Colorado voters already answered this question once.
Apparently, election reformers would like to speak with the manager.
In 2024, Proposition 131 asked Coloradans to make a major change to state elections. It would have replaced partisan primaries for many state and federal offices with an all-candidate primary, advanced the top four finishers, then used ranked-choice voting in the general election.
Voters rejected it.
Not barely, either. The final count was 53.5 percent no to 46.5 percent yes, roughly 210,000 votes separating the two sides. That is what those of us who still believe elections have consequences generally call a result.
But election reform in Colorado is apparently less of a ballot question and more of a subscription service.
Enter Courageous Colorado.
The organization officially launched in 2025 and says it wants to transform Colorado politics by 2030. Its founder, Landon Mascareñaz, has focused specifically on opening Colorado’s primaries, and the organization lists a whole buffet of structural changes among its priorities: open primaries, ranked-choice voting, nonpartisan elections, proportional representation, campaign finance reform, term limits, vacancy and caucus reform, and more.
That does not mean Proposition 131 has simply been dragged out of the political graveyard, hosed off and given a new bumper sticker. Courageous Colorado has not settled on final ballot language, and its agenda is broader than the 2024 measure. Current reporting says the organization is looking toward a possible 2028 ballot initiative involving primary reform.
Fair enough.
Ideas are allowed to come back. Losing an election does not mean a policy question is forbidden forever. Sometimes proposals fail because they are badly written. Sometimes voters hate one piece of a package but like another. Sometimes circumstances change.
But voters are also allowed to ask why “no” so often seems to mean “please repackage and resubmit.”
That is the part Colorado’s election-reform industry needs to confront.
Proposition 131 was not some underfunded kitchen-table experiment nobody heard about. Its supporters ran a serious statewide campaign. The proposal combined open primaries with ranked-choice general elections, and voters had months to consider it. The official state description spelled out exactly what the system would do.
They declined.
Now reformers need to make the case from scratch, not behave as though the voters simply failed the seminar.
What specific problem are we solving? Which reform addresses it? What does it cost? Who benefits? What new complications does it create? And perhaps most importantly, can an ordinary voter understand what happens to his ballot without needing a flowchart, a TED Talk and three nonprofit fellows standing nearby?
Election systems should inspire trust because they are understandable, transparent and accountable. Complexity is not automatically sophistication. Sometimes complexity is just complexity wearing a lanyard.
Courageous Colorado says it wants community-driven reform and has conducted listening sessions around the state. Good. Keep listening. Especially when the answer is no.
Because democracy is not just giving people a voice when they agree with your proposal.
Sometimes democracy is accepting that they already used it.
Source: Longmont Times-Call
Now It's Your Turn...