Woodfin is a psychotherapist and Army veteran. He received a bachelor’s in human ecology from the College of the Atlantic in Maine and a master’s degree in transpersonal wilderness therapy from Naropa University. He worked as an English teacher with Where There Be Dragons, an international education program. He serves with the Colorado Army National Guard.
He has said he decided to run for the state legislature because he is concerned about the state of democracy and wants to inspire a vibrant Democratic primary. He lives up Sunshine Canyon near the burn scar of the 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire. He has said he is intimately familiar with the risks of climate change.
Woodfin is running against Lesley Smith in the Democratic primary.
Why are you running for the state legislature?
I am motivated to reinvigorate the democratic process in a time of political uncertainty. When I first considered running, I saw the upcoming election in a political environment where people feel disaffected, disinterested, and uninvolved. I want to get people involved locally and generate energy toward civil dialogue and democratic participation. As a political newcomer, I had also heard from neighbors and friends that they perceived a lot of elected officials were more connected to the political class than to the electorate. With this in mind, I decided to enter the race to help invigorate local politics and drive change. My primary goals are to make mental healthcare more accessible, protect women’s reproductive rights, make public lands accessible to people of all abilities, and support victims of climate change disaster.
What distinguishes you from your primary opponent?
I am new to running for public office and believe strongly that elected officials should be deeply connected to their constituency. As a mountain resident who lives with the threat of climate disaster and understands the diversity of rural and urban lifestyles in House District 49, I will endeavor to stay connected to the people I represent and commit to listening to people with diverse perspectives. I am also a veteran and former public school teacher who is unafraid to put myself in difficult positions in order to find common ground and greater good for the greater number. While canvassing, I have knocked on every door; not just the doors of Democrats. I see it as my job to have tough but civil conversations with those who have different points of view. Finally, as a candidate, I balance my full-time work as a therapist with running an all-volunteer campaign; I think we need more working people in public office.
The issue of homelessness played a central role in Boulder’s municipal election in 2023. Yet, homelessness is influenced by factors outside a city’s control, such as the high cost of living and lack of mental health treatment capacity. What would you do at the state level to address homelessness in cities like Boulder?
We need to begin looking at “homelessness” as more of a collective issue than a local issue. There are numerous underlying and overlapping factors for why people are unhoused; these involve systemic inequities, mental health (to include adverse childhood experiences that often stem from systemic inequities), a tight housing market, unsustainable wages, and exclusionary zoning. At the state level, my priority of creating more high-quality mental health care — to include more providers in the Medicaid system and more robust clinical infrastructure — is part of the solution. I would also look at ways that the state can create incentives for municipalities to develop permanently low-cost housing, as well as fair-wage initiatives.
In the 2023 city election, Boulder elected its mayor using a form of ranked-choice voting. Proponents of this voting method want to extend it to elect candidates for the Boulder City Council. They argue that to do this, state lawmakers must mandate the Colorado Secretary of State to establish new regulations enabling the city and county to conduct elections using a multi-winner form of ranked-choice voting. Would you support such legislation? Why or why not?
I would support this legislation. While ranked-choice voting is not the end-all solution, it does provide more voice for the individual voter, especially when considering that a voter may wish to vote for a candidate who is lesser known but still high quality, but also does not want to “waste” a vote on that candidate. More importantly, I think we need to look critically at our electoral system. There are more progressive ways for people in our country to feel truly represented, such as proportional representation (most European democracies use this type of system).
Earlier this year, lawmakers passed the “just cause” eviction bill, marking a significant legal change in renters’ rights. Some lawmakers want to further these protections by repealing a Colorado law that prohibits cities like Boulder from capping rent increases, a measure they believe would improve housing affordability. What are your thoughts on repealing this law?
While I support this repeal in sentiment, I think a repeal misses the bigger picture problem of why we have housing shortage and high rents in places like Boulder. Over the last decade, there has been a vast increase in outside investors in the Boulder market. This trend extends to towns like Nederland and Estes Park, both of which lie within House District 49. With outside investors, we are seeing more vacant homes, condominiums, and apartments (I would ask the City of Boulder to continue their housing studies with this particular factor in mind), further squeezing the market. Furthermore, outside investors are not invested (no pun intended) in local affordability and are more likely to exploit tenants. I am more supportive of initiating a study bill on this issue, as well as regulatory mechanisms that tax vacant housing and state-supported municipal initiatives to build and maintain permanent low-cost housing. This allows for small-time landlords (say, a middle-class working person who invests in a rental home as a part of their retirement plan) to retain flexibility with a continually adjusting market while also providing housing options that are permanently affordable.
Last session, lawmakers introduced a bill that would have required state regulators to stop issuing new oil and gas drilling permits by 2030, in line with global commitments to zero out fossil fuel emissions responsible for global warming by midcentury. Gov. Jared Polis and many Democratic legislators were skeptical of the bill, and it was ultimately voted down in committee. What are your thoughts on restricting oil and gas drilling in Colorado for climate and public health reasons?
Oil and gas lobbyists hold a lot of power at the state capitol, and it is difficult for me to understand why so many Democratic lawmakers were reticent to support a bill that would stop new drilling permits by 2030. Perhaps we, as the public, are missing important information. More likely, there is a confluence of corporate influence that is difficult for lawmakers to resist. I know that our way forward as a species is to reduce our consumption in general, and to reduce our dependence on oil and gas specifically. Climate change is ultimately a public health issue, and I want future generations to be able to thrive on this earth as we have. For that reason, I am strongly in support of restricting oil and gas drilling in Colorado. We have so many other energy options, and while the upfront investment in green energy is high, the long-term outcome is our survival. I do bring some caution to green technology: we often do not know or understand the negative externalities of a potential technology until it becomes a public health issue, and in the United States, we have a habit of outsourcing these externalities to other parts of the world (I think of cobalt mining in the DRC where human rights violations are rife, or the future need to dispose of solar panels that contain heavy metals).