Here are the current three commissioner district boundaries and populations. Passing 200 plus one of the choices in 201 would split the county into five districts.

This section will cover two Boulder County ballot measures because they’re basically tied together. At its simplest, Question 200 would ask Boulder County voters to approve adding two new County Commissioner positions, going from 3 commissioners to 5.

Then, a separate but related ballot measure, Question 201, would ask voters to choose one of two ways to elect all commissioners.

  • Choice a) would split the county into 5 geographic districts, and only voters in a given district could vote for their district’s commissioner
  • Choice b), in which voters from each of our current 3 districts would elect one commissioner each, while voters from the entire county would elect the other 2 at-large.

If voters pass 200 and choice a) in 201, redistricting into 5 districts would need to be done by July 1, 2027.

If more than 50% of voters vote “yes” on 200, the choice getting the most votes in 201 would be the method of electing the 5 commissioners.

Why Increase the Size of the Board?

Supporters with the proponent organization Big Tent Boulder County gathered around 18,000 petition signatures to get 200 / 201 on the ballot, and they’ve made a number of points as to why they support this move.

First, they believe it is a lot of work for three commissioners to manage a county of roughly 330,000 people with about a $750 million annual budget. Boulder County is currently the ninth-largest county by population in Colorado, per August 2026 numbers from Wikipedia (see chart at right). Four of the counties larger than Boulder already have five commissioners (bold-faced), but Denver is a combined city and county so it doesn’t use commissioners. Douglas County, at sixth-largest, is also running a ballot measure in 2026 to move from three to five commissioners.

Secondly, supporters believe this move would increase various types of representation. With three commissioners, it equals about one commissioner per 110,000 people, whereas five would reduce that to about 65,000 people. While it isn’t certain which of the two choices in 201 would prevail if 200 passes, the choice of creating five new districts could allow more commissioners from smaller cities, or even unincorporated areas, to serve. Right now, the three commissioners are from Boulder, Longmont, and Louisville.

Third, supporters say having only three commissioners sets up situations where 2-1 votes are possible, but having five commissioners would dilute the power of one swing vote. They say having five commissioners would also add voices to discussions and spread out the workload. Also, having five commissioners instead of three could help the board reach quorum in case a commissioner or two are absent.

Again, this part depends on which choice voters make on 201, but running for commissioner could be easier if people running under choice a) are only campaigning with about 65,000 people, as opposed to 330,000. This could help open the process to more people if they wouldn’t be overwhelmed by a huge and possibly expensive campaign.

The Boulder Reporting Lab has run guest opinions from both supporters and opponents of 200 / 201. In March 2026, BRL ran a piece from Big Tent supporters Tina Mueh and Masyn Moyer, with a few top points below:

  • Under both 201 choices, voters in the districts would decide district representatives, “elevating the voice and value of voters within every district.”
  • A larger Board of Commissioners could split the volume of work among more members, potentially enabling more depth of involvement or greater constituent service.
  • To complaints about the cost of adding commissioners, the writers said it would only equal about 0.06% of the county’s current budget.

One of the three current commissioners, Ashley Stolzmann of Louisville, is listed among supporters of 200 / 201.

A Few Top Points About 200 / 201 and Boulder County Government

  • Currently, the 3 commissioners are elected “at-large,” meaning all county voters can vote on all commissioner races. However, commissioners must run in the district in which they reside.
  • Commissioners cast binding votes and oversee departments that could affect local issues including transportation, open space, behavioral health, health and human services, public safety, environment, housing, and more.
  • Choice b) in 201 would not change the existing districts, but the county would still do redistricting every 10 years after the U.S. Census to make sure districts are about equal in population.
  • The Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 26-1038 this year, which sets statutory language for how five districts would be formed. In part, there would need to be an independent redistricting commission, with public input and staff support.
  • Currently, commissioners earn $151,000 annually plus benefits. The General Assembly can change salary charts periodically for a wide range of public employees, including commissioners.

Why Keep the Board at Three Members?

Opponents to 200 / 201 have launched a website called Vote No On 5 Commissioners, and like the proponents they have a list of points defending their opposition.

First, the opponents note that two new commissioners would increase costs to the county to the tune of around $500,000 per year. (The Big Tent proponents use the figure of about $400,000 per year). But the opponents quoted Daily Camera reporting saying the county cut 181 employment positions last year, and that the county will “need to identify $30 million to $40 million in savings over the next three years.” ($400,000 for three years is $1.2 million, $500,000 for three years is $1.5 million, just for perspective).

