HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/22/2022 - NOVEMBER COORDINATED ELECTIONS AND RANKED CHOICE VDATE:
STAFF:
March 22, 2022
Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk
Rita Knoll, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
November Coordinated Elections and Ranked Choice Voting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to consider the content and timing of potential ballot questions the Council
may wish to bring forward relating to revisions to election provisions in the City Charter. The Council's Election
Code Committee has been meeting in the current term since September of 2021 to consider potential shifts to be
made to the municipal election process. Two broad areas of adj ustment under consideration require voter
approval via ballot questions to proceed: implementing ranked -choice voting for municipal candidates and shifting
the date of regular municipal elections from April to November to be held as coordinated elections w ith Larimer
County.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Should staff proceed with preparing a potential ballot question relating to implementing ranked -choice voting
(RCV) in Fort Collins municipal elections and if so, are there parameters Council would like to include as part
of its direction?
2. Should staff proceed with preparing a potential ballot question to shift to coordinated elections for regular
municipal elections to be held in November and administered by the Coun ty and if so, are there parameters
Council would like to include as part of its direction?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Current Municipal Election Process
All municipal elections in Fort Collins are currently administered by the City Clerk’s Office. As a hom e rule
municipality, provisions governing City elections are found in the home rule charter and municipal code. Regular
municipal elections occur in April of odd years. The City is responsible for any special elections that may be
necessary. A special election can be coordinated with the County only in instances when the timing can occur in
conjunction with a regularly scheduled November election in Larimer County. Presently, that allows an opportunity
to place questions on the ballot in either the regular April elections or a coordinated election in November without
placing the burden of conducting a separate special election on City staff.
The City Clerk’s Office provides primary support and coordination of all election activities. No staff in the Clerk’s
Office are dedicated to election administration responsibilities. Due to the cyclical and mission critical nature of
elections, the entire Clerk’s Office actively supports election activities. Although it is not the primary focus of the
role year-round, the Chief Deputy Clerk has been the primary source of election expertise and coordination within
the office. The recently appointed City Clerk also has significant elections expertise (including ranked choice
voting), having administered elections in multiple other jurisdictions and holding national certification as an
election administrator through the Election Center and Auburn University.
Priority: Increasing Voter Turnout
The Council has historically prioritized efforts to increase voter turnout. Voter participation is a significant
consideration for effective governance. Consistently across jurisdictions and types of elections, the single greatest
March 22, 2022 Page 2
determinant of voter turnout is ballot content. Turnout should be considered relative to both the type of e lection
and its timing. While turnout in each election is measured based on the total number of voted ballots, there can be
a high degree of variability in how many voters choose to make selections in different contests appearing on the
ballot. Typically, when multiple contests appear on a ballot, voters are less likely to vote in down ballot races.
Calculating voter turnout, particularly at the municipal level, is an imprecise science. Turnout may be calculated
differently by different jurisdictions, making comparisons in turnout across different elections at times akin to
comparing apples and oranges. Despite the challenges involved, measuring turnout, and making comparisons of
like measurements over time provides important clues into trends in voter enga gement and participation.
In Fort Collins, voter turnout is measured by taking the total number of ballots cast in an election and dividing it by
the number of active registered voters at the time in the jurisdiction. There is not reliable data available at the
municipal level regarding the number of eligible voters, which is why reliance on the measure of active registered
voters is required instead as a more consistent source of data. Of note with this method in the current timing of
municipal elections after November coordinated elections is the number of active registered voters is at its highest
level over the course of an election cycle, especially following presidential election years. Voter rolls tend to be
the most up to date and complete in the immediate aftermath of these elections, versus as time goes on between
election events and voters move or otherwise have changes in eligibility that lower the number of active registered
voters. A higher number of active registered voters in one type of election compared to another one can result in
what appears to be a lower overall turnout percentage. For this reason, looking at overall ballots cast or cast in a
particular race can also add to the overall picture of participation over time, although consid eration of population
growth is also necessary in measures over time.
In seeking to make an impact on voter turnout, it is most important to prioritize provisions that support voter
participation, including maximizing accessibility and ease of participation in municipal contests. Fort Collins has a
long history of utilizing the flexibility provided to it as a home rule municipality to implement provisions that strive
to meet the needs of its voters. This includes actions such as paying postage on ballots r eturned by voters via
mail, an effort not permitted under state statute in coordinated elections. Another example of a potential shift
discussed in the past that the City can make on its own, but that is not part of coordinated elections in Larimer
County, is including translations on ballots. With the support of Council, the City Clerk’s Office has continually
strived to administer elections with a high priority and focus on serving Fort Collins voters.
Priority: Well-run elections
At all times, well-run elections are critical for ensuring confidence in the efficacy and legitimacy of their outcomes.
