CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

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) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

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%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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
September 20, 2011 11:32 PM UTC

Gessler Never Stops (Looking For Ways To Suppress Votes)

  • 56 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The latest move by Colorado’s controversial Secretary of State Scott Gessler, which, make no mistake, will have the effect of reducing the number of votes cast in future elections, is nevertheless a little more complex than meets the eye–KDVR’s Eli Stokols reports:

“The City of Denver has consistently provided all eligible voters with ease of access to the voting franchise and we continue to do so,” [Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra] Johnson said in a statement of her own.

“This is a fundamental issue of fairness and keeping voting accessible to as many eligible voters as possible.”

In Gessler’s view, it’s currently against the law for county clerks to mail ballots to inactive voters; even though Johnson points out Denver has done so in its five previous mail ballot elections.

Gessler cites a state statute that reads: “the designated election official shall mail to each active registered elector.”

In a sign of a possible Denver Post editorial to come, Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard tweeted Monday night: “Sorry, but I don’t see ‘ONLY active voters’ in statute. [Pols emphasis]

Gessler, who was unsuccessful in advancing legislation earlier this year that would have required photo ID to register to vote, drawing strong criticism from progressive groups, said he’s not trying to limit turnout in the state’s most populated and heavily Democratic city…

But of course that’s what the bottom line is–Gessler is demanding that counties who adhere to an inclusive standard of providing ballots to all registered voters, like Denver, instead follow a “lowest common denominator” approach. What Gessler seems to want is adherence to the most restrictive standard possible–mandated denial of mailed ballots to registered voters who may have missed the 2010 elections unless they take affirmative steps to “activate” their registration.

Much like the recent controversy over Gessler’s demands to purge the voter rolls of “suspected” illegal voters, or his rule changes on primary election expenditures that reduce transparency, Gessler is attempting to resolve ambiguity in the law on the side of partisan political goals. Remember, these are not people accused or suspected of any problems with their voter registration–simply listed as “inactive” after having missed one election. With that in mind, Gessler has a major credibility problem trying to force a change this significant: an indelible, wholly self-inflicted partisan reputation that casts everything he does in suspicion–especially actions, like this one, that will result in fewer registered and eligible voters participating.

Lynn Bartels of the Denver paper reported that a law temporarily requiring mail ballots to be sent to all voters was in place for the last election cycle but was not reauthorized. During debate over this law back in 2008, we understand that proponents suggested Colorado’s policy regarding “inactive” voters and mail ballots could violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Politically, if the situation comes to a head we suspect that the voting public will prefer to receive mail ballots automatically–even if they happen to miss one election.

But there’s something bigger needing acknowledgement: it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Secretary of State Gessler simply doesn’t prioritize access to the ballot. Indeed, Gessler has emerged as actively hostile to the goal of facilitating convenient access to the franchise by eligible voters. If that’s not what we want for the next three years, the Colorado legislature must do what it can, as quickly as it can, to close as many loopholes and ambiguities in election law as possible before Gessler finds a way to use them against lawful Colorado voters.

If this state of affairs disgusts you, that’s even more proof: elections matter.

Tweet
Share

Comments

56 thoughts on “Gessler Never Stops (Looking For Ways To Suppress Votes)”

  1. Reposted from the other thread on this topic

    The current law requires county clerks to mark people who do not show up for general elections as “inactive”. In Colorado’s voter registration software (called SCORE) there are reason codes to assign to the inactive status such as “failed to vote” and “returned mail” (the two most common ones).

    For all-mail ballot elections, the statutes instruct the county clerks to mail ballots to all active voters. However it does not say to mail “only” to all active voters. If I were a county clerk, I would understand that to mean the active voters are the minimum group of people to mail ballots to. Siding on the side of voter participation I would probably also mail ballots to those “failed to vote” people. If they have moved, that ballot will be returned and then they would get marked “returned mail” preventing future ballots being mailed to them until they updated their registration.

