Douglas County voters approve adding 2 more commissioners, court to decide how to elect them

Douglas County voters have said yes they want to increase the Board of County Commissioners from three to five members.

Now the question is: How will those new representatives be elected? Two competing answers on the Douglas County ballot both won out.

Will all county voters vote on all commissioners, as they do now? Or will commissioners only be voted on by their district? The answer will likely be decided in court.

"Better representation and a voice in our county government," said 3 to 5 petition founder Angela Thomas.

It's been a longtime goal of Thomas', increasing the Board of Douglas County Commissioners from three to five members.

"This isn't about more politicians. This is about better representation for the people," Thomas said. "I believe the people's voice is the most important, and the only way for our voice to be heard is to have people who directly represent us."

The idea was the first citizen-led initiative to make the Douglas County ballot in 32 years, and, despite controversial language about the measure's cost being added to the question by commissioners, a majority of voters said yes to Ballot Question 200.

"We will have five commissioners," Thomas said.

The petition offered two choices for how to elect those commissioners in Ballot Question 201, and voters chose for all five to be elected by their own district.

But current Douglas County commissioners added another option in the form of Ballot Question 1A, asking, "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?"

"They put a competing measure on the ballot," said Bob Marshall, state representative for Highlands Ranch. "This is exactly why the citizens have tried to change the county commission because of these kind of shenanigans."

In September, Marshall filed a protest alleging the question was illegal.

"The court recognized it didn't match state law, but didn't feel like they had the authority at that time to do anything. So we're going to go back and explain to the court that this thing was void ab initio because it doesn't match state law at all for any of the options," Marshall said.

Voters overwhelmingly said yes to the added question, despite the 5-by-district option winning out in the original petitioner's question, meaning two different election methods both won.

"Another attempt to confuse the voters, and that's exactly what it did. We had many voters who were calling our campaigns saying, 'What does this mean? Does this mean I won't ever get to vote for a commissioner again if I vote no?'" Thomas said.

"Very confusing. Most people had no idea what was going on," Marshall said.

Marshall also said the wording of Question 1A did not make clear whether those five commissioners would need to reside in distinct districts but be elected at large (this is the current situation in the county), or if they could live anywhere in the county.

"All five could come from Castle Rock, and everybody votes for them," Marshall said. "That causes problems because then Highlands Ranch doesn't have any real representation because the rest of the county outvotes us for their interests."

Marshall has been trying to introduce legislation at the state level to increase the size of county commissions in large counties.

"Two people in Douglas County can run an entire $750 million a year budget," Marshall said. "Anyone who's been in a minority position understands it's real important if you can be at the table and at least discuss your concerns and issues."

So which measure will actually dictate how commissioners are elected in the county going forward? That will need to be settled in court, where Marshall's challenge can now play out.

"I think they're going to have a very hard time looking the court in the eye and saying we did the right thing because right now it's totally confused," Marshall said.

"It's unprecedented for something like this to happen at the county level, so we have to rely upon the judge to make the best decision," Thomas said.

Douglas County declined to comment on ongoing litigation, but Commissioner Kevin Van Winkle shared this statement with CBS Colorado:

"With over 136,000 votes and counting, Question 1A earned nearly 73% of the vote—making it the highest vote-getter on the entire Douglas County ballot and outperforming the 3-to-5 measure itself by tens of thousands of votes. Douglas County voters made it overwhelmingly clear: they want to protect their right to elect all county commissioners. Trying to invalidate the single most popular vote in the county through legal maneuvers completely disregards the will of the people. Does Bob Marshall really believe those 136,000 Douglas County voices shouldn't count?"

Commissioner Abe Laydon shared this statement on his overall post-election thoughts:

"It's always a good day in America when the people's voices are heard. And yesterday, voters sent a clear message: Enough political theater, division, and empty rhetoric. It's time for results.

I'm proud to have won both of my elections and the eight years I spent delivering results for Douglas County: literally ending homelessness, protecting our communities from wildfires, and making our children the safest they have ever been.

Yesterday was a tough day for Republicans, but an important wake-up call: Stop dividing. Start uniting. Stop talking. Start leading.

On three to five, Douglas County will stay conservative but citizens will soon learn that our problems are not solved by adding politicians, it's always about quality leaders not quantity. Elect good people committed to public service. Full stop."

Regardless of what the court decides, Douglas County won't be expanding the board until 2028.

An independent redistricting commission will need to draw up five districts.

Then in 2028, Thomas says primaries and a general election for four of the five seats will be held. The newly elected commissioner will have two years left in their term, and Thomas guesses they will be assigned the district where they live.

As of this publication, Republican Jake Bockenfeld is leading Democrat Irene Bonham in a close race for that seat. George Teal and Van Winkle's current terms will be coming to an end in 2028.