This has taken on increasing significance in recent elections, with building focus on election integrity. Both Fort
Collins and Larimer County have well estab lished practices for conducting effective elections in accordance with
their respective governing provisions.
Enhancing processes is also always possible. The City Clerk’s Office continually works to identify and evaluate
potential shifts in election administration to increase the accessibility, transparency and effectiveness of municipal
elections. This includes working in collaboration with Council and the Election Code Committee on potential shifts
Council would like to see.
Option: Ranked-choice voting
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a voting system allowing voters to rank candidates for a specific office in order of
their preference. The number of rankings available to voters can vary from three up to as many candidates as
may be running for an office, depending upon how RCV is implemented by a jurisdiction. Voters may use as many
available rankings as they choose to indicate their first choice, second choice, etc. Since all Fort Collins municipal
races elect a single candidate, the form of RCV that would be used is also referred to as instant runoff voting.
Votes in a contest are first tallied based on the first choice indicated on every ballot. If no candidate has a majority
of all votes cast in the first round, then the candidate with the lowest numb er of votes is eliminated and another
round of vote tallying occurs. The next ranked choice on ballots with the eliminated candidate as a first choice is
counted in that round. The process of elimination and additional rounds of tallying occurs until one c andidate
receives a majority (50% + 1) of all ballots cast or until two candidates remain and the candidate with the most
March 22, 2022 Page 3
total votes wins. The result of this process is like traditional runoff elections, but with a single election event for
voters to participate in.
Municipalities in Colorado have had the option to conduct RCV elections if they so choose for some time. Home
rule municipalities have also had the ability to develop their own parameters for the use of RCV.
There are a range of potential advantages and concerns that can be associated with the use of RCV. Advocacy
organizations, such as FairVote and Ranked Choice Voting for Colorado, are one good source of information for
how RCV can work and resources regarding how other jurisdictions have i mplemented RCV. It is also critical,
especially for election administrators, to look at other sources of information about the implementation of RCV.
The City Clerk has previously been a part of implementing RCV in another jurisdiction and has developed
relationships with a range of organizations committed to well-run elections that include the use of RCV.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has summarized some potential advantages and disadvantages of
implementing RCV, including:
Advantages:
Majority Rule - In plurality election with multiple candidates, winners may receive less than a majority of the votes.
Supporters of ranked-choice voters assert candidates should demonstrate support from a majority of their
constituents.
Eliminating “Spoilers” - Limiting the “spoiler” effect of some candidates is also touted as a potential benefit. While
minor party candidates are not a factor in non-partisan municipal elections, there may be circumstances where
voters feel like voting for their first-choice candidate could be considered wasting that vote if they don’t consider
the candidate to have a viable chance to win. In an RCV election, voters can vote for the candidate of their choice
with confidence that if their first choice is eliminated, their vote will count for their second choice.
Increased Access - This advantage applies primarily when either a primary or a runoff is part of the electoral
process. In those instances, ranked-choice voting may bolster access for military and overseas voters or any
other voters who may be less likely to be able to vote in multiple election events. By conducting elections using
RCV instead of a separate primary or runoff, all voters could select from a potentially broader slate of candidates
and to continue to have the opportunity to select preferred candidates as the field narrows through the tabulation
process.
Concerns:
Fairness can be subjective - Whether winning with a plurality but not a majority is problematic is a subjective
consideration. Additionally, exhausted ballots occur if a voter decides to vote for only one candidate and not rank
the others or if there is not the ability to rank all candidates and the voter’s choices are all eliminated before a
winner is decided. In that instance, voters who have had their ballots exhausted will not have their votes included
in the final tallies between the remaining candidates.
A Polarized Populace - Supporters assert RCV forces candidates to appeal for second- and third- place votes
<http://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/20/maine-voices-ranked-choice-voting-worked-in-portland-and-will-work-in-
maine/>, while skeptics argue today’s polarized environment likely means voters will not make contrasting
selections in significant numbers anyway <http://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/30/maine-voices-ranked-choice-
voting-costly-complicated-undemocratic/>.
Complexity - Because RCV is different from the traditional and historical voting method in the United States there
are concerns around whether voters will be properly educated about the new system, potentially leading to
frustration and the possibility that voters will not properly complete their ballots.
In its meetings, the ECC has discussed the potential for implementing ranked -choice voting in Fort Collins and
recommends presenting information to the full Council to consider placing a potential question on a ballot for Fort
Collins voters to determine whether it should be implemented. (Attachments 3 and 4)
March 22, 2022 Page 4
Option: Coordinated Elections in November
Considering a shift to November elections was identified as a Council priority for the current term. City Clerk’s
Office staff has been working with the Election Code Committee since September of 2021 to explore the potential
implications of making such a shift. The potential to change to holding coordinated elections in either even or odd
years has been discussed during several ECC meetings, as documented in the attached available minutes. The
committee has focused on a potential recommendation to consider a ballot question to sh ift to coordinated
elections in November of odd years.