    Denver has had a tradition, since usuing the SCORE system, maybe longer, of mailing ballots to inactive voters if their reason code is “failed to vote”. I can see major arguments for doing this. 1) Voters should not be penalized for simply not caring enough to show up at an election. and 2) the “falure to vote” may not have been the fault of the voters. Every election there are post some office issues with ballots being delivered to voters.

    I have no idea how other counties have treated the “failed to vote” folks, but I think that would be an interesting thing to learn.

    While this will not help for the 2011 election, I think the legislature should address this issue next session. I would advise their best way to proceed is to simply do away with the requirement of marking people inactive if they fail to vote.

    1. First Denver has opened itself to a suit by recklessly managing the voter rolls. All eligible electors should be presented the opportunity to vote, however, without having to be present to verify yourself the system lacks controls.

      It’s equivalent to getting a mail-in process for airline security or getting to rent from NetFlix without any billing controls.

      Just imagine if I could pre-register with the library, then come and go as I please with library materials.

      Need I mention the controls surrounding the nearly $600 million in Obama stimulus credit facilities and Solyndra?

          1. The Bush administration left this administration in the ditch becuase you Republicans failed to manage the national assets. This has been explained to you on multiple threads, in multiple ways, with multiple sources, and yet you continue to ignore the hard facts.

      2. The real reason:

        200,000 registered Democrats in Denver. Gessler is a Republican. Gessler’s goal: disenfranchise as many of those voters as possible. Simple, no?

      3. You and Gessler are looking for an activist judge to read something into the statute that is not there.  The statute says nothing about mailing to inactive voters.  Therefore, the county is allowed to do what it thinks is right.  You’re just exposing yoursevles again as nothing by vote suppressors.  Yeah, let’s not let the poor black guy from Denver who missed the last election but wants to vote this time.  Your transparent BS is just that.  And now you’ll complain when some judge reads the law just as it reads.  Yeah, right, activist judges.  Code word in the right wants judges to rule its way, but it’s OK to be an activist judge when the court rules for Republicans.  A disgusting, cynical manipulation of the judicial that is part of the Republican’s attempt at an authoritarian society where the government only does what they want it to do.  It’s why I’m an unaffiliate now, after having been Republican County Chair in Jeffco.  These people aren’t Republicans, they’re authoritarians.  Libertad, if you don’t like the law, then have the legislature change it.  I just love it when I get to throw that back into your face.

  2. by the GOP to restrict the vote among those demos most likely to vote Democratic.  In states with Republican Governors and majorities in both branches of state legislatures these efforts are wm meeting with a lot less resistance and more success.  This is the long term legacy of the 2010 elections: De facto voter suppression codified into election rules and regs that benefit Republicans.

    And you know what’s really sad?  So many low info middle of the road type indies decided that, since they were voting for Dems for Gov and Senator what with the loony alternatives, they should balance that by voting for some Rs.  Why not an R for SOS, AG, Treasurer, or those far down ticket state Sen and Rep positions they pay almost no attention to?  Nice way to maintain balance and their own self identification as indies. No straight ticket voting for them. Many really had no idea how much it mattered.  

  3. The clear legal reading is for a minimum standard of “at least active voters”, not a maximum standard of “active voters only”.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean he won’t waste taxpayer money trying to argue the case in order to disenfranchise as many voters as possible.

    1. This theory of loose controls presents us the same case of fraud that the illegal aliens perpetrate upon natural and naturalized citizens.

      How would you feel if your arrival and processing of American citizenship was deformed by someone who over stayed his visa and used a stolen SSN to attain a job and pervert access to a gaggle of government services such as voting, drivers licenses, etc…

      I’ll give you the voter that misses an election once, but those that mis twice, don’t live at the address or have died need to be actively purged ASAP.

      Interestingly a decade ago when Denver started it’s mail in system, it worked as prescribed by Secretary Gessler.  

      2. I’ll give you the voter that misses an election once, but those that mis twice, don’t live at the address or have died need to be actively purged ASAP.

