The solution doesn’t fit the problem

Vince Bzdek is right about one thing: Colorado’s caucus and assembly system is deeply flawed. But his proposed solution—allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in caucuses—doesn’t fix the problem. It expands it.

Colorado doesn’t need a bigger caucus system. It needs to move beyond it.

The caucus and assembly system was designed more than a century ago to elevate grassroots voices. Today, it often does the opposite. Participation is limited not by interest, but by logistics. Attending a caucus requires evening and weekend commitments, physical presence for extended periods of time, and familiarity with a complex process that varies by party and district. The result is predictable: low turnout, often dominated by the most ideologically motivated and procedurally savvy participants, rather than a broad cross-section of voters.

Expanding eligibility to unaffiliated voters does nothing to address these structural barriers. It simply invites more people into a system that remains inaccessible to most.

Colorado has already embraced a better model with presidential primaries, in which all voters in the electorate can easily and consistently choose among all declared candidates. Voting by mail, clear timelines, and standardized rules have made the presidential primary far more accessible and representative than caucuses ever were.

If inclusion is the goal, the primary system is already delivering it.

The deeper issue is how candidates reach the primary ballot. Under the current system, the caucus-and-assembly process allows a relatively small number of delegates to determine which candidates advance. In many cases, candidates are effectively shut out of the ballot by decisions made by far less than one-half of one percent of the state’s population. That structure concentrates power in a way that is fundamentally at odds with a modern, representative democracy.

A better approach is straightforward and has already been proven in most states: candidates qualify for the primary ballot by gathering petition signatures or paying a filing fee. Both options require candidates to demonstrate a baseline level of support or commitment, without routing access through an opaque, low-participation process. These pathways are clear, consistent, and accessible statewide.

Critics of reform often point to the community-building aspect of caucuses. That sense of connection is real—and worth preserving. But it does not require tying ballot access to a complex, quasi-election run by volunteers. Precinct and county parties can and should continue to meet regularly, but with a renewed focus: recruiting volunteers, training organizers, and engaging voters. Shifting that time and energy away from procedural hurdles and toward outreach would strengthen, not weaken, grassroots participation.

There is also concern that eliminating assemblies would disadvantage grassroots candidates who lack financial resources. That is a valid concern—but it is solvable through better policy, not by preserving a flawed system. Signature thresholds can be set at reasonable levels. Filing fees can be kept modest or paired with waiver options. If the goal is to ensure access, we can design rules that expand it—without relying on a process that limits participation to a narrow few.

Finally, it is worth acknowledging a risk that is often overlooked. Caucuses and assemblies are, in effect, elections. Yet they are administered not by trained election officials, but by volunteers who are asked to manage complex rules, disputes, and reporting requirements. That exposes those volunteers—and the parties themselves—to unnecessary legal and procedural risk. Colorado has professional election administrators in county clerks and the Secretary of State’s office for a reason. We should rely on those professionals to manage ballot access within a consistent, accountable framework.

Colorado has led the nation in modernizing elections to expand participation and build trust. Eliminating caucus and assembly as a pathway to the ballot is the logical next step.

Unaffiliated voters deserve meaningful participation in our democracy. But that participation should take place in systems that are open, accessible, and representative. Expanding caucuses preserves a structure that no longer serves those goals.

If we want a system that reflects Colorado today, we should not be asking how to bring more people into caucuses. We should be asking why caucuses still determine ballot access at all.

Jennifer Filipowski

Colorado Springs

Jail them or help them

Colorado Springs City Council has banned people from living in their cars. Many of these people have jobs but cannot afford the housing costs in Colorado Springs. Or, they are on Social Security but again, cannot afford the cost of being housed. These people are holding on to their one asset and squeaking by, barely. They’re keeping their family together at a brutal cost.

It’s easy to ban a situation; it takes strong council members to plough through until a solution is found. One solution is to involve churches. Love thy neighbors as yourself. No exceptions. Right?

Family Promise is an amazing concept that houses and feeds homeless families until they have the money to rent. Churches have always been involved with this program by volunteering shelter and food for a week at a time.How is this any different?

Finally, fine the car folks and eventually jail them or help them. Which will it be? Get to know some of these neighbors and their faces and stories will be indelibly etched on your heart.

Murlene Williams

Colorado Springs

In the real world

Out here in the real world, away from Washington, the administration is losing the narrative of the war with Iran. In today’s newspapers, Reuters rehearsed a litany of eleven (11) dates since February 28 that ”…President Trump and his top officials have offered shifting objectives and reasons for the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran….”

The Dems pick up these charges to publicly criticize that there is no principal reason for the action or the timing. The attack was spur of the moment. It has no end date or exit date. War is not a field game with carefully crafted rules, including fouls, points scored, and game time expired.

The administration officials need to repeat the single most important reason for the attack on Iran. Military and public morale depend on it.

First of all, the attack on Iran was planned over many months. Every detail that could be anticipated was considered. Then, it was war-gamed over and over to plan responses to every action that Iran may take. Our leaders watched Iran for weeks/months(?) and chose a date that was strategically correct for USA. The timing was our strategic choice, not theirs!

The primary reason needs to be reiterated. The date and reasons for the attack were planned because the timing was imminent for Iran to have a nuclear weapon capable of reaching Israel and soon thereafter reaching the USA. Whether imminent means 6 days or 6 weeks or 6 months is immaterial.
The timing was our strategic choice, not theirs!

To the nay-sayers, Democrats and others: Would you rather the USA waited for another Pearl Harbor or another 9/11 with 30,000 American citizens in New York killed by a nuclear weapon? This had been the dream of Iranian leaders for decades, and they had been preparing for it.

Bring the narrative back to the actual why-and-how we planned, established approximate timing, executed of the attack on our timing, and the follow-up.

Arthur B. Cyphers

Colorado Springs