Category Archives: Voting and Ballot Issues

(Priorities.  Some edits for typos and front-paging. – promoted by ClubTwitty)



I am one of four employees at a small business in Denver. I won’t say which one but we are definitely what you think when you think of a small business. We’re an independent, bricks-and-mortar store (though we do online sales as well) that has been in the community for decades.

Scott Gessler’s office at the Secretary of State is hurting our business.

As many of you know, one of the primary responsibilities of the Colorado Secretary of State is to register local businesses. In every other year, we have gotten a small postcard that reminds us when we need to re-register our business with the office.  This needs to be done every year and usually happens in spring.

This year they decided not to send those postcards to Colorado businesses and instead send reminders exclusively by e-mail. Since we’re a business that gets lots of random business spam, we have set up pretty restrictive spam filters.

So of course

“entity.subscribe@sos.state.co.us” with attachments goes straight to our spam filter. Back in May.

The state requires businesses to re-register by July 31 every year. The first reminder apparently came in May. The second? Three days ago when they told us we we’re now “non-compliant” in re-registering our business in an e-mail that went through our spam filter and we only saw by happenstance (We do regularly check our spam folder but a “entity-subscribe” e-mail with does not stand out as being important).

Normally it only costs $10 to register the business. This year it’s costing us $50 because we were late. If we hadn’t seen this e-mail and we waited until after October, we would have basically been delinquent and would have to register the business as if it was the first time ever, something that costs hundred of dollars.

I am not writing this diary to complain about our situation. It sucks but we figured it out in time. What annoys me is the things Scott Gessler is doing with his office that have nothing to do with his primary responsibilities. How much did it cost Gessler and Colorado taxpayers to send the thousands of letters to potentially “non-eligible” voters? How much money is he spending to take county-clerks to court to prevent them from sending mail ballots to eligible voters?

I thought Republicans were supposed to be business-friendly? Yet instead of helping businesses, Gessler is waging battles against voting rights. If that isn’t misplaced priorities, I don’t know what is.  

Full story: Scott Gessler Hurting Small Businesses

9NEWS’ Brandon Rittiman:

Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler says 141 non-citizens are illegally registered to vote in Colorado but he’s backed off from a divisive plan to hold hearings to challenge their status before November.

Non-citizens are ineligible to vote. Gessler says 35 of those previously voted.

Rather than remove those people from voter rolls himself, Gessler’s office says it will transmit the names to county clerks, who are currently authorized to handle verification of voter eligibility.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan’s Patrick Malone:

Seven voters registered in Larimer County and three registered in Weld County are among 141 statewide whose citizenship Gessler’s office seeks to challenge…

The original list consisted of 3,903 registered voters. So far, Gessler has compared 1,416 names on the list to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security database. He found that one in 10 of the registered voters in question do not have legal U.S. citizenship, and 35 of them have voted in past elections…

To date, one registered noncitizen has voluntarily contacted [Larimer County Clerk] Doyle’s office to withdraw his voter registration.

“It was a guy with a work visa. He didn’t even know he was registered to vote,” Doyle said. “Somehow we think it was a clerical mistake at the Department of Motor Vehicles when he got his driver’s license.” [Pols emphasis]

AP’s Ivan Moreno via the Durango Herald:

“We confirmed our current voter registration has vulnerabilities,” Gessler said. He said there was not enough time to hold hearings challenging the citizenship of those 141 noncitizens before November.

Democratic attorney Martha Tierney said the number of noncitizens registered to vote that Gessler found shows that his search was a waste of time. Those 141 registered voters are .004 percent of the state’s nearly 3.5 million voters.

“I still don’t think that this is a wise use of resources,” she said.

First of all, this argument that there is insufficient time to hold hearings on these 141 voters that Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has narrowed down from a dragnet of thousands, while likely true, is not what Gessler office has previously stated. Back when the true number of improperly registered noncitizen voters was unknown, his office was fully prepared to travel the state holding “emergency” hearings to determine these voters’ status.

So why isn’t that happening?

The answer is simple: after years of fearmongering and the endless, irresponsible tossing about of conjectural and unverified figures, the final results of Gessler’s obsessive quest to uncover what he has repeatedly warned are “thousands” of noncitizens casting ballots in Colorado elections are a total embarrassment.

It appears that Gessler has disregarded the thousands of letters he sent asking for verification–letters that it’s now known went in the overwhelming majority of cases to perfectly legal U.S. citizen voters, and with a partisan divide so lopsided that, intended or not, underscored Gessler’s partisan motivations unmistakably. Gessler is now only seeking to verify 141 voters provisionally flagged by a Homeland Security database–and of those, less than three dozen who may have actually voted. In those cases, Gessler is turning over the information to county clerks, who have existing challenge procedures to request verification, certifying or canceling as needed.

Bottom line: Scott Gessler has unintentionally done more to refute the right wing’s conspiracy theories of American elections under threat from armies of illegal voters than most Democrats. We believe that Gessler had honestly convinced himself of the truth of this partisan, race-baiting nonsense, and we have to think Gessler is very disappointed in these results.

Considering the many ways our elections could benefit from scrutiny, investment, and improvement, Gessler’s failed partisan witch hunt has wasted more than everyone’s valuable time. By obsessing quixotically over a problem that doesn’t exist, Gessler has distracted his office, and by extension the whole system, from other problems that do. And when you combine Gessler’s wrongheaded fixation on “illegal voters” with other actions, like slashing fines for like-minded political committees and the Larimer County Republicans, or repeated attempts to roll back campaign finance disclosure laws, a picture emerges of what may really be considered, objectively and without hyperbole, the worst Secretary of State in Colorado history.