The following table shows which municipal seats would appear on the ballot in upcoming elections under different
timing scenarios. This table focuses on elections in odd years, in either April or Nove mber. A shift to November
will require some adjustments to existing Council terms. In the scenarios outlined here, terms would be extended
to accommodate the change in timing for elections.
Also attached to this report are charts provided to the ECC outl ining comparisons of elections held in April and
November of odd or even years, and some of the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Voter Participation
Any changes to how elections are administered in Fort Collins should be undertaken with an eye towards how
they can help support voter participation. Looking at RCV, proponents assert it has the potential to increase voter
turnout. While empirically demonstrating that likelihood is difficult, it is plausible that such a shift may contribute to
increasing voter participation and engagement in municipal elections. Critical to this outcome is a well -supported
shift with adequate voter education and opportunity for candidates to participate in elections.
Voter turnout is a primary consideration in looking at shifting to coordinated elections. While it is accurate that
most coordinated elections have a higher level of overall voter turnout than April municipal elections, it is less
certain how participation and engagement in municipal races would differ in November when other levels of
government also have contests on the ballot. Municipal elections in jurisdictions across the country in many
instances were originally moved to occur off cycle with state and federal elections as a pr ogressive era reform to
March 22, 2022 Page 5
help increase focus on municipal contests. An examination of publicly accessible precinct level data from Douglas
County in the 2018 November elections shows in most precincts the difference for Castle Rock voters making
selections in races at the top of the ballot, including congress and state -level races, was several points higher
than those who voted in the municipal contests also on the ballot. In most precincts, the difference ranged from
10-20 percent.
In addition to the potential for ballot drop off, coordinated elections also eliminate the ability of the City to make
choices in administering elections that it deems beneficial to its voters. This would include prior measures
undertaken like opting to pay for return postage on mail ballots.
Professional Administration
After significant research into the current operations of elections in Fort Collins and potential resources that could
be part of implementing RCV, the City Clerk is confident in the ability of the City to admin ister ranked-choice
voting in municipal elections. With appropriate allocation of resources and identified prioritization over other areas
of work, this could be accomplished as soon as April of 2023 if the Council and voters so choose.
Coordinated elections also offer the potential opportunity to successfully implement RCV. The interplay between
RCV and coordinated elections should be considered as part of the decision to move forward with placing both
questions considered by the ECC on the ballot. Legisl ation adopted by the state in 2021 calls for county clerks to
prepare for implementing RCV in coordinated elections potentially as soon as November of 2023. It also calls for
support from the Secretary of State’s Office to counties in obtaining RCV -compatible tabulation equipment and in
developing rules for administering coordinated elections including RCV contests. Individual counties are
responsible for determining if they can be ready for administering RCV elections in 2023. It is important to note
the resources and support included in the legislation apply to counties and coordinated elections, but not
municipal elections administered by home rule municipalities. There are some key differences in implementing
RCV in coordinated elections versus by the Ci ty directly as a result of this distinction. If the City were to implement
RCV in its own municipal elections, it would have both the ability and responsibility of developing procedures for
its administration. This includes what equipment to use for tabula tion, the number of rankings offered to voters,
the design of ballot layout, and rules for adjudicating ballots.
Cost Effectiveness
Fuller information on the resources required to administer different options identified as potential alternatives by
the ECC is under development. The most complete information available will be provided as part of the March 21
ECC meeting and shared with the full Council as part of the read before packet the day of the work session.
Timing of Potential Changes
The City Clerk’s Office has been working extensively to develop a solid understanding of both the potential paths
and resources required to prepare for implementing one or both potential ballot questions as quickly as possible.
Because of the necessity to remain ready to execute an April 2023 municipal election, the potential timing for
implementing one or both questions should they be adopted is more complex. Adding both questions to the ballot
in November of 2022 with the goal to implement any adopted changes in 202 3 could lead to confusion for voters
and candidates, as well as additional work for the City Clerk’s Office in planning and preparations. It is possible
for the Clerk’s Office to move forward with planning for all possible outcomes of two ballot questions if that is the
direction of Council. Three separate sets of election plans would be developed:
1. Planning for an April 2023 municipal election with current parameters
2. Planning for an April 2023 municipal election implementing RCV
3. Planning for a November 2023 coordinated municipal election with or without RCV
Because the results of the vote on any ballot question will not be known until sometime in November of 2022,
plans for both April alternatives will need to be well developed and partially e xecuted before that time.
