I’m writing this election recap with deep sorrow permeating the absolute center of my mind and the marrow of my bones. The United States just elected a twice-impeached felon, liar, sex offender, and insurrectionist as its President. I’m still going to keep on writing, even though most of the rest of what happened in the 2024 election seems miniscule and insignificant by comparison.

I usually do a quick synopsis of my personal involvement in the election cycle along with my recaps, so here goes. I started the year managing Tina Mueh’s campaign for the Democratic House District 10 primary, and worked very diligently on this effort until the June 25 election. We lost, and I took some vacation time, but then started working on my 2024 Election Guide, in which I took deep dives into 18 ballot measures and nine contested candidate elections. I wrote about 50,000 total words and (patting myself on the back), got the most page views I’ve ever had for an election guide on my personal website. I’m also active with the state and local Democratic parties, which this year meant participation in caucuses, assemblies, and primaries, plus canvassing neighborhoods several times with petitions, campaign literature, and vote reminders. I was even on KGNU radio for a pre-election show in late October.

Many people did more than me, but I feel like I gave a fair amount of time and effort to this election cycle. So, great – now I’m tired on top of shocked and despondent. It’s been great watching my friends try to keep a stiff upper lip and post inspiring quotes or poetry to soften the blow, but it’s just not working on me at this time. For now, I’m more in the mindset of paraphrasing the Talking Heads classic “Once In A Lifetime.”

“And we may say to ourselves, ‘My God, what have we done?’”

Presidential Election: Buckle Up, Buttercup

This election wasn’t close in the Electoral College, but it was a little closer in the popular vote. Small consolation, though!

We all know that Donald Trump/JD Vance beat Kamala Harris/Tim Walz in the Presidential election, but as former Olympic skater Nancy Kerrigan sobbed after getting whacked in the knee: “Why? Why?”

I feel I have to start by giving Trump some really begrudging credit, because he won a race that he certainly could have lost. If one doesn’t know or care about all of the reprehensible things he’s said and done, he might look like an inspiring figure. He’s made a bunch of money (sure, lost a bunch too), he became a bit more famous through reality TV, and literally made himself into a brand long before he ran for office. Simple name recognition is huge in politics, he’s been in the presidential conversation since perhaps 2000 when he briefly ran with the Reform Party, and 2024 was actually his fourth campaign for President. There’s no doubt he got out and worked in 2024, plus he’s got a political machine behind him that raised campaign funds and fought for votes. These are some of the top-line basics that you’ll typically find on the road to political success – experience of some sort, name recognition, campaign machinery, and a devoted following.

I don’t believe that Harris as a candidate did anything wrong, at least not major things. I’d say she quite clearly beat Trump in their one televised debate, for those who actually watch these things anymore. She definitely did not ignore swing states, her campaign raised a ton (many tons actually) of money, and she had plenty of media/social media visibility. Her relevant experience going into the election was quite good – Attorney General of the largest state in the Union, U.S. Senator, and Vice President for a full four years. Plus, her running mate Tim Walz served six terms in Congress, 24 years in the military, and one-and-a-half terms as Governor of Minnesota. I couldn’t call Harris/Walz a dream ticket, but it was a very good ticket by most modern standards. Harris had better directly relevant experience going into her first race than recent first-term presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or for that matter Donald Trump.

But obviously, there were factors that weren’t in her favor. She and her supporters had to launch a nationwide campaign in a super-hurry, given that President Joe Biden didn’t drop out of the race until late July. I must imagine that party bigwigs had done some contingency preparation in case Biden couldn’t continue for whatever reason, and much of the national campaign infrastructure was more or less in place, but it still had to be an awfully daunting task. At the time, I remembered how much work it was just to launch the state House campaign I managed, for a geographically small district in Boulder in which only about 13,400 people ultimately voted. Harris had to introduce herself to voters across a very big nation – and a lot of them probably knew very little about her – plus she had to create a political identity that wasn’t strictly tied to Biden, which had to be a real challenge given that she had worked directly beneath him for three-and-a-half years.

To say Kamala Harris faced an uphill battle would be unfair to uphill battles. I thought she ran a strong and decent race.

