Douglas County voters will decide this November whether to expand the Board of County Commissioners from three members to five.
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.
Updated Aug. 31, 2026. Two things changed after this guide first published. The commissioners rewrote the ballot title on Aug. 28, and the proponents filed a formal protest of that rewrite on Aug. 31 — see below. Separately, we have corrected our description of how redistricting would work. This guide originally reported that an independent redistricting commission was encouraged but not required. That was wrong: House Bill 26-1038 took effect Aug. 12, 2026 and requires one. We checked the statute against the 2024 published edition of Title 30, which does not include 2026 session changes. Thanks to reader Kim Turnage, a volunteer with the 3 to 5 campaign, for flagging it.
Updated Sept. 6, 2026. The board has now ruled on both protests, and both measures are locked for the Nov. 3 ballot. On Sept. 3 the commissioners unanimously denied the proponents' protest of the rewritten ballot title — the cost preamble stays. On Sept. 4 the board voted 2-1 to deny a separate challenge that sought to remove the board's own referred measure from the ballot. Details in the protest section below and the new referred-measure section.
Updated Oct. 9, 2026. The district court denied Marshall's motion for reconsideration, according to a Sept. 17 Douglas County news release. The county is the defendant in the case. All three questions are on the Nov. 3 ballot as the board set them. Details below.
Updated Sept. 16, 2026. The fight moved to district court — and, so far, the ballot is unchanged. Rep. Bob Marshall sued the county on Sept. 7; on Friday, Sept. 11, Judge Victoria Klingensmith denied his request for a preliminary injunction without ruling on the merits of either claim. Marshall filed an emergency motion for reconsideration on Sept. 13, which the court later denied, and the county clerk has told the court the ballots — all 299 ballot types — are already at the printer and can no longer be changed. The first ballots — military and overseas — mail Sept. 18; everyone else's start going out Oct. 2. Details below.
It is two questions, not one
Now that the county has posted its composite sample ballot, the numbers are set: the citizen-led expansion is Ballot Question 200, its election-method companion is Ballot Question 201, and the board's own referred question appears separately as Ballot Question 1A.
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.
The ballot title was rewritten
On Friday, Aug. 28, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the ballot title for the measure — and it is not the question that appeared on the petition. The board added a 22-word preamble in front of it. The title it adopted reads:
"At an ongoing estimated annual expense of $760,000 to $1,300,000 from County revenue that supports public safety, transportation, and essential county services, shall the membership of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners be increased from a three-member board to a five-member board?"
On Monday, Aug. 31, the proponents filed a formal protest with the board under the board's own 72-hour rule, asking it to strike the preamble and put the question on the ballot as the statute frames it. Their protest argues that the county's own Aug. 28 presentation put the cost of two additional commissioners — salary, benefits and operating expense, with no new staff — at $481,708 a year, and that the $760,000-to-$1.3 million range assumes two to six new county employees the measure does not create. It also argues the board relied on a provision that applies to tax-cut measures and to the state Title Board rather than to county commissioners, and notes that the board adopted a rule making itself the only forum for protests of ballot titles it sets, 13 days after this measure qualified.
"We are not asking for anything special. We are asking for the question the voters asked for to be the question that appears on the ballot."
— Angela Thomas, campaign spokesperson
The board ruled on Thursday, Sept. 3, at an administrative hearing it held under its own protest rule: it unanimously denied the challenge, concluding — in the county's words — that the challengers "failed to demonstrate that the ballot title does not meet the requirements" of state law. The cost preamble stays on the ballot. The board's stated reasoning, per the county's summary and Colorado Politics' reporting from the hearing: omitting cost information would itself mislead voters into thinking the expansion is free, the $760,000-to-$1.3 million range is a realistic representation of what the county expects, and title boards have broad discretion in setting language. Colorado Politics reported multiple audience members were escorted out by police for disruptions — and lead proponent Angela Thomas said afterward the campaign's focus now turns to the November election. County staff told the hearing this is the first citizen-initiated ballot measure in Douglas County in 32 years.
The board's own question {#the-boards-own-question}
There is now a third question on your ballot about the same subject. At a special meeting on Monday, Aug. 31, the commissioners voted unanimously to refer their own measure to the ballot (Resolution R-026-062). Its full ballot text:
In the event the Douglas County Board of Commissioners is increased to five members, shall all registered Douglas County voters continue to elect all County Commissioners?
In plain terms: if the expansion passes, this asks whether all five commissioners should keep being elected countywide — a third composition option alongside the initiative's own two (three by district plus two at-large, or all five by district). The county says the two measures "will appear separately on the Nov. 3 ballot."
This referred measure was challenged too: a protest heard Friday, Sept. 4 sought to remove it from the ballot entirely. The board voted 2-1 to deny that challenge, keeping its measure on the ballot. Recordings of both hearings and the underlying documents are on the county's 3-to-5 transparency page.
