A state legislator in Colorado is pushing a resolution to go to the ballot  that would bar an individual who is appointed to a legislative seat via the vacancy process from running for that position in the next election.    

Assuming the measure gets on the ballot and voters approve it, the effect would be to prohibit somebody who secures the vacancy appointment after a vote of party insiders from seeking that legislative seat for the next term, effectively making that person a “placeholder.”     

State Rep. Bob Marshall, D-Highlands Ranch said his resolution would tackle the perception of a small group of insiders picking policymakers that decide major issues for the entire state. 

“If you have a democratic form of government, having 30% chosen by a cloistered group of individuals runs counter to that entire idea or ideal,” Marshall said in February.

As reported by Colorado Politics in February, 28 lawmakers, out of the General Assembly’s 100, have been picked by vacancy committees to replace other lawmakers who have resigned.

The system has led to just a handful of party insiders choosing who gets to represents hundreds of thousands of Coloradans. Democrats and Republicans alike have criticized the vacancy process, although some also argued that, while it’s not ideal, it’s practical.  

Marshall indicated even allowing the governor to make those appointments would be better than the status quo, since the governor is elected and held accountable by all the voters. 

“These vacancy committees — and it’s not a knock on the lawmakers who come here and could win on their own merits — the perception of insiders making the decision for the people undermines faith and confidence in the government. That’s dangerous in the long term,” Marshall said.

The concept is not new. In Congressional District 4, Republicans picked Greg Lopez to run for the special election to fulfill the rest of the term of former U.S. Rep. Ken Buck of Windsor, who resigned his seat last month, prompting the special election.

Lopez is not running for the seat in November.

The gold standard ought to be a special election, said Marshall, who acknowledged the cost of running such an election, not to mention that races in off-cycle elections don’t draw a good voter turnout.

On Friday, Marshall told Colorado Politics he does not intend to finish this year’s legislative session without making any efforts to address an issue “that goes to long-term good governance and confidence in our system.”

A Colorado Politics analysis showed that of 24 out of the 28 current state lawmakers appointed by vacancy committees, fewer than 40 party insiders on average each picked the individuals who would represent the people at the state Capitol, instead of the 89,000 residents of a House district or the 165,000 people who live in a Senate’s political boundary. 

Given the small group of party insiders picks a lawmaker’s replacement, some  decry the system as “blatantly undemocratic.” Others maintained that while it’s imperfect, the alternatives are no better, and it’s important that a district gets immediate representation at the state Capitol, where policymakers are working on legislation big and small in just 120 days.

Only five states — Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey and North Dakota — allow party insiders to pick replacements when a lawmaker steps down. 

Another proposal is seeking to get on the November ballot with a different set of ideas for fulfilling vacancies.

Initiative 197, pushed by former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry, requires a special election for vacancy appointments, unless there isn’t enough time before a general election to do so.

In that case, the governor would make the vacancy appointment.

The special election would also use ranked choice voting, which allows voters to indicate a preference for more than one candidate. If one candidate takes more than 50% of the vote, that candidate wins. But if not, the lowest vote getter is dropped and votes for that person are redistributed — until someone reaches 50% plus one.

The measure is awaiting a Colorado Supreme Court hearing following a challenge alleging it violated the state’s single subject rule. That rule requires ballot measures to address just one subject, and petitioner Linda Good claimed it has multiple ideas that don’t fit under one title. 

Marshall’s resolution seek to change the Colorado Constitution; hence, it will need approval from 55% of the voters. The resolution pushed by Thiry is statutory and would only need a simple majority.