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
30%↑
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%
September 29, 2011 08:44 PM UTC
16 Comments
(And that’s frequently and often…)
So I thought I’d at least acknowledge that, despite being sued as SOS on this issue, I believe he was right in his own opinion on the matter.
to be a public record.
can tie it to a particular voter?
I don’t want my property tax assessment, including how many bathrooms I have and whether or not my hot tub is in good repair, to be a public record. (I don’t have a hot tub. They’re going to know that, too!) But it is.
The statutes require precinct-level reporting. A member of a minor party (Libertarian, American Constitution, Green, etc.) might be the only member of his or her party in a given precinct and his or her identity would become known.
This problem was the basis of the County Clerks Association’s Amicus brief in this case.
in Saguache County, when the public ballot-by-ballot recount was recently done by court order, over the objections of the clerks?
Saguache County is one of the least-populated counties in the state, with a number of very small precincts.
I have extremely high confidence in our current (and past) clerks in Mesa County, but that’s not necessarily the case in other counties, particularly very small ones.
I don’t suspect nefarious motives, just whether the competence is there. You’ll recall the Montrose County clerk’s office had numerous problems several years back, requiring then-SOS Mike Coffman to step in and force the office to enter the 20th Century just in time for the 21st. There was no suspicion whatsoever of intentional wrongdoing in that case, but the systems and overall competence weren’t there.
Not all clerks are created equal, yet citizens are supposed to extend unconditional trust?
the recount was done by sworn election judges, the same sorts of people who counted them in the first place.
Rather than sending the ballots to the SoS office, SoS personnel came to Saguache County to observe the recount.
Neither safeguard will be required now that the Court of Appeals has ruled the ballots public records.
A “Media Observer” is defined in the rules also:
If there is a way to identify the voter by releasing their ballot, than this is wrong.
In Pitkin County, for example, there is a voter who will be the only one using a specific ballot style. If identified under a CORA request, the state, or other party, has violated their constitutional right.
Other rural counties face the same issue.
There are ways to fix this, possibly through SOS rulemaking, but I have little faith in the SOS.
I don’t think Gessler is right. I think he’s wrong on this, as with most everything else he is doing in office.
is by following the ruling as it was written, not by imagining it says something it doesn’t.
Voted ballots
Just as with all public records, the custodian of records can deny a request if the records in question don’t fall within the definition of public records or if there’s an exclusion for those particular records.
It simply remanded to the lower court.
At present, we are left without a definition of what constitutes “cannot be matched.”
Seems pretty clear to me until you get to really weird cases.
* If there’s any mark identifying the voter, it shouldn’t be disclosed. (E.g. some electronic systems use spooled records, and others use ballot numbers which match the stub numbers recorded by the election judges. Either of these could be used to recreate just who filled out which ballots. This indicates a failure of security in the voting system that should be addressed.
* If there’s something special about the voter, e.g. they’re the only one voting on a particular ballot layout, then they can be identified and it shouldn’t be disclosed.
PS – Car, WTF is up with someone being the sole person on a particular ballot style? Is that the result of Congressional redistricting as done by the courts? Because that’s just plain dumb and indicates a need to change the law, not this ruling.
Most often by special district elections. In Mesa County, for example, there’s a sewer agreement that provides that any property that develops in the sewer district is automatically annexed into the City of Grand Junction. That changes potential ballot styles on nearly a weekly basis–City Limits change without regard to precinct lines. We also have school districts, fire districts, irrigation districts, etc. If any of these districts has an election it results in ballot styles that are independent of precincts or legislative districts.
As to how there might be only one person on a ballot style, a while back the County Commissioners browbeat a developer to form a special taxing district in a portion of unincorporated County before they would approve his development. Although the idea at the time was to expand this district, had an election been held early on, it would have had a one-person ballot style.
Congressional redistricting is about the least likely reason for unique ballot styles.
In addition to what Ralphie wrote, due to the huge number of special districts we have in this state, there is a liklihood that individuals could be identified based of the information on their ballots. That is wrong. Could happen in Pitkin, Mesa, or Gilpin.
There is an existing process for review that continues to work. Allowing private ballots to be subject to a CORA request is abusive and over the top.
Personally, I don’t want want anyone seeing my ballot except those trained within the system. With today’s data mining capabilities and campaign sophistication, I don’t trust that my vote would be safe or secure if subject to CORA!