Colorado Proposition 113, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum (2020)

Colorado Proposition 113
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Elections and campaigns
Status a Approved
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens
List of Colorado measuresColorado Amendment 76Colorado Amendment 77Colorado Amendment BColorado Amendment CColorado Proposition 113Colorado Proposition 114Colorado Proposition 115Colorado Proposition 116Colorado Proposition 117Colorado Proposition 118Colorado Proposition EESubmit

Colorado Proposition 113, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Referendum, was on the ballot in Colorado as a veto referendum on November 3, 2020. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported Colorado joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give the state’s nine electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote if states representing at least 270 Electoral College votes adopt the compact.

A "no" vote opposed making Colorado part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), thereby continuing to give the state's nine electoral votes to the presidential candidate winning the most votes in Colorado.

Election results

Colorado Proposition 113
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,644,716	52.33%
No		1,498,500	47.67%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Reactions

The following is a list of reactions to the approval of Proposition 116:

• State Sen. Mike Foote (D) said, "The National Popular Vote is a very straightforward concept. One person should always equal one vote and the presidential candidate who gets the most votes should win the election. We are two-thirds of the way to changing how we elect the President for the better. We hope the results in Colorado will go a long way in convincing other states to come on board with the National Popular Vote too.”

• Save Our States Executive Director Trent England said, "Opponents of the Electoral College routinely claim to have overwhelming support. Even in ‘blue’ Colorado, nearly half the voters rejected this end-run around the Constitution."

Overview

What did approval of the referendum uphold?

See also: Full text and ballot language

Approval of the veto referendum upheld Senate Bill 42 (SB 42), which was designed to enter Colorado into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member states' presidential electors to the candidate that receives the most votes nationwide (the national popular vote). The NPVIC was set to go into effect if states representing at least 270 Electoral College votes—the number required to win the presidency—adopt the legislation. A no vote on the referendum was a vote to reject Senate Bill 42, stopping Colorado from becoming a part of the compact.

If the compact goes into effect, Colorado will give all of its nine electoral votes to the presidential candidate winning the most votes nationwide (often referred to as the national popular vote). With the compact not being in effect, Colorado's nine electoral votes go to the presidential candidate receiving the most votes in Colorado.

What was the significance of Proposition 113 to the NPVIC?

See also: Background on the NPVIC

Colorado was the first state in which voters decided whether the state should enter the NPVIC.

As of November 2020, 15 states (including Colorado) and Washington, D.C., representing 196 Electoral College votes altogether had adopted legislation to join the compact. The other 14 NPVIC member states joined the compact through bills signed by Democratic governors or, in Hawaii's case, through an override of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle's veto.

When asked about Colorado and Proposition 113, State Sen. Mike Foote (D), a proponent of the NPVIC, said, “I think it’s an important state. Whatever happens will benefit one side or the other in other states.”

Mesa County Commissioner Rose Pugliese, a sponsor of Proposition 113 and the effort to repeal Colorado's NPVIC legislation, said, “Colorado is going to be the leader in the nation, so it’s very important that we win the ‘no’ vote on Proposition 113. There are definitely a lot of eyes on Colorado.”

Derek Muller, a election law professor at the University of Iowa, said, “I do think if the national popular vote is repealed in Colorado, I would consider it almost completely dead across the country.”

How did this measure get on the ballot?

See also: Senate Bill 42: Colorado joins the compact

Though Colorado passed the NPVIC legislation through the state legislature, the law is suspended pending a vote on the referendum. Senate Bill 42 passed the Colorado Senate in a vote of 19 to 16, with all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. The House approved the bill in a vote of 34 to 29, with 34 of 40 voting Democrats in favor and all 23 Republicans against. Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed the bill into law on March 15, 2019. Mesa County Commissioner Rose Pugliese and Monument Mayor Don Wilson filed this referendum against SB 42 on March 15, 2019. This referendum petition effort placed SB 42 on the ballot for a statewide vote of the people.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 113?

See also: Support for a yes vote, Support for a no vote, and Campaign finance

How current is this information?

