Secretary of State implements instant runoff voting framework thirteen months after 56 percent of Coloradans voted against statewide ranked choice
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold adopted permanent amendments to state election rules on December 29, 2025, establishing operational frameworks for instant runoff voting in local and multi-county elections. Deputy Secretary Andrew J. Kline signed the Notice of Permanent Adoption for amendments to Election Rules 8 CCR 1505-1. The rules take effect twenty days after publication in the Colorado Register.
Voters rejected statewide ranked choice voting on November 5, 2024, by 56 to 44 percent. Proposition 131 would have established top-four primaries and ranked choice voting for federal and statewide offices. Both major political parties opposed it, as did U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, U.S. Representatives Diana DeGette and Lauren Boebert. The measure drew nineteen million dollars in support, including six million from former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry, one million each from Walmart heir Ben Walton and Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, and five hundred thousand from Chevron. Opposition groups spent $292,000 combined.
Griswold adopted these rules with full knowledge of that rejection.
The amendments implement House Bill 21-1071, passed in 2021, and Senate Bill 24-210, passed in spring 2024. These bills authorized local governments to adopt ranked voting methods for their own elections. Senate Bill 24-210 blocks statewide ranked choice implementation until twelve Colorado municipalities in counties of specific size and demographic makeup conduct ranked choice elections first. This requirement functions as a conditional roadblock—statewide ranked choice voting cannot be used for state or federal offices until these local pilots occur. Voters rejected statewide ranked choice six months after the legislature authorized these local pathways.
Section 1-7-118(5), C.R.S., required the Secretary of State to promulgate rules by January 1, 2026, concerning “tabulation, reporting, and canvassing of results for a coordinated election using instant runoff voting conducted by multiple counties.” The December 5, 2025 rulemaking hearing proceeded under the State Administrative Procedure Act.
The rules establish the runoff tabulation entity as the county clerk for single-county contests or the controlling county for multi-county contests. This entity conducts round-by-round tabulation. Official abstracts must include round-by-round results for single-county contests and candidate rankings for multi-county contests. Canvass boards in controlling counties certify winners for multi-county contests.
Rule 21.12 requires third-party software certification for multi-county tabulation. The Department of State submits software components to federally certified voting system test laboratories. Certified software must be installed only on computer workstations with wireless connectivity disabled. The Department maintains escrowed copies. No requirement exists for independent vendor audits beyond initial test laboratory review. No ongoing security assessments are mandated after certification.
Data transfers use SHA-256 hashing. County clerks must transmit ranking data to the runoff tabulation entity at least once on election night and once daily during tabulation. Hash values must be emailed separately from data files. The runoff tabulation entity verifies hash values match before using data. The rules specify no remediation procedures if hash values fail to match.
Recounts trigger when the smallest margin is 0.5 percent or less of votes cast, calculated as the minimum votes needed to change the round-by-round count and alter the final winner.
Logic and accuracy tests for multi-county contests require the runoff tabulation entity to provide marking patterns for test decks of twenty-five ballots per county. Each county scans test decks and provides cast vote records to the tabulation entity. At a public meeting, the entity uses certified software to tabulate contests and confirms results match known test deck outcomes.
Instant runoff voting contests are exempt from standard election night reporting under Rule 11.9. Runoff tabulation entities must report results at least once on election night and once daily during tabulation. Counties not serving as the tabulation entity may report only first-choice ranks rather than full rankings. This delays complete result disclosure.
The rules incorporate instant runoff voting into state risk-limiting audits if elections are covered by section 1-7-515, C.R.S. Jurisdictions using ranked voting methods other than instant runoff must conduct independent audits before canvass boards certify results.
Automatic voter registration systems created identical errors in Colorado and California. In October 2022, the Colorado Secretary of State’s office mailed 31,000 postcards to non-citizens encouraging voter registration. Formatting differences between Electronic Registration Information Center databases and Colorado Department of Revenue driver’s license lists prevented the system from flagging ineligible recipients. Colorado Public Radio reported the incident October 7, 2022. Griswold’s office acknowledged the error.
California’s Department of Motor Vehicles admitted in October 2018 that 1,500 people, including non-citizens, were incorrectly registered between April and September 2018. Secretary of State Alex Padilla confirmed the error resulted from processing mistakes when customers changed voter eligibility responses on license applications. ABC News and the San Francisco Chronicle reported the admissions October 8-9, 2018. Both states used automatic DMV registration systems. Both experienced database formatting failures. Both registered non-citizens.
Seven states rejected ranked choice voting in November 2024: Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota.
Multi-county coordination creates multiple points for data transmission and hash verification errors. Daily transfers from each participating county depend on proper SHA-256 implementation and separate hash transmission. Small counties with limited election staff face particular implementation challenges. Software certification allows the Department of State to submit third-party components separately from the voting systems using them. Voting system vendors bear no responsibility for integrating third-party software or covering certification costs. Integrated system performance may differ from component-level certification results.
Air-gapped workstation requirements provide security but complicate multi-county data aggregation. Runoff tabulation entities must transfer ranking data files to isolated workstations, verify hash values, and conduct tabulation without network connectivity manually. Rule 26.5.5 requires designated election officials to randomly determine tie-breaker elimination order for all candidates before the election and include it in certification. In tied rounds, the tabulation entity must eliminate candidates according to this pre-determined order. This removes genuine randomness from tie resolution.
San Francisco reports ballot exhaustion rates between ten and fifteen percent. Ballot exhaustion occurs when all candidates a voter ranked have been eliminated and the ballot no longer counts in subsequent rounds. The rules establish no maximum acceptable exhaustion rates and require no exhaustion statistics reporting.
Implementation costs remain undisclosed. The rules require certified third-party software, additional logic and accuracy testing, expanded audit procedures, and daily data transmission infrastructure. The Statement of Basis, Purpose, and Specific Statutory Authority addresses no implementation costs or funding sources.
Griswold’s office resisted Department of Justice requests for voter data in December 2025. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division contacted the Secretary of State’s office December 1, 2025, requesting unredacted voter data including full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, and complete driver’s license numbers or last four Social Security digits. Griswold declined December 2, 2025. The DOJ filed a lawsuit December 11, 2025, in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado seeking to compel release. Griswold issued press releases December 3 and December 11 confirming these events and stating she would not provide the information. This mirrors California Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s 2017 refusal to provide detailed voter data to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, citing privacy concerns. The commission disbanded January 2018.
The rules create infrastructure enabling local jurisdictions to adopt instant runoff voting without county-wide or statewide voter approval. California followed this incremental model. San Francisco adopted ranked choice voting in 2002 through a local ballot measure. Oakland adopted it in 2006 through a local ballot measure. Both implementations occurred without statewide approval and preceded any statewide consideration of ranked choice voting.
Griswold’s rules establish the operational framework for this local expansion pathway. Senate Bill 24-210’s requirement that twelve municipalities conduct ranked choice elections before any statewide implementation creates a testing ground for gradual adoption. Local jurisdictions can now use the infrastructure these rules provide to implement instant runoff voting through local decisions alone.
Griswold adopted rules that enable expansion of a system Coloradans rejected for statewide use. She directed staff to develop the rules. She scheduled the December 5 hearing. Andrew Kline signed the final adoption on her behalf. Counties must now prepare for potential instant runoff voting contests as local jurisdictions consider adoption. County clerks must evaluate software, budget for certification, train staff, and prepare for multi-county coordination without statewide voter mandate.
The 2026 Colorado Secretary of State election provides opportunity for voters to assess these decisions. Griswold’s term expires January 2027.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 