FINGOV Advances Two Ballot Questions Concerning Voter Representation

By Robert Davis

On August 10, Denver City Council’s Finance and Governance Committee (FINGOV) moved forward two potential ballot questions that address how the people of Denver are represented by local government. 

One proposal would permanently move the municipal elections from May to April to comport with federal election laws concerning overseas voters. Federal law requires military professionals stationed overseas with ballots within 45 days of an election. If Denver’s election was held in April, service members would only have between 28 and 35 days to vote.  

The question moved forward to a full Council discussion by a unanimous vote. 

Another proposed question would revise Denver’s charter to convert the city’s two at-large district seats into new council districts. This would increase the total number of council districts to 13. The bill was moved by a 4-3 margin.

A final vote on both questions could come as early as August 30. 

Municipal Elections

Moving the municipal election date is one of two recommendations Clerk Paul Lopez made to City Council back in July. The other recommendation was to adopt a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) system, which he argued would eliminate Denver’s use of runoff elections altogether. 

Voters under an RCV system rank their candidates by preference. If a candidate wins a majority of the vote after the first ballots are cast, then they are declared victorious. If not, then the ballot is redrawn, excluding the candidate who received the lowest number of preferential votes. This process is repeated until a winner is declared. 

“The easiest way to solve this issue is to move the date of the election,” Lopez said. “However, doing so won’t address the other issues Denver’s charter creates that are not being addressed.”

Councilman Kevin Flynn (District 2) argued that this system would disenfranchise the voters in two ways. He said that voters who vote for the least-preferential candidate essentially have their votes “thrown out” once the candidate is removed from the ballot. 

At the same time, Flynn argued that RCV oftentimes creates instances of “ballot exhaustion” whereby voters who do not rank their choices and simply cast a vote for a single candidate are not counted among the final tally. 

Other council members voiced opposition to RCV being implemented in such a hurried way and asked for more public engagement from elections officials on the issue. 

Council President Stacie Gilmore (District 11) said she was not part of any town halls in her district where RCV was discussed. She also expressed concerns about making “big changes” to Denver’s voting process at a time when a large coalition of voters distrust elections in general. 

Expanding Council Districts

Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca (District 9) and Councilman Flynn also sponsored the proposed question to eliminate Denver’s two at-large council districts and replace them with two new council districts instead. 

CdeBaca said she supports the move for two reasons. For one, she said it could increase representation for communities of color and help remove “special interests” from district matters. 

She also supports it because of the “unique timing” to make the change without displacing a sitting member of the Council. Both At-Large members—Robin Kniech and Debbie Ortega—are term-limited in 2023. 

Flynn argued the question is pertinent given the ongoing redistricting process.

“This is a value check,” Flynn said. “Do we value having tighter, more discrete council districts, or do we value having that check-and-balance power over the districts that the At-Large seats can provide?” 

Denver adopted its two at-large seats in 1968. At the time, each council district was responsible for approximately 55,000 residents, according to research by CdeBaca’s office. 

As of today, each council district is responsible for over 66,000 residents. CdeBaca argues that the growth in the city’s population hasn’t coincided with a growth in resources for each council member’s office. 

According to the City’s website, each council member is allotted $264,000 to run their respective district offices. 

The proposal was met with fierce criticism from some members of the Council. Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer (District 5) described the problem as a “customer service” issue rather than one about representation.

Councilwoman Ortega argued that it would make council districts solely reliant on geography and could lead to more fragmentation among voters and each district. 

“This change doesn’t solve any of that,” she said.