Kent Thiry on the failure of Proposition 131 and what’s next for his election overhaul efforts
Plus: Warning signs for Lauren Boebert. An illuminating exit poll. Andrew Boesenecker seeks to replace Jennifer Bacon.
admin
Colorado voters this year resoundingly rejected Proposition 131, the ballot measure that would have moved the state to an all-candidate primary system in which the top four vote-getters advanced to ranked choice general elections.
As of 7 a.m. on Friday, 54% of the votes cast on the measure were opposing it, and 46% were in support.
The failure of the measure comes despite the $19 million raised by Colorado Voters First, the issue committee that supported Proposition 131. Kent Thiry, the wealthy former CEO of the Denver-based dialysis giant DaVita, donated about $6 million to the group, including $2.1 million in the final week of the campaign.
Thiry is the cochair of the board overseeing Unite America, an election reform nonprofit that works to implement all-candidate primaries and ranked choice voting across the country.
Voter Rights Colorado was the issue committee opposing the measure. It raised and spent a few hundred thousand dollars, a fraction of what Colorado Voters First did.
We caught up with Thiry on Wednesday to get his thoughts on the loss and find out what’s next for his election-overhaul efforts:
The following has been edited for clarity and length.
The Colorado Sun: What do you think went wrong for Proposition 131? You all released polling in September that seemed to be so positive for the measure.
Kent Thiry: Well, first, this hurts. This is a loss. We own that. And as the leader, I, in particular, need to take full accountability for the loss. Having said that, we also actually won in the broader sense. The fact that 45% of Coloradans — or maybe more by the time it’s over — were willing to make this kind of change, we built one heck of a foundation for the future. We’ve contributed to a discussion about democracy that’s so important for our state and country to have. The current system is driving America to a bad place. It’s not happening because Americans are bad people. It’s happening because it’s a bad system.
The Sun: Do you think people just didn’t understand the initiative? Why did they reject it?
Thiry: That’s the right question. It’s very clear from all our work the last year that a strong majority of Coloradans are angry, frustrated, worried about our democracy in Colorado and in the rest of the country. We moved a huge percentage of those people unhappy and worried and frustrated about the status quo to say, “wow, this other idea will be vastly superior, and we should pursue it.” But for the others, as much as they agree with that diagnosis of the shortcomings of the status quo, they still weren’t quite comfortable with exactly why Proposition 131 would be a big improvement.
The Sun: Is that what you found across the country? Measures similar to Proposition 131 that you or Unite America backed failed this year in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and South Dakota, and it looks like Alaska may repeal its all-candidate primary and ranked choice general election system. Or do you think the failures are a bigger sign that people just really don’t want this?
Thiry: I think it’s exactly the same across the country as what happened in Colorado. I think my comments apply not only to Colorado, but to most of the states where the proposals failed.
The Sun: It sounds like you’re pretty committed to trying again in Colorado. Do you think you’ll break the proposal into pieces? What does the future look like?
Thiry: We will stare at every aspect of the proposal we made and the way that we educated people about it. We may come back with exactly the same approach. We may come back with a different approach. But what hasn’t changed is that our current system, the status quo, is not working well for our state, our country or the world. In fact, if anything, it’s been exacerbated by what’s going on this week. We remain committed to rejuvenating our democracy and getting us back to where the majority in the middle have their proportionate voice and the far left and far right do not have grotesquely disproportionate power.
The Sun: In the future, will you push for some of these changes to be made at the legislature instead of through a ballot measure? And what do you plan to do about the bill passed by the Colorado General Assembly this year putting up roadblocks to the implementation of your proposal?*
Thiry: We haven’t made any decisions on the roadblock front. That was an unethical, antidemocratic, desperate step taken by a small number of legislators. We’re certainly open to a legislative approach to our proposals. But, in general, people with power tend to use power to keep power. And right now, the two parties have a stranglehold on ballot access for both the state and federal legislatures. It’s difficult to imagine the legislature taking action. Having said that, there were a number of legislators who grabbed me by the elbow, figuratively speaking, and said, “KT, I cannot say this publicly, because my party would punish me, but I hope Proposition 131 passes, because I would like to be able to govern more and compromise more.”
The Sun: You spent $6 million of your own money trying to get Proposition 131 passed. How are you feeling now about the investment? Was it worth it?
Thiry: It’s a fair question. I worked very hard for a very long time — and got very lucky. That led me to be financially well off. I can think of no better way to invest my savings than to invest it in trying to rejuvenate America’s democracy. I’m very active in the environmental area with the Nature Conservancy. But all the philanthropy in the world cannot make up for the deficiencies of an ineffective set of legislatures. Does it hurt to spend $6 million on an initiative and lose? You’re damn right it does. But I cannot think of a better way for me to try to create a good world for my kids and their kids. Our opponents, who are talking about big money, they have taken multiples — multiples — of the amount that we spent. The hypocrisy of these people talking about big money when they have been living off that big money for election cycle after cycle. I could have done all my giving through dark money vehicles. I didn’t think going the dark money route was the right thing to do. I think Colorado voters should know where the money was coming from. I certainly hope all those elected officials who were critical of the big money spent in support of Proposition 131 are going to forgo and turn down any contributions from wealthy donors and special interests and dark money in the future.
Welcome to The Unaffiliated, the politics and policy newsletter from The Colorado Sun. Each week, we take you inside the political arena to deliver news and insights on Colorado politics. Keep reading for even more exclusive news.
If you’re reading this newsletter but not signed up for it, here’s how to get it sent directly to your email inbox. Please send feedback and tips to jesse@coloradosun.com.