Had Harris won, I might have been writing here about the successes of the Biden years, and there were many. But since she lost, some of the other forces working against her that carried over from the Biden years can be meaningfully expressed in one or two-word descriptions. Inflation. Afghanistan withdrawal. Southern border. Gaza. Ukraine. Middle East. And I’m not going to deny a few other factors that had nothing to do with Biden, again in one-word descriptions. Patriarchy. Racism. Prejudice. Propaganda. I have no problem believing that a lot of people supported Harris because she would have been the first woman to be President, and/or because she is Black and Asian-American, but was that just among liberals and “coastal elites?” Unfortunately, I’m certain those factors weren’t completely on her side in the mostly white swing states she needed to win.

Meanwhile…Jesus…nearly half of U.S. voters elected a twice-impeached insurrectionist lying felon. Many of them probably believe the U.S. is a nation of law and morality. And for those who voted against Harris or didn’t vote because of some of the reasons in my paragraph above – chances are really good they’ll be worse off on these issues under Trump.

Now that the election’s over, people are starting to write about how Trump’s tariff proposals could fuel inflation, not to mention American job losses. Single-issue Gaza voters should have known that Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu wanted Trump to win. Arab-Americans and Muslims who wouldn’t vote Harris in Michigan took the risk of contributing to the election of a man who enacted something called a “Muslim Ban” within the first few months of his first Presidency. Trump’s connections with Russia’s Vladimir Putin might impact the duration of the war in Ukraine, but at what cost to Ukraine and Europe? What will a mass deportation do to a U.S. economy that’s dependent on immigrant labor, and why did Latinos break more heavily toward Trump this year when it’s obvious that an immigrant crack-down will increase suspicion and surveillance against Latinos in general?

If I could harp on one thing that I’ve been emphasizing for decades, it’s about voters understanding what’s really at stake with a Presidential election, and after Nov. 5, 2024, I’ve finally sort of resigned myself to the fact that they generally don’t. Since the year 2000, I’ve been writing about how the Presidency is not just about one man or woman. It’s about the workings of the entire federal government, and this should have been obvious after following what actually happened following Bush vs. Gore and/or Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.

The single-or-limited-issue voter in 2024 might have been absolutely right on their single issue, but the Trump victory means he’ll be able to continue stacking the courts with his supporters – and not just the Supreme Court, but also federal judgeships. He got 234 judges appointed the last time around. Take another look at Project 2025 while you’re at it, and you’d better believe supporters are licking their chops as they think about how they’re going to implement as much of its 900 pages of right-wing policy outlines as possible. Boulder folks ought to be aware that Project 2025 calls for breaking up NOAA, one of the most important institutions in town. And what happens with Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, separation of church and state, gun safety, or wealth inequality after another round of tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the wealthy?

Those who can remember 2017-2021 should at least vaguely remember the charming personalities they got in the package deal along with Trump – think Michael Flynn, Betsy DeVos, Paul Manafort, John Eastman, etc. We might not get the same individuals this time, but we’ll probably remember the new “class of 2025” somewhere down the road. For example, the likely new “border czar” Tom Homan said you can do mass deportations without breaking up families – by deporting entire families. His choice to head the EPA (former Rep. Lee Zeldin) has a lifetime voting score of 14% with League of Conservation Voters. God bless blue Colorado, but it just can’t do enough little e-bike rebates and plastic bag bans to make up for the likely changes to federal environmental policy under the new administration.

And my dear friends – it’s never been a secret that this stuff was coming. I know a lot of us tried to get the word out, but it either wasn’t strong enough or it never reached the people who needed to hear. Of course, messaging and media will be key battlefronts if Dems hope to win back levers of power in 2026 or 2028.

After the election, the pundits opined en masse about the need for Democratic Party reform, but it’s already gotten tiring to me. After a defeat, we’re all experts about what others need to do, pointing the fingers of blame at others and rarely looking at the man in the mirror (or woman, but I’m quoting the late, great King of Pop). Say what you will, but the Democratic Party is the only organization that’s been large and powerful enough to counter the worst excesses of the GOP, and so many of us have tangibly benefitted from not just opposition to the right wing, but also positive policies Democrats have been able to enact. All I will ask right now is to try giving a little extra thought to some of the most recent surface-level narrative criticisms, because a lot of them won’t stand up to hard scrutiny.