Second, while proponents have claimed that more commissioners might increase diversity on the board (a January Boulder Reporting Lab story said supporters claimed it would “amplify diverse voices”), Marta Loachamin is the first Latina to be elected to the board and she does not believe 200 / 201 would guarantee diversity. She noted that moving to five distinct districts might “fracture existing communities of color” across districts, diluting their voting power, and the other choice would create countywide “at-large” commissioners who might dilute the vote of any non-white commissioners on the board. Current Boulder City Council member Nicole Speer added that 200 / 201 could actually decrease diversity on the board.

Two of the three current commissioners, Claire Levy and Loachamin, are listed as opponents to 200 / 201.

The Boulder Reporting Lab has run guest opinions from both supporters and opponents of 200 / 201. In February 2026, the two current commissioners listed above, along with former commissioners Deb Gardner, Will Toor, and Elise Jones submitted a piece to BRL listing eight main reasons for opposition.

For a few of the top points from this piece:

  • Having commissioners elected only by district could lead to “parochial” decision-making if commissioner try to prioritize their district with less concern about the entire county
  • Boulder and Longmont are currently the Boulder County cities with the largest population. The writers said the option with five separate districts would result in two districts each including populations from Boulder and Longmont. The other option would possibly create one district commissioner from both Boulder and Longmont, but also a possible advantage in the two at-large seats as well.
  • The writers argued that “bigger isn’t better” in decision-making, and more commissioners might make for more complexity in policy decisions.

Levy was paraphrased in a recent Hometown Weekly story saying: “She said the regular meetings, where the commissioners vote on policy and other issues from the dais, are a relatively small part of the job. Instead, she said, 90% of the job is making the administrative executive decisions required to run the county, something she believes would be more difficult if another two people were added.”

Interested readers can visit this Commissioners’ webpage to check up on Levy’s claim, as it includes tons and tons of archived hearing video, agendas, and transcripts.

Proponent website: https://www.bigtentboco.org/

Opponent website: https://www.noon5commissioners.com/

Richard’s Take

I’ll be voting NO on 200, primarily because I don’t favor either of the two choices for how to elect the new commissioners. I’m not sure how I’ll vote on the second measure, Question 201, because I don’t support either choice. I might leave both choices blank, which is something I almost never do.

I don’t necessarily hate the idea of having five commissioners in and of itself. But below are some of the reasons I won’t be voting in favor of what’s on the ballot in 2026.

Imbalance Risk with 3 Districts and 2 At-Large: It’s a big problem for me that electing Commissioners under 201’s “choice b” would make it possible for three out of five Commissioners (60% of the Board) to be from the same city. Boulder and Longmont are the county’s two largest cities, which means both that the district winners in districts 1 and 2 might logically be from Boulder and Longmont, but it also seems very possible that an at-large election might favor candidates from those two cities. Also, it’s possible that Boulder and Longmont might each wind up with 2 commissioners, or 40% of a new Board.

I would love to hope that discerning Boulder County voters would try to avoid putting these types of imbalances in place, but the way this choice is structured makes it a distinct possibility with no legal protection against the imbalances. This might be the top deal-breaker in 200 / 201 for me.

Loss of Personal Voting Power: I’m not a super-selfish person, but I do not like the idea of losing voting power, not one bit. If the option of having five commissioners all elected only by voters in the given district wins, county voters would go from today’s ability to vote in 100% of Commissioner races to 20%. Or, the other option would reduce our voting power from 100% of Commissioner races to 60%. Maybe not everyone cares about this, but I do.

It should also be noted that splitting the county into 5 districts would require splitting both Longmont and Boulder, because they both have populations of above 100,000, and splitting the county 5 ways would require districts of about 65,000. In theory, this could again create possibilities for Longmont or Boulder to get 2 of the 5 commissioners, or 40% of the Board.

But it’s my county, as much as anybody else. Any tax dollar anyone contributes to the county can be used anywhere in the county, unless for some reason the tax is targeted to one facility or area. It’s not like I pay property taxes in District 1 and expect the revenue only to be used in District 1. The County has a common budget, with common public lands, common transportation systems, a common environment, and common offices for services.

It’s easy to criticize the dreaded “at-large” system, but it makes sense to me that we all get to have a say on all of the executives who will manage our common issues. As a voter, I’ve always looked at commissioner candidate qualifications for the job of running Boulder County and other personal attributes, not whether a candidate is good for the City of Boulder or commissioner District 1, even though I live here.

