After GOP vote to close primary: Clerks warn timing could complicate June election

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado Republicans left Pueblo with more than a slate of candidates. They left with a plan to change who votes—and how soon that could happen.

At the state assembly, delegates backed a legal push to stop Republican ballots from going out to unaffiliated voters. Republican National Committeeman Randy Corporon and attorney John Eastman are expected to file an injunction in court this week.

The primary is set for June 30.

At this point, it’s not about whether Republicans want a closed primary.

It’s whether it can happen in time.

Colorado law currently allows unaffiliated voters to take part in primary elections by choosing a party ballot. Changing that—even through a court order—would have to work inside a system that is already underway. 

And the people who run that system say the clock is already running.

In Arapahoe County, the clerk’s office pointed to just how many voters this would touch.

“In Arapahoe County, unaffiliated voters (250,396) outnumber Democratic (132,099) and Republican voters (88,562) combined,” the office said in a statement. “That so many voters choose not to align with any one political party says a lot about Coloradans’ independent spirit, and their ability to look beyond political allegiance when they vote.”

The office said it will continue to administer elections under current law, ensuring all eligible voters can participate unless state statutes change.

In a statement to RMV, El Paso County Clerk Steve Schleiker—who oversees elections in one of Colorado’s largest counties—outlined a series of logistical, legal and voter-facing concerns tied to a shift to a closed primary.

What it would actually take to close the primary

Schleiker said a shift like that wouldn’t be contained to one part of the system—it would touch just about everything.

Unaffiliated voters wouldn’t automatically get ballots anymore. Only registered Republicans would, which means updating voter rolls, reworking how ballots are prepared and mailed, and adjusting how voting is handled in person.

Those changes take time. Schleiker said counties are already up against key deadlines, including the May 15 deadline to transmit primary ballots to military and overseas voters.

“Changes of this scale typically require several months of lead time to implement safely and accurately,” Schleiker said, pointing to system programming, vendor coordination, ballot printing and voter communication.

“A late change… would present significant administrative challenges and increase risk,” Schleiker added.

A system built on law and timelines

Officials in other large counties described similar constraints.

In Jefferson County, the clerk’s office said any change to the state’s primary structure would need to go through formal rulemaking with the Secretary of State and align with existing law.

“Changes to any election process require clear statutory direction, sufficient implementation time and budget, and comprehensive voter education,” the office said in a written response.

That includes making sure voters understand who can participate, how ballots are issued and what deadlines apply—especially if long-standing procedures change.

The office also noted that major election system changes are typically handled in off-cycle years, not in the middle of an active election.

Colorado’s election process runs on a fixed schedule, with ballot certification, printing, mailing and in-person voting all tied to deadlines set in law and coordinated across all 64 counties.

Timing isn’t just a concern for clerks—it’s something courts look at, too. The U.S. Supreme Court has warned against changing election rules too close to an election, saying last-minute shifts can confuse voters and disrupt how elections are run. That principle is often referred to as the Purcell doctrine.

Who pays—and who votes

There are also questions about cost.

“Under current law, primary elections are publicly funded, with costs shared between the state and counties,” Schleiker said. “The state reimburses a portion of those costs.”

“Any uncertainty around funding adds another layer of complexity,” Schleiker added, noting counties rely on those reimbursements to conduct elections at scale.

That uncertainty doesn’t just affect counties—it reaches voters, too.

“Under current law, unaffiliated voters can take part in a primary without changing their registration,” Schleiker said. “If a primary were closed, they would need to affiliate with the Republican Party in advance to receive and cast a ballot.”

That change comes with deadlines.

If a court order comes too close to those deadlines, some voters may not have enough time to make the switch, which could leave them unable to participate. “It could create confusion and potentially limit participation,” Schleiker said, especially for voters who miss the deadline to update their registration.

That’s where things can break down.

“Timing would be critical,” Schleiker said, noting the need for clear communication so voters are not caught off guard.

Legal push meets logistical reality

For delegates who supported the opt-out effort, the focus is on control—who decides Republican candidates.

For election officials, the concern is whether a system already in motion can be changed without throwing off the process or the people moving through it.

Those two realities are now on a collision course.

Whether the courts move fast enough will determine how quickly clerks would have to act—and whether those changes can be carried out in time for voters to make their voices heard on June 30.