State representative reiterates bill to end at-large county commission elections for counties over 70,000

Representative Bob Marshall told the Alternative Voting Methods Statewide Task Force on Jan. 30 that he will reintroduce legislation to require counties with populations above 70,000 to elect five county commissioners and to remove plurality at-large commission elections.

Marshall, who identified himself as the state House representative for Highlands Ranch in Douglas County, said the bill’s central goal is to “get rid of the at large voting.” He argued at-large, winner-take-all contests have long been used to prevent political or racial minorities from winning seats: “After the civil war, unfortunately, these at large … elections are always used to keep down a political minority,” he said, summarizing the historical record that underlies his effort.

Celeste Landry, who leads the task force, walked members through a draft that would require counties above the constitutional 70,000-population cutoff to elect five commissioners and would offer two ways to do so: five single-member districts or an at-large election run using a proportional ranked voting method. Landry said the enabling statute would not force jurisdictions to adopt proportional voting but would direct the secretary of state to write rules for conducting proportional ranked voting if jurisdictions choose it.

Task force members pressed Marshall on political feasibility and prior efforts. Marshall said he has run the proposal multiple years and amended it to address cost concerns, noting he has previously considered raising the population threshold and said he has been “willing to move on the numbers” to address unfunded-mandate objections. He said his first priority is eliminating winner-take-all at-large voting and his second is expanding to five commissioners so suburban and geographically distinct communities can win representation.

Members of the League of Women Voters and other attendees emphasized a technical distinction Marshall and others acknowledged: at-large plurality elections are not identical to at-large proportional elections. As a League representative said during the meeting, proportional at-large elections using a ranked voting method are “a candidate based method. It’s not a party based method.” Celeste Landry added that proportional ranked voting (multiwinner RCV/STV) is different from single-winner instant runoff voting (IRV) and must be explained as such to policymakers and the public.

The meeting also recorded a constitutional question from Dwight, who noted Article 14, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and asked whether statutory changes could conflict with that text. Marshall said the bill had previously been vetted by OLS and that no constitutional obstacle had been raised in his earlier runs, but he acknowledged courts ultimately resolve such disputes.

Marshall said he expected to seek introduction of the bill in late January and was attempting to secure additional legislative co-sponsors before formal filing. The task force did not take a formal vote; the session was used to review policy options and technical implications of the proposal.

What happens next: Marshall said he was seeking extra time to file and additional co-sponsors; the task force discussion identified legal, fiscal and administrative questions that legislators and county election officials will need to resolve before moving the measure forward.