Bill Tracker

Status: March 8, 2023 - Passed the House with an amendment introduced in 2nd reading to eliminate Sections 1 and 2 and renumber the other sections accordingly.
This bill now has 2 main parts, both applying to municipal elections:
• Sections 1 and 2 – eligible candidates in a partisan, e.g., General Assembly, recall election
• Sections 1 to 5 – rules on filling a municipal vacancy
• Sections 6 to 8 – rules about recall petitions

LAC voted to change our position from oppose to amend.

As noted above with the strike-through, the most egregious sections were amended out of the bill. The Voting and Elections Team would still like to see our other two concerns addressed, but we feel that we should no longer outright Oppose the bill, but rather recommend an Amend stance.

Section 2 of HB1185 could be called the “John Morse Recall” amendment. In 2013 Democrat Senator John Morse was recalled and replaced by a Republican. Section 2 requires that if the election of the successor is a partisan election, and the incumbent was affiliated with a political party when the incumbent was elected, only a person who is affiliated with the same political party may be nominated as a successor. If the incumbent was unaffiliated at the time the incumbent was elected, only a person who is unaffiliated may be nominated as a successor.
• This apparent “Party Protection Act” is counter to the LWVCO Citizens’ Right to Know/Public Participation: Protect the citizen’s right to know and facilitate informed understanding and public participation in government decision-making.
Sections 1 through 5 say that if a statutory municipality’s governing body lacks sufficient members to reach a quorum, the clerk of the governing body is authorized to call a special election to fill any vacancies. However, the governing body (city council or town board of trustees) can cancel the special
election if it can fill the vacancy before the date of the special election.
• By calling for an election and then subsequently canceling it, the government is taking away a right to vote. Canceling an already called-for election is only justified if no candidates file to run for the vacant seat. Canceling an election may lead to charges of insider politics and diminish faith in the electoral process. Is the bill sponsor afraid that nobody (or the “wrong” people) will show up at the special election? Voting Rights: The League of Women Voters of the United
States believes that voting is a fundamental citizen right that must be guaranteed.
Section 8 – In a recall if a majority of voters vote no on recalling the incumbent, then the votes for the second question on who shall replace the incumbent “SHALL NOT BE RECORDED AND ANY COUNTS OR
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS OF THE VOTES SHALL NOT BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.”
• To promote trust in government election, LWV wants the entire ballot information to be publicly available. Preventing (non-binding) results from being known is similar to the Sec of State not reporting how many people voted for candidates, like Klobuchar and Buttigieg, who dropped out
of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary after some voters had already cast ballots.

LWVCO Election Security: The public should have access to copies of election equipment source code, samples of election equipment, copies of ballots (with personally identifying information removed), and copies of procedures.

Current law regulating campaign finance does not set limits on contributions to candidates for municipal elections. In recent years, the legislature has set contribution limits for county offices and school board elections.

For municipal elections held on or after January 1, 2024, the bill sets aggregate limits on contributions to candidates for municipal office:

• From individuals: $250.
• From small donor committees: $2,500.
• The aggregate limits will periodically be adjusted for inflation.
• New contribution limits will be subject to existing statutory provisions governing the disclosure of campaign contributions.

The bill prohibits a political party from making any contribution to a candidate committee for municipal office and prohibits a candidate committee from accepting any contribution from a political party.

The bill requires campaign contribution reports for candidates of a municipal office to be filed with the municipal clerk no later than 90 days, 60 days, 30 days, and 15 days before and 30 days after the major election in election years and annually in off-election years.

The bill clarifies that an independent expenditure committee that makes expenditures in connection with a municipal election must file its disclosure reports with the applicable municipal clerk.

The bill also extends the retention requirements for campaign contribution reports from one year to 10 years.

LWV positions to support:

The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the methods of financing political campaigns should enhance political equality for all citizens; ensure maximum participation by citizens in the political process; protect representative democracy from being distorted by big spending in election campaigns; provide voters sufficient information about candidates and campaign issues to make informed choices; ensure transparency and the public’s right to know who is using money to influence elections; enable candidates to compete equitably for public office; ensure that candidates have sufficient funds to communicate their messages to the public; and combat corruption and undue influence in government.

The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that democratic government depends upon informed and active participation at all levels of government. The League further believes that governmental bodies must protect the citizen’s right to know by making public records accessible.

LWVCO Supports this bill.

The bill changes the ordering of names of candidates in primaries to be determined by drawing lots. This includes U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, state offices including legislature, and county and district offices that have primaries.

Currently, candidates chosen in party assemblies are listed first, and candidates who reach the ballot by petition are listed after them. Also, if more than 1 candidate qualifies by assembly, the one with the highest percentage is listed first. This bill would eliminate all of that and decide the ballot order by lot.

