The Opt-Out Debate: Colorado Republicans on the Central Committee Face a Critical Decision on Primary Elections 

By Candice Stutzriem

In a recent update, Candice provided insight into the ongoing debate surrounding Colorado’s primary election opt-out issue, urging Republicans to clarify their objectives. Is the goal to prevent unaffiliated (UAF) voters from influencing Republican candidate selection, or, in addition, to block candidates from using the petition process to secure a spot on the primary ballot? This question lies at the heart of a contentious discussion about the future of the Republican primary process in Colorado. 

A few weeks ago, Steve Schleiker, an El Paso County Clerk and Recorder, outlined the logistics and costs of running an independent Republican primary using mail-in ballots and necessary equipment. The estimated cost for El Paso County alone exceeds $1 million, potentially a significant financial burden for the party. However, the proposed opt-out process could exclude the general membership from voting. Instead, it would shift to an assembly or convention model, where approximately 4,000 voting delegates (at the state level) would select candidates for the general election. 

This change would effectively exclude the nearly one million registered Colorado Republicans from the candidate selection process, potentially causing significant pushback from the party. Under this system, only Democrat and unaffiliated voters (UAF) would receive primary ballots, leaving many Republicans confused and frustrated. In EPC alone, 70 percent of all voters would receive a Democrat ballot.  The GOP voters would receive none. Those unaware of the opt-out decision might contact the County Clerk’s office or the Colorado GOP, demanding ballots they are no longer entitled to. Come November, unaffiliated voters—who make up a significant portion of Colorado’s electorate—are likely to favor candidates they supported in the primary, which would not be Republicans. This could severely undermine Republican prospects in the general election. 

Beyond the opt-out, two alternative approaches remain. The first is a citizen-led ballot initiative to close the primary, limiting it to party-affiliated voters. This was attempted last year but met with limited success. The petition process is costly, and unaffiliated voters, who enjoy receiving ballots for both parties, were reluctant to support it. The second option involves an ongoing legal challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado’s open primary system. Implemented via a 2016 voter initiative, the open primary allows unaffiliated voters to participate in either party’s primary. Critics argue this system infringes on the parties’ right to control their candidate selection process. The 2016 initiative also set a high bar for opting out, requiring approval from 75% of the party’s Central Committee. Further, the decision is only binding for one general election cycle. 

A current lawsuit, backed by the Colorado GOP and represented by John Eastman through the Claremont Institute, aims to challenge the open primary system. While the case was expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, its current status remains unclear. The Colorado GOP would be wise to throw its full weight behind this legal effort, as a successful outcome could not only close Colorado’s primaries but also set a precedent for other states with similar systems. 

As the Republican Party weighs its options, the stakes are high. Opting out of the primary system risks alienating voters and weakening the party’s electoral prospects. Pursuing a closed primary through ballot initiative or the courts offers potential solutions but comes with its own challenges. The path forward requires careful consideration to ensure the party remains unified and competitive in Colorado’s evolving political landscape.