Douglas County voters face $1.3 million question in confused ballot mix

Douglas County residents will vote on November 3 on whether to expand the board of commissioners from three members to five. The measure, known as the 3 to 5 initiative, was placed on the ballot in August after proponents collected more than 20,000 signatures earlier this year. The original proposal sought to create five district-based seats to replace the current three at-large positions.

County commissioners Abe Laydon, George Teal, and Kevin Van Winkle added two additional measures to the ballot shortly after the petition was validated. These new items allow voters to keep a five-member board with at-large elections or choose a hybrid model. The commissioners argued that expanding the board could cost the county up to $1.3 million, a figure proponents call inflated and designed to intimidate voters.

Angela Thomas, the founder of the 3 to 5 initiative, described the process as an unruly battle. She noted that similar changes in Boulder County proceeded smoothly, whereas the Douglas County board has blocked several of their efforts. Thomas stated that she followed the legal requirements to get on the ballot but did not anticipate the commissioners would create such complex alternatives.

Voters will now face three distinct questions. The first asks if they support increasing the board to five members. The second, labeled Question 201, asks voters to choose between five district commissioners or three district commissioners plus two at-large seats. The third, labeled Question 1A, was added by the commissioners and asks if all registered voters should continue to elect all county commissioners if the board expands to five.

Thomas criticized Question 1A for omitting the term at-large and for creating ambiguity about which measure would take precedence. If voters approve five district commissioners in Question 201 but also approve the all-voter election in Question 1A, it is unclear which outcome prevails. This uncertainty has led to legal challenges and speculation about the final structure of the board.

State Representative Bob Marshall, who supports district representation, filed a lawsuit on September 7 to remove the two commissioner-added measures from the ballot. He argued the board relied on a nonexistent state law to justify a secret meeting where they drafted the new questions. Marshall claimed that allowing a separate at-large measure to override the district options violated state statute.

A judge ruled that the measures would remain on the ballot, but the parties will return to court if Question 1A passes. Marshall said he expects litigation if the confusing language creates a conflict between the questions. He introduced a bill in 2026 that would have required non-home-rule counties to abandon at-large commissioners, but that bill failed to pass.

Commissioner George Teal defended the additional measures as a way to give residents all available choices. He said he heard directly from residents who wanted to preserve the at-large election system. Teal explained that if Question 1A receives more votes overall than Question 201, the at-large standard will remain, even with five commissioners. He described this as a third option that bypasses the original petition's specific request for districts.

Thomas called the ballot language shady and designed to confuse voters. She expressed hope that a groundswell of support for structural change would override the commissioners' plans. The outcome of the November 3 election will determine the size and composition of the Douglas County board for the next term.