Is Rep. Marshall’s narrow 2024 win now at risk in Douglas County?

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

Rep. Bob Marshall (D-HD43) represents one of Colorado’s most politically mixed suburban districts, covering parts of Highlands Ranch and Littleton. The area is built around families, good schools, and a long-standing belief in local control and fiscal restraint.

Marshall often calls himself a centrist Democrat and a retired Marine who puts people before politics. But his voting record at the Capitol tells a different story. 

Marshall once appealed to a wide mix of voters. Whether that still holds is an open question, especially given how much the mood in Douglas County has changed. Prices have climbed. Crime feels closer. And faith in state leaders is wearing thin.

Out of Douglas County’s 323,000 registered voters, around 288,000 are active. That makes for some very tight math in every election.

The political split? Pretty much three ways. Roughly 36 percent lean Republican, 28 percent Democrat, and the rest don’t claim either side.

That balance means elections here are always close. In 2024, it nearly caught up with Marshall. It wasn’t a landslide. Marshall’s win over Republican Matt Burcham came down to 1,373 votes.

Guns and public safety

Guns are woven into daily life in Douglas County. For many families, owning a firearm isn’t political—it’s practical. 

In parts of Douglas County, neighbors don’t wait for someone else to keep them safe. With rural pockets, long driveways, and delayed response times, gun ownership isn’t just common—it’s personal. So when Marshall backed a 2024 assault weapons ban (HB24-1292), a mandatory waiting period (SB23-279), and a bill requiring liability insurance for gun owners (HB24-1270), it didn’t land well.

Groups like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and those who spoke to Colorado Politics argued the bills missed the point. In their view, the laws tied the hands of law-abiding residents while doing little to deter criminals—and in counties like this one, that argument resonated.

Around here, critics say, it’s the law-abiding gun owner who ends up paying the price—not the person looking to break the law.

For them, these bills make it harder to legally own a gun for home defense.

Spending, refunds, and household costs

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights guarantees that any extra money the state collects beyond its spending limit should go back to taxpayers. Marshall voted for the 2024–25 state budget (HB24-1430), which redirected more than $500 million of those refunds into new government programs, including migrant healthcare and housing. He also supported HB24-1372, which lets the state use future surpluses for “essential services” that should already be covered under the fiscal budget.

That decision hit home for a lot of residents. Refund checks that used to average around $800 in 2023 fell to under $100 in 2025. The Common Sense Institute discovered that middle-income Colorado families lost substantial amounts of money which they used to manage their increasing expenses. One Highlands Ranch homeowner said it felt like “a tax hike that no one voted for.”

Transparency concerns and legal costs

In early 2024, a Denver judge ruled that lawmakers had broken Colorado’s Open Meetings Law when they secretly ranked bills using a private “quadratic voting” system. As KUNC reported, taxpayers picked up more than $54,000 in related legal bills with around $36,000 of that covering Marshall’s private legal defense.

Judge David Goldberg said the practice “deprived the public of the ability to know how their elected representatives voted.” Transparency advocate Steve Zansberg of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition warned it “shut out the public from knowing what their government is doing.” 

Even Gov. Jared Polis later vetoed a similar bill that weakened open-records access, saying he supported “more, not less, openness.”

For Douglas County residents already uneasy with government overreach, learning they had paid for secret votes didn’t sit well.

Local control and the home-rule backlash

Douglas County’s 2025 home-rule push became a test of public trust in local leadership and a showdown with what supporters called the state’s heavy-handed rule. Voters rejected it, 55–45. Highlands Ranch resident Katherine Michelsen went beyond simple opposition—she questioned the idea itself. r. “Home rule? What’s that? It sounds like John Wayne or Wyatt Earp,” she said in an interview with CBS News, mocking the Western-style framing pushed by county leaders.

Community groups like Stop the Power Grab accused Marshall and other local Democrats of backing a $500,000 special election with little public input. When voters rejected it, many called it a stand against decisions being made behind closed doors.

Crime and drug policy contradictions

One of Marshall’s more widely supported moves came with SB23-097—the auto theft bill that reintroduced felony penalties. After it passed and took effect in 2024, car theft numbers dropped sharply across the state.

Not long after, he threw his weight behind HB23-1202. The measure would’ve opened the door to supervised drug-use sites — and it stirred up backlash almost immediately.

Gov. Jared Polis and several mayors argued it would raise crime and push property values down. Opponents told lawmakers “these sites decrease property values and increase neighborhood crime,” testimony documented by Colorado Politics.

Parents in Highlands Ranch raised similar concerns in CPR News interviews, saying they were trying to keep drugs out of their neighborhoods—not see them sanctioned by law.

Divisive rhetoric and alienated voters

Marshall’s social media presence has drawn its own criticism. In September 2025, he posted on X that “MAGA thinks they are ‘patriots,’ but spit on everything the Founding Fathers thought would make this country different.”

Even some Democrats in the area said it wasn’t a great look. With more than a third of Douglas County voters now unaffiliated, according to the Secretary of State’s October 2025 report, remarks like that risk turning off the swing voters who decide close races.

The bottom line

Voters in HD43 don’t vote the party line so much as they vote results. They expect low taxes, local control, and elected officials who don’t play games. While Marshall has notched a few bipartisan wins—like stronger penalties for auto theft and tax breaks for veterans — his broader record has left a lot of people here second-guessing their support.

From shrinking TABOR refunds and secrecy at the Capitol to controversial social issues, many Douglas County residents say he’s moved out of step with the people who elected him.

Sheriff Darren Weekly wasn’t on board with SB25-003. Alongside the Douglas County commissioners, he pushed back—saying it put more pressure on responsible gun owners than on criminals themselves. This bill will have zero impact on criminals. It’s one of the many bills during this session to restrict the constitutional rights of law‑abiding Coloradans.”

Things have gone off the rails in Colorado politics, and Douglas County hasn’t just noticed—it’s been right in the middle of the fight. Local officials across the state are pushing back harder than they have in years. And in some cases, residents are taking that fight over state laws all the way to the Supreme Court.

Six home-rule cities are suing Gov. Jared Polis after his executive order threatened to withhold state grants from communities that don’t comply with housing mandates—an order they argue oversteps constitutional limits and guts local control. At the same time, more than 30 counties, led by Mesa, have sent letters to the governor demanding relief from unfunded mandates that drain budgets and weaken local authority.

“We see every year the state legislature encroaching in on traditionally local issues with state blanket mandates,” said Douglas County Commissioner George Teal in comments to CPR News. “And I do see the people of Douglas County being aware of that.”

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.