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by BallotpediaCampaign finance report filing deadlines vary by state. Scheduled deadlines are usually based on periodic requirements—such as monthly or quarterly reports—or certain lengths of time before and after elections. Some states require interim reports in response to contributions of a certain size in addition to scheduled reports. It is not uncommon for reports to be filed late for a given campaign finance deadline., which covered through November 30, 2020. The deadlineCampaign finance report deadlines are set by law. It is not uncommon for reports to be filed after the deadlines. Ballotpedia updates the reports as soon as possible after the campaign finance filing deadline. for the next scheduled reports was April 15, 2021.

Three committees registered to support a yes vote on the referendum: Coloradans for National Popular Vote, Yes on National Popular Vote, and Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote. Together, the committees reported $5.45 million in contributions and $5.45 million in expenditures. Coloradans for National Popular Vote argued, "One person, one vote should mean that everyone’s vote counts equally. Our system for electing the president is broken because it makes some people’s vote count more than others. ... In America, every voter deserves to be treated equally, no matter what state they live in or what political party they belong to."

Two committees registered to support a no vote on the referendum: Protect Colorado's Vote and Conservatives vote No on National Popular Vote. The two committees reported $1.78 million in contributions and $1.78 million in expenditures. Protect Colorado's Vote argued, "Demanding Colorado’s electors cast their votes this way is theft of our votes for president and gives them to more populated areas like New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. [The current Electoral College system] ensures that the minority always has a voice by allowing smaller, less populated states to have a more proportionate voice in electing our president."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 113 was as follows:

“

Shall the following Act of the General Assembly be approved: An Act concerning adoption of an agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote, being Senate Bill No. 19-042?

”

Summary and analysis

The summary and analysis provided for this measure in the 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet are available on page 33 at this link.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

No fiscal impact. Proposition 113 is assessed as having no fiscal impact. The Secretary of State is responsible for certifying presidential electors, and this bill does not change the process by which this is done. Therefore, the measure does not affect the revenue, spending, or workload of any state or local government entity.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be read below.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title BoardThe Colorado Title Board includes the secretary of state, the Colorado attorney general, and the director of the Office of Legislative Legal Services or the director's designee. The board is responsible for drafting and approving the ballot title use for citizen initiatives during circulation and on the ballot. The board's titles can be challenged to the supreme court, which either affirms the board's title or orders changes. wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 7, and the FRE is 59. The word count for the ballot title is 36, and the estimated reading time is 9 seconds.

Support for a yes vote

Coloradans for National Popular Vote and Yes on National Popular Vote led the campaign in support of a yes vote. Proponents of Colorado joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact are advocating for a yes vote on the referendum to uphold Senate Bill 42. Yes on National Popular Vote provided a list of endorsements which is available here.

Supporters for a yes vote

Officials

• Colorado State Senator Rhonda Fields (D)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of Colorado
• Working Families Party

Unions

• AFSCME Colorado
• American Federation of Teachers
• SEIU Colorado

Organizations

• ACLU of Colorado
• Colorado Citizens Project
• Colorado Education Association
• Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition
• Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights
• Colorado People's Alliance (COPA)
• Common Cause Colorado
• Conservation Colorado
• Conservation Colorado
• Democracy for America
• Democratic Women of Boulder County
• Democratic Women of Loveland
• Denver Womxn's March
• FairVote Action Fund
• Indivisible Colorado Action Network (ICAN)
• League of Women Voters Colorado
• Mi Familia Vota
• NAACP Colorado Montana Wyoming State Conference
• New Era Colorado
• One Colorado
• Our Revolution Metro Denver
• Our Revolution Weld County
• Progress Now Colorado
• Progressive Democrats of America
• Represent.Us Fort Collins
• Represent.Us JeffCo
• Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center
• Together Colorado
• United for a New Economy
• Young Invincibles