So, Harris wasn’t progressive enough? Come on – while studies and rankings vary, this linked post suggest Harris had the second-most liberal voting record among U.S. Senators in the 21st century. Trump actually tried using this to his advantage – clumsily and without caring about facts and numbers and all that stuff – while she didn’t get the acknowledgement she deserved for this from the farther left. We’d better admit Trump outplayed the left once in a while, and I hate saying this but the “far left or bust” voters are about to find out once again what the “bust” part means over the course of four more long years. Democrats can’t talk to working class people? I worked in the Colorado Senate and my Democratic boss spearheaded a two-year effort to help Coloradans who aren’t likely candidates for four-year universities to get trained in the trades. The Minnesota DFL stands for “Democratic-Farmer-Labor,” and Tim Walz was as comfortable talking to plain old everyday working people and audiences as any major-party candidate I’ve seen this century. And Joe Biden from Scranton delivered real success on working-class issues including domestic manufacturing, energy production, infrastructure, worker rights, child care for working families, and more.

And again, let’s look at the other side of the coin. Democrats aren’t the party of the working class, so people voted for Trump? The Trump who has a history of stiffing his contractors, had an anti-union record during his first term, inherited hundreds of millions from his father, owns gold-plated properties, dodged the draft, passed a gigantic tax break bill to enrich the wealthy, and picked venture capitalist JD Vance as his running mate?

Nonetheless, Democrats and nearly anyone left of center took a bad loss with this race – even if some of us might not get it until the predictable right-wing policies and actions start really rolling over us. And even though I’m not crazy about some of the anti-Dem narrative going around right now, Dems might have handed Trump the keys to the White House through actions or inaction during the first half of 2024 alone.

I think it’s obvious that the months of waffling over whether Biden should stay in the race gave the American people at bare minimum a serious lack of confidence, and voters want confidence. The timing of Biden’s withdrawal and the optics surrounding him were both quite bad, and Harris had very little time to build her base of electoral support. But on a positive note, I’ll maintain that final numbers weren’t actually that horrible. She still earned between 46% and 49% of the vote in the major swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. With votes still coming in from California and slower-counting states, Harris closed the national popular vote margin to about 2% by Nov. 13. Obviously this wasn’t good enough in 2024, but there’s a faint ray of light for those who still have optimism or imaginations that the right candidates or policy/messaging adjustments might make a difference in the 2026 mid-terms or in 2028.

I’m sour like a raw lemon right now, but I remember that Trump and the GOP have both been written off before. They kept doing what they do anyway, and it worked this time around. I’d still try to fight to re-take at least the House in 2026, and who knows which GOP candidate will run in 2028? You won’t get inspirational poetry from me on the state of the nation, but I know from years of history that things change, and they might change for the better if we don’t give up.

Congress Won’t Help Either

State Rep. Gabe Evans defeated incumbent Yadira Caraveo in Colorado’s 8th Congressional District.

Don’t look for good news in this section if you’re a Democrat. The Senate flipped to Republican control, sitting at 53-47 after the GOP picked up four seats in the 2024 election. This probably means any Trump nominee for Supreme Court Justice, federal court judges, or key departmental heads will sail through.

As of Nov. 13, there was still an outside chance that Democrats could win a majority in the House, but everything had to go right. The Associated Press reported that Republicans had the necessary 218 seats for the House majority, sitting at 219 to 213 on Nov. 21, but there was still counting left. As it stands, the likelihood is that Republicans will have their trifecta of the Presidency, House, and Senate – not to mention growing dominance in the courts. I don’t want to sound too defeatist, but this has to mean liberal/progressive bills have a roughly next-to-zero chance of being signed into law for at least the next two years. I don’t know how many single-issue “couldn’t vote for Harris” voters will be reading my opinion anyway, but Harris’ loss means there will be no Presidential veto power in place to block the worst conservative bills from becoming law. Expect to see a lot of them pass over at least the next two years.