The court fight {#the-court-fight}
With the board's own protest process exhausted, the dispute went to Douglas County District Court.
On Monday, Sept. 7, Rep. Bob Marshall — the Highlands Ranch Democrat whose statewide expansion bill failed in the legislature, suing here as a Douglas County voter — filed a lawsuit asking the court to strike the cost preamble from the citizen-led measure and to remove the board's referred measure from the ballot. Per Colorado Politics, the suit makes three arguments: that the board's referred measure is defective under C.R.S. § 30-10-306.5 (the statute its own resolution cites, which Marshall argues requires an expansion measure to present election methods it doesn't); that the board had no legal authority to add the fiscal preamble to a qualified citizen measure; and that the meetings where the board acted violated Colorado's Open Meetings Law. The county has maintained throughout that it has the authority to set ballot titles and that its actions give voters more information and more choice. Commissioner Kevin Van Winkle called the suit "a politically motivated attempt to strip choices away from voters"; Commissioner Abe Laydon said Marshall "thinks that anytime he doesn't get his way, it's illegal."
On Friday, Sept. 11, Judge Victoria Klingensmith denied Marshall's request for a preliminary injunction — on procedure, not on the merits. On the rewritten ballot title, she found the challenge was filed after the five-day deadline state law sets for ballot-title protests, and did not reach whether the preamble was lawful. On the board's referred measure, she found the court lacked authority to grant the relief Marshall requested before an election, and again did not rule on whether the measure complies with the statute. The county argued that until a measure passes, "it is just pending legislation" — courts can't interfere with it.
It didn't end there. On Sunday, Sept. 13, Marshall filed an emergency motion for reconsideration, arguing the court's ruling addressed only election-law procedure and that a declaratory judgment — a ruling that resolves legal uncertainty before harm occurs — remains available. The court asked both sides for additional briefing on whether any relief is still possible. Clerk and Recorder Sheri Davis told the court her office had already sent the county's 299 ballot types to its contracted printer and that "it is no longer possible for any changes to be made to the ballots that have been submitted." The first ballots — military and overseas voters — mail Sept. 18; ballots for all other voters start going out Oct. 2.
In a Sept. 17 news release, Douglas County, the defendant, said the court had denied Marshall's motion for reconsideration. Ballot Questions 200, 201 and 1A, with the board's added cost language, are on the 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.
The commission has to be independent, and sitting commissioners cannot sit on it. That is new law. House Bill 26-1038, the "County Commissioner Redistricting Integrity Act," was signed June 4, 2026 and took effect Aug. 12, 2026 — the same day this measure was certified for the ballot. It struck the old "are encouraged to" language and replaced it with requirements. In appointing a commission, a board of county commissioners now "shall ensure that the commission is an independent committee," "shall avoid conflicts of interest based on partisan alignments," and "shall not appoint any member to a commission who is a currently elected county commissioner."
An "independent committee" is defined in the statute: equal numbers of members who have been affiliated for at least the three preceding years with the state's largest party, with the second-largest party, and with no party at all. The board must also establish a public application process for people who want to serve, and give at least 30 days' public notice before selecting members.
The act also changed the final step. The board "shall" adopt a final plan the commission approved — either the single final plan it directs the commission to approve, or one of at least three the commission puts forward. The board may direct the commission to modify a proposed plan only by identifying specific elements that do not comply with the statutory criteria, and saying why. Language that previously allowed a redistricting commission to "be made up solely of the members of a county's board of county commissioners" was repealed.
The act states its intent: it intends "further ensuring that county commissioner districts are drawn by independent commissions and not by a sitting board of commissioners, the members of which have a fundamental and inherent conflict of interest in drawing a district in which they or a desired successor may run for office in the future." The act applies to any redistricting plan adopted after Aug. 12, 2026, and — per the Colorado Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in League of Women Voters of Greeley v. Board of County Commissioners of Weld County — it applies to home rule counties as well.
The act also gives residents a way in after the fact: "any qualified elector of the county may challenge the adoption of a plan" in district court, naming the board and the commission as defendants.
What else 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. Under HB26-1038 it must now adopt a composite formula — averaging margin of victory across a representative combination of elections — that expresses each district's competitiveness as a percentage, publish that formula for public comment at least 72 hours before adopting it, and then maximize highly competitive districts (within five points either way) before moderately competitive ones (five to ten points).
- 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 other questions — including the school district's $54 million mill levy override and, in Castle Pines, two citizen-initiated annexation charter amendments.
One more measure is printed on every Douglas County ballot but is not decided countywide: on Friday, Aug. 28 the Front Range Passenger Rail District board voted 14–1 to refer a 0.333% sales tax to voters, adopting Resolution 2026-32. It is Ballot Issue 7A. Douglas County Elections says only votes from voters inside the updated rail district boundaries will be counted on it, and a law signed in May names Sterling Ranch's metropolitan districts in that district. See the Colorado Connector station planned at Sterling Ranch.
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.