Douglas County voters will decide this November whether three people should keep running a county of more than 400,000 residents.
The "3 to 5" initiative qualified for the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot after the Douglas County Clerk and Recorder issued a Statement of Sufficiency on Aug. 12, 2026. It is a citizen initiative, put on the ballot by petition rather than referred by the commissioners themselves.
This guide lays out what each question does, what both sides say, and what happens next. We are not telling you how to vote.
It is two questions, not one
This is the part most coverage skips, and it matters when you are filling in the oval.
Question 1 — Should the board expand?
Whether the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners should increase from a three-member board to a five-member board.
Question 2 — If it expands, how are the five elected?
Voters choose between two methods:
- All five by district. Five commissioners, each residing in a district and elected only by the voters who live in that district.
- A three-plus-two hybrid. Three commissioners residing in districts and elected only by the voters of their district, plus two elected at large by the voters of the whole county.
Today, all three Douglas County commissioners must live in separate districts but are elected countywide — every voter votes on every seat.
How it qualified
Organizers submitted 23,040 signatures. The Clerk and Recorder verified 20,434 as valid, against a requirement of 15,087.
The campaign says the effort began in March and that more than 150 volunteers contributed over 2,000 hours, with volunteers gathering roughly 70 percent of the signatures. It says Republican, Democratic and unaffiliated voters all carried and signed petitions.
What supporters say
The campaign's central argument is one of scale: that a governing structure built for a much smaller county has not kept up.
Douglas County has grown from about 60,000 residents in 1990 to more than 400,000 today, and the campaign puts the county budget at over $650 million. With a three-member board, two votes carry every decision countywide.
"Thousands of residents took the time to learn about this proposal, ask thoughtful questions and make an informed decision to sign our petition."
— Angela Thomas, campaign spokesperson
"That's a testament to the investment of our volunteers and to the educated voters of Douglas County…"
— Kim Turnage, campaign co-lead
Supporters also argue that five commissioners would give residents a more direct line to the commissioner representing their part of the county, add oversight of county spending, and spread the load of what the campaign describes as more than 40 board and committee assignments across three people.
What opponents say
The Douglas County Republican Party opposes the measure. Its objection is about cost and premise: party officials have cited an estimated $500,000 in added annual costs for salaries and staffing that would come with two more elected officials, and have questioned what problem expansion would solve.
The sitting commissioners have also come out against it.
"With three commissioners, Douglas County has been able to end homelessness, stop wildfires and remain the healthiest and most prosperous county…"
— Commissioner Abe Laydon
Commissioner Kevin Van Winkle has said the executive branch should remain smaller, and warned that district-based funding could favor some areas of the county over others.
Context worth having
- C.R.S. § 30-10-306.5 permits counties with a population of 70,000 or more to increase the board from three to five members, either by a resolution the board refers to voters or by citizen petition. The statute sets the petition threshold at eight percent of the county's votes cast for all secretary of state candidates at the last general election, and requires the ballot question to designate at least two methods of election.
- A statewide route was tried first and failed. A bill from Rep. Bob Marshall, a Democrat, would have required counties over 70,000 to move to five-member boards. It did not pass.
- Five Colorado counties already run five-member boards: Adams, Arapahoe, El Paso, Pitkin and Weld. Denver and Broomfield are consolidated city-counties and governed differently.
- Boulder County has a similar measure on its own November ballot.
If it passes
Under C.R.S. § 30-10-306.5, if a majority of votes favor the increase, the board of county commissioners must pass a resolution raising the membership to five and providing for the additional commissioners to be elected at the next general election, following whichever method of election drew the most votes.
Then districts have to be drawn — and because both election methods on the ballot involve commissioners elected by the voters of a district rather than the whole county, that triggers a formal redistricting process under C.R.S. §§ 30-10-306.1 through 30-10-306.4.
A commission is mandatory; an independent one is not. The statute says the board "must designate a county commissioner district redistricting commission, and are encouraged to convene an independent county commissioner district redistricting commission." That distinction is the whole ballgame, and it is worth watching: the requirement to have a commission is binding, while independence is a recommendation.
The composition rules are likewise encouragement, not mandate. In appointing members to an independent commission, a board "is encouraged to" appoint people who "accurately reflect the political affiliations of the residents of the county, including unaffiliated residents," who reflect "the county's racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity," and to "avoid conflicts of interest based on partisan alignments."
What is binding once a plan is underway:
- The board "may not revise or alter county commissioner districts, beyond making de minimis revisions," except through a final plan adopted under § 30-10-306.4.
- Districts must be within five percent deviation between the most and least populous, and comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.
- Plans must preserve "whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions, such as cities and towns" as much as reasonably possible, and districts must be "as compact as is reasonably possible."
- The commission must "maximize the number of politically competitive districts" to the extent reasonably possible.
- No plan may be approved if it "has been drawn for the purpose of protecting one or more incumbent members, or one or more declared candidates… or any political party."
- At least three public hearings are required, each held in a different third of the county if held in person, and the commission cannot vote on a final plan until at least 72 hours after it is proposed or amended in a public meeting.
- The board must adopt a final plan no later than Sept. 30 of the redistricting year.
When you vote
Election Day: Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026.
Douglas County runs a coordinated election, so this measure will share a ballot with municipal questions — including two citizen-initiated annexation charter amendments in Castle Pines.
Read the actual ballot language when your ballot arrives. Both the campaign site and the opposing party site are advocacy, and neither is a substitute for the certified text.
Sources: Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Statement of Sufficiency, Aug. 12, 2026; 3to5dougco.com (campaign petition language and FAQ); Castle Rock News-Press; Complete Colorado; Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 30-10-306, 30-10-306.1, 30-10-306.2, 30-10-306.3, 30-10-306.4 and 30-10-306.5.