In election years I like to focus on how voters feel about animal welfare issues as well as their expectations the candidates they vote for share similar values. We know Coloradans love their pets. A full 64.7% of Colorado households own a pet and a poll conducted in 2021, found among registered Colorado voters, 62.7% said they would be more likely to vote for candidates who support strong animal protection laws.

To aide voters’ decision making, Colorado Voters for Animals publishes its “Ballot Buddy” based on the results of a survey in which candidates are asked how likely or unlikely they are to support potential future legislation, or they can indicate they are undecided. The results are averaged, and each candidate is ranked on his or her degree of “animal-friendliness” ranging from “zero” to 100%.

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

For our 2024 survey we compiled a list of candidates using information from the Colorado Secretary of State’s TRACER database. An initial survey invitation was emailed to candidates on July 12 with a follow-up email on July 21. If there was still no response, a hard copy letter was mailed on August 12th to the candidate’s address on record. This letter provided a link for the survey, and additionally an offer to send a hard copy survey with a postage-paid return envelope.

Of the 178 candidates receiving surveys (no emails or letters were returned as undeliverable) only 58, or about 33% responded, meaning approximately two-thirds of voters don’t know their candidate’s position on animal welfare. Why such a poor return is hard to say, given two of the questions simply asked what role animals played in the candidate’s life, and whether there were any current animal related issues important to them; questions that every candidate could answer. Perhaps a candidate was running unopposed and so felt there was no need to reply. Or maybe the candidate doesn’t comprehend the importance animal welfare issues play in the lives of their constituents.

So, what do voters think about candidates who won’t respond? We decided to conduct a survey asking just that question. We emailed invitations to our supporters, intentionally closing the survey when it reached 200 responses, as we felt that was a respectable representative sampling. One supporter was eliminated after indicating they were not registered to vote. All the others claimed they were registered and would be voting in November. And all answered “yes” to the question “Are you more likely to vote for candidates who support strong animal welfare and protection laws?”

We also asked what supporters felt about those candidates who didn’t respond. Of the multiple choice answers, 63% said they would not trust the candidate as much, 26% said they would not vote for the candidate, 3% said it made no difference in their voting decision and 8% checked “other.” They entered comments such as “I would be disappointed but still vote if they were the better candidate,” and “A candidate who does not participate likely would not be supportive of animal protection measures.”

To be clear, this was not intended to be a highly scientific peer-reviewed study prepared for publication in a political science journal. Rather, it offers a snapshot from a cohort of voting animal-lovers reflecting their support for candidates who share their values, as well as their distrust of those candidates who refused to participate in the survey.

Given some races are decided by a few hundred votes — or less — candidates who did not respond may be doing so at their own peril. They very well could be losing votes that could carry them over the finish line.

Colorado Voters for Animals’ “Ballot Buddy” will be available on line in late September on CVA’s website under the “Elections” tab.

Roland Halpern is executive director of Colorado Voters for Animals, a nonpartisan nonprofit advocacy organization whose mission is to identify and help elect animal-friendly candidates and work with lawmakers to pass sensible animal protection laws.