In terms of impact for voters and candidates, these plans will need to be communicated at least in part with
respect to the different potential outcomes and paths. For candidates in particular, candidate guidelines are
March 22, 2022 Page 6
typically provided in September before an April municipal election. This means potential candidates will need to
get detailed information about what to expect in the event of any of the potential outcomes of the ballot question.
Clear communication regarding the differences for candidates in planning their campaigns is essential. It is
possible this may be a deterrent to some potential candidates. For voters, the most significant impact will be the
need to avoid entering voter education about RCV until after voting on a potential shift is complete. For an April
election, this will condense the timeframe for voter outreach and education.
From an administration perspective, planning for all possible outcomes with immediate implementation will require
fully developing plans for all scenarios. This will require staff time and work away from other office priorities and
will result in the development of at least some plans that will not ultimately be needed. For this reason, Council’s
identification of priorities will assist in determining how staff should be using resources in preparations. If it is
critical to Council to both give voters the ability to decide both questions at the same time and to implement the
decisions of the voters as quickly as possible, it is reason able for staff to dedicate time and resources to making
that possible.
*The presentation slide deck will be provided ahead of the work session as part of the read before packet on
meeting day to allow the most up to date information to be incorporated reg arding cost estimates and other
research being conducted into potential shifts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comparison - April City Election v. November Coordinated Election (PDF)
2. Comparison - Even Year v. Odd Year Elections (PDF)
3. Election Code CommitteeMInutes, February 28, 2022 (PDF)
4. Election Code Committee Minutes, March 7, 2022 (PDF)
Comparison of Current City Election vs. November Coordinated Election
Current City Election Coordinated Election
First Tuesday after first Monday in April in odd‐
numbered years
First Tuesday in November in odd‐numbered
years
Governed by City Charter and City Code, and
Municipal Election Code (CRS Title 31, Article 10)
and the Colorado Constitution.
Governed by Uniform Election Code (CRS Title 1,
Articles 1‐13) and the Colorado Constitution. City
Charter must also be followed or amended as
part of the change to election provisions.
Conducted by Fort Collins City Clerk’s Office Conducted by Larimer County Elections
Cost of election: $344k (April 2021) Cost of election: Unknown
CRS 1‐7‐116 provides for the reasonable sharing
of the actual cost of the coordinated election
among those participating. If the State
participates, it pays a flat $.80 per voter [CRS 1‐5‐
505.5].
Candidates
Nomination petition circulation period: 70‐49
days prior to election day
Nomination petition circulation period: 91‐71
days prior to election day (based on Municipal
Election Code provisions)
Nomination petitions filed with City Clerk Nomination petitions filed with City Clerk (no
change)
Deadline to withdraw from nomination: 42 days
prior to election
Deadline to withdraw from nomination: 63 days
prior to election (based on Municipal Election
Code provisions)
Order of candidates on ballot: alphabetical
(based on Charter Article VIII, Section 6)
Order of ballot set by Secretary of State Rules.
Order of City candidates on ballot: in the order
certified by the City. [CRS 1‐5‐406 states that the
order of candidates is determined by lot, but
Larimer County has confirmed they will put them
in the order we certify to them.]
Campaign Finance
Campaign Finance Report due dates governed by
City Code
Campaign Finance Report due dates governed by
City Code (no change)
Campaign Finance Reports filed with City Clerk Campaign Finance Reports filed with City Clerk
(no change)
Campaign finance complaints handled by City Campaign finance complaints handled by City (no
change)
Preparation and Mailing of Ballots
Ballot content finalized: 42 days prior to election
day (end of business on deadline to withdraw
from candidacy or to register as a write‐in
candidate)
Deadline to certify ballot content to County Clerk:
60 days prior to election day
(numbers and/or letters assigned to municipal
questions are determined by order of submission
to the County)
Deadline to send ballots to military and overseas
voters (UOCAVA): no separate mailing deadline
Deadline to send ballots to military and overseas
voters (UOCAVA): 45 days before election day
ATTACHMENT 1
Current City Election Coordinated Election
Window to mail ballots to all other voters:
between 22 and 15 days prior to election
(22 days is impractical; goal is to mail 18 days
prior to election)
Window to mail ballots to all other voters:
between 22 and 18 days prior to election day
Deadline to cure signature discrepancies: 5 pm
on 8th day after election day
Deadline to cure signature discrepancies: 5 pm
on 8th day after election day (no change)
Deadline to receive UOCAVA ballots: 5 pm on 8th
day after election day
Deadline to receive UOCAVA ballots: 5 pm on 8th
day after election day (no change)
Provisional ballots: not available Provisional ballots: available only in elections
