Voters Expand Douglas County Board, But Conflicting Measures Set Stage for Legal Fight
While the move to add two commissioners passed, a separate measure favoring at-large elections also won, creating ambiguity that officials expect to resolve in court.
By Ariana Flores ·
Douglas County residents approved a larger board of commissioners on Tuesday, but the results of three separate ballot measures created an immediate constitutional puzzle.
Voters cast ballots on November 3 to increase the number of commissioners from three to five. Proposition 200, which authorized the expansion, was tracking at 53% as of 9 p.m., according to the Secretary of State’s website. Simultaneously, Proposition 201 asked voters to choose between five district-based seats or a mix of three district and two at-large seats. That measure was leaning toward five district commissioners with 58% support.
The complication arose from Measure 1A, a proposal added by the current board of commissioners. This measure asked if all five new positions should be elected at-large rather than by district. As of the same time, 1A was passing with 72% of the vote. Angela Thomas, who led the grassroots campaign that placed the expansion on the ballot, noted the confusion caused by the overlapping questions. “We will likely be moving back to court to get a reading on this. We really don’t know,” she said. “It’s so unclear as to how those three measures work together.”
The conflict stems from the timeline of the petition process. The “3 to 5” initiative gathered over 20,000 signatures earlier in the year to push for district-based representation. Proponents argued that at-large elections favor party-backed candidates with greater fundraising resources. On August 28, the board included financial estimates in the ballot materials, claiming the expansion would cost between $760,000 and $1,300,000 annually. Thomas disputed this figure, stating the actual cost would be closer to $480,000 from the general fund. Three days later, on August 31, the board added Measure 1A to the ballot. Critics argued this move undermined the original intent of the petition by offering a path to return to at-large elections.
State Rep. Bob Marshall filed a lawsuit on September 7, challenging the board’s decision to include the added measure and its specific wording. He argued the board cited a nonexistent state law to justify a secret meeting where the questions were reshaped. Although a judge allowed 1A to remain on the ballot, Marshall is already coordinating with attorneys to interpret the results. “We’re going to be spending a lot of ridiculous money and time on legal machinations,” Marshall said. “Just the fact that they got it on the ballot, they won in confusing everyone.”
Commissioner George Teal stated that the final structure will depend on which option receives the most votes, suggesting that if the five-district option outpolls the at-large measure, it will prevail. Marshall countered that this interpretation violates state statute. Thomas expressed pride in the passage of the expansion measure despite the procedural hurdles. “A lot of people told me this was impossible,” she said. “If you tell me something is impossible, I’m going to try to make it work in any way I can. We made this possible.”
The county board will now determine the next steps based on the certified vote totals and any subsequent court rulings regarding the validity of the at-large option.