Arguments

• League of Women Voters of Colorado President Karen Sheek: “Elected officials represent all the people in a democracy, not just those in a few states. A strong democracy makes every vote equal and every voter relevant. The League of Women Voters has supported a national popular vote since 1970 because we believe the most important officeholders of the land — our President and Vice President – should be accountable to all Americans.”
• President of the CO-WY-MT State Area Conference of the NAACP President Rosemary Lytle: “We’re excited to make the case to Colorado Voters that the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote should be president–period. Passing this ballot measure is critical to moving America to a more fair system that rewards the candidate that gets the most votes across all 50 states, not just a few “battleground” states.”
• SEIU of Colorado Executive Director Lauren Martens: “Presidential candidates should work to earn votes from all voters, regardless of where we live, what we look like, or how much money we have. YES on National Popular Vote would mean that Presidential candidates cannot ignore our state and our issues.”
• Co-Chair of Colorado NPV Sylvia Bernstein: In a statement to Ballotpedia, Co-Chair of Colorado NPV Sylvia Bernstein said, "The Electoral College system has resulted in 5 out of 45 American presidents not winning the popular vote. This does not fairly reflect the will of the voters and is harmful to a modern democracy. In addition, because of the 'winner-take-all' laws 48 states use for allocating electors, the only states that get any attention during presidential campaigns post-convention are the 7-12 swing states whose outcomes are not predetermined 'safe' states, who reliably vote for one party or the other, are completely ignored. It doesn’t matter if they are large or small, rural or urban-dominated. If you live in a 'safe' state, you are ignored. Third, because of how Electors are allocated, some states have far more representation in the Electoral College than others. For example, Wyoming has over three times the representation of Colorado. We believe every vote by every American for the President should count equally, no matter where you live. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ensures that the President will be elected by popular vote, without amending the Constitution, because it uses the language in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution that says that State Legislatures have complete control over how they allocate their state’s Electors."
• Colorado NPV: Colorado NPV argued that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) would "strengthen the country's democracy, increase voter turnout and civic engagement, reduce cynicism, increase election security," and provide that every vote be counted equally.

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: "1) A national popular vote for President advances the democratic principle of one person, one vote, and ensures that votes in every community count equally. The national popular vote for President could also encourage candidates to campaign in a way that addresses the concerns of voters in all 50 states. The current system places too much importance on just a few competitive states where candidates focus almost all of their attention and campaign efforts. Candidates should reach out to voters wherever they live and take positions on issues that affect all parts of the country. The national popular vote gives all voters an equal impact on the outcome of the election, regardless of where they live or whether their state’s final vote count might be close. 2) The President of the United States should be the person who gets the most popular votes nationwide. Five times in our country’s history, including twice in the last 20 years, a candidate has won the presidential election despite losing the popular vote. A “yes” vote on Proposition 113 is an important step toward making sure this cannot happen in the future. Recent history demonstrates that when the results are close in even a few states, it is easy for the Electoral College vote to not reflect the national popular vote. "

Support for a no vote

Protect Colorado's Vote led the campaign in support of a no vote. Protect Colorado's Vote sponsored the referendum petition and hopes voters will reject Senate Bill 42. Protect Colroado's Vote provided a full list of endorsements that is available here.

Supporters for a no vote

Officials

• U.S. Senator Cory Gardner (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Colorado

Government Entities

• Monument Town Council
• Logan County Board of Commissioners
• Garfield County Board of Commissioners
• Weld County Board of Commissioners
• Prowers County Board of Commissioners
• Logan County Board of Commissioners
• Morgan County Board of Commissioners
• Mineral County Board of Commissioners
• Montrose County Board of Commissioners
• Fremont County Board of Commissioners
• Monument Town Council
• Rio Blanco County Board of Commissioners
• Moffat County Board of Commissioners
• Jackson County Board of Commissioners
• Douglas County Board of Commissioners
• Mesa County Board of Commissioners
• Fountain City Council

Unions

• Colorado Association of Mechanical and Plumbing Contractors
• Colorado Association of Wheat Growers
• Mechanical Contractors Association of Colorado

Organizations

• Alamosa County Chamber of Commerce
• Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado
• Colorado Business Roundtable
• Colorado Concern
• Colorado Farm Bureau
• Colorado Rising State Action
• Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Corporation
• Colorado Union of Taxpayers
• Colorado Wool Growers Association
• Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
• Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce
• Independence Institute
• National Certified Pipe Wielding Bureau, Colorado Chapter
• National Electrical Contractors Association, Rocky Mountain Chapter
• Rocky Mountain Mechanical Contractors Association

Arguments

• Colorado Rising State Action: "This is asking Coloradans if we want to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and move our nation towards abolishing the Electoral College. Under a national popular vote system, all of Colorado’s votes would go to whichever candidate wins the popular vote nationally, even if that’s not who won the majority in Colorado. We must protect Colorado’s voice, not give our votes away to high-population states on the coasts."
• Protect Colorado's Vote: "This end-run around the constitution (Senate Bill 42) requires Colorado’s presidential electors to cast their votes for the candidate for President who received the most votes nationally, even if that candidate DID NOT receive the most votes in Colorado. Demanding Colorado’s electors cast their votes this way is theft of our votes for president and gives them to more populated areas like New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. [The current Electoral College system] ensures that the minority always has a voice by allowing smaller, less populated states to have a more proportionate voice in electing our president."

