Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Colorado enacts state Voting Rights Act; new vacancy laws raise constitutional questions
Loading...
Summary
Task force members reviewed the recently signed Colorado Voting Rights Act and two vacancy bills that change special‑election timing and eligibility, prompting concerns about disenfranchisement and possible Fourteenth Amendment challenges.
Denver — The League of Women Voters of Colorado task force discussed the state’s new Voting Rights Act and two related vacancy bills that passed during the legislative session, with participants flagging how the bills may affect who may run and who may vote in certain special vacancy elections.
"Colorado is, I believe, now the ninth state to adopt a state level voting rights act," said Jen Cleland, a task force member and professor who summarized the statute’s goals. The act, she said, preserves many federal Voting Rights Act protections and adds state provisions that explicitly protect LGBTQ+ voters, disabled voters and Native American voters. Cleland noted the law requires more comprehensive election data collection by the secretary of state, including precinct‑level results and precinct maps for local and primary races — data advocates said will be useful for future voting‑rights assessments.
Timing and implementation: Task force members said the Voting Rights Act was signed by the governor the prior week and was expected to take effect in August, with data collection and other provisions applying to elections beginning the following January (as described by a participant in the meeting).
Vacancy bills: Participants also reviewed House Bill 1315 and House Bill 1319, which change vacancy procedures in some partisan offices. The bills preserve immediate party committee appointments to fill a vacancy, but require a special vacancy election that November if the vacancy occurs before July 31 of an odd‑numbered year. Task force members said both bills passed; H1315 was described as signed by the governor along with the Voting Rights Act, while H1319 passed but had not been signed at the time of the meeting.
Concerns raised: Several League participants said the vacancy‑election language is unusual because it limits who may run and who may vote in those special elections to the party that held the seat (and unaffiliated voters), excluding other parties and casting the contest as a party‑limited election. Speakers called that limitation a potential disenfranchisement of voters and flagged a possible constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mark (last name not on record), who followed the legal debate in the meeting, cited Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party (a Puerto Rico case) as a potentially relevant precedent and said Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment has rarely been enforced but could be argued in litigation. "We think that the fourteenth amendment specifically refers to members of the legislature and probably 13 15 would be unconstitutional," he said in the discussion of legislative office vacancies.
Process and next steps: Task force members recommended further research and outreach. Some urged the League and allied groups to consider sending letters to the secretary of state and relevant legislative offices to request clearer auditing guidance and to press for inclusive rules where the vacancy bills are concerned. Speakers noted that some implementation details could be clarified through administrative rulemaking (Rule 26 was cited as the secretary of state’s election rule that governs audits), but others said the statutory language itself may require legislative or judicial resolution.
No formal action was taken by the task force at the meeting. Members said they would review the bills and legal precedent and consider advocacy steps to ensure election data transparency and voter access in vacancy contests and to monitor how the Voting Rights Act’s data provisions are implemented.
