Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ranked Choice Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longmont study session draws large public turn‑out for ranked‑choice voting briefing
Summary
Hundreds of minutes of public comment and a county clerk briefing framed Longmont's discussion of ranked‑choice voting. Council heard advocates and skeptics, asked detailed implementation questions about costs, cross‑county tabulation, and ballot timing, and were told multi‑winner RCV (STV) is not yet possible without certified vendor equipment.
Longmont City Council heard more than an hour of public testimony and a technical briefing on March 3 as residents pressed the council to consider referring ranked‑choice voting to voters.
Dozens of speakers—many representing RCV advocacy groups—urged the council to give Longmont voters the option of single‑winner instant‑runoff voting (IRV) for mayor and ward seats and multi‑winner/proportional ranked‑choice voting (often called single‑transferable vote or STV) for at‑large seats. Advocate Dylan Rankin said Longmont’s elections are “safe, secure, expertly administrated” and that RCV “prevents the spoiler effect and mitigates the current incentives to vote strategically.” Opponents voiced concerns about public education, costs and slower results; Jenny Schuster told council she had “serious concerns about implementing RCV” and asked who would be responsible for tabulating and auditing ranked ballots.
City Clerk Don Kintana and Boulder County Elections Director Stephanie Gnoza gave the council a technical overview. Gnoza said Colorado statute currently authorizes two ranked methods—IRV for single‑winner contests and STV for multi‑winner contests—and that Boulder has run IRV races. But she told council the voting systems currently certified in Colorado cannot perform STV tabulation, so multi‑winner RCV would not be possible for Longmont until a vendor submits STV functionality to the Secretary of State and that software is certified.
Gnoza described operational changes the city would need if it adopted RCV: expanded voter education (Boulder prepared an insert for every mail ballot), adjustments to logic‑and‑accuracy testing to demonstrate round‑by‑round tabulation, cross‑county consolidated result responsibilities (Longmont spans Boulder and Weld counties, with Boulder likely the controlling county for consolidated IRV results), and integration of IRV into the state's risk‑limiting audit procedures. She estimated Boulder's first IRV contest cost about $77,000 in incremental, up‑front expenses, dropping substantially in later years; Longmont could see similar first‑year increments depending on the contests and vendor fees.
Council members asked where authority resides and how quickly a change could be implemented. Kintana said council cannot unilaterally adopt RCV for municipal contests: Longmont would need a charter amendment and a public vote. He also said voter education that is statutorily required for a first RCV election would occur after adoption but that the council could still refer a charter change to the ballot and rely on community groups for pre‑referral outreach. Council members discussed whether to pursue a 2026 ballot referral and concluded that more time for clear ballot language and a robust education campaign would likely be preferable.
Why it matters: supporters said RCV could increase turnout and make representation more proportional, while critics cautioned about costs, legal complexity for cross‑county tabulation, and the current lack of certified equipment for multi‑winner contests. The council did not vote on a referral at the session; staff was directed to continue research and public engagement.
What’s next: Clerk Kintana and county election officials said they will continue working with council and county partners on the legal, technical and budget questions; any council referral would trigger a separate process to draft ballot language and a public information campaign.