One of the most highly contested House races was right here in Colorado, where the incumbent Congresswoman from the 8th Congressional District Yadira Caraveo was locked in a tight battle with Republican Gabe Evans. Caraveo conceded on Nov. 10, down by a few thousand votes with most of the counting done. That meant Colorado’s congressional delegation balance would be four Democrats and four Republicans, a tough result given that Colorado is a blue state. Four other Democratic incumbents won (Diana DeGette, Joe Neguse, Jason Crow, Brittany Pettersen), while three Republicans (Jeff Hurd, Lauren Boebert, Jeff Crank) will join Evans in the next Congress. There were no races in Colorado for the U.S. Senate this year.

Prop 131: Rough Year For Ranked-Choice Voting

In Colorado, Proposition 131 went down to defeat. It would have established an “all-party primary” in which the top four candidates would advance to the general election, and the general would be decided through Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). It would have been a gigantic change to Colorado’s election system for major candidate races, but voters weren’t completely convinced and it was down about 7.06 percentage points on Nov. 21.

Despite the significance of the policy proposal, the 131 race might be most remembered for the proponent committee raising and spending staggering amounts of money. The pro-131 campaign took in more than $18 million to blanket TV, social media, and text messaging with advertising, while the main opposition committee “only” took in a bit more than a half-million – and I never saw anything from this committee except a few posts on social media. Based on money alone, the results seemed like a true David-slays-Goliath upset. You need money to run a campaign, but to many voters the big money was a turn-off, especially since much of it came from either dark-money organizations or people associated with major corporations. It was a perfectly logical question to ask “what’s in it for them?,” and taking in a half-million from soon-to-be-Texas-based oil giant Chevron late in the campaign did not help with the optics. Why on earth would “big oil” care about Colorado’s election system?

Ranked Choice Voting is only one of many ways to run an election. Colorado voters at bare minimum said “let’s think it over first” in 2024.

I didn’t think 131 was great policy, either. I might have been one of the few to really question whether RCV is even the best alternative voting system out there – readers might want to check out others like Approval Voting or the STAR system before someone proposes something like 131 again. Proponents tried selling voters that 131 would reduce the power of major political parties, but 131 would have put in place an “all-party primary” that could’ve literally allowed multiple Democrats and/or Republicans to qualify for the general elections. Alaska has a system like 131, and its 2022 US Senate general election race had three Republicans and one Democrat – no unaffiliated or minor-party candidates whatsoever. Proponents tried selling voters that 131 would increase voter choice, but at least one minor party said it would probably mean they’d rarely qualify for the general election as one of the top four choices, and a fair number of modern elections actually have MORE than four candidates on the ballot already. Five candidates got more than 10,000 votes in Colorado’s 2022 U.S. Senate race, and another four got handfuls of votes, for a total of nine candidates.

Some of my favorite people are alternative voting hipsters, but I’m about to commit heresy here. I’m just not opposed to plain old plurality voting. To me, manufacturing a 50% result through digital systems like RCV is no more of a legitimate election than a candidate winning, say, 48%-43% in an election with multiple candidates. Decisive is decisive. RCV sets up a situation where voters’ second or third choices could influence the outcome, whether these choices were based on complete guesswork or on recommendations from partisan organizations. The RCV system ultimately reaches a magic 50% threshold, but I haven’t yet been sold that it’s automatically a higher-quality decision than just adding up the votes. We’re selecting leaders here, and my top desire for a leader is not “did they get the most second-choice votes from the third-place finisher?”

Meanwhile, proposals with similarities to 131 didn’t fare well nationwide in 2024, as ballot measures lost in at least Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and South Dakota. Also, Alaska has been using a system similar to 131 since the 2022 election, but there was a ballot measure proposed in 2024 to get rid of this system, which appears to have failed by just 664 votes. The committee opposing the Alaska repeal also raised staggering amounts of funding from out-of-state organizations, including the dark money organization that funded about a third of the Prop 131 campaign.

Mountain Lions: Methods and Morals

Probably the second-most publicized ballot measure in Colorado this year was Proposition 127, which would have banned what proponents called “trophy hunting” of mountain lions and trapping of bobcats throughout Colorado. There were exceptions in the ballot measure that would have in part allowed killing or wounding of big cats that threatened livestock or public safety. Prop 127 went down to defeat, trailing by about 9.5 percentage points as of Nov. 21.

I titled this section “Methods and Morals” because I believe people could easily have legitimate moral objections to hunting/trapping big cats primarily for their fur, but people also could have legitimately objected to the method proposed by running this specific initiative. I opposed Prop 127 for a few reasons, and took some criticism for it, but will try to explain how my opposition was rooted in methods.

