[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6161900,"mediaKeyId","5440505-6761bdc17bd0745dc89f1183cdd6a3bf","parentId",5440505,"title","Denver council considers instant‑runoff proposal and separate single‑seat option for two at‑large seats","audioSeconds",390,"startMs",3405000,"endMs",3795000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440505-6761bdc17bd0745dc89f1183cdd6a3bf&start=3405&end=3795","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440505-6761bdc17bd0745dc89f1183cdd6a3bf/thumbnail_3405000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6161900/Colorado/Denver-council-considers-instantrunoff-proposal-and-separate-singleseat-option-for-two-atlarge-seats","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161900-b2f5205f9fca6c7525242ff34a11e505/orig.mp4?Expires=1770812672&Signature=oIIbe8W2IO5H9gbCtbMrzqkXIDjFGNdTKi3cHSwDu1zbd1673iUjSLAXK1rfvT2xutUvmIw4Ju3On4UyXtZncsib38rZdj1Nql2eFvRpqbgENZkyKESN5aB0jEmEhiBgYzIZ0rJwgNdj4vVdGSqVJq5hPdw6NkUxg3pO8lBxknsIMYMn0M2tQiWm7Htj9PG7ewx-wj2zQvZe3lawArNur-ByVRGPzbKti9YCwbRF0TZNtr3IH1UvsM-eveAKzxoO-GrPrRfTSPzQMpgUzJLSOVmpb4E-gwBiQdqyhNS3YUvjzdGcr3lnAP1~fKzGOKSuRXavNfwhNz9~K38Y18rglA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","League of Women Voters of Colorado","date","2025-07-22T19:58:56.22Z","article","Denver council members and reform advocates discussed two separate election proposals during a League of Women Voters statewide task force meeting in July, one that would adopt instant‑runoff voting (IRV) for single‑winner offices and another that would convert the two at‑large council seats into two distinct single‑seat contests.

The first proposal would change current single‑winner, vote‑for‑one plurality contests for mayor, auditor, clerk and district council members to instant‑runoff voting; the two at‑large seats would remain a vote‑for‑two contest until the city clerk or Secretary of State is ready to run multi‑winner proportional ranked voting, according to materials discussed at a July 15 Denver committee meeting and summarized during the task force call.

Patty Cordova, past president of the Colorado League of Women Voters, told the task force that Denver’s draft ordinance was still being “tweaked” and that first reading is scheduled for July 28 with second reading on Aug. 4. Task force members said the language may still change to clarify how the two at‑large seats will be treated while multi‑winner systems are not yet in place.

Why it matters: Switching to IRV would eliminate separate runoff elections and, depending on implementation, can change campaign dynamics and voter experience. Proponents say IRV avoids runoffs; critics point to education and administration costs.

Cost, outreach and coalition work

Task force members and Denver advocates discussed cost and outreach. Celeste read a slide noting that a previous runoff cost Denver about $2,000,000; speakers acknowledged that eliminating runoffs could cut that expense but would not erase new costs such as vendor licensing and expanded voter education. “You’ll eliminate the runoff, but you’ll have added cost for voter education,” Celeste said while summarizing the meeting.

Local organizations and a consortium led by Common Cause and other groups are working on outreach. League representatives said outreach to Latino and Black communities has started and that union outreach is planned. Sue (identified in the meeting as a League of Women Voters of Denver member) said the Denver League was still refining its position and outreach strategy and noted the coalition’s organizers.

The second ordinance under discussion would convert the current two‑at‑large, vote‑for‑two contest into two concurrent single‑seat contests that would be labeled Position A and Position B. Sponsors said the change would ensure majority support for each seat; opponents at the task force warned it could reduce proportionality and cited concerns that it moves away from multi‑seat representation.

Sponsors and political context

Task force participants named Councilmembers Sarah Parady and Daryl Watson as sponsors of the IRV measure and said five council members were backing the single‑seat at‑large proposal in committee; participants noted five is not a council majority (13 members). The task force also noted Denver voters supported Proposition 131 in a recent statewide ballot question on IRV by a narrow margin in Denver, which advocates cited as campaign momentum.

Next steps

Task force members encouraged local Leagues to contact council members and request clarity on the draft ordinance language, particularly the clause about leaving the two at‑large seats as vote‑for‑two until PRV implementation is feasible. No formal position was taken during the task force meeting.