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: "1) Colorado should cast its electoral votes for the candidate who obtains the most votes in Colorado. If the agreement goes into effect, Colorado’s presidential electors would be obligated to vote for whomever wins the national popular vote, even if that candidate did not win the majority of votes in the state. Further, a national popular vote may encourage candidates to focus their campaigns in large population centers where they can efficiently reach more voters. In this process, all Coloradans risk having the unique regional issues they care about lose out to the interests of a few large cities in a few large states. 2) This agreement attempts to sidestep the U.S. Constitution and could lead to disruptions in our electoral system. Rather than amend the U.S. Constitution to implement a true national popular vote, the compact relies on legal agreements between member states, which have different election requirements and policies, to ensure that their electors will vote the way the compact demands. In addition, in a close election run by 50 separate states, trying to determine who won the national popular vote could lead to recounts and litigation in every state, delaying results, causing confusion, and eroding confidence in our electoral system."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by BallotpediaCampaign finance report filing deadlines vary by state. Scheduled deadlines are usually based on periodic requirements—such as monthly or quarterly reports—or certain lengths of time before and after elections. Some states require interim reports in response to contributions of a certain size in addition to scheduled reports. It is not uncommon for reports to be filed late for a given campaign finance deadline., which covered through November 30, 2020. The deadlineCampaign finance report deadlines are set by law. It is not uncommon for reports to be filed after the deadlines. Ballotpedia updates the reports as soon as possible after the campaign finance filing deadline. for the next scheduled reports was April 15, 2021.

Three committees registered to support a yes vote on the referendum: Coloradans for National Popular Vote, Yes on National Popular Vote, and Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote. Together, the committees reported $5.45 million in contributions and $5.45 million in expenditures.

Two committees registered to support a no vote on the referendum: Protect Colorado's Vote and Conservatives vote No on National Popular Vote. The two committees reported $1.78 million in contributions and $1.78 million in expenditures.

All committees except Protect Colorado's Vote had filed their final reports on December 3, 2020, which covered information through November 30, 2020. A report is due from Protect Colorado's Vote on April 15, 2021, covering information from December 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,193,309.13	$259,702.01	$5,453,011.14	$5,192,666.08	$5,452,368.09
Oppose	$1,776,262.66	$8,087.44	$1,784,350.10	$1,775,569.16	$1,783,656.60

Support for a yes vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of a yes vote on the referendum.

Committees in support of Proposition 113
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on National Popular Vote	$4,932,864.66	$227,417.96	$5,160,282.62	$4,932,864.66	$5,160,282.62
Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote	$248,190.07	$22,500.00	$270,690.07	$248,190.07	$270,690.07
Coloradans for National Popular Vote	$12,254.40	$9,784.05	$22,038.45	$11,611.35	$21,395.40
Total	$5,193,309.13	$259,702.01	$5,453,011.14	$5,192,666.08	$5,452,368.09

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committees registered to support a yes vote.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Josh Jones	$948,015.30	$0.00	$948,015.30
Sage Weil	$405,000.00	$0.00	$405,000.00
Nancy Beeuwkes	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
North Fund	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Stephen Silberstein	$75,000.00	$0.00	$75,000.00

Support for a no vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee registered to support a no vote on the referendum.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 113
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Protect Colorado's Vote	$1,776,106.85	$8,087.44	$1,784,194.29	$1,775,413.35	$1,783,500.79
Conservatives Vote No on National Popular Vote	$155.81	$0.00	$155.81	$155.81	$155.81
Total	$1,776,262.66	$8,087.44	$1,784,350.10	$1,775,569.16	$1,783,656.60

