Colorado voters are facing a contentious decision on Proposition 131, a ballot measure that aims to overhaul the state's election system. The proposal, backed by wealthy donors with corporate ties, has drawn significant attention and criticism from political leaders and advocacy groups.

Reshaping Colorado's Elections: A High-Stakes Gamble

Abolishing Party Primaries and Introducing Ranked-Choice Voting

Proposition 131 seeks to radically transform Colorado's electoral landscape. If passed, the measure would abolish the traditional political party primaries, replacing them with an open primary ballot where all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would compete together. Additionally, it would institute ranked-choice voting in the general election, allowing voters to rank their preferences among multiple candidates and eliminating candidates in rounds until one secures over 50% of the vote.Proponents argue that these changes would give voters more choice, particularly for those unaffiliated with either major party. However, opponents have criticized the approach, claiming it would complicate the voting process, make it harder for parties to be represented in general elections, and incentivize more money in politics.

Wealthy Donors and Corporate Influence

The driving force behind Proposition 131 is multimillionaire Kent Thiry, the former CEO of the dialysis company DaVita. Thiry has contributed more than $3 million to the campaign, and other recent donations include $100,000 from Kimbal Musk, brother of Elon Musk and owner of The Kitchen Restaurant Group, and $500,000 from oil and gas giant Chevron.The influx of corporate money has been a key line of attack by opponents, who argue that the measure is designed to further the political ambitions of rich, well-connected groups. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has joined the chorus of critics, calling the ballot proposal "election reform that is a wolf in sheep's clothing — completely funded by billionaires to tilt the political landscape towards their own special interests."

A David and Goliath Battle

The Yes on 131 campaign has significantly outspent its opposition, with nearly $14.3 million in expenditures as of late October. In contrast, the two opposition groups, Voter Rights Colorado and First Choice Counts, have spent around $292,000 combined.Voter Rights Colorado spokesperson Sean Hinga acknowledges the financial disadvantage, describing the situation as a "David-and-Goliath kind of situation." However, the opposition group is relying on grassroots community efforts to defeat what they consider a "bad policy."

Endorsements and Criticism

Proposition 131 has garnered the backing of Governor Jared Polis and Senator John Hickenlooper, as well as voting groups like Fair Vote and the League of Women Voters. However, it has faced criticism from prominent figures such as Senator Michael Bennet, who has questioned the motives behind the corporate donations.The Colorado ballot proposal has also been opposed by the state's Republican and Democratic parties, as well as civil rights organizations like the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity & Reproductive Rights.As Colorado voters prepare to cast their ballots on November 5th, the fate of Proposition 131 remains uncertain, with the battle lines drawn between those who see it as a transformative reform and those who view it as a power grab by wealthy interests.