        Gessler doesn’t want to “give you the voter” missing once–glad you disagree with him.

        And “don’t live at the address” and “died” already are purged under the current system. (Did you know know that?) Pretty simple isn’t it? This would seem to clear up most of your concerns and put you in agreement with the rest of us and not Gessler. Who knew!

      3. Denver is diluting the vote of everyone who lives in a county that does not send ballots to every voter inactive or active. Gessler is protecting all of Colorado from Denver, ensuring that all votes in the state are equal.

  4. Gessler is attempting to protect voters in other counties and preserve uniformity in the election system. If liberals want ballots flying willy-nilly to every unverified address in the state (and no ID either but that’s another matter), you need to change the law to say that. The legislature inability to clearly express its intent does not reflect badly on Gessler. If anything, Gessler is to be commended for trying to establish a uniform system.

    1. Complete fail on the facts here.

      Inactive voters (ones in the “failed to vote” category) are validated voters who simply did not vote in 2010.  This isn’t about unverified addresses, even though I know it’s yet another talking point on the GOP checklist.

      If some counties choose not to send out mail ballots to their inactive voter list, then that does present a non-uniform access to the polls issue, but such an issue is not something Gessler has the ability to fix by dictate from his office – it requires a legislative fix.

      Legally, the courts are more likely to rule that all counties provide ballots to inactive voters than to require that counties not send out ballots to registered but inactive voters.  It would be nice if the legislature would revisit the one-year piece of legislation and make it permanent, removing the ambiguity.

      2. “Left Wing Media” wants us to believe, most people are progressive on the issues. What does the GOP have to fear if they’re right on all the issues and have popular support?

        1. The Repubs know – at some level – that they are not right on all the issues, that they truly are a permanent minority party if voters aren’t suppressed and if voters educate themselves to a sufficient degree before each election.  The self-described party of responsibility, ethics and individual rights is not really any of that.  They are – and want to continue to be – the wizard behind the curtain.  But sooner or later the curtain gets pulled down, and little-Republican-man-wizard gets revealed for what he is . . . a fraud, a swindler, a lackey for the powerful wealthy.

        2. They’re not and they don’t.  And they know the demographic trends as well as we do.

          They are trying to get as much of a firewall up against the coming demographic change as possible while they still have achance and they’ll do anything to improve their chances.  Changing demos are all against them . This is desperation.  Unfortunately, if it works for even just this next election, a lot of damage will be done.  

          Can you imagine a GO(T)P trifecta in 2012 along with more power in more state legislatures, including a redder Colorado legislature, with more opportunities to make sure they have a Supreme Court that will rule in their favor for decades? That will be a lot to undo after new demographics really kick in.  At least here in Colorado I think we can put on the breaks but it’s happening all over the country.

    2. Gessler is attempting to protect voters in other counties and preserve uniformity in the election system.

      If that were true, he’d get those “other counties” to follow a more inclusive system a la Denver.

      I suppose you can tell me how a voter in another county needs to be protected from someone who skipped an election being mailed a ballot?

    3. And that a significantly larger number of people vote every four years than vote every two, right?  Thus, ‘inactive voters’ may just be 1/4 rather than 2/4, 3/4, or 4/4 voters, correct?

      Just checking to see if you are really as dense as you seem.

  5. Debra Johnson is now at the top of my list of draft picks to be the next SoS. Doesn’t hurt that I have known her for years and have huge respect for her already. This just seals it.  

    1. It was the one election that I didn’t really know anything about.

      I met her once and liked her, but she had a really annoying friend that kind of put me off (hope it wasn’t you).  

      I still didn’t feel like I knew enough about the other candidates so I simply called them up.  Crazy, but it is what I love about down ticket races.

      Now I feel very justified in how I made my decision

      2. WitPro, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t me. ‘Cause I was in prison then. Or something. In any event, I didn’t appear in public with Ms. Johnson even one time during the campaign. I knew her as a long time Aurora activist.  