conducted under the Uniform Election Code for
voters who do not show identification or voters
claiming to be properly registered but whose
qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be
immediately established
Results and Recounts
Certification of election results: 10 days after
election day
Certification of election results: 22 days after
election day [CRS 1‐10‐203(1)]
Automatic recount: determined after
certification of election results
(City pays for recount)
Automatic recount: ordered after certification of
election results and no later than 25 days after
election day [CRS 1‐10.5‐104]
(City pays for recount)
Completion of recount: no later than 15 days
after election day
Completion of recount: no later than 40 days
after election day [CRS 1‐10‐5‐104]
Requested recount: request filed within 5 days
after certification of election results
(Requestor pays for recount)
Requested recount: request filed within 28 days
after election day [CRS 1‐10.5‐106(2)]
(Requestor pays for recount)
Completion of requested recount: no later than
15 days after certification of election results
Completion of requested recount: no later than
the 37th day after election day [CRS 1‐10.5‐
106(2)]
Who can be present to observe the recount:
Mandatory recount: any affected candidate (or
designee) or petition representative
Requested recount: although not specifically
stated, staff would allow any affected candidate
(or designee) or petition representative, any
committee’s registered agent, or, if applicable,
the eligible elector who requested the recount
(based on City Code Section 7‐46)
Who can be present to observe the recount:
interested parties defined in the statute [CRS 1‐
10.5‐106(1)]
Current City Election Coordinated Election
Conduct of recount: the City Clerk is responsible
for conducting the recount, and may appoint
election workers to assist. All eligible ballots will
be rescanned, and readjudicated as applicable.
Conduct of recount: If the County has passed the
risk‐limiting audit [CRS 1‐7‐515] without error,
then only the ballots sent to adjudication will be
reexamined. The judges may arrive at different
decisions than the original judges performing
adjudication.
The City can request a rescan of all ballots; this is
likely to be very expensive.
Pros and Cons Pros and Cons
Pros:
Provides 3 opportunities in a 2‐year period to
present TABOR questions to the voters
(November even, April odd, and November
odd)
City has some control over costs and number
and type of items on the ballot
City can provide postage paid for return
ballots
City staff continues to maintain election
proficiency needed to conduct special
elections
Cons:
City has no dedicated election staff
During election cycle, other City Clerk duties
are delayed or covered during overtime
hours
City‐only election may garner less attention,
interest and participation by voters
Pros:
County handles most election logistics
County has dedicated year‐round election
staff
Turnout is generally higher in a November
election
City still able to conduct special elections at
any other time as long as there are no TABOR
questions or candidates
Cons:
Provides only 2 opportunities in a 2‐year
period to present TABOR question to the
voters (November even and November odd)
Election costs highly variable, unpredictable
and out of City’s control or, to a great extent,
influence
Length and order of ballot may disadvantage
City candidates and questions and reduce
voting on those items by those who return
ballots (known as ballot fatigue)
The City will not be able to pay postage for
return of voted ballots
City staff’s familiarity with conducting an
election will wane as time goes on making
special elections more difficult to run
Different election procedures for City‐run
special elections than for coordinated
November elections.
Other Considerations in Moving to November Coordinated Elections
A series of Charter amendments will be required, including:
o Transition plan for Council terms
o Possible change to date Council takes office and Mayor Pro Tem is selected
o Time period for filling a vacancy at an election (rather than by appointment first) will need
to be amended to accommodate County deadlines
o Amend Article VIII, Section 1 regarding the applicability of State law to City elections
o Amend Article VIII, Section 2 regarding the date of City elections
o Amend Article VIII, Section 6 regarding appearance of names on the ballot (alphabetical)?
o Amend Article VIII, Section 7 regarding certification of election results
o Amend Article VIII, Section 8 to address validity of elections conducted under the UEC?
o Amend any other sections of Article VIII if needed
o Will need to amend certain deadlines relating to initiative and referendum petitions
A series of Code amendments will be required
o Amendment of mail ballot provisions
o Amendment of deadlines for nomination petitions, withdrawal of candidacy, and write‐in
candidates
Need to reconcile provisions relating to recall elections
CRS 1-7-116. Coordinated elections - definition
(2) The political subdivisions for which the county clerk and recorder will conduct the
coordinated election shall enter into an agreement with the county clerk and recorder for the county
or counties in which the political subdivision is located concerning the conduct of the coordinated
election. The agreement shall be signed no later than seventy days prior to the scheduled election.