Donors

The following were the top donors to the campaign for a no vote on the referendum:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Unite for Colorado	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Better Jobs Coalition	$145,000.00	$0.00	$145,000.00
Earl Wright	$70,000.00	$0.00	$70,000.00
William Witter	$61,000.00	$0.00	$61,000.00
CL Machinery Compant	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Project West Political Action Committee	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support for a yes vote

• Sentinel Editorial Board: "The change would mean that for the 2024 Election, big political parties in power-states would no longer be direct arbiters of the White House, such as California, Texas, Florida and New York. Voters there and across the country would all have the same influence on the White House as voters in Walsenberg, Taos, Gillette and Fargo. Candidates would be compelled to appeal to those voters just as much as voters in Denver, Dallas and San Francisco."
• Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition 113 ... will add Colorado to the list of states that want the victor in the presidential race to be determined by a larger pool of voters, not state by state. It is time to give the American electorate an improved opportunity to select its president. Yes on Proposition 113."
• Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Every vote for president should count — and count the same. Currently, all attention is paid to the 10 or so battleground states, while the majority of those living in the other 40 states are mostly ignored. It is in Colorado’s best interest to remove the antiquated Electoral College system. It gives unequal weight to states with low populations and ignores city centers — something the founders didn’t anticipate when they created the Electoral College system more than two centuries ago. Electing future presidents by a national popular vote means that every person’s vote counts equally. It advances the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It will encourage candidates to campaign nationally, not just in the handful of competitive swing states. Vote Yes on Prop 113."
• Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Board: "Under the current system, the swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania get outsize attention. Why bother visiting California? The state has by far the most electoral votes, 55, but everyone knows they’re all going to the Democrat. Under the National Popular Vote compact, however, ballots cast in California for a Republican presidential candidate would mean more than they ever did before, because those ballots would be counted in the all-important popular vote. The one-person, one-vote principle is fundamental to American democracy, yet the winner-take-all application of the Electoral College favors some voters over others. The National Popular Vote compact would retain the College but shift influence to individuals. Under the compact, the winner of a presidential election would better reflect the will of the people, and that’s something Colorado lawmakers should all be able to support."
• Denver Post Editorial Board: "... Our endorsement follows a thoughtful analysis that found joining this compact would eliminate a system that has created vast inequities when it comes to political sway over the executive branch. ... It’s impossible to say who would have won in past elections had candidates been vying for the national popular vote instead of focusing on swing states, but we can say definitively that outcomes would not have been based on the decision of a handful of voters in a handful of states."
• Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "... There's a way to preserve the Electoral College's constitutional origins (granting states the sole authority to appoint electors) and address voting equality, thus making the entire country relevant. The idea is for states to band together to make sure the presidential candidate who receives the highest national popular vote wins the election. As we know, presidents can lose the popular vote but still win the 270 electoral votes needed to assume the highest office in the land. The National Popular Vote interstate compact would eliminate this perversion."

Support for a no vote

• Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: 'If the 20th century has shown us anything, it’s that our presidential electoral process is outdated and needs updating. But this is too important of a change to make for our electoral process to be handled by a patchwork of laws in individual states."
• Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "This end around of the U.S. Constitution is unacceptable. If you wish to abolish the Electoral College, do it through the appropriate process, and that’s the process laid out for constitutional amendments. Say no to the national popular vote. Say yes to keeping the Electoral College."
• Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Board: "Imagine a scenario in which 60 percent, 80 percent, or even 100 percent of Coloradans vote for a particular candidate, but that candidate doesn’t get the most votes nationwide. Under the compact, Colorado would be required to cast its electoral votes for a candidate a clear majority of its residents chose not to support. There’s nothing fair about that, either. That leaves us with recommending a system that’s in the best interests of the country as a whole. And the best way to do that would be to pass a national constitutional amendment mandating that the popular vote winner be elected president."
• Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "Compact members pledge to sacrifice their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, even if the state’s voters chose the other candidate. It is grounded in the left’s confidence that large and growing coastal population centers will consistently generate a popular vote outcome that favors Democrats. ... Between today and November, help generate support for overturning this insane law that gives other states control of our votes. Colorado voters— and no one else— should control the state’s electoral votes in each presidential election."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2020 ballot measure polls

Poll results for the measure are detailed below:

Colorado Proposition 113
Poll	Yes	No	Unsure	Margin of error	Sample size
Daily Kos/Civiqs poll 10/11/20 - 10/14/20	47.0%	45.0%	8.0%	+/-3.6	1,013
Survey USA poll 10/1/20 - 10/6/20	39.0%	38.0%	23.0%	+/-3.9	1,021
AVERAGES	43%	41.5%	15.5%	+/-3.75	1,017
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected].