I vote against a lot of initiatives, especially if I see the potential for unintended consequences or a failure to look at optional solutions. When I started looking into 127, I asked myself a bunch of rhetorical questions. Why not just propose reduced hunting limits for mountain lions, or even putting limits in place for bobcat trapping in the first place? Why not allow for well-considered regional wildlife population management policies complete with input from the public, instead of just bluntly banning hunting across Colorado?

Only the counties shaded in green gave Prop 127 majority approval.

Generally speaking, I believe the process of developing and running Prop 127 was not inclusive on the front end. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has regional mountain lion management plans in place, for example allowing them to control lion populations in areas where they threatened optimal deer populations. Colorado is still by and large a hunting state, especially in certain rural communities, and these peoples’ concerns were certainly not included in the initiative’s drafting. We heard the phrase “urban-rural divide” often during the campaign, as certain people believed Boulder/Denver interests were trying to push a major change on rural areas – and the 127 results as of Nov. 13 show quite clearly that Boulder and Denver counties gave the highest-percentage support to 127 while rural counties almost completely rejected this measure. Two other urban counties (Broomfield and Arapahoe) approved 127 by small majorities, while two rural counties (San Juan and San Miguel) broke for 127 although San Juan only had 521 total voters. In the end, 127 only enjoyed majority support in six out of Colorado’s 64 counties.

In fairness, the 127 campaign did get many Coloradans to consider wildlife management and hunting issues after the initiative was proposed. Unfortunately, even this fairly robust discussion didn’t really move most people into the realm of having “expertise” on a fairly complex issue. I saw a lot of what I called “dueling op-eds” on social media, where one person might post a piece from a person with scientific credentials claiming one thing, and the next person would post something from a person with scientific credentials saying the claims were untrue or exaggerated. A few people actually just posted my Election Guide write-up on 127 to try strengthening their position, while one person frequently posted Gary Garrison’s pro-127 opinion for the Daily Camera, as if either one of us should be seen as experts on the topic. Frankly, I thought my opinion was reasonably similar to what the Denver Post editorial board published in opposition to 127.

Nonetheless, I got no joy out of 127’s defeat, and I won’t get any joy out of anyone killing a big cat primarily for its fur. It was compelling for me to consider what it’s got to be like for a mountain lion to get chased by hounds, forced into climbing a tree, and then shot and killed while they’re defenseless in that tree. I just thought this specific ballot measure went too far, while inclusive public process might provide better and more comprehensive wildlife management policy than a blunt ballot measure with only yes or no as choices.

Methods Part II: Veterinary PAs By Ballot

Colorado voters passed Proposition 129 by about 5.5 percentage points, by that standard an unexceptional result. But it sort of boggles my mind what “we” just did at the ballot box. By passing 129, we established an entirely new classification for veterinary care (the Veterinary Professional Associate) that doesn’t currently exist anywhere! On top of that, it will enable Colorado State University to formulate and offer the master’s program that VPAs will need to practice, and require state administrative organizations to establish rules, regulations, and potential penalties in case problems arise.

I’m not bummed by the results and I hope the new programs will ultimately help deliver some of the promises the campaign made, notably addressing a shortage of readily available animal care by developing more people able to provide care. But established veterinary associations vehemently opposed 129, saying the training won’t be stringent enough, while others noted that corporate veterinary practice owners might be able to save money by hiring VPAs as opposed to more fully licensed veterinarians.

Man, do I hope this kind of ballot measure doesn’t become the norm. A whole bunch of people with zero or next to zero relevant experience in veterinary medicine just checked the little “yes” bubble on a ballot to approve an entirely new category of health care in the face of opposed individuals and organizations who have deep experience. Coloradans are often interested in experimentation, but in the sciences you’d typically do a lot more research before pulling the trigger like this. I can only say I hope it all works out without major problems.

Props 128 and 130: Do The Crime, You’re Doing More Time

The conservative organization Advance Colorado proposed a couple of “tough on crime” initiatives in Proposition 128 and Proposition 130, and both seem to have passed by solid margins. Prop 128 will require offenders convicted of specified violent crimes to serve at least 85% of their sentences, while 130 will require the state to spend $350 million on grants to law enforcement and/or death benefits for officers who die in the line of duty.

