DENVER – Lawmakers are trying to circumvent the will of the people before they even vote, say backers of proposed ballot initiatives that would create a semiopen presidential preference primary if Colorado voters approve the measure in November.

Last week, sponsors of a bill that would create a presidential primary amended the legislation so that if voters were to approve a ballot initiative opening primaries to independent voters it would immediately be overridden by a new law.

“It shows that the parties actually have zero interest in letting independent voters participate in taxpayer-funded primary elections,” said Curtis Hubbard, campaign manager for the group Let Colorado Vote. “Attempting to change the outcome of an election before it has even taken place is a prime example of lawmakers being out of touch with a majority of Coloradans who think all voters should participate in elections.”

Hubbard and the sponsors of House Bill 1454 agree Colorado should hold a presidential preference primary election in 2020 instead of determining the favorite Republican and Democratic nominee through caucus meetings in early March.

Rep. Tim Dore, R-Elizabeth, said the semiopen primaries called for in the ballot initiatives are not financially realistic.

“We listen to the people and their voices, but we do it in the most fiscally cautious way,” Dore said, noting that there are over a million registered independent voters and a huge chunk of the ballots sent out would never be returned.

On Thursday night, Dore asked members of the House to amend his bill so it could supersede a ballot initiative that opens primaries to all voters.

Instead of receiving Republican and Democrat primary ballots, independent voters would receive a postcard in the mail allowing them to temporarily affiliate with one party and receive a ballot for only that election. After the election, the individuals would return to being independent on the voter rolls. Dore’s bill initially would have opened the primary process with the postcard prompted temporary affiliation regardless of the ballot initiatives outcome, but the amended version passed the House on second reading Thursday. A final House vote has been delayed twice because of a technical cleanup, Dore said, not any major policy disagreements.

But the bill does cut across party lines in an interesting way, and counting votes could be tough – particularly in the Republican-dominated Senate.

“Some people have been opposed to this but have made no secret of the fact that they would be opposed to a primary in any form,” said Daniel Cole, executive director of the El Paso County Republican Party.

“However, the argument that has resonated with their constituents is that the bill in the previous form would be an open primary. Now they’ve lost that argument.”

Cole, an early proponent of a presidential primary, said it’s clear the majority of voters want to do away with the caucus to select a nominee.

“Even 59 percent of the state delegates at the presidential convention supported a state presidential primary, it seems to me that most of the people who are opposed are in the state Legislature,” he said.

But not all of them.

John Wren loves Colorado’s caucus system. He said going back to holding a presidential preference primary instead of holding straw polls and electing delegates in neighborhood meetings would be the death knell for caucuses.

“What we know for sure is that when we do it that way, the caucus suffers to the point where it became really very sensible just to put it out of its misery,” Wren said.

Colorado held presidential primaries in 1992, 1996 and 2000. It was cut after that for budgetary reasons. It’s going to cost an estimated $5 million in 2020 to hold a special presidential primary before March 1 caucuses, and the ballot will include only nominees for each party.

Wren said that dual system is unworkable because caucus are attended by a small percentage of voters. When participation wanes, he said the logical next step is to do away with caucus and require people to petition onto the ballot. That is cost-prohibitive for some candidates.

“It’s the best way for the common person to serve in office,” Wren said.

“I’m not against the rich and powerful, but they should be on equal footing with everyone else. We got better local reps because of the caucus when it was healthy. It’s not been healthy ever since we tried this experiment with the presidential primary in 1992.”

The caucuses were rife with problems. Democrats had long lines that kept some from participating, and GOP voters felt disenfranchised because there was no preference poll held.

Colorado State Capitol