Background

Electoral College

See also: Electoral College

The Electoral College is the process through which the president of the United States is elected to office. Each state receives a number of votes equal to the total number of their delegation to the United States Congress. The vote casters, known as electors, are chosen by rules differing in each state, but many are elected during each party's state conventions. Forty-eight states award all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the popular vote in that state. The winners in Maine and Nebraska receive two votes—representing the state's senators—while the remaining votes can be split between candidates.

There are a total of 538 electors among the 50 states, including three votes allotted to the District of Columbia. Of the 538 votes, a candidate must win at least 270 to become President of the United States.

National popular vote

See also: National popular vote

The National Popular Vote (NPV) refers to the concept of allocating a state's presidential electors to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide regardless of the state results in a presidential election. For example, if a state used NPV and voted for candidate A, but candidate B received the most votes nationwide, the state would allocate its presidential electors to candidate B. Under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, states have control over how they allocate their presidential electors.

Splits between the Electoral College and popular vote

See also: Splits between the Electoral College and popular vote

In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidential election with 304 electoral votes compared to Hillary Clinton's 227 electoral votes. Clinton received more total votes nationwide than Trump, with 65.84 million compared to Trump's 62.98 million.

The 2016 election was not the only instance in which the winner of the Electoral College did not receive the most popular votes; it happened in five of the 58 presidential elections in U.S. history. Prior to 2016, splits between the popular vote and the Electoral College have occurred three times: 2000, 1888, and 1876. In addition to this, a candidate in 1824 won the election through a U.S. House vote after failing to receive the most votes nationwide or to receive the most Electoral College votes.

Presidential voting history in Colorado and how the NPVIC would have changed it

Since Colorado became a state in 1876, there have been four presidential elections where the candidate who received the most votes nationwide lost the election: 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. Colorado's electoral votes were given to the Republican candidate in 1876, 1888, and 2000. If the state's electoral votes had been given to the candidate who had received the most votes nationwide, its electoral votes would have been given to the Democratic candidate in those years. Colorado voted for the Democratic candidate in 2016, so its electoral votes were awarded to Hillary Clinton, who lost the election. Clinton received the most votes nationwide in 2016.

Year	Electoral vote/election winner	Electoral vote margin	NPV winner	NPV margin	Colorado's choice	CO electoral votes
2016	Donald Trump (R)	77 electoral votes	Hillary Clinton (D)	2.86 million	Hillary Clinton (D)	9
2000	George W. Bush (R)	5 electoral votes	Al Gore (D)	540,520	George W. Bush (R)	8
1888	Benjamin Harrison (R)	65 electoral votes	Grover Cleveland (D)	100,456	Benjamin Harrison (R)	3
1876	Rutherford B. Hayes (R)	1 electoral vote	Samuel Tilden (D)	264,292	Rutherford B. Hayes (R)	3

Colorado presidential election voting trends (1900-2016)

• Voted Democratic 12 times
• Voted Republican 18 times

Year	1900	1904	1908	1912	1916	1920	1924	1928	1932	1936	1940	1944	1948	1952	1956	1960	1964	1968	1972	1976	1980	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016
How CO voted	D	R	D	D	D	R	R	R	D	D	R	R	D	R	R	R	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	R	R	R	D	D	D
Election winner	R	R	R	D	D	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	D	D	R	R	D	R	R	R	D	D	R	R	D	D	R
NPV winner	R	R	R	D	D	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	D	D	R	R	D	R	R	R	D	D	D	R	D	D	D

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

See also: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member states' presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The NPVIC will go into effect if states representing at least 270 Electoral College votes adopt the legislation. As of May 2021, 15 states and Washington, D.C., had adopted legislation to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Together, they represent 195 Electoral College votes.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." This compact does not abolish the Electoral College system; rather, the compact awards all of the electoral votes from the member states to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.