  8. That is wrong.  No law stipulates that you must vote in every election to retain your voter eligibility.  

    This is a civil rights issue, IMHO.  Where are the lawyers???

    1. Because at the last minute I had to fly to Tokyo (when I was at Microsoft). It was a week before the election and it was pack and run to the airport with no time to ask for an emergency absentee ballot.

      I actually got the final meeting moved up a day so I flew back to Seattle on election day and stopped to vote on the way home (for Clinton – first term).

      I don’t think I’ve ever missed an election but that time I almost missed the presidential ballot. I don’t think that should have made me an inactive voter.

      1. Actually, that kind of behavior disqualifies you from voting for the rest of your life. It’s like a felony conviction or lacking a photo I.D. You should check with the county clerk and see if you can get your previous votes invalidated.

      3. It was 1988 and I moved from Ohio to Alabama too close to the election to register in Alabama and Ohio did not offer absentee by mail back then (or at least I did not qualify for it).

        George HW Bush got elected and I swore I would never miss an election again!  

          1. I was in Colombia the first time I was eligible to vote.In those days, you had to be 21. The ballot arrived in the mail (mule train) after the election; but I still filled it out and mailed it back.  

  9. You can’t suppress votes from people who are not eligible to vote.  Gessler is doing his job.  The CO Constitutin stipulates ballots will only be mailed to “ACTIVE” voters.  If it’s such a big deal, then why not have all those “inactive” voters you are bitching about just update their status?  Oh, I get it…it’s called the ACORN factor…get em anyway you can.  Not on Gessler’s watch.  Good for him!

    Every person who is LEGAL to vote has access to vote.  Following the rules sucks, doesn’t it!

    1. The CO Constitution says that ballots shall be mailed to all active voters.  It does not say ballots shall be mailed ONLY to active voters.

      What I want to know is, why should you deny equal ballot access based on whether or not they voted in the last election?  What valid legal purpose does this serve?  If I decide there aren’t any interesting elections in an off year (say I’m a Republican in CO-01), then why should I be denied a mail-in ballot to vote against Prop 103 when my Democratic neighbor who was interested in voting once again for Rep Degette gets one sent to her automatically?

      1. There is nobody denying ballot access.  All one has to do is to regiter to vote.  Simple.  You can do it online, or in person before October 3rd.  What’s so hard about that?  This is also a fiscal issue since mailing ballots to all inactive voters would result in more waste.  If people can’t take on the responsiblility to maintain their voter registration status, then it obviously is not that important to them anyway.  Go Gessler!

        1. Who knows, maybe some of them passed away since 2010?  Can’t be wasting tax payer money now, can we?  Certainly if they care about their nation, they can take the bus down to the courthouse and sign back up!  The weather is cooler now, it probably wouldn’t kill them to walk there anyways.  

          This is disenfranchisement.  I know it, I suspect Gessler knows it too.  Unsure about you.

    2. are not the same as eligible and not registered. In order to register, you must provide enough information under penalty of perjury to prove your eligibility, including your residency and citizenship.

      Looking at the voter registration form, I get the gist that a permanent mail-in ballot status in which you sign up to receive a ballot for “all applicable elections” would mean that you get the stuff whether you’re inactive or not. This is strengthened by the fact that they have an additional option to sign up for just the current year. Gessler seems to want to make the 1 year signup the default position, rather than a special case.

      Further, I wonder what happens if you’re on the mail-in list but are inactive. Are you purged altogether, or would you have the option to go to the polls, assuming that it’s not a mail-only election.  

