President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 07, 2010 09:04 PM UTC

Election modernization bill not shelved

  • 27 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

POLS UPDATE: Rumors are flying at the Capitol today that Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams is personally directing opposition to this election reform bill, developing message points and marshaling Republican county clerks into the arms of reporters. Resolve among Democrats is reportedly hardening in favor of pushing forward with legislation in some form–developing as we write, original post follows.

If you read today’s Denver Post editorial about the draft “Modernization of Elections” bill, you’d be excused for thinking the bill is dead for this session.

The editorial discusses the draft bill mostly in the past tense–and argues that it should be taken up next session, with modifications.

The first sentence of the editorial reads:

“An interesting set of election reforms that merited consideration has been shelved at the Colorado legislature.”

Actually, the bill has NOT been shelved for this session, according to a reliable source.

Comments

27 thoughts on “Election modernization bill not shelved

  1. if the Secretary of State and the Speaker have any sense, they will change the bill to a study for over the summer.

    The problem with this bill isn’t the same day registration, or the 16 year old pre-registration, or the mail ballot election provisions. All those could be negotiated and worked on over time to craft a good piece of legislation.

    The problem is the SOS and Judd Choate refused to bring anyone into the process except Common Cause. If they had consulted with, hmmmm, let’s see, those who actually run the elections in the state, the bill would not have had the problems it now has.

    Secretary Buescher relied too heavily on Choate and not on the professionals who have experience.

    Now, there is no time to implement this dud, even if introduced. Clerks have specific timelines for running elections and there is no way, again, no way for counties or cities or the state to safely and responsibly get same day registration and mail in ballots up and running for the 2010 election.

    OK, sorry, rant over.

    1. require clerks to implement the changes for this fall’s election? Given the time needed to upgrade and test equipment, I’d doubt that, but haven’t read it.

      1. Looking at the draft here’s a few places where the proposed timeline is unrealistic.

        A person would be able to change their party affiliation, register to vote, update their address, for the 2010 general election only, up to the Friday before election day. This would be repealed on Jan 1st, 2011. As mentioned before, when voters recently changed addresses or affiliation before the recent municipal elections around the state, SCORE wasn’t updating correctly and sent multiple ballots out before the problem was solved. Imagine if that happened four days prior to the election.

        Also, the establishment of service centers is required for 2010. Each of these centers must be ADA compliant, have secure computer access, have voting machines (DREs), drop off boxes for mail ballots, provisional ballots and the ability for voters to register.  

        Some small counties, and some big ones, just don’t have the kind of facilities necessary for this. The bill says that DMV offices may be used, but the DMV office in Ouray county isn’t up to be a service center, so there needs to be another place.

        The effective date for the bill states everything takes effect upon passage, except for 23 sections of the bill which become effective Jan 1, 2011. As far as I can tell, and I need to read the bill more carefully, it looks like the pre-registration and same day registration are in effect this year and most everything else next year.

    2. You state:

      The problem with this bill isn’t the same day registration, or the 16 year old pre-registration, or the mail ballot election provisions. All those could be negotiated and worked on over time to craft a good piece of legislation.

      The problem is the SOS and Judd Choate refused to bring anyone into the process except Common Cause. If they had consulted with, hmmmm, let’s see, those who actually run the elections in the state, the bill would not have had the problems it now has

      You seem to identify a process issue but no substantive problems with the bill.  Are there any?  I confess, I have no idea.  (But I can’t imagine why anyone would rely solely on Common Cause given how badly they botched Amend. 41.)

      1. I can’t speak for Car, but it would seem if the process is botched, or didn’t cast a wide enough net, that it’s impossible to tell whether problems are substantive or not. This is so execution-dependent, there’s got to be a good, thorough reality check by the ones who are actually going to carry it out. And I’d include various voter advocacy groups along with the county clerks in that group.

