Douglas County commissioners formally waded into the debate over a voter-led ballot initiative Monday by unanimously referring a separate measure that would give voters an additional option if they choose to expand the board from three members to five.

The commissioner-referred measure will ask voters whether, in the event of an expansion, all five commissioners should continue to be elected countywide, rather than through districts.

The approved ballot language states:

“In the event the Douglas County Board of Commissioners is increased to five members, shall all registered Douglas County voters continue to elect all county commissioners?”

Commissioners argued voters should have access to every election model allowed under state law if the board were to expand. They maintained that commissioners represent the entire county and therefore should be elected by all county voters, regardless of where they live.

During public comment, opponents argued the measure’s wording is misleading and that it failed to clearly explain that the proposal would create five at-large commissioners.

“It does not state that this option would create five, at large commissioners,” one speaker said. “Instead, it implies voters are simply being asked whether they want to keep the right to vote for all commissioners.”

Others argued the proposal undermines the purpose of the citizen-led initiative, which seeks to give smaller communities the ability to elect commissioners directly accountable to their districts, rather than allowing population centers to dominate representation.

The commission’s referral followed a board action on Friday approving ballot language for the citizen-led initiative that would increase the number of commissioners from three to five.

If voters approved that question, they will also choose between two election models: A district-based system in which commissioners are elected only by voters within their districts or a hybrid system with three district-elected commissioners and two elected countywide.

The board’s approval of the citizen initiative’s ballot language also drew criticism from organizers, who accused commissioners of “putting their thumb on the scale” by modifying language that more than 23,000 voters had already signed.

The approved ballot title now contains additional language that states an expansion would create “an ongoing annual expense of $760,000 to $1,300,000 from county revenues” and notes that those revenues currently support “public safety, transportation and essential county services.”

On Monday, organizers filed a formal protest challenging the revised language. 

They argued that the modified title actually advocates against the proposal — because it contains cost estimates based on discretionary future decisions, rather than the measure itself, and it violates state requirements that ballot titles not include extraneous material. 

The county staff told commissioners on Friday that including cost estimates in ballot language is not required under state law and that cost estimates beyond the salaries and benefits of two additional commissioners are based on assumptions about future budget decisions. 

Commissioners defended the additions, saying voters deserve to understand the financial implications of measures they are being asked to approve. They also argued on Friday that omitting cost information could leave voters with the impression that expanding the board would have no fiscal impact.

Critics countered that the board did not include similar disclosures in last year’s commissioner-led home-rule charter proposal, despite election costs of roughly $500,000 and potential future expenses associated with creating a county charter.

Commissioner George Teal acknowledged that criticism.

“I accept that as a failure of that measure,” Teal said. “Lesson learned. We are going to apply that here.”

In their protest, organizers also estimated the direct annual cost of adding two commissioners at $481,708 and insisted that the board’s higher estimate assumes the hiring of additional staff that is not required by the initiative.

The initiative itself creates no new staff positions. Any future staffing decisions would be made by subsequent boards of commissioners.

Under county ordinance, a protest hearing chaired by the commissioners must be held within 96 hours of submission.