And I should note that the Douglas County Commissioners just referred a measure to their ballot that would allow for all five commissioners to be elected at-large. Having this option in Boulder County might have changed my position on 200 / 201.

Say Something Nice: I don’t want to trash this effort, I just disagree with it. But I can understand how going to five commissioners could increase participation, community input, and perhaps interest in elections. I was at a recent meeting where Stolzmann spoke about how the board couldn’t do any business at that exact time because the other two members were traveling. The two new commissioners could be outstanding members who contribute to the wellbeing of the county. But I still disagree with 200 / 201.

Misunderstandings About the County and the Commission

I feel a lot of the discussion I’ve seen and heard about this issue include some misunderstandings about the role of county commissioners, especially relative to other types of elected officials. I really don’t mean this in a bad way, but here are a few of my top points.

Commissioners are Executives: Don’t trust me here – take this generic definition of a county commission from Wikipedia and remember it for a minute: “Each commission acts as the executive of the local government, levying local taxes, administering county governmental services such as correctional institutions, courts, public health oversight, property registration, building code enforcement, and public works.”

What Commissioners are Not: Commissioners are not City or Town Councils, and they just don’t function the same. In most Colorado cities, Councils are the part-time elected officials who pass ordinances and help set a city’s direction, but in most cases there’s a Council-City Manager structure where the City Manager is more than full-time, pretty well-paid, and directly oversees most of the city staff. Much is being made of how there are more council members in municipalities than commissioners in the county, but that’s very apples-to-oranges because the jobs and the responsibilities are quite different.

Commissioners are also not state representatives. State reps have power, but it’s limited because each rep is only 1 member out of 65 in the House, and bills they support can be defeated in the Senate or vetoed by the Governor. I expect to get yelled at for this, but while commissioners are currently on ballots as being residents of a district, “representation” of that district is not their primary role. They’re executives, and I for one don’t want them thinking they have to govern based on the interest of a district (even mine). As I noted above, county lands and county services are common goods with typically common sources of funding, not district goods with district funding.

Commissioners Don’t Manage Cities or Towns: That’s what City and Town Councils are for. A good commissioner should listen to input from municipal governments, but the Board’s responsibility is to oversee County lands or facilities. There can be County holdings inside of city limits, or City holdings in unincorporated areas (like city-owned Open Space), and joint governing efforts like the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, but most jurisdictional powers for municipalities and counties are largely well-defined and separate.

District 1 is in purple, District 3 in green.

Commissioner District Boundaries Aren’t Like City Limits: While municipalities actually have hard boundaries (“city limits”), some of the role of a County Commissioner is to manage things that don’t lie neatly within one given district – for example, county roads, open lands, and riparian zones. Rivers, roads, and forests don’t care what district they’re in.

I’m from District 1, but if I go hiking at Heil Valley Ranch, it’s in District 2. Never once have I thought “I need to contact Marta Loachamin only” if I had comments about my excursion. I believe it would be appropriate to contact any commissioner or all of the commissioners. And if this type of issue comes to a Commissioners’ vote or other type of decision, all three Commissioners (OK, maybe 2) would be voting or deciding.

The boundaries for the 3 districts we currently have aren’t really based on anything except an attempt to split the population evenly. Look at the current county district map at right, and focus on the “border” between Districts 1 and 3 in east Boulder. You’ll see that some of the areas in District 3 are actually within Boulder city limits, with other unincorporated parts in District 1 just across the line. So, why on Earth shouldn’t the Commissioner from District 1 take the same amount of interest in this area as the Commissioner from District 3?

Territorial Behavior Possible: Some people have criticized the option in 201 of having five separate districts with separate elections because it might lead to Commissioners acting “territorially,” or protecting the interests of a district above the interests of the county as a whole. I’d love to hope that’s overblown, but hope doesn’t count, and let’s be clear – it’s part of how state representatives operate.

More Money: I’m listing this last intentionally because it’s really not my biggest issue. Moving to five Commissioners would indeed cost maybe $400,000-ish extra per year, but in “government-speak” that’s not much in context of a $750 million annual county budget. Still, 200 / 201 has no source of new revenue, so it would be new spending into eternity.

I understand I can’t really say “just take this money and spend it on X,” but I could easily imagine how $400,000 per year could be used on local food banks, infrastructure maintenance, housing/shelter supply or assistance, or even just to buy a massive amount of solar panels. I’d honestly prefer any of these items to two new executives, in case readers were wondering.