        1. I guess my inquiry is directed to discovering whether people disagree with the actual changes made to the law, or only disagree with the timeline set for the changes to take place (or the fact they didn’t have input into the changes).  Perhaps the situation is too complex for my simple inquiry, however.

      2. and the sad thing is they could have been worked out prior to this debacle we find ourselves in now.

        For example, looking through the bill it would seem that voters would have the ability to vote twice. Once, by sending in their mail ballot and, again, on election day by showing up and voting. Theoretically the statewide SCORE system would catch this and nullify the mail ballot, however, SCORE continues to have glitches (sent out duplicate ballots in some cities around CO just recently).

        Another problem is the establishment of service centers where voters would be able to vote. In concept, service centers would be useful and appropriate, however, counties have different set ups, like vote centers or precincts or all mail ballots. Service centers could increase costs for running the election in some counties since there would be more places open (and staffed with election judges and ballot security requirements…). Population requirements for service centers are also problematic since in some cities or counties, it just doesn’t make sense, geographically, for the number of service centers mandated in the bill to exist.

        Another issue is confusing procedures on the process of replacing mail ballots and which ballot is to be deemed the legitimate one (this ties into my first point).

        There’s also provisions that allow anyone to deliver any number of mail ballots by hand to a drop off point. While the person or agency delivering the ballots must undergo training and file with the Sec of State, this process is open to abuse (and I’m not channeling ACORN here, just presenting a fact).

        There’s more, but I won’t bore you.

    1. 6 months is not enough time to implement these changes. Working through a bill for improvement is fine, but set it to take effect in the 2011 off-year elections.

      And yes we Dems might do a bit better in ’10 with this and yes it’s redistricting time. Tough – that’s no reason to ram through changes that can’t be properly implemented in time by most clerks.

  2. If you get yourself on a few mailing lists, you don’t need anonymous sources.


    News Release

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    April 7, 2010

    *Sent in cooperation with the CO County Clerks Association

    MEDIA CONTACTS:            

    Rich Coolidge: (303) 860-6903

    Douglas County Clerk & Recorder Jack Arrowsmith: (303) 886-4222

    Boulder County Clerk & Recorder Hillary Hall: (303) 884-0593

    Buescher, Clerks and Speaker continue election discussion

    Despite partisan wrangling, cost savings and efficiencies remain focus

    Denver, Colorado – Today, representatives of the Colorado County Clerks Association, Secretary of State Bernie Buescher and House Speaker Terrance Carroll continued discussions to identify potential efficiencies and cost savings for future elections.

    “Throughout the past year traveling to many of the county clerks’ offices, the most often repeated concern I hear is the rising costs of elections and shrinking county budgets,” Buescher said. “My aim in working with the county clerks and Speaker Carroll is to streamline some of our election processes to generate cost savings for the counties, while preserving the accessibility and security of our present system.”

    Although an initial draft has been widely circulated, details of any potential legislation remain in the discussion phase. Many county clerks throughout the state support the concept of all-mail voting in even-year elections, citing a savings of as much as 65% compared to polling place elections.

    “These are challenging economic times for the state and counties, and that forces many of us to review our spending practices,” said Douglas County Clerk Jack Arrowsmith. “The majority of our voters have already requested a mail ballot and most counties hold all mail elections in odd-years. This is a practical solution that saves taxpayers money.”

    Also, among the topics of conversation, involves shrinking the window for voters to register before election day. Currently, state law requires citizens to register more than 29 days before the election.

    “The 29-day voter registration timeline was implemented based on a paper system, not the state’s real-time statewide system,” said Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall. “We’re continuing to discuss modern day options that continue to enfranchise voters while also preserving the strict safeguards already in place preventing voter fraud.”

    Parties said the conversations will continue through the end of the week and no decision has been made on whether a bill will be introduced this session.

    # # #

    Richard Coolidge

    Public Information Officer

    Office of the Secretary of State

    1700 Broadway, Ste 250

    Denver, CO 80290

    (303) 860-6903

    Fax: (303) 869-4860

    Is your voter record out of date? Verify your registration at GoVoteColorado.com.