I opposed both ballot measures, primarily because they were basically unfunded mandates with no guarantees of improving public safety. Prop 130 did not identify where the $350 million should come from, which could mean the state will have to cut something possibly equally important to make ends meet. Prop 128 will probably eventually cost tens of millions annually to keep people incarcerated longer, when the parole board might have otherwise released some offenders slightly earlier than what 128 will require. I don’t think election discourse really proved one way or the other that offenders released after serving 85% of a sentence would be safer out in society than those released after 75%.

But whether anyone likes the 128 and 130 results or not, crime rates have been in the news and public discourse since at least the beginning of the pandemic, and that’s why I think the ballot measures won. Even if crime rates are generally declining in 2024, the higher rates of the past were fresh in memory, and perceptions can beat statistics in popular elections. Some might call this “fear-based” voting, and I get it, but public safety isn’t theoretical if you’ve seen or experienced crime or danger so I won’t blame the voters much for buying 128 or 130.

Sketchy Behavior on School Choice Campaign

Advance Colorado also supported Amendment 80, which would have added a section to the state Constitution in short saying students and parents have a “right” to alternative education like charter schools, private schools, or homeschooling. It actually got around 49% of the vote, but it needed 55% to pass so it fell short of amending the Constitution.

Public education supporters criticized the measure roundly, for its language being vague about what this “right” would entail, and also out of concern that it might have been a back-door attempt to test the legal waters for a private school voucher program.

Amendment 80 supporters sent out text messaging quoting U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper. Minor problem – Hick didn’t support Amendment 80!

But late in the campaign, people reported that they were getting unsolicited text messages in support of Amendment 80, with no identification as to who was sending the texts. People also received images with quotes from Kevin Vick, president of Colorado Education Association (CEA) and U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper that potentially made it look like they supported Amendment 80 – although whoever wrote the texts did not directly claim they supported the amendment. CEA very strongly opposed Amendment 80, and Hickenlooper condemned the texts. Gov. Jared Polis was also quoted in texts, although his position on Prop. 80 was “neutral.”

A committee called Colorado Dawn filed an expenditure report showing that they purchased text messaging capacity. There have been a couple connections between Colorado Dawn and Advance Colorado reported, including that Dawn shares an address with an Advance Colorado-related entity and that Advance’s Michael Fields is its treasurer. Two campaign finance complaints have been filed against Colorado Dawn with the Secretary of State, and the state has said that both complaints represent potential violations of campaign finance law. But both cases were still open as of Nov. 13.

Campaign finance, and its associated collection of committees and nonprofits with innocuous-sounding names like Colorado Dawn or Advance Colorado, is kind of a tricky thing to follow and most voters won’t do it at all. But misrepresenting Vick’s and Hick’s support for an initiative by using quotes and images could have certainly and unfairly influenced voters. This is the kind of stuff that gives politics a bad name, and I hope the responsible parties will face some consequences.

On The Right Side Of Rights

Colorado voters passed a couple important ballot measures on reproductive rights and same-sex marriages, but I’m including them fairly late in this write-up because the results were never very suspenseful.

Amendment 79, which will establish reproductive rights in the state Constitution, passed by about 62% – 38%. The measure will also remove a constitutional provision prohibiting public funding from being used to cover or help cover the cost of abortions. Reproductive rights were already protected in state statutes, but a constitutional amendment is more difficult to change than statutes.

Amendment J, which will remove a sentence from the state Constitution saying marriage is only between a man and a woman, passed by about 64% – 36%. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to get married back in 2015, but the sentence that Amendment J is removing has remained in the Constitution since then.

These are a few of the benefits of living in a blue state. Voters did the right thing, and even if the results were never in doubt, supporters can justify celebrating their passage.

Other Legislative Body Balances

Boulder’s Elliott Hood won the biggest race covered in this section. He took the statewide CU Regent seat, and CU’s of utmost importance in Boulder.

Electoral results in 2024 won’t change the political majorities of the state legislature, the CU Board of Regents, or the State Board of Education. Local candidates Judy Amabile (SD18), Junie Joseph (HD10), and Lesley Smith (HD49) all won their elections to the state legislature fairly easily. However, the overall political balances of some of these bodies will look a little different moving into 2025.