Possible amendment could be proposed to make Section 1, lines 10-12 clearer. The way it is currently written, it could imply that the only way to make the primary ballot is to receive at least 30% of the votes of the assembly. Add language: OR SUBMIT THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF VALID SIGNATURES ON A CANDIDATE PETITION,

SB23-101 Candidate Ballot Access for Primary [sic] Elections

Primary Sponsors: Sen Barbara Kirkmeyer (with Sen Bob Gardner listed in smaller font) and Rep Mary Bradfield

Status: Assigned to Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee – Hearing date unknown. The committee hearing was originally scheduled for 2/9/23, but the bill was taken off the committee agenda. The bill sponsors are getting an earful from minor political party members.

The name of SB23-101 is misleading.  This bill also impacts candidate ballot access for GENERAL elections.  SB23-101 would have two primary impacts on candidate ballot access: 

• Eliminate the option of using a party’s assembly process for a major-party candidate to get onto the primary ballot (i.e., designation) and for a minor-party candidate to get onto the general ballot (i.e., nomination), requiring all candidates to collect signatures to get on the ballot. Since there would be no assembly, the order of names on the primary ballot would be by lot – what SB23-021 intended to do before it was PI’d.
• Increase the percentage threshold for signatures required for minor-party and unaffiliated candidates for low-population county offices; this bill changes the percentage threshold for several other state and federal offices, but because the numeric threshold of signatures is low for the other offices, the numeric threshold would continue to effectively be the minimum signature requirement.

SB23-101 would also allow unaffiliated voters to sign a major-party petition.  If the bill did not allow this, then a Democrat in Rio Blanco in 2020 would have had no way to access the county ballot because there weren’t enough registered Democrats in the county to meet the signature requirements.

SB23-101 would apparently not eliminate party assemblies.  An assembly would still have to be convened to create a vacancy committee in the case that nobody affiliated with the party gets on the ballot or in the case that the nominee steps down or becomes incapacitated before the general election.

SB23-101 would also change the date at which signature gathering may begin to the date that the candidate is notified by the Sec of State that the candidate petition has been approved for circulation.

SB23-101 would also increase the ballot access requirements for presidential primary candidates.  However, most presidential candidates on the general election ballot do not go through the primary so this provision would only impact the major parties that hold presidential primaries.

LWVCO Position: Oppose

This bill would limit the number and types of candidates who can participate in the political process:

• by requiring all candidates to petition onto the ballot. Signature gathering is an expensive and time-consuming activity which is not a viable option for many candidates who have work and family commitments, limited financial means and/or fewer political connections (which describes many minor-party and unaffiliated candidates).  Down-ballot, lower-visibility statewide contests, such as State Board of Education and CU Regent, would particularly suffer.
• by imposing increased signature requirements on minor-party and unaffiliated candidates for county offices.

Once a voter has signed one candidate’s petition for a seat, the voter may not sign any other candidates’ petitions for the same seat.  If a voter does sign more than one petition, the signature only counts for the candidate who turns in their petition first.  This is an advantage to the candidate who is most organized and decides early on to run.  The candidates would not all be playing on a level playing field.

If every candidate must collect signatures to get on the ballot, voters will likely weary of the barrage of requests for their signature.  We have already seen “Decline to Sign” efforts, including by LWV, when voters do not understand the initiative that they are being asked to sign.  Collecting signatures will likely become more difficult, fewer candidates will get on the ballot, and voters will have fewer choices.  When voters don’t have choices on the ballot, then the ballot contest or the entire election may be cancelled.  (This is a particularly common occurrence in special districts, including metro districts.  Although special districts are not part of this bill, the cancelling of their elections is a possible warning for the elections that are included in SB23-101.)

Relevant LWV positions

LWVUS positions:

Voting Rights: The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that voting is a fundamental citizen right that must be guaranteed.

Voter Representation/Electoral Systems: Support electoral systems at each level of government that encourage participation, are verifiable and auditable, and enhance representation for all voters.

LWVCO positions:

General Assembly: Support responsive legislative processes characterized by accountability, representativeness, decision making capability, effective performance, and transparency.

Campaign Finance/Money in Politics: The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the methods of financing political campaigns should enhance political equality for all citizens; ensure maximum participation by citizens in the political process; protect representative democracy from being distorted by big spending in election campaigns; provide voters sufficient information about candidates and campaign issues to make informed choices; ensure transparency and the public’s right to know who is using money to influence elections; enable candidates to compete equitably for public office; ensure that candidates have sufficient funds to communicate their messages to the public; and combat corruption and undue influence in government.

Action on April 20, 2023:

• Passed Senate on 3rd reading 29-6 with a 3rd reading amendment (which doesn’t happen often)
• Assigned to House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Cmte – Hearing date TBD

A huge election clean-up bill appears in the legislature most years.  Senator Fenberg has sponsored the omnibus elections bill before, e.g., HB19-1278.

