Colorado Unaffiliated Elector, Proposition 108 (2016)

Colorado Proposition 108
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Elections and campaigns
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Amendment T d
Amendment U d
Amendment 69 d
Amendment 70 a
Amendment 71 a
Amendment 72 d
Proposition 106 a
Proposition 107 a
Proposition 108 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Unaffiliated Elector Initiative, also known as Proposition 108, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this proposal to allow unaffiliated electors to vote in the primary election of a major political party without declaring an affiliation with that political party and to permit a political party, in some circumstances, to select candidates by committee or convention, rather than through a primary election.

A "no" vote opposed this proposal, keeping the closed primary format.

Election results

Proposition 108
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,398,577	53.27%
No		1,227,117	46.73%

Election results from Colorado Secretary of State

Overview

Primaries in Colorado

Prior to the passage of Proposition 108, Colorado utilized a closed primary system, in which only registered party members could participate in a party's primary. However, unaffiliated voters could choose to affiliate with a party on Election Day in order to vote in that party's primary. In Colorado, primaries were convened to elect party candidates for county, state, and federal offices other than the presidency.

Initiative design

Proposition 108 allowed unaffiliated electors to vote in the primary elections of major political parties without declaring an affiliation with the party. The measure provided that unaffiliated voters receive a combined ballot with primary candidates separated by political party and chose which one party's primary to vote in. The proposition allowed a political party, with three-fourths votes of the party's state central committee, to select candidates by assembly or convention limited to party-affiliated voters rather than a primary election. The initiative permitted minor parties to exclude unaffiliated voters from participating in their primaries.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

See also: Campaign finance for Proposition 108

The group leading the campaign in support of Proposition 108, Let Colorado Vote, raised $5.3 million as of November 17, 2016, while the group opposing the proposition raised $71,083.

Current Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), and several former Colorado governors, endorsed the proposition.

Text of the Measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the process of selecting candidates representing major political parties on a general election ballot, and, in connection therewith, allowing an unaffiliated elector to vote in the primary election of a major political party without declaring an affiliation with that political party and permitting a political party in specific circumstances to select all of its candidates by assembly or convention instead of by primary election?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

Background. Under current law, a voter must be affiliated with a political party in order to vote in that party's primary election. Unaffiliated voters, sometimes referred to as independent voters, are not registered members of any political party. An unaffiliated voter may affiliate with a political party at any point up to, and including election day, and be eligible under current law to participate in a party's primary election. In Colorado, primary elections to select party nominees for state, county, and federal offices other than president (nonpresidential primaries) are held on the last Tuesday in June in even-numbered years. These primary elections are conducted by county election officials at a cost of about $5.0 million every two years. Primary election process open to unaffiliated voters. Under Proposition 108, voters will no longer be required to affiliate with a political party in order to vote in a party's nonpresidential primary election. Instead, unaffiliated voters will receive a combined ballot that shows all candidates for elected office for each political party. The combined ballot must clearly separate candidates for each political party, and unaffiliated voters may only vote in contests for one political party. If a voter selects candidates of more than one political party on the combined ballot, his or her ballot will not be counted. In counties that determine that a combined ballot is not practical, unaffiliated voters will receive separate ballots for all major political parties participating in the primary election and may return the ballot for one party. Option for closed party nominations. The measure allows political parties, which are private organizations, to opt out of holding a primary election that is open to unaffiliated voters. Instead, they may choose to nominate candidates in an assembly or convention that is limited to voters affiliated with that party. The decision to opt out of holding a primary election must be made by the party's state central committee by a three-fourths majority vote. Impact on minor parties. Under current law, the Democratic and Republican Parties, having met certain vote thresholds in prior elections, are classified as major parties; all other parties, such as the American Constitution Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party, are classified as minor parties. Under Proposition 108, minor parties participating in the primary election will be included on the combined ballot sent to unaffiliated voters. However, a minor party may opt to exclude unaffiliated voters from participating in its primary election. In such cases, only voters affiliated with the minor party will receive that party's primary election ballot. The provision allowing the exclusion of unaffiliated voters only applies to minor parties.

