|
Denver Post
Should Colorado preserve the political caucus
Sunday, September 29, 2002 - Most of us take for granted that political participation is a natural right of citizenship. But Colorado voters will lose a lot of their clout in choosing candidates if Amendment 29 is enacted.
The main idea of this perverse proposal is to forbid voters from choosing delegates to district, county and state assemblies, where candidates are designated to appear on each party's primary election ballot. At present, delegates are selected in neighborhood caucuses which are, in essence, miniature town meetings. These gatherings take place in about 3,000 local neighborhoods in the spring of each general election year. Each meeting usually attracts a handful to a few dozen voters. The caucuses are held in homes, schools, churches, fire stations and union halls. Any registered Republican is permitted to attend a local GOP meeting; any registered Democrat can go the Democratic meeting. No invitation or permission is required. As a practical matter, "independent" or "unaffiliated" voters are also welcome to attend, but they cannot vote unless they have previously declared their party affiliation. Although many Colorado voters aren't interested in attending these caucus meetings, tens of thousands of others are. They welcome the chance to meet their neighbors and express their opinions on current political issues. They also value the opportunity to help select candidates by choosing delegates to the various assemblies where candidates are designated to run in party primary elections. The backers of Amendment 29 claim this system is outmoded. They think choosing candidates for the primary election ballot by petition is a better system. Well, they're entitled to their opinion. In fact, petitioning is already permitted. Quite a few candidates have successfully petitioned onto the primary election ballot. But with both methods available, the vast majority of candidates prefer to seek their party's nomination at assemblies where delegates, selected by local voters at their neighborhood caucus, designate candidates. Any candidate receiving at least 30 percent of assembly votes will appear on the primary election ballot. Some like one approach; some the other. So why should we eliminate either? Frankly, the arguments advanced by backers of Amendment 29 are pretty lame. They say not many people attend precinct caucuses, so they ought to be abolished. But does this really make sense? Political participation is voluntary. The opportunity to take part is valuable even for those who may not choose to do so. It's like freedom of speech: It's precious to all, even to those who rarely speak out. And the right to vote is precious, too, even for those who rarely go to the polls. Backers say caucuses and assemblies are only for political insiders. But this is not true. Anybody can go to a caucus and make their voice heard. And anybody who doesn't like the process is free to go the petition route. No wonder so many Republican and Democratic activists are working together to defeat Amendment 29. It ought to be rejected. Bill Armstrong is a Colorado businessman who has served in the Colorado General Assembly, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.
|