Colorado lawmakers back new election requirements for officials appointed to vacant seats

Colorado lawmakers on Monday backed a pair of bills to reform the much-maligned process that helped seat nearly a quarter of the legislature, while rejecting a competing proposal that would’ve required changing the state constitution.

The two favored bills, which cleared an initial House committee, are essentially a package aimed at changing the vacancy-filling process: House Bill 1315 would allow lawmakers appointed via a vacancy committee to serve no more than a full session in the Capitol before standing for an election, while House Bill 1319 would enact similar election parameters for vacancy-appointed commissioners in large counties.

Both bills are bipartisan, and they passed the House’s State, Civic, Military and Veteran Affairs Committee in succession.

The often-criticized vacancy committee process is used when an elected official leaves office early. That official’s party then convenes a committee of party officials and volunteers to elect a new representative.

The process is fast — ensuring that voters don’t go without representation for long — but they’re also insular and can be composed of anywhere from dozens down to a handful of people. They’ve drawn scrutiny over candidates’ ability to lobby and stack committees with supporters.

Nearly a quarter of Colorado’s 100 state lawmakers were at one time appointed through a vacancy committee, and five lawmakers won appointments in just the last three months. As a result, more than 10% of the entire state Senate entered the Capitol through a vacancy appointment since the New Year.

“It’s important to have a process by which someone can get appointed quickly and fill that vacancy to provide that representation,” said Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat co-sponsoring the bill that applies to lawmakers, on Monday. “But there’s also an expressed desire to make sure someone is going before the voters to get into office.”

The bill’s impact would depend on when the vacancy occurs, with the committee-appointed replacement lawmaker either standing later in a special election or just running for a full term the next time the seat is on the ballot. The bill is also sponsored by Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, the House’s top Republican.

After passing those two bills, the committee rejected a different and competing reform proposal: a constitutional amendment that would require anyone who wins a vacancy vote to sit out the next election, making that person a short-term legislator. The measure, which would have needed voter approval, also had bipartisan support. It was pitched as an attempt to blunt any boost given to vacancy-appointed incumbents when they face a fuller vote.

“There’s a problem. There’s an antidemocratic element going through our state legislature where, last year, 29 out of 100 legislators got their seats originally by a vacancy committee appointment,” Rep. Bob Marshall, the sponsor, told the committee, citing slightly different figures. The Highlands Ranch Democrat backed a similar idea last year.

The committee also rejected a more modest reform proposal by Republican Rep. Stephanie Luck.

How vacancy process would change

The vacancy process has long come under criticism for its insider nature. But that criticism has been accompanied by renewed zeal amid concerns about backroom dealing and the rush of recent appointments.

The high rate of turnover in the Capitol is partially driven by term limits, which prompt short-timer lawmakers to have one eye on the next job. It’s also spurred by the combination of the modest pay and long hours of legislative life, Sirota said.

Sirota and Pugliese’s bill would essentially require any lawmaker appointed through a vacancy committee to stand for election after serving during a maximum of one legislative session.

It would work like this: If a legislator were to resign before July 31 in an odd-numbered year (like this year), the replacement selected by a committee would be up in a special election in November. If a legislator resigned before July 31 in an even-numbered year, the replacement would run for election in the regularly scheduled November contest.

It gets a bit tricky during the windows in between: If a state senator resigns partway through a four-year term on Aug. 1, 2026, and wasn’t supposed to be up for reelection until 2028, the replacement would run in a special election in November 2027. But if it’s a state representative resigning a seat, which is up for election every two years, the appointed replacement for the resigning representative would be required to run in November 2026 — right after their vacancy appointment.

However, if the replacement was appointed in December 2026, they’d be up for a special election the following November.

There are typically far fewer November races on the ballot in odd-numbered years — including zero legislative seats — but Pugliese said that there are typically ballot measures and local elections. That would ensure more participation than the few dozen people — and sometimes far fewer — who sit on vacancy committees.

Not all voters could participate

The new odd-year special elections, when called, would also be restricted to participation only by voters from the resigned legislator’s party and unaffiliated voters. So if a Democratic senator resigned, only Democratic and unaffiliated voters could participate in the subsequent election to confirm — or reject — the appointed replacement.

The bill would also fill in a campaign finance loophole by requiring vacancy candidates to follow the same reporting requirements as candidates in general and primary elections, and it would require that vacancy committees’ proceedings be livestreamed.

Vacancy reforms had been backed by the Colorado Democratic Party after the rush of resignations and reshuffling earlier this year. The party’s executive director, Karin Asensio, testified in favor of Sirota and Pugliese’s bill Monday.

But it was opposed by the committee’s two Republicans and by two officials from the League of Women Voters, who said prohibiting some voters from participating in the new elections may violate the U.S. Constitution.

The bill was also opposed by Marshall, the Democrat who sponsored the competing constitutional amendment that the committee rejected. For Marshall, a core problem with the vacancy committee appointments is the benefit given to appointees when they do stand for their next election.

He’d referred to Pugliese and Sirota’s bill as “lipstick on a pig” — including in an opinion piece in The Denver Post last week — because, he argues, even special elections would still be slanted toward an incumbent previously appointed via a vacancy committee.

Despite Marshall’s criticism, the bill now moves to another vote in House Appropriations. Should it survive that committee, it will move to the full House.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.