Senate Bill 42: Colorado joins the compact

State Sen. Mike Foote (D-17) and Reps. Emily Sirota (D-9) and Jennifer Arndt (D-53) sponsored Senate Bill 42 in the Colorado State Legislature. SB 42 passed the Senate on January 29, 2019, in a vote of 19 to 16, with all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. On February 21, 2019, the House approved the bill in a vote of 34 to 29, with 34 of 40 voting Democrats in favor and all 23 Republicans against. There was one vacancy in the state House at the time of the vote. Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed the bill into law on March 15, 2019.

Legislative votes on Senate Bill 42:

Vote in the Colorado State Senate January 29, 2019
Requirement: Majority approval in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 18  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	19	16	0
Total percent	54.3%	45.7%	0.0%
Democrat	19	0	0
Republican	0	16	0

Vote in the Colorado House of Representatives February 21, 2019
Requirement: Majority approval in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 32  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	34	29	1
Total percent	53.1%	45.3%	1.6%
Democrat	34	6	1
Republican	0	23	0

Veto referendums in Colorado

See also: List of veto referendum ballot measures

In Colorado, bills passed by the state legislature can be put before voters through a veto referendum petition. A yes vote on a veto referendum in Colorado is a vote to uphold the legislation in question. A no vote is a vote to overturn or repeal the legislation in question, meaning supporters of a veto referendum petition effort advocate for a no vote on the referendum. Successful veto referendum petitions suspend the targeted law or portion of law until the election.

The most recent veto referendum on the ballot in Colorado was in 1932. From 1912 to 1932, 13 veto referendums appeared on the ballot. Of the 13 referendum efforts, 10 were successful in overturning the targeted legislation. The targeted legislation was upheld on three occasions.

Beginning in the mid-1930s, most legislative bills were drafted to automatically include a safety clause declaring the bill "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety," which made the bill immune to referendum petition efforts. In 1997, the Executive Committee of Legislative Council directed the Office of Legislative Legal Services to only include a safety clause in bills if directed to do so by the requesting legislator.

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Election-related policy ballot measures in 2020

Campaign finance See also: Campaign finance on the ballot a Oregon Measure 107: Measure 107 authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them. Going into the election, Oregon was one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions. Election dates a New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment allowed the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjusting office terms according to those date changes. Under the measure, laws proposing adjustments to election dates of non-statewide officeholders must be supported by a legislative finding that such a change would promote consistency or that it would evenly distribute the number of offices appearing on the ballot. Election systems a Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Ballot Measure 2 replaced the state's partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices and established ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates. Ballot Measure 2 also required persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources, as defined in the law, of the political contributions. a Colorado Proposition 113: In 2019, the Colorado State Legislature passed a bill to add Colorado to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). NPVIC member states have agreed to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, provided the NPVIC goes into effect. The NPVIC was designed to go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral votes join the NPVIC. The campaign Protect Colorado's Vote filed a veto referendum to overturn the law, which resulted in Proposition 113. On November 3, voters upheld the law and voted in favor of adding Colorado to the NPVIC. d Florida Amendment 3: Amendment 3 would have replaced Florida's closed primaries with top-two open primaries for elected state offices. Under Amendment 3, all candidates would have run in the same primary election. The top-two candidates, regardless of their partisan affiliation, would have moved on to the general election under Amendment 3. d Massachusetts Question 2: Question 2 would have enacted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices. As of 2020, statewide elections in Massachusetts used a plurality voting system. a Mississippi Ballot Measure 2: As of 2020, Mississippi required that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 state House of Representatives districts (known as the electoral vote requirement). Ballot Measure 2 repealed this requirement. Instead, Ballot Measure 2 provided that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote to win and that a runoff election would be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote. Redistricting See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot a Missouri Amendment 3: In 2018, Missouri voters approved Amendment 1, the Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative, which created the non-partisan state demographer responsible for state legislative redistricting. Amendment 3 repealed the non-partisan state demographer and returned the state to the use of bipartisan redistricting commissions, with changes to the number and selection of commissioners. The 2020 amendment also maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it loosened the partisan fairness requirement and required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority. a New Jersey Public Question 3: As of 2020, the New Jersey Constitution required the state legislative redistricting commission to pass a redistricting plan within a month of receiving the official census data. Question 3 postponed state legislative redistricting until after the election on November 2, 2021, should the state receive federal census data after February 15, 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau asked Congress to extend the deadline to deliver census data from April 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, due to delays related to the coronavirus pandemic. a Virginia Question 1: Question 1 transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens. Going into 2020, the Virginia General Assembly was responsible for drawing the state's congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The redistricting plans were passed as legislation and subject to the governor's veto power. Suffrage See also: Suffrage on the ballot a Alabama Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Alabama Constitution to state that "only a citizen of the United States," rather than "every citizen of the United States," who is 18 years old or older has the right to vote in Alabama. a California Proposition 17: Proposition 17 amended the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure kept imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but removed parole status. Going into 2020, the California Constitution disqualified people with felonies from voting until the completion of their imprisonment and parole. d California Proposition 18: Proposition 18 would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. a Colorado Amendment 76: Amendment 76 amended the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen”, instead of "every citizen", of the U.S. who is 18 years of age or older can vote in Colorado. Under the Colorado Votes Act, which went into effect in August 2019, individuals who are 17 years of age at the time of a primary election but who will be 18 years of age at the time of a general election were allowed to register to vote and vote in the primary election. According to the Colorado Blue Book, prevents 17-year-olds from voting. a Florida Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Florida Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida instead of saying that "every citizen" of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida. Term limits and term lengths See also: Term limits on the ballot a Arkansas Issue 2: Issue 2 changed term limits of state legislators to twelve consecutive years with the opportunity to return after a four-year break. The 12-year limit applied to anyone elected in 2021 or after. Going into 2020, Arkansas legislators could serve up to 16 years throughout their lifetimes in the House or Senate. d Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment would have increased the office terms of commonwealth's attorneys from six years to eight years starting in 2030; increased the office terms of district judges from four years to eight years starting in 2022; and changed attorney licensing requirements for district judges from two years to eight years beginning in 2022. d Missouri Amendment 1: Amendment 1 would have limited the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and attorney general to two terms of office in a lifetime. Going into 2020, the state constitution limited the governor and state treasurer to two terms of office in a lifetime but not the other executive offices.

