Next time someone tells you your vote doesn’t matter, remind them of this year’s state house race in which Republican Rebecca Keltie beat incumbent Democrat Stephanie Vigil by a mere three votes in the recount, following an initial six-vote margin.
On the other hand, right after voters elected two Democratic state senators, both resigned before the 2025 legislative session even starts. A third Republican senator resigned between elections to serve as a county commissioner. Rather than voters deciding who will represent those districts, elite party insiders will do so through vacancy committees. The worst abuse seems to be that of Chris Hansen, who skipped out on the voters who trusted him to take a high-paying job as CEO of La Plata Electric Association. Westword reporter Hannah Metzger has details.
The current system encourages candidates to run for office even when they know they will not serve or are unlikely to serve, in order to retain control of the seat for their party. The system also bestows unearned incumbency on those selected as replacements.
The system of party privilege
The existing system of party-run vacancy committees is part of the broader unjust granting of special government privileges to political parties. As I have argued, government should grant equal ballot access to all comers, not give party members special access; not track people’s party affiliation or list parties on the ballot; and not fund party primaries. In short, we should strive for the separation of party and state.
Colorado statute explicitly grant party privilege when it comes to vacancy committees. Specifically, 1-12-203 states that “the vacancy shall be filled by the appropriate vacancy committee, if any, . . . of the same political party and of the same representative or senatorial district represented by the former member whose seat is vacant.”
But there is an exception here that points to a possible road to reform: “If the member was unaffiliated with a political party, then the vacancy shall be filled by the vacancy committee designated on the petition for nomination,” the statute continue.
Here is a straightforward proposal for reform, then: Require every candidate, on equal footing, to name members of a vacancy committee. The rules should require a minimum number of people and exclude the person running for office. Current rules under 1-4-802 say “in the case of a petition for the office of state senator or state representative, the petition shall designate or appoint upon its face three or more unaffiliated registered electors as a committee to fill vacancies.” The number should be higher.
True, any use of a vacancy committee is inherently less democratic than a full vote by the people. But, at least in the case of a pre-named and publicly listed vacancy committee, people would be able to take into account the constituency of the vacancy committee while casting their vote. That’s a hell of a lot more democratic than the current system of punting the decision to unnamed party insiders.
Other possible reforms
As an alternative, I still like an idea I discussed last year: “Say that every other state and regional elected official who represents any part of the region in question automatically serves on the vacancy committee. So, for example, if we’re talking about a house seat, the vacancy committee would consist of the state senator in the area, the sheriff, the district attorney, the county commissioners, the city councilors, the school board members, and all the state-wide officials.”
I still don’t much like the idea of special elections just because they’re expensive and a hassle for voters.
As Metzger discusses, State Rep. Bob Marshall has another idea. He introduced a bill this year (HCR24-1004) to create “a prohibition on a person being a state legislator for a term of office immediately following a term for which the person was appointed to fill a vacancy in the general assembly for that office,” according to the bill’s summary.
The advantage of this bill is it definitely reduces the incentive of elected officials and parties to abuse the vacancy process. But the problem is that it also reduces the choice of voters. What if someone resigns for a perfectly valid reason (a terminal illness, say), and voters really like the replacement? Shouldn’t voters be able to elect the new parson to the office? So, although I admire the spirit of Marshall’s bill, it is undemocratic in an important way.
The abuse of vacancy committees is part of a broader pattern of abuse of government granting special privileges to political parties. Of course, government is run almost exclusively by members of the major political parties, so those people have little incentive to institute the needed reforms. I guess voters will have to demand of legislators the near-miraculous: That they do the right thing, just because it is the right thing.
Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.
