Proponents say open-list proportional plan would overhaul Colorado legislative elections; staff flag technical fixes

Proponents of proposed ballot initiative No. 262 told Legislative Council staff on March 16 that the measure’s single subject is to elect the Colorado General Assembly by open‑list proportional representation, changing district composition and the method for awarding seats.

Martha Tierney, counsel for the designated representatives, said the proponents generally agreed with staff's summary of the measure’s purposes. “Yes, generally,” Tierney said as the group confirmed the overview of changes that include consolidating Senate districts and electing five members per representative district.

Why it matters: The proposal would replace the current single-member district system with multi-member districts and use a mathematical Jefferson method to allocate seats, affecting how parties and unaffiliated slates qualify for seats and how vacancies are filled.

What staff asked and what proponents said: Office of Legislative Legal Services (Pierce Lively) pressed for precise language on several implementation points. Staff asked whether constitutional thresholds that refer to “votes cast” should count undervotes; proponents agreed to clarify that only ballots cast in the relevant race will count. Staff also asked how vacancies for members elected on an unaffiliated or joint slate would be filled; proponents said they will add vacancy-committee language for unaffiliated slates and clarify which party affiliation governs joint-slate vacancies.

Staff questioned the effective date (the draft initially listed 01/01/2027) and whether that would force an out‑of‑cycle redistricting. Tierney acknowledged the problem and said proponents would push the effective date or add an applicability clause so that the independent legislative redistricting commission could draw maps after the next decennial cycle (maps to be drawn in 2031 for 2032 elections under the proponents’ suggested change).

Other technical issues staff flagged included: whether signature‑gathering thresholds would unfairly change geographic diversity requirements if the number of Senate districts drops, how write‑in candidates are treated (proponents said write‑in slates will not be allowed), and sequencing of staggered Senate terms during transition (proponents described electing even‑numbered districts first as a possible solution).

What’s next: Proponents agreed to incorporate clarifying edits on vote-count definitions, vacancy language, joint‑slate treatment, and timing. No formal action or vote occurred at the hearing; the review-and-comment record will be updated to reflect the pledged clarifications.

Ending: The hearing then moved to consider related initiative No. 263 with the same designated representatives and counsel on the record.