The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following:
(a) Allocation of the responsibilities between the county clerk and recorder and the political
subdivisions for the preparation and conduct of the coordinated election; and
(b) Provision for a reasonable sharing of the actual cost of the coordinated election among
the county and the political subdivisions. For such purpose, political subdivisions are not
responsible for sharing any portion of the usual costs of maintaining the office of the county clerk
and recorder, including but not limited to overhead costs and personal services costs of permanent
employees, except for such costs that are shown to be directly attributable to conducting
coordinated elections on behalf of political subdivisions. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the state’s share of the actual costs of the coordinated election shall be governed by
the provisions of section 1-5-505.5. Where the states reimbursement to a particular county for the
costs of conducting a coordinated election pursuant to section 1-5-505.5 is less than the costs of
conducting a coordinated election for which the county is entitled to reimbursement by means of
a cost-sharing agreement entered into pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (2), such
differential shall be assumed by the county. Where the states reimbursement to a particular county
for the costs of conducting a coordinated election pursuant to section 1-5-505.5 is greater than the
costs of conducting a coordinated election for which the county is entitled to reimbursement by
means of a cost-sharing agreement entered into pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (2),
the county shall be entitled to retain such differential, with no obligation to return any portion of
such amount to the state.
Comparison of November Even Year and November Odd Year Elections
November Even Year November Odd Year
First Tuesday after the first Monday in November First Tuesday in November
Governed by CRS Title 1, Articles 1‐13 (Uniform
Election Code) and rules promulgated by the
Secretary of State. City Charter must also be
followed.
Governed by CRS Title 1, Articles 1‐13 (Uniform
Election Code) and rules promulgated by the
Secretary of State. City Charter must also be
followed.
Conducted by Larimer County Elections Conducted by Larimer County Elections
Cost of election: Unknown
CRS 1‐7‐116 provides for the reasonable sharing of
the actual cost of the coordinated election among
those participating. If the State participates, it pays
a flat $.80 per voter [CRS 1‐5‐505.5].
Presidential elections are the most expensive
elections.
Cost of election: Unknown
CRS 1‐7‐116 provides for the reasonable sharing of
the actual cost of the coordinated election among
those participating. If the State participates, it pays
a flat $.80 per voter [CRS 1‐5‐505.5].
What’s potentially on the ballot in a Presidential
election year (in order of appearance on ballot):
President
U.S. Senator
U.S. Representative
University of Colorado Regent
State Senators
State Representatives
District Attorney
County Commissioners
Municipal candidates
Judges (retention)
Ballot Questions
o State of Colorado
o Larimer County
o Municipal
o School District(s)
o Special Districts
Fire Protection Districts
Local Improvement Districts
Public Improvement Districts
General Improvement Districts
Library Districts
Other Districts
o Downtown Development Authority
What’s potentially on the ballot in any year (in order
of appearance on ballot):
Municipal candidates
School District candidates (see statutory
definition of “regular biennial school election”
below)
Ballot Questions
o State of Colorado
o Larimer County
o Municipal
o School District(s)
o Special Districts
Fire Protection Districts
Local Improvement Districts
Public Improvement Districts
General Improvement Districts
Library Districts
Other Districts
o Downtown Development Authority
ATTACHMENT 2
November Even Year November Odd Year
What’s potentially on the ballot in a nonpresidential
election year (in order of appearance on ballot):
U.S. Senator
U.S. Representative
Governor/Lieutenant Governor
Secretary of State
State Treasurer
Attorney General
State Board of Education
University of Colorado Regent
State Senator
State Representatives
County Commissioner
County Clerk and Recorder
County Treasurer
County Assessor
County Sheriff
County Surveyor
County Coroner
Municipal candidates
Judges (retention)
Ballot Questions
o State of Colorado
o Larimer County
o Municipal
o School District(s)
o Special Districts
Fire Protection Districts
Local Improvement Districts
Public Improvement Districts
General Improvement Districts
Library Districts
Other Districts
o Downtown Development Authority
CRS 1‐4‐104. Definitions.
(39) “Regular biennial school election” means the election held on the first Tuesday in November of each odd‐
numbered year.
CRS 22‐31‐104. Regular biennial school election.
(1) Except as provided in section 22‐31‐131, pertaining to districts whose boundaries are coterminous with a
city and county, the regular biennial school election in each school district shall be held the first Tuesday in
November of each odd‐numbered year.
(2) (a) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2006, p. 1021, 1, effective May 25, 2006.)
(3) School district directors elected shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. A director shall
take office no later than fifteen days following the date on which the school district receives the official abstract
of votes pursuant to section 1‐10‐102, C.R.S.
Other Considerations in Choosing Between November Even Year and Odd Year
Elections
Candidates in a Presidential election year may realize a very different election experience than
those on the ballot in the “off” election. Under the current method, half of the districts plus the
Mayor will always be running in a Presidential election year; the Mayor and the other half of the
districts will be running in the “off” year. Holding all candidate elections in the odd year may
provide a more level experience from election to election.