    3. To have the word “only” in it, then you’re going to have to go to the legislature.  Just because you don’t like the law, doesn’t allow you to call on activist judges to overturn the will of the legislature.  I just love it when I get to throw their shit right back at them.  Do you guys even know what happens from one day to the next?  I know that you’d like the word “only” to be there, but it isn’t.  You guys just love to read words into and out of Constitutions when they are inconvenient.  Just like your Supreme Court read the word “militia” out of the second amendment.  Sorry, but I have seen an original of the US Constitution.  It’s on display in Washington and the word “militia” is there.  Unfortunately for you, while you might think it is good policy to keep people from voting, that is a policy decision up to the legislature.  Go crying to those idiots in the State House and see how far that gets.  There’s no problem with people who didn’t vote, that is their right and it doesn’t destroy their right to vote in the future.  There’s also no problem with wrong address inactives, because the ballots will just come back again to the Clerk.  So, there is no problem here.  The only problem here is that Republicans don’t like it when the peons take things into their own hands.

      I know, I know.  The writers of the Constitution didn’t really intend for the little people to be able to vote.  Sorry guys,Republicans can campaign on their ideas (which they know won’t win for them) or they can supress votes.  Guess which they are trying to do again.

      Remind me, how many cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted in Colorado in past years?

      1. The statute in relevant part reads “the designated election official shall mail to each active registered elector”…

        In statutory construction words are given their plain and ordinary meaning.  The statute is clear, “each” active registered elector gets a ballot.  Not “each” plus one or “each” minus one.

        Nobody has to read “only” into the statute, nor should anyone read, “at least” or “at a minimum” or any other language that means more or less than “each.”

        Further, the statute in another section dealing with primary ballots states:

        “If a primary election is conducted as a mail ballot election pursuant to this article, in addition to active registered electors who are affiliated with a political party, the mail ballot packet shall be mailed to each registered elector who is affiliated with a political party and whose registration record has been marked as “Inactive–failed to vote”.”

        So it is clear the legislature recognized that there was a class of voters that other than “active registered electors” and mandated that under some circumstances they get a mailing.  

        I’m no fan of Gessler, but I bet he wins.

        2. The construction construction here does not prohibit additional action.

          I agree with the discrepancy, but were I an elected clerk I would not read the statute as prohibiting me from mailing ballot to inactive voters, only that my minimum duty is to mail to active voters.

          1. I agree with you, but it could also be argued that the Clerks are only able to comply with what is specifically stated in statute. If it isn’t enumerated, the power doesn’t exist.

            I agree Gessler is doing this for cynical partisan reasons, and I suppose we’ll see a bill come out this session allowing permissive authority for Clerks to send ballots out to inactive voters.

            1. that I’m owed $10,000,000 by GOPWarrior – it doesn’t mean I’ll ever collect, or even that I’m right.

              The clerks don’t have their every bathroom break – or voting procedure – dictated to them.  If they did, our in-person elections would be much more uniform and rigorous, but completely inflexible and easier for those in central power to abuse.

              The clerks have “you shall” and “you may not” rules and laws to follow, and outside of that – though some might not believe it – they have as part of their official duties as elected officials the responsibility to provide good service (e.g. elections) to their constituents as their best judgement dictates.  This is a “you shall” rule – you have to send mail-in ballots to active voters in a mail-in election; no short-changing the every election voter.  There does not appear to be a corresponding “you may not” restricting clerks from sending to inactive-no-vote registered voters as well.

  10. I have seen a few comments on this thread about people being purged. No one is purged from the voter file any more.

    Since 2007, when SCORE went into usage, people who die, move out of state, etc. , etc. are not “purged”. Their file remains in the SCORE system but they are marked “canceled”. This way if there was an error, the person can be reinstated and their vote history (addresses, turnout etc) is preserved.

    This preservation of history also allows for detection of fraud in the event someone tries to register or vote using the identity of someone who has been canceled.

    Principle reasons for a voter being canceled are moving out of state (requires written notification from the voter or the otehr state); dying (required written notifcation from the family or the Dept of Health); or being convicted of a felony (requires written notification from the Dept of Corrections.). There is no more mass “purging” or marking people canceled under current provisions of law.

    Purging was a process that occurred before the statewide system and was a controversial process that, thankfully, is not longer done.

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

44 readers online now

Newsletter

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