We all were taught in high school civics that we live in a representative democracy. But Colorado’s Legislature falls short of that lofty label.

An in-depth report by Colorado Politics reveals that of the 100 members serving in the Colorado General Assembly, almost a third weren’t originally elected by their constituents. And of those 28, seven have yet to face voters.

How’s that possible?

They were appointed by vacancy committees — Colorado’s system for filling empty legislative seats when members unexpectedly leave office. They resign for wide-ranging reasons; some die in office. When they leave, their replacements are picked by small groups of party insiders who serve on the committees. One rural legislator appointed in 2019 needed only four votes from a six-member committee to gain a seat in the state House of Representatives.

It’s troubling and, arguably, undemocratic. Of the current members who entered the Legislature by committee appointment, even the 21 who eventually had to defend their seats in the next general election got a leg up over rivals. They were the “incumbents” seeking to retain office.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Many also serve in districts dominated by one political party. That makes their “reelection” all the more a foregone conclusion. Their party’s leadership typically has anointed their appointment in the first place, making their victory in their party’s primary all the likelier. Then, the general election rubber-stamps the outcome given the district’s overall party affiliation.

Legislative leaders acknowledge the problem but say they are hard pressed for a viable alternative. They cite, among other concerns, the need to fill vacancies ASAP, particularly during the 120 days each year that the Legislature is in session. Otherwise, they note, constituents would go unrepresented in the lawmaking process.

They say holding a special election outside of the usual election cycle to fill a district’s state House or Senate seat is costly and would take too long when time is of the essence.

Workable alternatives may well be elusive, but that doesn’t make the status quo acceptable. If indeed there’s no more practical way of filling vacancies, how about making it more amenable to lawmakers to serve out their terms to begin with?

That may require thinking outside the box.

One common complaint from lawmakers who resign is that serving in Colorado’s part-time Legislature, with its part-time pay, makes it difficult to maintain careers outside elected office.

Conventional thinking holds that we should pay lawmakers more. But “professionalizing” the Legislature — as proponents of a pay hike prefer to put it — could be a nonstarter for a lot of taxpayers, and rightly so. They expect their “citizen Legislature” to reflect the electorate — not become a professional class of lawmakers out of touch with making a living in the real world.

Then, how about shortening the time lawmakers must meet?

Four U.S. states, including Texas, the nation’s second most populous, meet every other year. Colorado’s neighbor Wyoming meets every year but reserves every other year for addressing only its state budget. Those budget sessions usually last 20 days while Wyoming’s general legislative sessions in the intervening years are capped at 40 days.

Might some version of those approaches offer an incentive for Colorado lawmakers to stay in office? It would take a voter-enacted change to our state’s constitution, but it could be worth it.

Shorter or fewer legislative sessions not only could give lawmakers more time to hold down day jobs back home, but it also would give them less time to create programs, spend tax dollars and wreak regulatory havoc.

Sounds like a win-win for the taxpaying public.

Denver Gazette Editorial Board