(Reporting note: meeting participants read council dates and committee materials on the call; the task force said it will monitor first and second readings and follow up with Denver League members.)","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025 07 21 Alternative Voting Methods Task Force Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Denver council members and reform advocates discussed two separate election proposals during a League of Women Voters statewide task force meeting in July, one that would adopt instant‑runoff voting (IRV) for single‑winner offices and another that would convert the two at‑large council seats into two distinct single‑seat contests.","taxTitle","Colorado Voter Access Modernized Elections Commission, Governor's Boards and Commissions, Organizations, Executive, Colorado","taxId",28158,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6161905,"League task force to ask Colorado secretary of state to clarify path for multi‑winner ranked voting",1714,1524000,3238000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440505-6761bdc17bd0745dc89f1183cdd6a3bf&start=1524&end=3238","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440505-6761bdc17bd0745dc89f1183cdd6a3bf/thumbnail_1524000.jpg","/articles/6161905/Colorado/League-task-force-to-ask-Colorado-secretary-of-state-to-clarify-path-for-multiwinner-ranked-voting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161905-da477507d252a46db304d3bb0497d829/orig.mp4?Expires=1770812673&Signature=MGtRV2hhOS-pGu1Ww9lakaWJhQz7fDmvMI-c52Iqr4o8qY-XK2FrUSNA8cFATKKYkRbDi7rgCptGKn02MLBpTlBpwTmzADeclFvO-Y6hkrIBJSIIkbOiV5hIG5tYqcNLm4U~Su3HL9~HPCo3sM3MfO~SRe9liaQHI5TPJsw5ZVZ41Zz1~-EN11IUBfuF--HYAgtJTf3iBZtDQpynR4VQSXtxa5GEBDwzezSLWD27moCl~JIc1OoBlpmnVHiqAuPNcrnKlIAFyufEmXa79ibiAEFWPKGwU5u5XLy5MnfNwtsEBoRDio7h2zDU0aZ4WIFNsO-tH95j-ICXQOzsiZfVIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The League of Women Voters statewide task force on July discussed a draft letter it plans to send to the Colorado Secretary of State asking the office to clarify the steps county clerks must follow to conduct multi‑winner proportional ranked voting (PRV).

The letter, read during the meeting by Celeste, facilitator of the task force, asks the secretary of state to “clarify the steps necessary for county clerks to conduct an election using non plurality voting method,” and offers the League’s assistance in resolving implementation obstacles.

The request follows repeated questions from municipalities and advocacy groups about software certification, ballot layout, post‑election audits and formal rules. Celeste said the letter frames four main points: that some vendor software includes a PRV mode but the Secretary of State has not certified that portion; that PRV ballot layout is similar to single‑winner ranked ballots; that risk‑limiting audits (RLAs) are technically challenging for multi‑winner PRV; and that Colorado election rules and statutes referencing IRV may need updating to accommodate PRV.

Why it matters: County clerks in Colorado conduct municipal elections and have asked the state for guidance before adopting new voting methods. The task force said clarified rules and certified software would make clerks more willing to administer PRV contests.

Discussion and technical concerns

Neil McBurnett, lead representative to Colorado’s bipartisan election advisory commission and a self‑described RLA expert, told the group that RLAs present special challenges for multi‑winner PRV. “There is, at most, a 5% risk that the sample just didn't catch an error if there was an error,” he said when describing how RLAs work; his remarks were part of a longer exchange about how audits would be designed for PRV races.

Task force members agreed that auditing and certification are important but said those concerns should not be a reason to delay exploring proportional methods. One participant said Colorado pioneered RLAs and could pilot PRV audits as it did other election reforms.

Authorities and specific legal references discussed in the meeting included House Bill 21‑1071 (the 2021 bill that enabled single‑winner ranked voting implementations), a referenced “House Bill 1319” change to vacancy committee rules, Election Rule 26.9, and a cited Colorado Revised Statutes section the group read aloud. The members suggested the letter include those references exactly as raised in the meeting.

Next steps and signatories

Task force members asked that the letter be tightened to a one‑page cover note emphasizing why Colorado should pilot or adopt PRV and move technical details into an addendum. Betsy (former state league president) and others volunteered to help rewrite the draft, and the group discussed asking Courageous Colorado, RCV for Longmont and other organizations to sign the letter.

What the letter will ask: the draft circulated at the meeting asks the Secretary of State to (1) certify PRV functionality in vendor software, (2) clarify ballot and layout requirements, (3) explain how audits for PRV would be conducted or updated, and (4) promulgate rules and procedures so county clerks will agree to run PRV elections.