Democrats will hold large majorities in both the House and Senate for at least the next two years, but the new Democratic House majority might be a little smaller than it was in 2024, and there’s a possibility Dems won’t enjoy “supermajority” status going into next year.

Former Republican Rep. Dan Woog held a narrow lead of 121 votes as of Nov. 21 over Democratic challenger Jillaire McMillan in House District 19, which includes part of eastern Boulder County, and McMillan has since conceded. I can’t guess with great certainty why Woog won, but McMillan could have suffered from needing to introduce herself to District 19 voters too quickly because the Democratic incumbent Jennifer Parenti dropped out very late in the race. Incumbent Democrat Steph Vigil of House District 16 (Colorado Springs area) was behind Republican Rebecca Keltie by just seven votes as of Nov. 21 – triggering both a mandatory recount and a reminder that every vote counts!  Also, incumbent Democrat Mary Young appears to have been defeated in House District 50 (Greeley area), since she was about two percentage points behind Republican challenger Ryan Gonzales as of Nov. 13.

Democratic State Board of Education candidate Kathy Gebhardt won her 2nd Congressional District race with ease. However, it looks like the Board’s balance will change from its current 6-3 Democratic edge to 5-4, since incumbent Democrat Rhonda Solis of the 8th District was trailing Republican Yazmin Navarro by more than five percentage points as of Nov. 21. This means education advocates had better get ready for a battle in 2026, when the statewide (at-large) seat and majority control of the Board will be up for grabs.

Elliott Hood, a Democrat running for the at-large seat on the CU Board of Regents, won and was up by about four percentage points as of Nov. 21. There were only two other Regent races this year, and no seats flipped from red to blue or blue to red, so the Board’s balance will remain 6-3 Democratic for at least the next two years.

Local Elections: Dullsville, Man

We had a few local ballot measures and candidate races here in Boulder, but none of these races really woke me up very much. We might have dodged a bullet when two measures about repurposing the Boulder Municipal Airport got pulled from the ballot. These measures would have given overloaded voters a few more controversial and complex issues to barely master by the hard deadline of November 5. I’m being a little snarky here, but I’m also seriously thankful we didn’t have ten local measures on the ballot like Denver did this year.

I’ll just do Boulder local election bullet point recaps here:

  • Democratic Boulder County Commissioners Claire Levy (District 1) and Marta Loachamin (District 2) were both easily re-elected. The three-person Board of Commissioners will remain three Democrats for at least the next two years.
  • City of Boulder Ballot Question 2C passed by nearly 60% – 40%. As a result, City Council members will get large raises beginning after the 2026 election – up to about $51,000 per year for the Mayor and about $41,000 for the other eight Council members. I might have preferred a more incremental raise like what Longmont passed, but I can see how they should be paid better for putting in so many hours on the job.
  • City of Boulder Ballot Question 2D passed by about 57% – 43%. As a result, City Council can legally go into executive sessions (private meetings), but only under specified circumstances. This measure stirred up some trust issues among opponents, but 2D will allow Council to hold certain executive sessions in accordance with state law.
  • RTD Ballot Measure 7A passed by about 71% to 29%. It will allow RTD to keep revenue it collects above its TABOR cap, in turn giving them more money for key needs like infrastructure, providing service, maintenance, and even free or reduced rates for some users.
  • City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E was behind by 64 votes as of Nov. 21, although results were still unofficial. If it winds up passing, the City Charter would undergo a few amendments regarding city boards and commissions. If it fails, I’ll forget it was even proposed sometime in early December.
  • Two Boulder County candidates won uncontested elections – Michael Dougherty for District Attorney, and Jeffrey Martin for Coroner.

Conclusion: Hang In There

If you’re still reading and think this piece is long, wait until 2026 when we have races in Colorado for every constitutional office, a U.S. Senate campaign, a bunch of ballot measures, and for the first time in an even-year election a Boulder City Council race plus a race for Mayor of Boulder!

But my final message is not to give up. Things change. Stay healthy, stay alive, and you might pull through to enjoy better times. In the words of the immortal Trae Crowder – love y’all!