Blue Book Model for Local Government Engagement

The Colorado General Assembly Ballot Information Booklet is rated best in class by Ballotpedia.  The creation of the book is led by the Director of the Colorado General Assembly’s nonpartisan research arm.  The book typically goes through three iterations with public review and issue committee involvement at each step.  Amendments can still be made by two-thirds majority of the Legislative Council Committee. 

I have analyzed the components of the book and would like to make a case that it can be used as a model for local decision-making processes as well as state level ballot initiatives. Recognizing that many local decisions happen through votes from city council vs. the public, there is an additional need to explain process and dates for local processes.  The level of information provided in the “Blue book” however is more than I have seen in most local processes.  Below are a few of the attributes to review for local government engagement; particularly as to the level of information provided and the dissemination of that information.

WHY?  I am a huge proponent of Simon Sinek’s Start with Why and begin many sessions with a mention of how his findings apply to community engagement models.  So, I will start with “why the blue book matters.” It is the action that it creates; the discussion and the knowledge gained from reading it. 

For example, the book arrives in our house each election and gains a place of prominence on the counter. It is the only object that we provide updates to one another about its location. My car, his office, under the couch—we update because we value it and we share it. We write our comments and questions in the book as we read through it. I learn from his thoughts as well as my own. We discuss its contents at dinner with our children.  I don’t think we are unique. I have asked neighbors, friends, colleagues—they go through a similar process.  Many times over the last few months, when a ballot initiative was mentioned, someone commented, “Oh, I don’t know for sure yet.  I still need to read the blue book.”  Conversely, I have polled social groups, like my neighborhood book club, to ask how many have attended City Council sessions?  Zero.  How many know about a comprehensive planning process?  Zero.  How many have provided input about budget or other big, local decisions?  Zero.  The Blue Book is trusted and dependable and people turn to it for civic action; to fulfill their civic duty.  The arrival of the book symbolizes a season for action. 

What is the equivalent in your local process?  What resource do people know they can turn to for information and participation? What are you doing to spark conversation within homes in your community?  Within social groups?  How are you getting people involved and how easy do you make it? Are you consistent and do people know what to expect?

Distribution:  While the book is available online, there is also a hard copy (always blue; i.e. the “Bluebook for Elections” as it is colloquially referred).  The hard copy is mailed to every address with a registered voter, 2.5 million in 2020.  Ballot information is also required to be posted in newspapers, per state constitution. 

Accessibility:  On the website, there is also an audio book.  So, allocations have been made for those with visual impairments.  The state has also published guidelines for translation; thus making the book available in translations other than English according to listed criteria:

Pursuant to Section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act, Legislative Council Staff translates election information into languages other than English when the number of United States citizens of voting age in a single language group within the county:

• is more than 10,000; or

• is more than five percent of all voting age citizens; or

• on an Indian reservation, exceeds five percent of all reservation residents; and

• the illiteracy rate of the group is higher than the national illiteracy rate.

 Imagine a process where you put the initiative, decision or program into the hand of so many residents.  Imagine if you made sure that it was legible and available by audio.  All it takes to make the latter true is to have someone read through your material once it is complete, record and post.  What if your non-English speaking residents knew exactly what to expect from you in regard to translation? 

History:  There is a repository of blue books from 1954 to present day on the site; a full comprehensive history. 

By housing issues and discussions in the same location, at least in repository format, your residents can do their own research on the evolution of ideas.  Individuals are able to review materials independently, saving staff resources and allowing for full transparency.  Because local decisions are often made through longer processes and the vote is frequently made by Council vs. the people, the need to share more details and process may exist but the “one stop shop” model still holds up.

Official Ballot Language and Neutral Explanation:  The ballot title and summary are listed, as they are submitted in official format and exactly as they will appear on the ballot.  A governmental entity then provides a neutral explanation of that language and the initiative itself. 

This approach works for local ballot initiatives as well.  It also works for official changes in zoning or other specified legal processes.  In those cases where the local government is designing process along with the proposal, utilize this as the opportunity to very clearly delineate the process timeline, using colors and rich media to create visuals for the public, as well as text explanation.  Make this as clear as possible. 

Fiscal Impact Statement:  How the measure will affect state finances.  Colorado assigns non-Partisan staff members to research and write this section.  Drafts are posted throughout the process and public opinion is accepted. 

Hard numbers matter.  Having a team work on this is critical so that no one opinion or belief is forecast through the numbers.  Reliable financial impact data will build transparency in the community.  For local initiatives, talking about trade-offs and prioritization may be important here as that is how many local budgets operate.  Online budget tools can help residents visualize this; some even provide a gaming experience for moving money around so the participant can observe first-hand how changes occur.  Linking to those for further explanation and a full local budget educational experience would be useful for many.

Arguments for and against the measure:  Positions of those for and against the measure are included.  Ballotpedia highlights this aspect as one with the widest variance in how it is done across the states.  As stated previously, Colorado uses both a committee/activist approach and receives input from the general public to build this section.  Inflammatory language and campaign slogans are not admissible. 

This portion likely holds the most novel notion for local governments.  While staff may not typically take positions at the local level, those running processes have a very good handle on what opinions for or against a particular initiative are as they receive many comments from organized groups and the general public.  Often, we are afraid to summarize these or bullet point them as staff; we don’t want to misquote or seem biased.  What this can translate to is showing up at a public meeting and asking repetitive questions or “playing dumb.”  It does not seem there is a very defined way for organized groups to present their case to the larger community so they often disperse at these meetings and then try to overtake them with a majority opinion; causing other individuals to feel like their opinion is not heard or does not matter. 

What if websites or online dialogue locations housed “issue committee” opinion, with professional assistance in summary as well as the removal of inflammatory comment, in reliable formats and then asked the general public to then provide additional comment/ideas/solutions.  Would this further divide us at the local level, or would we all come away with a more balanced view of how community members view issues and make decisions?  I believe the latter.

Take for example an affordable housing development.  Perhaps there are views for and against a particular location.  By providing those views out front and establishing the knowledge in the community that not all are agreed on a project then the public portion of the process may not need to continue to repeat those positions already laid out but may instead focus on moving the decision forward.  Perhaps this type of approach could even shorten some decision-making processes by starting out with a noticeably clear concept of the problem being managed and the options that exist.

The Colorado Sun reports on the cost of the “Blue Book” in Colorado in 2020:  $1.04 million for printing, $684,000 for postage, $15,000 for translation services and $780,000 for printing the ballot information in newspapers, a required practice under the state’s constitution.

Or, based on my calculations, about $1.15 per hard copy of the book.  A bargain for public involvement!