Full text

The full text of Proposition 108 can be read here.

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

State spending. Proposition 108 increases state spending by $160,000, with costs split evenly between budget year 2016-17 and budget year 2017-18. This is a one-time cost for the Secretary of State's Office to make information technology system modifications to the statewide voter database and other voting systems. Local government spending. Proposition 108 increases local government spending by counties by $750,000 every two years by requiring that ballots be mailed to unaffiliated voters and eliminating a required notification currently sent to unaffiliated voters prior to a primary election. This estimate assumes that all political parties continue to nominate candidates through the primary election process. In the event some or all political parties opt out of conducting primary elections and instead choose to nominate candidates by assembly or convention, counties may have total statewide savings of up to $5.0 million every two years.

”

Support

Let Colorado Vote led the campaign in support of Proposition 107.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. John Hickenlooper (D)
• Sen. Dominick Moreno

Former officials

• Gov. Bill Ritter (D)
• Gov. Bill Owens (R)
• Gov. Dick Lamm (D)
• U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D)
• Rep. B.J. Nikkel (R)
• Rep. Christine Scanlan (D)
• Sen. Kiki Traylor
• Sen. Josh Penry (R)
• Sen. Lois Tochtrop (D)
• Sen. Cheri Gerou (R)

Organizations

• Metro Mayors Caucus
• Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
• Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce
• Boulder Chamber of Commerce
• Club 20
• Colorado Concern
• Colorado Association of Realtors
• Colorado Contractors Association
• Vail Valley Partnership
• Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
• Boulder Chamber
• Progress 15

Individuals

• Howard Gelt, former Chair of Colorado Democratic Party
• Don Bain, former Chair of the Colorado Republican Party

Arguments

Kent Thiry, campaign chairman of Let Colorado Vote, argued:

“

Colorado voters value independence and want elections that encourage participation. Only 5 percent of voters participated in the March caucuses, which is not a sign of a healthy democracy. Our initiatives will fix that and allow more than 1 million unaffiliated voters to participate in elections that they currently pay for, but thus far have been excluded from.

”

Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), who endorsed the proposition, said:

“

That’s going to certainly encourage many, many more people to get involved in the electoral process. More and more people become unaffiliated voters through one frustration or another with the traditional party politics, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t look for ways for them to be involved in who actually ends up on the ballot.

”

Curtis Hubbard, spokesperson for Let Colorado Vote, responding to proposition opponent Sen. Ted Harvey’s (R-30) point about voters being able to change their political affiliation to vote and then change back to unaffiliated, said:

“

Because you're asking them to be something that they're not. You're asking them to declare to be something that they're not and fundamentally, Senator, what this is about is this is a taxpayer financed election. And our view is if you're asking taxpayers to finance your private party function, then they should have a say in that process without being asked to join a party that they don’t believe that they're a part of but that they should have a say.

”

Official arguments

Official arguments in favor of Proposition 108 were as follows:

“

1) Proposition 108 gives unaffiliated voters, who are Colorado taxpayers, the opportunity to vote in publicly financed primary elections. Unaffiliated voters make up more than one-third of all registered voters in the state. Proposition 108 gives unaffiliated voters a role in selecting candidates for the general election and makes voting in primary elections easier and more accessible for these voters. 2) Allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in primary elections may result in candidates who better represent all Coloradans. In a closed primary, voter participation is typically low and the candidates selected often appeal to a small number of their party's more active members. Opening the primary election may result in candidates who are more responsive to a broader range of interests.

”

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by Let Colorado Vote:

Let Colorado Vote's "Can We Play?"

Opposition

Citizens for Integrity Issue Committee filed in opposition to Proposition 108.