  3. I think that Jason Salzman originally posted this in an effort to generate outrage over Dick Wadhams “personally directing opposition to this election reform bill.”

    It’s refreshing to see some sanity on this site when it comes to crappy Common Cause legislation.

    1. According to today’s news release from the SOS and CO County Clerks Association

      Today, representatives of the Colorado County Clerks Association, Secretary of State Bernie Buescher and House Speaker Terrance Carroll continued discussions to identify potential efficiencies and cost savings for future elections.

      Colorado Common Cause has been invited to have input into the bill and has done so. But if you think it is “crappy,” perhaps you should turn to those actually writing the bill.

      1. “…the document is still worth examining for insight into the long-term election goals of leading liberals and allies such as Common Cause.”

        Make no mistake, GAF, Common Cause wrote the bill and only now are the Secretary of State and County Clerks getting involved.

        1. It was drafted by Speaker Terrance Carroll, and he chose the timing of it.

          The Secretary of State has been working with all stakeholders–legislators, county clerks, and citizen groups who work on election issues including but not only Colorado Common Cause–on a number of election issues since he took office. The issues of this bill are among those ongoing conversations, and none of these issues are coming up for the first time. All have been part of a long conversation.

          Apparently, after all the discussions, the Speaker decided it was time for the legislature to, you know, legislate. It is up to them to write the law. So he wrote the bill and put it out for further discussion. That’s pretty much what we elected these people to do. So the conversation continues, focused now by a specific proposal which is being negotiated.

          Does Common Cause have a clear idea of what they would like in the bill? Sure. But they didn’t write this one. Is Common Cause working on the issue? Absolutely. Are other citizen groups? Certainly. County clerks? Of course. The SOS? Yes. Legislators? Yes. The Speaker wrote a bill and it is being discussed. Maybe after negotiation a version of the bill will actually be presented to the legislature and begin that process. Perhaps a version will pass, perhaps not. That’s how legislation gets done.

          1. “Late bills” introduced only five weeks from the end of the session and only six months before the election might be part of that process, but such tactics are way out on the tails of the frequency distribution.  

            This bill doesn’t need to be introduced or considered now.

            Write it over the summer, introduce it at the beginning of the session, and treat it like any other bill.

            Unless, of course, there is a reason to treat it differently.  If so, I’d like to hear what that reason is.

            1. and often a sensible one. Of course, that is also a standard way of killing a bill.

              Fact is, this was discussed in detail over last summer with a wide variety of parties. Certain parties–Republicans and certain county clerks–want to talk forever, so that no action is ever taken. Apparently, the Speaker thinks it has been delayed long enough. As I understand what is being discussed now, it would implement this year what can reasonably be done this year, and establish but delay implementation until later those things that can not practically be implemented for 2010.

              Additionally, calling this a “late bill” (should it be introduced) would be technically accurate, but is misleading. The Speaker’s intent was always to introduce an elections bill. Had he introduced it earlier, he would be criticized for not working out details with all stakeholders ahead of time. So instead he tried to get agreement in advance, and now he is attacked for running a late bill. Although not entirely successful on the agreement, he is running an elections bill just as he always intended. No surprise, no late session ambush here. Just Rep. Carroll doing what he said he would do.

            2. This elections bill is exactly what “late bill” status is intended for–for leadership to run an important bill that has been worked on, negotiated, and refined throughout the session. The Secretary of State wanted a bill for election changes that can only be done legislatively. County clerks wanted some legislative changes. There was always going to be an elections bill from leadership. The question was, what would be in the bill.

              But rather than your claim that “such tactics are way out on the tails of the frequency distribution,” in fact this bill is typical of late bills.    

                1. or they wouldn’t be granted late status, so calling it “on the tails” is meaningless.

