The furor of a frustrating Colorado caucus for both parties this year has built a fire under the lingering issue of reinstating the state’s presidential primary.
Arguments for and against changing the way Colorado picks major-party nominees for president gives lawmakers and voters a lot to think about.
The legislature is rushing to get a bill to the governor’s desk — before the May 11 adjournment — to establish a presidential primary. The goal is to retain other parts of the state caucus system. At the same time, a coalition called Let Colorado Vote hopes to get a measure around the issue on the November ballot to let voters decide about whether to have a primary and .
Here are the major points on both sides:
POINT: Allowing unaffiliated voters in a mail-ballot presidential primary would expand democracy.
Proponents note that only about 13 percent of Democrats and about 7 percent of in this year’s March 1 Colorado caucus. In other states, more than 50 percent of the electorate tends to vote in presidential primaries. That number could be higher in Colorado because of its mail-ballot system. Meanwhile, more than 1 million unaffiliated voters — about 35 percent of the electorate — had no opportunity to participate in the caucus. A mail-ballot primary also would include military and other Coloradans overseas, instead of only those physically present at the caucus.
COUNTERPOINT: Only party members should be allowed to pick the party’s candidates.
Opponents see opportunities for mischief when one party’s candidate is unopposed and members of the other party seek a general-election advantage by voting for the weaker candidate in the other party’s primary. They also see open primaries of any kind as a violation of the First Amendment right to .
POINT: Taxpayers would be on the hook for up to $7 million every four years.
Legislators aren’t sure yet where they’ll find the money to pay the estimated $5.1 million for the state’s share of the cost of each primary. Counties would have to pony up the rest. Proponents point out that price tag is less than $2 each for the state’s 3.6 million registered voters and that elections are the most basic service of government.
COUNTERPOINT:Parties cover the costs of their caucus.
Opponents said that taxpayers as a whole — including those who do not support either of the major parties — should not foot the bill for a political organization’s nominating process. They say the added primary cost could be a budget-buster for some of Colorado’s poorer counties.
POINT: Colorado could become an early primary state.
State Republican Party chairman Steve House told a legislative panel this week that if Colorado became a primary state it could move up sooner than its current slot, March 1. That would give it a louder voice in narrowing the field of candidates, bringing candidates and media attention to the state.
COUNTERPOINT: In most states, the national parties decide when their state primaries will be, but that’s not what’s in , which leaves the primary date up to the governor, who could pick any Tuesday between Sept. 1 of the year before the election to the third Tuesday in March.
POINT: A presidential primary would .
The current legislation would apply a primary only to the presidential race but retain the caucus for all local races. Parties also would still be in charge of selecting their respective delegates.
COUNTERPOINT: A presidential primary would make the caucus system irrelevant.
A group called Save the Caucus! contends there will be little interest or support for a caucus if party members are not attracted to the marquee race of the political season. They say democracy works best when interested voters convene and discuss issues, rather than do so individually in a primary.
Joey Bunch: 303-954-1174, jbunch@denverpost.com or @joeybunch