Opponents

• Sen. Kevin J. Grantham (R-2)
• Sen. Ted Harvey (R-30)
• Former Sen. Penfield Tate (D)
• Rick Palacio, Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party
• Steve House, Chair of the Colorado Republican Party

Arguments

Sen. Kevin J. Grantham (R-2) compared Proposition 107 and Proposition 108 to allowing the Oakland Raiders to select the Denver Broncos’ players. He added:

“

If you are registered as a Republican, you are a member of a private political organization; if you are a member of the Democratic party, you are a member of a private political organization, who currently has the right to select your own candidates without outside influence from outside parties, outside sources. Both 107 and 108 will put into place the ability of everybody from outside the party to make your decisions for you — again: Raiders/Broncos. … This is not a great system that they are trying to put into place. It's asking for confusion on an unprecedented scale.

”

Sen. Ted Harvey (R-30), in a debate with Let Colorado Voter spokesperson Curtis Hubbard, contended:

“

These are private entities, these political parties that are choosing their nominees, they're private entities and we are saying that people who are not a part of this private entity should be allowed to choose the leaders of these parties. It's like saying the Mormon Church will get to choose who is going to be the Pope… It's a violation of my identity that I'm a Republican choosing my leaders and I'm having people that aren't a part of my identity choosing who the leader would be. That's fundamental to the democratic process in the United States that people that are members of certain parties have the ability to choose their leadership.

”

Other arguments against the measure included:

• Rick Palacio, Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, argued, "We want to make sure the caucuses remain intact for the purposes of party building for community building around party issues."

Other arguments against the measure included:

• Steve House, Chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said, "We’re a membership organization. If we allow non-members to chose our candidate, then what’s the purpose of having a membership organization."
• George Small, an election judge, stated, “When you take the party out of the primary process and give it to the government and let them put the regulations in, it's going to get really complicated. The more complicated, the more people are not happy with it.”

Official arguments

Arguments against Proposition 108 found in the state voter guide were as follows:

“

1) Proposition 108 uses a combined ballot system for unaffiliated voters that will likely result in about 7 percent of unaffiliated voter ballots not being counted, which could change election winners, and would raise costs for taxpayers. On a combined ballot, unaffiliated voters must vote for only one party's candidates. People who vote for candidates in both parties will have their ballots disqualified, and their ballots will not be counted. In Washington state, where combined ballots are used, 7 percent of ballots are disqualified. This can change election results, and may result in contested elections and litigation. Producing and processing a separate combined ballot only for unaffiliated voters creates administrative and financial burdens for counties, especially smaller or rural counties. 2) Colorado law already allows unaffiliated voters who wish to vote in a political party's primary election to easily change their party affiliation at any point during the election, up to and including on election day. Political parties are membership organizations that have the right to select their own candidates without influence from people who choose not to affiliate with the party.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2016.

Let Colorado Vote registered to support the measure. The committee raised $5.29 million.

Citizens for Integrity registered to oppose the measure. The committee raised $71,083.21.

Let Colorado Vote also supported Proposition 108 while Citizens for Integrity opposed it. It is impossible to distinguish between funds spent on each individual measure.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,295,090.00	$980.97	$5,296,070.97	$5,295,090.00	$5,296,070.97
Oppose	$0.00	$71,083.21	$71,083.21	$0.00	$71,083.21
Total	$5,295,090.00	$72,064.18	$5,367,154.18	$5,295,090.00	$5,367,154.18

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) supporting the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 108
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Let Colorado Vote	$5,295,090.00	$980.97	$5,296,070.97	$5,295,090.00	$5,296,070.97
Total	$5,295,090.00	$980.97	$5,296,070.97	$5,295,090.00	$5,296,070.97

Donors

The following were the top donors to the support committee(s).

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Kent Thiry	$3,158,000.00	$0.00	$3,158,000.00
Open Primaries	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce	$200,248.00	$0.00	$200,248.00
Anadarko Petroleum	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
Noble Energy	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 108
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Citizens for Integrity Issue Committee	$0.00	$71,083.21	$71,083.21	$0.00	$71,083.21
Total	$0.00	$71,083.21	$71,083.21	$0.00	$71,083.21

