Colorado voters on Tuesday rejected Proposition 131, which would have moved the state to an all-candidate primary system where the top four vote-getters advanced to ranked choice general elections.
The supporters of the measure conceded at about 10 p.m., when 56% of the vote was opposed to the initiative and 44% were in support.
The sizable failure of the initiative, led by Kent Thiry, the wealthy former CEO of the Denver-based dialysis giant DaVita, prevents an earthquake in Colorado politics. And it comes despite the nearly $19 million raised by Colorado Voters First, the issue committee supporting Proposition 131.
Thiry donated about $6 million to the group, including $2.1 million in the final week of the campaign.
Colorado Voters First also received major donations from the oil and gas giant Chevron; Walmart heir Ben Walton; the Colorado Chamber of Commerce; and Unite America, a Denver-based group where Thiry serves as cochair of the board.
“Reforms of this magnitude take time and effort,” Thiry said in a written statement. “Campaigns that have been on the right side of history – from women’s suffrage, to civil rights, to marriage equality – were all journeys that experienced defeat before finding overwhelming victories. This is just one step on our journey.”
He added: “Time and public sentiment are on the side of our reforms.”
Voter Rights Colorado was the issue committee opposing the measure. It raised and spent a few hundred thousand dollars, a fraction of what Colorado Voters First did.
Voter Rights Colorado was funded by a list of liberal groups. Its major donors included the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors; the National Education Association; New Era Colorado; and Coloradans for Accessible and Secure Elections, another nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors. Colorado WINS, the state employee union, and the Colorado AFL-CIO, also gave to the committee, as did the Working Families Party, the abortion rights group Cobalt Advocates, and the liberal political nonprofit ProgressNow Colorado, which doesn’t disclose its donors.
The Colorado Democratic Party and Colorado GOP were also vehemently opposed to Proposition 131, but neither spent much money or made much of an effort to defeat it.
In ranked choice voting elections, sometimes called instant-runoff voting, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate wins more than 50% of the first-preference votes, they are declared the winner. If no candidate reaches that threshold, candidates with the fewest first-preference supporters are eliminated. The process continues until one candidate exceeds 50% of the total vote. (This video explains the process in more detail.)
The measure would have applied to races for Congress, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, state board of education and University of Colorado regents, as well as state legislative contests. It would not have applied to presidential or local contests, like those for district attorney, city council or county commissioner.
The failure of Proposition 131 marks a major disappointment for Thiry, a figure in Colorado politics who draws as much scorn as he does support. He was acquitted in 2022 by a federal jury of antitrust charges brought because federal prosecutors said he made agreements with other companies not to hire each other’s employees.
Love him or hate him, Thiry’s impact on Colorado’s election system is undeniable.
Thiry backed a pair of ballot measures in 2016 reinstating presidential primaries in Colorado and letting unaffiliated voters cast ballots in partisan primary elections. In 2018, he worked with lawmakers to get voters to agree to create independent redistricting commissions to redraw boundaries for U.S. House and legislative districts.
He’s also been a prolific political donor, spending money to influence elections in Colorado and other states.
Linda Sturm, a Democratic voter in Westminster, said she voted “no” on Proposition 131 when she cast her ballot in Adams County on Tuesday. She worried that it would cause “chaos within the voting system” and helo “bottom-of-the-barrel” candidates get elected.
“And I don’t like Thiry, who’s behind the thing,” she said. “I don’t like him. So I think it’s an attempt to rig a system that’s working.”
In Eagle County, 44-year-old Lucila Tvarkunas, an unaffiliated voter, was also a “no” on Proposition 131.
“After doing some research, it sounded like it was just funded by very rich people,” she said. “After studying it, I think we should keep things the way they are.”
Eagle resident Nathan Allison, a Libertarian voter, cast a “yes” vote on the initiative. She hopes it will give more candidates an opportunity to win.
“That’s a good way to go,” Allison said.
Tavianna Seidl, a 21-year-old unaffiliated voter in Colorado Springs, also voted “yes” on 131 on Tuesday. She also believes it will give more candidates a chance at winning.
“There are many other candidates,” she said, “they are just not as glorified.”
Voter Rights Colorado, which opposed Proposition 131, celebrated the measure’s failure.
“This is a win for Colorado voters, and a win for democracy against a historic spending spree by wealthy individuals and special interests on a Colorado ballot measure,” Sean Hinga, the Colorado legislative and political director for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said in a written statement sent out by Voter Rights Colorado. “Let this be a lesson to big money that grassroots power is still alive and well in Colorado when voters do their homework and cast a ballot.”
AFSCME was one of the main donors to Voter Rights Colorado.
Colorado Sun staff writers Parker Yamasaki, Jason Blevins and Olivia Prentzel contributed to this report.
