DENVER – State Sen. Ellen Roberts of Durango believes fellow lawmakers inappropriately meddled with the initiative process to project problems with a primary election ballot question.
When lawmakers updated a description in voter information booklets about the initiative, Roberts was the lone voice against amending it to reflect that the initiative would lead to a specific percentage of ballots tossed because of voter error.
The issue stems from one of two primary ballot questions facing voters in November.
The measure would allow unaffiliated voters to vote in nonpresidential primary elections, but they would have to cast their votes for a single party.
Colorado currently has a closed primary. Although voters are allowed to affiliate with a party up to and on Election Day, an option that allows them to participate. If unaffiliated voters choose this option, they would receive a primary ballot for the party they picked.
If the ballot question passes, most unaffiliated voters would receive one ballot, with both Republican and Democratic candidates, though clerks could choose to send voters separate ballots for each party.
If voters mistakenly vote for both Republicans and Democrats on the ballot, then their preferences would be tossed, or “spoiled.”
Lawmakers earlier this month amended language in the so-called “Blue Book” – which explains ballot issues to voters – to reflect that as many as 9 percent of ballots could be spoiled under the proposed system. Staff has since lowered that projection to 7 percent, though proponents argue that their own research suggests that less than 1 percent of ballots would be spoiled.
The motion to amend the Blue Book language to caution voters that a percentage of ballots would be spoiled passed by a resounding 17-1.
The Washington state presidential primary was used as an example in crafting the projection, though proponents say the system there is different than the system proposed for Colorado, and therefore not an accurate depiction.
A separate ballot initiative in Colorado this year would create a presidential primary, moving away from the caucus system. The proposed primary also would include unaffiliated voters. But because presidential primaries include candidates for only one office, the likelihood of voters spoiling their ballot by crossing parties is low.
Legislative staff members proposed language in the Blue Book for the nonpresidential primary question that reflected that the “combined ballot for unaffiliated voters also increases the likelihood of voters improperly marking their ballots and their vote not being counted.”
But the Legislative Council Committee didn’t think that explanation went far enough, backing the motion that stated that the initiative would spoil as many as 9 percent of ballots.
“Voters should know that their ballots may not count,” explained Sen. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, a member of the committee.
Roberts, however, believes her colleagues went too far.
“Anything that appears to undermine the integrity of the Blue Book is a problem,” Roberts said. “The Blue Book should be done in a transparent and nonpartisan basis.”
Authors of the ballot question were frustrated that the amendment was proposed without their input, presented on the fly during the meeting of the Legislative Council Committee, which has the authority to amend Blue Book language written by staff.
Proponents also are angry that lawmakers struck language from “arguments for” in the Blue Book that read, “Opening the primary election to more voters has the potential to increase voter turnout.”
“That defied common sense,” said Curtis Hubbard, spokesman for proponents, pointing out that the initiative would likely increase participation by opening primaries to an estimated 1.3 million more voters.
Roberts said the move by her colleagues is likely contributing to voter frustration with parties, fueling unaffiliated growth and an interest in alternative candidates.
“What seemed to happen in committee is people started to argue the merits of the initiative, and that isn’t the role of the committee,” Roberts said.
Proponents add that the math used by lawmakers is inaccurate. Legislative staff found one error with the 9 percent figure, and corrected it to reflect that about 7 percent of ballots could be impacted.
Proponents believe that number is likely inaccurate, pointing out that Washington requires everyone to affiliate for the presidential primary by checking a box and voting in one party’s primary, which can be more confusing.
Proponents also point out that under their initiative, cross-party voting would impact only unaffiliated voters, as affiliated voters would receive a ballot for only their party. Only the 36 percent of registered unaffiliated voters would receive a cross ballot that could lead to errors.
The number of potentially spoiled ballots is closer to 0.51 percent, according to proponents.
“Keep in mind of those 0.51 percent of unaffiliated voters whose ballots might be rejected for cross-party or both party voting, they could never have voted in the first place under the existing system,” said Jesse Hassinger, a consultant for proponents.
“If people don’t like it, if party leaders don’t like it, go out and campaign against it,” Roberts added. “But don’t mess with the Blue Book.”
pmarcus@durangoherald.com