Donors

The top donors to the opposition committee(s) were as follows:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• The Coloradoan said: “Yes, voters can affiliate one day and unaffiliate the next. However, some people simply don’t want to affiliate. Opening primary elections to Colorado’s unaffiliated voters provides more and easier access to the process. As we look across the country and the state, younger voters are redefining traditional party lines. Fifty percent of Larimer voters under age 26 are registered as independent.”
• Colorado Springs Independent said: "Granted, Prop 108 also likely would mean more voters changing to unaffiliated, simply to give them the right to pick a primary every two years, but that's their right."
• Daily Camera said: "Props 107 and 108 will enfranchise more than 1 million unaffiliated Colorado voters in a crucial electoral step. The dramatic deterioration of our political system documented in the Harvard Business School report requires remedial measures to wrest that process from ideologues and special interests and return it to the people. Props 107 and 108 are a smart, constructive step toward that goal."
• The Denver Post said: "Thankfully, a pair of measures before voters this year would help. Propositions 107 and 108 would return a proper presidential primary to Colorado and open it and the rest of the primary races to greater voter participation by allowing unaffiliated voters to take part. We believe the changes would usher in more engagement, encourage broader and more thoughtful debate and ultimately provide better candidates to entrust with public office. We urge voters to say “yes” to Propositions 107 and 108."
• Grand Junction Daily Sentinel said: “Mixing in unaffiliated voters would temper extreme views and pandering to a narrow base, hopefully resulting in more moderate candidates open to compromise.”
• The Gazette said: "Today's system disenfranchises 36 percent of Colorado's registered voters by leaving them out of the nominating process. Unaffiliated voters generally do not respect Colorado's political parties because they feel snubbed. They often resent the general election candidates each party puts forth. By including independents, the parties are more likely to choose less-doggedly partisan primary participants who advocate doctrinaire agendas and philosophies that appeal to only a relative few."
• Steamboat Today said: "Colorado voters witnessed a confusing and tumultuous political process in spring 2016 that saw controversy spring up around both the Democratic and Republican state caucus procedures used to assign national convention delegates to presidential candidates. In the wake of that disputed process, we think it’s time for Colorado voters to get off the sidelines and approve Proposition 107, which would amend state statues to establish a presidential primary to be held in March of each presidential election year."
• The Tribune said: "We support both measures [Proposition 107 and Proposition 108]. In their own ways, they each would allow for greater participation by voters in the democratic process. Participation at presidential caucuses is low and often limited to party insiders and extremists. Creating a primary election would change that. Allowing unaffiliated voters to have a say in selecting a candidate at the primary level would also enhance the number of people who have a voice in our system."

Opposition

• Longmont Times-Call said: "Currently, if an unaffiliated voter wants to vote in a primary, he or she can declare an affiliation at the polls. … For the costs associated, this solution is not worth it. A "no" vote is recommended."
• Loveland Reporter-Herald said: “For the costs associated, this solution is not worth it. A "no" vote is recommended.”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

• The proposed initiative was filed with the Colorado secretary of state's office on February 19, 2016, and the petition format was approved on May 11, 2016.
• Proposition 108 proponents needed to collect 98,492 signatures by August 8, 2016, to land the measure on the ballot.
• Supporters submitted signatures by the August 8, 2016, deadline.
• The secretary of state's office certified Proposition 108 on August 24, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Kennedy Enterprises to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $544,401.43 was spent to collect the 98,492 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.53.

State profile

Demographic data for Colorado
	Colorado	U.S.
Total population:	5,448,819	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	103,642	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	84.2%	73.6%
Black/African American:	4%	12.6%
Asian:	2.9%	5.1%
Native American:	0.9%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.1%	0.2%
Two or more:	3.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	21.1%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.7%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	38.1%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$60,629	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	13.5%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Colorado. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Colorado

Colorado voted for the Democratic candidate in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, four are located in Colorado, accounting for 1.94 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Colorado had three Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 1.66 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Colorado coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Colorado
• United States congressional delegations from Colorado
• Public policy in Colorado
• Endorsers in Colorado
• Colorado fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• Colorado 2016 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

External links

Basic information

• Proposition 108
• Colorado 2016 Ballot Information Book

Support

• Let Colorado Vote
• Let Colorado Vote Facebook