The task force pledged to refine the one‑page request and circulate it to coalition partners for signatures before sending it to the Secretary of State’s elections staff.","The League of Women Voters statewide task force discussed a draft letter asking the Colorado Secretary of State to clarify software certification, audits and rules needed for county clerks to run multi‑winner proportional ranked voting (PRV) and to seek signup from supporting organizations.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6161895,"Longmont advocates plan mixed ranked‑choice referendum, aiming for IRV for wards and proportional RCV for at‑large seats",1056,4450000,5506000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5440505-6761bdc17bd0745dc89f1183cdd6a3bf&start=4450&end=5506","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5440505-6761bdc17bd0745dc89f1183cdd6a3bf/thumbnail_4450000.jpg","/articles/6161895/Colorado/Longmont-advocates-plan-mixed-rankedchoice-referendum-aiming-for-IRV-for-wards-and-proportional-RCV-for-atlarge-seats","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161895-3ad5809ad1df9001dc92e1279b8802ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1770812673&Signature=SWbuLjJlKQ4SCIZgcRUdL9JeBAs5OxCV2JgAFi86~yK7WdAaazieOthU1fKu3DjuT2MdjzWFrSFb~T3ycd2YoFaQ0JsM1ak4L8HzbB8pJ58Vd-73fKYEJtBJ1foi8HOoc6V742xv3DHO0ju-PoUGHhR8B-ybOdcP38~GkC6VzVj7xcKNVS08qhuD155xltnnnc~ftg~Vi~8I5NbIHged-XbyFSNVzhAjoAoiZPzQaWQiwaOCe5cTOqyJC9smdQ~UHd9gVbUOFW-p-JnFOEmwvr7Qn5MWhKCzaNfuLYJ7jwarf3vDz-6BgdIRNRwj6qMQB0Tl6hL6AHfjJ5RmHPU3pQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Longmont ranked‑choice advocates told the League of Women Voters statewide task force that they plan to ask voters to amend the city charter to replace plurality methods with ranked‑choice voting: single‑winner instant‑runoff voting (IRV) for ward seats and multi‑winner proportional ranked voting (PRV) for the three at‑large seats.

Dylan Rankin, executive director of Ranked Choice Voting for Longmont, said the group intends to preserve the city’s existing structure — one directly elected mayor, three single‑member wards and three at‑large seats — but change the voting methods. Under the proposal, ward contests would use single‑winner RCV (IRV) and the three at‑large members would be elected together in a three‑winner PRV contest.

A transitional schedule presented on the call would stagger terms so the at‑large PRV contest would first be feasible in 2029. Dylan said he hopes to place a measure on the 2026 ballot and begin implementation with the 2027 election; if logistical delays occur, the group expects PRV for at‑large seats to be used in 2029.

Local logistics and county coordination

Longmont is split between Boulder and Weld counties, a fact Dylan raised as a logistical hurdle. He said he spoke with Stephanie Nyoza of the Boulder County clerk’s office, who told him Boulder County’s office would try to accommodate a Longmont PRV election if the city adopts it. “If this is the choice that Longmont makes, we're gonna figure out a way to make this happen for you guys,” Dylan said quoting his conversation with the Boulder County clerk’s office.

Organizers reported active candidate and signature work. Dylan said there were four open seats this cycle with a record number of candidates — roughly 14 to 15 total across races — and the group aims to collect about 1,000 petition signatures before the new city council convenes. He said the campaign is meeting candidates individually and surveying them about ranked voting.

Why it matters: Longmont’s mixed approach would keep ward representation while using proportional methods for at‑large seats to produce a council that better reflects the citywide electorate. Advocates said the mixed plan minimizes structural change while improving proportionality for at‑large representation.

Next steps

Ranked Choice Voting for Longmont plans outreach, candidate contact and signature gathering in the coming months. Dylan asked for coalition help and suggested local Leagues ask candidates their positions on single‑winner and multi‑winner ranked voting.

(Reporting note: organizers described a draft schedule and outreach plans on the call; clerks and county officials’ willingness to run PRV will determine the calendar and exact implementation.)","A Longmont group plans a charter amendment proposal to use single‑winner ranked choice (IRV) for ward seats and multi‑winner proportional ranked voting for at‑large seats, with a transitional schedule that could introduce PRV for at‑large seats by 2029; organizers seek signatures and candidate engagement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Denver council considers instant‑runoff proposal and separate single‑seat option for two at‑large seats

League task force to ask Colorado secretary of state to clarify path for multi‑winner ranked voting

Longmont advocates plan mixed ranked‑choice referendum, aiming for IRV for wards and proportional RCV for at‑large seats