WHERE VOTERS APPROVED PROPOSITION 131
As of Friday morning, Proposition 131 was failing in all but five of Colorado’s counties. Those were:
Editor’s note: The Thiry O’Leary Foundation, which is run by Kent Thiry and his wife, Denise O’Leary, has been a financial supporter of The Colorado Sun. Donors have no influence over editorial decisions.
*A clause added to Senate Bill 210, a broader elections measure passed by the legislature this year, requires 12 Colorado municipalities in counties of a certain size and with a specific demographic makeup to conduct ranked choice elections before a ranked choice election could be used in a race for state or federal office. Additionally, the provision said that Colorado could not move to the new primary system until that requirement has been met.
Gov. Jared Polis nearly vetoed Senate Bill 210 because of the provision, which was added in the final days of the state’s 2024 lawmaking term and first reported publicly by The Colorado Sun. Polis wrote in a statement explaining his decision to sign the bill that he will bring state leaders together to find a path forward for all candidate primaries and ranked choice voting in Colorado.
DO THE MATH
1,726
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s margin of victory in Republican-leaning Douglas County, the 4th Congressional District’s population center, as of 7 a.m. Friday.
Votes are still being tallied, but Boebert’s margin of victory in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, a Republican stronghold, is nothing short of an alarm bell for the congresswoman.
As of 7 a.m. Friday, she was beating Democrat Trisha Calvarese by 11 percentage points. That may sound like a lot, but remember that Republican Greg Lopez beat Calvarese in the low-turnout June special election in the district by 24 percentage points. Then-U.S. Rep. Ken Buck, another Republican, won reelection in the district also by 24 percentage points.
The most worrying county-level results for Boebert through 7 a.m. Friday:
THE NARRATIVE
What we learned from a Colorado exit poll
Immigration, abortion and housing were the three issues, in that order, that Colorado voters who cast ballots in this year’s election felt are the most important for the state government to address, according to an exit poll conducted on behalf of the nonpartisan Colorado Polling Institute.
The poll was conducted by New Bridge Strategy, a Republican firm, and Aspect Strategic, a Democratic firm, from Oct. 24 to Nov. 4 among 822 voters statewide. It had a margin of error of 3.42 percentage points.
When the pollsters last asked voters in March about the top issues for state government to address, immigration was No. 1, and homelessness and housing were No. 2 and No. 3, respectively. Abortion wasn’t even among the top issues, however.
“Abortion really catapulted up significantly,” said pollster Lori Weigel, who leads New Bridge Strategy. “Clearly, tens of millions of dollars being spent talking about particular issues can have an impact.”
Other highlights from the poll:
WHY COLORADO DIDN’T TREND RED
Colorado didn’t experience the massive shift this year toward Republicans compared with the 2020 presidential election like most of the country did. Ingham and Weigel said there are a few reasons why.
First, Weigel said, Colorado has a well-educated population. “We saw some real, stark dynamics, both nationally and here in Colorado, based on education level in terms of vote preference,” she said.
She also said that while the cost of housing was top of mind for Colorado voters this year, the overall cost of living was less of a concern than it was for voters in other states.
“We are a heavily urbanized state — sort of in the top 10 in terms of the most dense populations,” Ingham said. “We are one of the least religious states, and we are not particularly diverse. About 80% or more of our electorate in 2020 were white and Caucasian voters. Most of the shift that we saw nationally (this year) was among voters of color.”
Ingham said there were some examples of the vote leaping toward Trump as compared to 2020 in the San Luis Valley, which has a large Hispanic population. In Costilla County, the vote shifted 11 percentage points in Trump’s favor, while the shift was 10 points each in Conejos and Alamosa counties. Adams County shifted 5 percentage points toward Trump this year as compared to 2020.
“But that was seemingly balanced out by Harris’ strengths in less diverse counties,” Ingham said. “If you look at some of the whitest counties in the state, including Douglas, Larimer and Jefferson counties, Harris actually made small gains over Biden’s performance.”
As of 7 a.m. Friday, Harris was leading Trump by Colorado by 11.6 percentage points. That’s less than the 13.5 percentage points by which Joe Biden beat Trump in Colorado in 2020.
Want to reach Colorado political influencers and support quality local journalism? The Sun can help get your message attention through a sponsorship of The Unaffiliated, the must-read politics and policy newsletter in Colorado. Contact Sylvia Harmon at underwriting@coloradosun.com for more information.
THE POLITICAL TICKER
ELECTION 2024
Here is the state of the statehouse elections heading into day four of vote counting:
The two closest races yet to be called feature incumbents at risk of losing their seats:
Even if Democrats ultimately lose both of those districts, they would keep their supermajority in the House by a single-seat margin.
STORY: Colorado Democrats fall short of state Senate supermajority, maintain dominance in House
LEADERSHIP ELECTIONS
State Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, a Fort Collins Democrat, confirmed to The Unaffiliated that he plans to run against Assistant Minority Leader Jennifer Bacon, D-Denver, for her leadership post at today’s caucus meeting, scheduled for noon.
“I have no comment at this time other than to say that I look forward to speaking to the caucus tomorrow and articulating my vision for how I can contribute, if elected, in this role,” Boesenecker wrote in a text message Thursday.
Senate Democrats and House Republicans plan to hold their leadership elections this morning, as well, while Senate Republicans did so Thursday. All of the leadership elections today will be held over Zoom because of the inclement weather.
READ MORE
???? = source has article meter or paywall
THE BIGGER PICTURE
???? = source has article meter or paywall
The Colorado Sun is part of The Trust Project. Read our policies.
Corrections & Clarifications
Notice something wrong? The Colorado Sun has an ethical responsibility to fix all factual errors. Request a correction by emailing corrections@coloradosun.com.