                  We probably disagree on what is “crap,” but other things are in the bill because this bill was never intended to address only what the clerks wanted. Clerks administer, and their views are important. But legislators legislate, and they are representing–fortunately–much more than just the views of the clerks.

                  1. Yep, you’re right.  Only let me explain it to you in different terms.

                    The Clerks are the people who make elections happen.  They are responsible to conduct free and fair elections no matter how much legislators try to screw that up.

                    If you want to know how to do an election, ask the Clerks.  If you want to know how to fuck up an election, ignore the Clerks.

                    If the next election is somehow all fucked up, do you think people are going to blame the Speaker of the House or their local County Clerk?

                    If you guessed Clerk, you’re a smart person.  Because I guarantee you, no more than 5 percent of the electorate knows the name of the Speaker–whose unrealistic demands REALLY screwed up the election.

                    If you think the Speaker of the House is more qualified to opine on elections than the Clerks, you’re an idiot.  I can’t help you with that problem.

                    I’d be listening to the Clerks, but that’s just me.

                    1. First: (and I know I am repeating myself) this bill was never intended to be only about the clerks.

                      Second: I will come back to the role of the clerks.

                      For the first point: Let’s back up to the beginning. This bill-more accurately, draft of a potential bill-is the result of years of discussion among stakeholders-the SOS, legislators, county clerks, citizen groups. During the 2009 legislative session, legislative leadership intended to bring a comprehensive elections bill. The SOS has been driving these discussions for several reasons: The SOS was in litigation in a suit brought against then SOS Mike Coffman, that Bernie Buescher was trying to resolve. Buescher agreed with most of the points of the suit, and wanted to implement them. Some he did with changes in SOS Rules and Regs. Others needed legislative changes. So he needed an elections bill to implement these changes. The county clerks wanted some changes-including for many of them, permission for all-mail ballot elections. Legislators wanted some changes. And citizen groups wanted some changes.

                      Negotiations were underway in the 2009 legislative session for an elections bill. Agreement was not reached. So-just as you suggested in an earlier comment-they decided to study it some more over the summer and come back with a comprehensive bill for the 2010 session. So here we are a year later. There is still not agreement. But it is not because there has not been enough time for discussion; it is not because some parties have not been heard. If the clerks are not happy, it is not because they have not had an opportunity to present their case.

                      Again, I know I repeat myself, but it appears the Speaker thinks it is time to prod the process and not just put it off or talk it to death.

                      As for the clerks: Yes, clerks have to run the elections. Most of them have experience in doing that. But the clerks’ duties are administrative-they carry out the elections according to the Constitution, the statutes adopted by the legislature, and the SOS Rules and Regs. They have to be listened to. Their concerns are important and their recommendations are valuable. As a generalization (and yes, I understand the limits of generalizations) clerks focus on security, efficiency and cost.

                      A number of clerks like mail ballot elections because they are the cheapest, they allow clerks to most efficiently use their staffs, and some think they are the most secure. However, not everyone agrees about the security issue. Additionally, many voters want a choice on how to vote-mail, in person, early voting, elections day voting. Serving the citizens is about much more than counting votes cheaply and accurately (accuracy is essential, of course, but not sufficient).

                      Some clerks think DRE machines are the most secure and accurate of all voting methods. I, and others, disagree.

                      Some clerks think proof of citizenship and photo ID are essential for voting security. Others point out that fraud is extremely low, and additional voting requirements would disenfranchise many legal citizens.

                      The list could go on. My point is not to argue the right or wrong answer to these and other issues. My point is that these are decisions that have to do with our role as citizens. These are not decisions to be made only by the county clerks. Changes clerks want for cost, efficiency and security are not necessarily what we want as citizens. Ultimately, it is up to the people we elected to legislate (rather than the ones we elected to administrate) to write the statutes. And that is where we are.

                      Last year, legislative leadership intended to have a comprehensive elections bill. It was put off to 2010 for further work. It is time to move. I hope the speaker does so.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

192 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!