City of Fort Collins Page 1
February 28, 2022
ELECTION CODE COMMITTEE MEETING
12:00 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Arndt, Canonico, Ohlson
STAFF PRESENT: Kyle Stannert, Rita Knoll, Ryan Malarky, Tammi Pusheck, Carrie
Daggett, Anissa Hollingshead
CITIZENS PRESENT: Joe Rowan, Robbie Moreland, Jody DesChenes, Steve Lucas
1.CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Joe Rowan suggested items being discussed for ballot consideration should be brought forward by
citizens, not Council. He also stated there needs to be more robust conversation about the implications
and costs of making various changes to the election process.
Robbie Moreland stated she is looking forward to the discussion on ranked choice voting and she
presented postcards from residents in support of the placement of the topic on the November ballot. She
commented on the difference between the City and state regarding disclosure requirements for
contributions collected by independent expenditure groups.
Jody DesChenes expressed support for the placement of ranked choice voting on the November ballot.
She stated ranked choice voting is not more difficult nor more expensive than a regular election.
Steve Lucas, Citizens for a Sustainable Economy, commented on myths regarding successes of ranked
choice voting. He cited various election situations and stated ranked choice voting disenfranchises
voters. He also stated moving elections to November will increase election costs. He commented on the
number of towns that have repealed ranked choice voting.
4.PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
Mayor Arndt stated the costs associated with ranked choice voting should be researched and she
concurred the disclosure requirements for independent expenditure committees should be changed.
Councilmember Ohlson concurred. Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll noted that would require a Code
change.
Chair Canonico requested additional information on communities that have repealed ranked choice
voting. Councilmember Ohlson concurred that would be valuable information to have for the upcoming
work session.
5.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 10, 2022 COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Mayor Arndt, to adopt and approve the meeting
minutes of January 10, 2022. The motion was adopted unanimously.
6. REDISTRICTING UPDATE
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll stated the County’s redistricting data has recently been received and GIS
is now moving forward with the City’s efforts. She stated the plan is for an April or May presentation of
the information.
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Fort Collins Page 2
7. ELECTION TIMING AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONS DISCUSSION
City Clerk Hollingshead stated staff would like to walk through potential alternatives for a work session
discussion. She discussed pros and cons of election timing in terms of maintaining April elections or
moving to November elections of either odd or even years.
Councilmember Ohlson commented on the direction being provided to staff to be prepared for an April
2023 election.
Chair Canonico asked when the state will be requiring counties to be prepared to handle ranked choice
voting. City Clerk Hollingshead replied it is a soft requirement for November of 2023.
Members discussed the various effects of changing from April to November elections, particularly on
Council terms.
City Attorney Daggett noted any changes to Council terms that would result from a switch to November
elections would also need to be part of the voter approval but would not necessarily need to be written
into the Charter.
Mayor Arndt asked if there are other municipalities that conduct local elections in November of odd years.
City Clerk Hollingshead replied there are many, including Loveland and Greeley.
City Clerk Hollingshead presented information regarding the effects of April versus November elections
on ranked choice voting in terms of responsibilities. She also discussed what items would be included
on the ballots for April versus November elections and listed advantages and disadvantages of having
elections remain in April versus switching to November.
Members also discussed the effects of the timing of taking office for April versus November elections.
City Attorney Daggett noted the timeframe between the election and swearing in has increased due to
Charter changes that allow for more time for receiving overseas ballots and conducting recounts if
needed.
City Clerk Hollingshead discussed a meeting with County Clerk Myers regarding what the City could
anticipate in working with the County in coordinated elections. She discussed the cost allocation for
coordinated elections and noted all ranked choice voting costs of those elections would be passed on to
the City.
City Clerk Hollingshead outlined the various deadlines that would change with a shift to November
elections. She also discussed public outreach and voter education regarding ranked choice voting. She
showed examples of ballots that include ranked choice voting and ballots for even versus odd years.
City Attorney Daggett noted the County will be following state standards when conducting elections.
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll noted ranked choice voting is only an option for municipal candidates, not
school board.
Councilmember Ohlson noted changes, even if met with resistance initially, are always doable.
Mayor Arndt asked City Clerk Hollingshead if more candidates ran for office when ranked choice voting
was implemented. City Clerk Hollingshead replied in the affirmative.
Malarkey suggested an additional ECC meeting may need to be scheduled prior to the March 21 meeting
in advance of the March 22 work session. Members concurred and determined the remaining items on
this agenda will be discussed at that additional meeting.