As part of the “clean-up” Fenberg was going to remove the right in statute for 17-going-on-18-year-olds to vote in primary elections.  He had first put that right into statute in HB19-1278.  Amendment 76 to prevent non-citizen voting also inadvertently took away 17-year-old voting, but LWVCO and the Office of Legislative Legal Services (see Feb 19, 2021 memo) are of the opinion that Colorado doesn’t have legal clarity on the 17yo-voting question.  LWVCO doesn’t want the language removed from statute in case Colorado can get a ruling that Amendment 76 does not apply to citizens under the age of 18 voting.  Fortunately, most of the sections referencing 17-year-olds were removed from the bill.  Sections 5 (affirmation language) and 6 (confidential records) are still in the bill, but perhaps we can live with them.

Bill Content: The bill makes some clarifications (e.g., date changes) and modernizations (e.g., accept digital IDs).  Other intended outcomes:

• Increase voter participation on tribal lands and higher ed campuses and in jails
• Stop asking unaffiliated voters their party ballot preference – just send all the primary ballots.
• Clarify reqts for
  • a person or committee that pays circulators to collect petition signatures
  • challenging insufficiency of petition signatures
• Reimburse counties for 45% of the cost of conducting any elections with state-certified ballot content beginning July 1, 2024 – The county clerks LOVE this!
• Mandate updating of voter ID and ballot cure records within 24 hours, particularly when the margin of victory is small, such as close enough to require a recount
• Campaign finance
  • candidates may not give money to issue committees and vice versa
  • candidates must file disclosure statements electronically to be posted on SoS website
  • election officials may not use elections funds to feature a candidate in an advertisement

Recommendation: Amend (LAC approved on 4/21) with option to Support depending on progress of amendments

• Section 9 – Strike the bill language proposing to change the Electoral College meeting date
• Sections 19 and 20 – Replace “instant runoff voting” with “a ranked voting method” to align with statutory language and allow for
  • proportional ranked voting (aka single transferable vote or STV in 1-7-1003(4) C.R.S.) which is used in multi-winner contests, like the Denver 2-winner at-large council contest
  • any other form of ranked voting introduced in the expected presidential primary bill
• Sections 24 and 25 – Also entitle and allocate spots for unaffiliated voters (1/3 of the Colorado electorate) to be election watchers
• Sections 34 and 36 – Remove language requiring more populous counties to begin counting at least 4 days before Election Day, i.e., leaving the option of early counting, but not forcing counties to expose themselves to leaks and loss of election integrity. In Section 34 change “to ensure the secrecy of the counting procedures, and no information …” to “to ensure that no information …” Counting procedures should be transparent, not secret.
• Section 37 – Background - A recount indicates a heightened need for accuracy. With close elections, we don’t want to take any recount or testing options off the table.  Also take advantage of the opportunity for Logic and Accuracy Tests to get more accurate recounts, based on any info available at that point time.
  • Change the responsibility of determining a recount and which recount method to use from the “secretary of state” to “canvass board.” If the secretary of state is a candidate in a contest that seems headed for a recall, the secretary of state should not be involved at in decisions regarding the recount process. 
  • Insert “at least” before “ten” in “(II) FOR A REQUESTED RECOUNT, A GROUP OF BALLOTS CONSISTING OF TEN BALLOTS …”
  • Change “must” back to “may” in “the recount MUST be conducted in the same manner as the original ballot count.”

Relevant LWV statements

LWVUS Mission: LWV works to empower voters and defend democracy.

LWVUS positions (excerpts):

Voting Rights: The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that voting is a fundamental citizen right that must be guaranteed.

Campaign Finance/Money in Politics: LWVUS believes that the methods of financing political campaigns should enhance political equality for all citizens; … protect representative democracy from being distorted by big spending in election campaigns; provide voters sufficient information about candidates and campaign issues to make informed choices; ensure transparency and the public’s right to know who is using money to influence elections; … and combat corruption and undue influence in government.

LWVCO positions (excerpts):

Voting Methods: Some voting methods are intended for single-winner elections, others for multi-winner elections. It is important that the intended use of a voting method match its actual application.

Election Security: Security requirements include but are not limited to: …

• Chain of custody security with strict protocols to show direct accountability and control of key systems and passwords - designate select personnel with appropriate expertise to enforce limited access to original ballots - strictly document ballot access times and places. …
• Ensuring sensitive task security by team oversight, with no two team members from the same political party.
• Voting systems, both hardware and software, must be supported, tested, accessible, and secure.

Processes should be designed so that the public can observe the election, auditing, and testing processes closely enough to verify their integrity, but without interfering in an ongoing process. The public should have a mechanism to address election process flaws, if possible while an election is still underway, without interfering in ongoing elections.