To save the caucus or squash it: That will be the question this November.
Every two years since 1912, Democrats and Republicans have gathered in their neighbors' living rooms or in schools and meeting halls across Colorado to set their parties' platforms and choose candidates for the state's primary election.
Participation in these grassroots gatherings was once so high that people fought over who would be appointed to represent their precinct at the county and district assemblies, where candidates for local offices are chosen for the primary ballot. And delegates at the district and county assemblies were eager to go on to the state assembly, where primary candidates for state offices are weeded out.
Over the years, however, attendance at the April caucuses dwindled to what today is just a handful of dedicated voters. Many people don't know when or where their precinct caucuses are held, and stories written about the caucuses usually focus on their poor turnout and not much else. Ask most eighteen-year-olds -- or people twice their age, for that matter -- and they probably can't even tell you what a caucus is.
Over the past decade, the idea of doing away with the caucus system has been bandied about at the state legislature. But since lawmakers never got around to taking action, the Denver-based Bighorn Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank founded by millionaire entrepreneur Rutt Bridges, decided to take the issue directly to the voters. The Open Ballot Access Initiative doesn't actually call for the elimination of the caucus system; rather, it proposes that candidates have access to the primary ballot only by petition. Otherwise, the initiative "keeps the current caucus/assembly structure intact."
Critics get a good chuckle out of that. "That's like going to a baseball game wearing a blindfold: What's the point?" asks former Colorado Democratic Party chairman Phil Perington. He and former Republican state representative Ruth Prendergast are heading up Save the Caucus, a 26-member bipartisan group formed to do exactly what its name suggests. "Caucuses are the last real link people have to the politicians and the political system," Perington adds, "and this initiative closes the door to the political process for the average John and Jane Doe."
That door's already closed, counter the initiative's supporters. "For them to say that this is going to kill the caucus is ridiculous. It's on a respirator right now," says Sheila MacDonald, campaign coordinator for Bighorn Ballot, the think tank's election arm.
"We believe in participatory government, and because there has been so little participation in the caucuses over the last fifteen to twenty years, we decided to do this initiative," adds Peggy Lamm, campaign manager for Bighorn Ballot.
Participation this year was particularly low. The 2000 census and the subsequent addition of the 7th Congressional District forced the redrawing of precinct lines across Colorado; when those new lines took longer to map than anyone had anticipated, the caucuses were held three weeks late. The delay led to confusion about times and locations, and the confusion resulted in even poorer turnout than usual. Fewer than 1 percent of Colorado's 2.8 million registered voters attended caucuses this spring, compared with 1.5 percent in April 2000.
Although Perington agrees that turnout is abysmal, he says that's no reason to squash the caucus. Voter turnout is also down, he points out, but "does that mean we stop holding elections?" He's confident the caucus system could be revived if only the media would pay more attention to it, schools would do a better job of educating students about it and the political parties would do more to promote it.
Caucuses aren't the only way candidates can make the ballot; they can bypass the caucuses altogether and instead gather signatures from registered voters. Changing the system to require all candidates to petition their way onto the ballot would level the playing field, Lamm says.
But Save the Caucus members are also concerned that the initiative would remove one of the checks in the election system, since the measure states that petition signatures will no longer be validated by the Colorado Secretary of State's Office. The Bighorn Center simply wanted to lift the burden off that office, Lamm explains; she's not worried about faulty signatures because opposing candidates always check each other's signatures, anyway.
Nine states, including Arizona, Illinois and New Jersey, require candidates to petition their way onto the primary ballot. The other 41 offer other options, including allowing candidates to pay a fee to get on the ballot, to get on by caucus, or to choose among some combination of fee, caucus and petition.
"We feel it's true grassroots politics to go out and talk to people and gather signatures rather than letting only a small group of insiders decide who gets on the ballot," Lamm explains. "I can understand why they want to hold on to the caucus system. They have a great deal of power, and they don't want to give it up."
That kind of characterization will undermine their efforts, caucus supporters fear. "They're going to show ads of politicians smoking cigars in back rooms. It will be an insult to the process, and it needs to be opposed vigorously," says Save the Caucus member John Wren.
Save the Caucus has the support of numerous county Democratic and Republican party chairs, but it may not have the money to launch a vigorous counterattack. In fact, members are so worried about the potential for anti-caucus ads that they asked the Bighorn Center not to run any. Lamm found that request laughable: "We haven't set a budget for advertising yet, but it's true that we will do whatever we need to do to get this passed."
Save the Caucus members are considering other ways to fight the measure in the weeks leading up to November 5. Just as the caucus squashers are likely to play up that good-old-boy perception of caucuses, the caucus savers will appeal to a voter's sense of patriotism. "They want to take away the right of the people to assemble in their neighborhoods every two years," Perington says. "It's un-democratic and un-American."
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
Three more voter-related initiatives will be on the November 5 ballot.
The League of Women Voters of Colorado, Colorado Common Cause, Colorado Public Interest Research Group and the Interfaith Alliance have co-authored a campaign-finance reform initiative that would limit the amount of money political candidates can receive. For example, private individuals and political action committees would be able to donate no more than $500 to candidates for statewide offices such as governor, lieutenant governor or state treasurer. Candidates running for state representative, state senate, state board of education, University of Colorado regent or district attorney would be able to accept no more than $200 from each individual or PAC. The initiative would also impose voluntary spending limits on candidates: Those running for state representative would be expected to spend no more than $65,000 on their campaigns, while those running for governor would be asked not to exceed $2.5 million.
In addition to the Open Ballot Access Initiative, Bighorn Ballot is sponsoring the Automatic Absentee Ballot Initiative, an effort to make voting more convenient. This initiative calls for all active voters to automatically receive an absentee ballot two weeks prior to any election; it also would double voter-fraud penalties. Even if the initiative passes, however, voters will still get to vote in person at polling places.
The Colorado Voter Initiative, pushed by Colorado State Board of Education member Jared Polis and former state senator John Donley, also proposes to make voting easier and increase voter turnout. Currently, Colorado residents must be registered at least a month before an election in order to vote in that election. But with this initiative, people would be able to register on election day at their polling places and vote immediately thereafter.