 131, this fight would have ended with the primary. Mike would have to beat that same opponent yet again in the general. He would need to raise twice the amount of money to win. That can be nearly impossible for candidates who, like Mike and like myself, do not take corporate donations.
Like Citizen United, Proposition 131 will strengthen the influence of money in politics. This costly and opaque system gives those with more resources an even greater advantage. In these more crowded elections, the more money a candidate has, the more exposure they can buy themselves. This exposure is essential, especially in local races. This will mean non-stop, costly campaigning for candidates and more opportunities for corporations to wield power through donations.
If Coloradans want to have a conversation about ranked choice voting, we should have that conversation. But, it should be separated from this Trojan horse of corporate cash that could box out grassroots candidates and provide more opportunities for those with money to control our elections.”
Opposition Statements
Colorado Working Familes Party
“But there are also ballot measures that we will be working hard to defeat, especially Proposition 131, a billionaire-sponsored measure that deceptively claims to be a ‘fix’ for our electoral woes, even though it would actually increase the role of big money in Colorado politics. Prop 131 is snake oil of the highest order, which aims to further expand the ability of the wealthiest few to buy our elections, and Colorado voters should reject it emphatically.”
Michael Bennett
“These wealthy backers always promise it will improve our politics. But a 2023 University of Minnesota study of states with RCV elections found it does not decrease negative campaigning, polarization in elections nor increase diversity of elected officials.”
CO House Representative Iman Jodeh
“Proposition 131 will upend Colorado’s election system and open the doors wider to special interest hidden money into our politics. It’s not voter-friendly, it’s expensive, and it’s based on false promises.”
Eric Budd’s Voter Guide
"Proposition 131 would likely mean our state legislature would see fewer progressives, fewer Democrats, and would increase incentives for dark / outside money in our elections."
Organizations Opposing Proposition 131
Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy & Research Organization (CLLARO)
Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR)
Elected Officials Opposing Proposition 131
U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Congresswoman Diana DeGette, CD-1
State Treasurer David Young
State Senator Lisa Cutter, SD-20
State Senator Steve Fenberg, SD-18
State Senator Rhonda Fields, SD-28
State Senator Julie Gonzales, SD-34
State Senator Jaquez Lewis, SD-17
State Senator Michaelson-Jenet, SD-21
State Senator Chris Kolker, SD-16
State Senator Tom Sullivan, SD-27
State Senator Jessie Danielson, SD-22
State Senator Faith Winter, SD-25
State Representative Jennifer Bacon, HD- 7
State Representative Kyle Brown, HD-12
State Representative Chad Clifford, HD-37
State Representative Monica Duran, HD-23
State Representative Meg Froelich, HD-3
State Representative Lorena Garcia, HD-35
State Representative Iman Jodeh, HD-41
State Representative DeGruy Kennedy, HD- 30
State Representative Sheila Lieder, HD-28
State Representative Mandy Lindsay, HD-42
State Representative Cathy Kipp, HD-52
State Representative Andrew Boesenecker, HD-53
State Representative Javier Mabrey, HD-1
State Representative Tisha Mauro, HD-46
State Representative Karen McCormick, HD- 11
State Representative David Ortiz, HD-38
State Representative Naquetta Ricks, HD-40
State Representative Emily Sirota, HD-9
State Representative Tammy Story, HD-25
State Representative Brianna Titone, HD-27
State Representative Elizabeth Velasco, HD- 57
State Representative Stephanie Vigil, HD-16
State Representative Mike Weissman, HD-36
State Representative Jenny Willford, HD-34
State Representative Steve Woodrow, HD-2
Learn More About 131:
Proposition 131 is based on the Alaska model, which has been in effect for only one election cycle so far. A better model for ranked choice voting is Maine, which has ranked choice voting in party primaries as well as the general election. This makes more sense than Proposition 131, which does not include ranked choice in its all-party primary, and would pit candidates from the same party against each other in the general election. Because of these flaws, the advocacy group Ranked Choice Voting for Colorado has not endorsed Proposition 131.
The Colorado Democratic Party and the Boulder County Democrats both oppose the measure: “Proposition 131 is an overly complicated and overly expensive measure created by billionaire Kent Thiry with zero input from election clerks,” Democratic Party Chair Shad Marib said via email to local news outlets “In Alaska, this system has led to single-party general elections, diminishing ideological diversity in government, and a cascade of dark money. Billionaires trying to buy elections is part of the problem with politics to begin with, and this measure makes it even easier for them to tilt the system in their favor.”
Prop 131 would replace party primaries with an all-party jungle primary. In jungle primaries, progressive candidates are often discouraged to run, to avoid taking away votes from a more moderate candidate who could lose out to two candidates from the opposing party.
Perhaps most importantly, we have heard from many of our friends in the legislature that this measure will undercut the hard work that has been done statewide to secure a supermajority in the State House, allowing us to pass a number of meaningful, progressives bills that will have a lasting impact on the state. Should 131 pass instead of our strongest reps having “safe” seat in the general election and being able to use their time, voices, and networks to help get even more democrats elected, they’ll be battling for their seats in a protracted and expensive election for their own seat, thereby keeping them from using their time to grow and secure our majority.
We will be voting “no” on Proposition 131 and encourage you to do the same.