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Colorado and Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify a veto referendum for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. Signatures must be submitted 90 days after the legislature that passed the targeted bill adjourns.

The requirements to get a veto referendum certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 124,632 valid signatures
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session.

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

Signatures were due on August 1, 2019.

Details about this veto referendum

• Senate Bill 42 was passed in the state legislature, and Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed the bill into law on March 15, 2019.
• Mesa County Commissioner Rose Pugliese and Monument Mayor Don Wilson filed this referendum against SB 42 on March 15, 2019.
• Proponents reported submitting over 227,000 signatures to the secretary of state on the August 1, 2019, deadline.
  • The campaign submitted more signatures than any petition drive since at least 2001.
• On August 29, 2019, the secretary of state announced that enough of the submitted signatures were valid to certify the veto referendum for the ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $0 was spent to collect the 124,632 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Colorado.

How to cast a vote in Colorado

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mountain Time for individuals who prefer to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration requirements In Colorado, an individual can register to vote if he or she is at least 16 years old and will be 18 by Election Day. A voter must be a citizen of the United States and have lived in Colorado at least 22 days prior to Election Day. Colorado voters can register through Election Day but must register at least eight days prior to Election Day to automatically receive a ballot in the mail. Voters who register after that point must pick up a ballot in person at any Voter Service and Polling Center. Voters can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail. Automatic registration Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person. Residency requirements Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registration The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification while voting at the polls. Voters may also need to return a photocopy of their ID with their ballots if they are voting by mail for the first time. Click here for more information. The following list of accepted ID was current as of April 2021. Click here for the Colorado Secretary of State's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. “ The following documents are acceptable forms of identification: A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.) A valid U.S. passport. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado. A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S. A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector. A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector. A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood. A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector. Certified documentation of naturalization. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in *Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S.. A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector. A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership. Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification. The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting: Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S. Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S. Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility. ” Background As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards. }}

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot
• 2020 petition deadlines

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Senate Bill 42 (2019)
• Colorado Secretary of State: Referendum Petitions
• Colorado Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book)

Support for a yes vote

• Colorado NPV campaign website
• Colorado NPV Facebook page

Support for a no vote

• Protect Colorado's Vote campaign website
• Protect Colorado's Vote Facebook page