City of Fort Collins Page 3
8. SCOPE OF WORK DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL BALLOT QUESTIONS AND DIRECTION FOR
STAFF
9. CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPARISON TO STATE LAW
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll stated, in most cases, the City Code is somewhat stricter and more
transparent than the state law, and the only major difference is related to the independent expenditure
committees’ contribution reporting.
10. PROPOSED TIMELINE
11. FUTURE ELECTION CODE COMMITTEE DATES WITH SCHEDULING CONFLICTS
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:33 PM
City of Fort Collins Page 1
March 7, 2022
ELECTION CODE COMMITTEE MEETING
12:00 PM
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Arndt, Canonico, Ohlson
STAFF PRESENT: Rita Knoll, Ryan Malarky, Tammi Pusheck, Carrie Daggett, Anissa
Hollingshead
CITIZENS PRESENT: Robbie Moreland, Jan Kok, Eric Fried, Kathleen Schmidt, Sonya
Ketting, Nick Armstrong, Michelle Haefele
1.CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Robbie Moreland encouraged the Committee to refer ranked choice voting to the ballot.
Jan Kok supported replacing the current plurality voting system with an improved system, approval voting.
He discussed the system which involves utilizing the current type of ballot while allowing voters to vote
for as many candidates as they would like. He stated Fargo, North Dakota and Saint Louis, Missouri
have adopted the system.
Eric Fried supported ranked choice voting and opposed plurality voting. He noted Maine, Alaska, and
New York City use ranked choice voting.
Kathleen Schmidt discussed the disadvantages of plurality voting and the advantages of ranked choice
voting.
Sonya Ketting expressed support for ranked choice voting.
Nick Armstrong expressed support for ranked choice voting.
Michelle Haefele expressed support for ranked choice voting.
4.PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
Mayor Arndt thanked Mr. Fried for discussing a new voting system.
Members thanked the speakers.
5.ELECTION TIMING AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONS DISCUSSION
Mayor Arndt commented on the possibility of prioritizing changes, such as referring ranked choice voting
to the ballot first then considering changing elections to November.
Chair Canonico noted considering changing the election to November was a priority for the Committee;
however, ranked choice voting was not.
Councilmember Ohlson stated his first priority is campaign finance reform and he believes all changes
could be made at the same time. He stated he could support odd year November elections over even
year. He also stated if ranked choice voting is approved by voters in November, it would not necessarily
need to be implemented in an April 2023 election. He expressed personal support for ranked choice
voting and supported placing both items on the November ballot.
Mayor Arndt stated her first preference is also to put both items on the November ballot.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Members discussed wording for dealing with the possibility that ranked choice voting passes and moving
to November elections does not.
Chair Canonico asked when counties will be required to be prepared to hold ranked choice elections.
City Clerk Hollingshead replied the Secretary of State is recommending counties be prepared by
November of 2023; however, there is some discretionary language involved.
Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll noted the issue is whether Larimer County will have the equipment that is
ultimately certified by the Secretary of State. If it does not have that equipment, it is not required to
replace equipment per the legislation related to ranked choice voting.
Chair Canonico asked if the City could be ready to do a ranked choice election in April of 2023 should
the ballot initiative to move the elections to November fail. City Clerk Hollingshead replied the most
challenging aspect would be dealing with contingencies through election day.
City Attorney Daggett stated there would still be an option to have a local April 2023 election even if voters
approve the change to November elections. Mayor Arndt stated that would be difficult for the electorate.
City Attorney Daggett noted the work session agenda materials will go to print prior to the next Committee
meeting. Members discussed the topics to be included in the work session materials.
Councilmember Ohlson commented on his desire for all donors to any type of committee to be made
public. Members discussed concerns with donors being required to provide addresses which become
public information.
City Attorney Daggett discussed independent expenditures and requirements for small scale issue
committees, which are consistent with state law. She suggested changing the requirements for small
scale issue committees to be such that they would automatically switch to a full committee with regular
reporting requirements after reaching a certain threshold for independent expenditures.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he wants to see as much transparency and disclosure as possible.
City Attorney Daggett noted anyone who is receiving contributions for a political activity must register as
a committee. Any type of existing group, such as the Sierra Club for example, that happens to be
spending money in a City election is currently not required to disclose where the money came from;
therefore, addressing independent expenditures is likely the best way to ensure additional transparency
in those types of situations.
6. PROPOSED TIMELINE
City Clerk Hollingshead noted the next Committee meeting will be the day prior to the work session and
stated future meetings will focus more on campaign finance as well as redistricting.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the scale of change in the Council districts that will result from the
redistricting. Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll suggested an entire reconfiguration of the districts could be a
possibility. She asked members to discuss whether that would be acceptable, or whether they would
prefer to keep the current district layout with additional balance. She noted the districts need to be as
balanced as possible population-wise, among other requirements in the Charter.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:18 PM