Full story: Gessler’s “Illegal Voter” Witch Hunt Ends With a Whimper

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



For the second time, a Denver District Court Judge has ruled that Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler cannot proceed with new state standards from his office that drastically loosen the requirements for reporting spending and contributions by political committees.

On Sept.4th, Judge J. Eric Elliff denied the secretary of state’s request to let him implement the overturned rules while he appeals the lower court’s decision.

“Chalk up one more for average Coloradans,” said David Paladino, a first-time political candidate running in state Senate district 27 (Centennial) who took a considerable risk by joining several grassroots organizations in a lawsuit to stop the new rules from taking effect.  The suit has been combined with a similar one filed by Colorado Ethics Watch and Colorado Common Cause.  

Adds Paladino: “It’s another win for common citizens. Despite Scott Gessler’s efforts, for now, more political money won’t flow undisclosed across our state and totally out of public view.  The public has a need and a right to know who is putting money into political campaigns and just how it’s being spent.”

Judge Elliff said disclosure of political spending is too important and Gessler’s arguments presented “nothing new or different” to convince him that he would win on appeal.  He called the request to stay his earlier ruling “contrary to the public interest.” .

On August 10th,  Elliff determined that Gessler couldn’t alter the constitutional and statutory rules that determine when and how political campaigns and committees must publicly report finances.  It’s now likely that political committees, issue committees and 527′s, or independent expenditure groups, will have to continue meeting past reporting requirements that are stricter than those Gessler wanted to them to follow.

Full story: Paladino & Good Guys 2, Gessler 0: Judge Says No Again to Looser Committee Reporting Standards

UPDATE: For what it’s worth, the Durango Herald’s Joe Hanel Tweets from the RNC:

—–

After days of press about Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s unswerving focus on tracking down and purging from the rolls what appears to be a tiny number–if any at all–of improperly registered noncitizen voters, Colorado Public Radio’s Megan Verlee breaks a story that raises fresh and serious questions about Gessler’s judgment. From the transcript, we’ll link to online audio as soon as it’s available:

It’s a pretty sweet deal. Three men, facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines for campaign finance violations, wound up getting slapped with the equivalent of a parking ticket. But how? CPR’s Megan Verlee takes us through one tale of campaign finance waivers. Then Megan talks with host Ryan Warner about how the public can use the same database she did to find this story…

Reporter: You might remember these initiatives as Amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101 from the 2010 ballot. They would have cut Colorado taxes and restricted state finances in some big ways. The three men who originally registered the initiatives claimed they had no idea who actually spent the money to get them on the ballot. And  since it wasn’t them, they didn’t have to file anything. A few months before the election, a judge disagreed. Here’s a bit of his ruling, read by a CPR producer.

Court Ruling:  ”Their testimony that they were unaware of and did not care who their benefactor was is not believable and demonstrates intent to hide the identity of that benefactor from public disclosure.” [Pols emphasis]

Reporter:  With a few months left before the election, the judge fined each man two-thousand dollars and ordered them to each file a committee with the state and log at least one report listing contributions from their Mr X, revealed to be anti-tax crusader Doug Bruce. They didn’t. At least: not until 15 months later, after they’d racked up tens of thousands of dollars in late fines. And then something interesting happened…

Reporter:  ”Wow, these guys got almost everything waived.”

Reporter:  ’These guys’ were Jeff Gross, Louis Schroeder, and Russell Haas. I tried to contact them to ask about their delay in filing and their waiver requests, but they either didn’t respond, or didn’t want to be interviewed by public radio. In the months after the court order, state officials sent numerous invoices, warning them the fines were mounting. In the end, the total bill rang in at more than twenty thousand dollars apiece in campaign finance fines. Then last fall, the three men filed their forms. And they immediately asked for, and were eventually granted, waivers, knocking those fines down to $50 each.

Verlee reports that the men were ordered by the court to disclose contributions from Doug Bruce to the Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101 campaigns. Bruce’s shell-gaming of money in and out of his “charity,” you’ll recall, resulted in tax evasion charges, felony convictions, and jail time for Bruce, though his convictions were for offenses before the 2010 elections.

Regardless, the campaigns for these initiatives set a new low for the flagrant defiance of Colorado’s already toothless campaign finance laws, with the apparent express intention of concealing Bruce’s funding of their campaigns from the voting public. But the real outrage: how much more toothless are they when the Secretary of State waives the fines meant to compel compliance with the law into meaninglessness?

[Former Secretary of State Natalie] Meyer: “I think letting people get by with skirting the law probably encourages people to skirt the law.  If you wait long enough you can get away with it.  And that’s not a good policy for any law.”

Gessler claims that his waiving of these fines is meant to “encourage participation,” as if these were honest actors–as a long court record documents, they were not honest participants in Colorado’s election process by any stretch. And while swallowing this proverbial camel, Gessler wastes untold man hours poring through the voter rolls fruitlessly in search of “illegal voters.”

It’s pathetic, folks. The fully contextualized truth of all of this is well beyond indefensible. It powerfully underscores what Rick Palacio was trying to say with that stillborn recall effort.

The fox is guarding the henhouse today, well and truly.

Full story: What The Hell Is Scott Gessler Thinking?

UPDATE: 7NEWS, the blowback begins:

The American Civil Liberties Union says it is being contacted by U.S citizens who received letters from Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler questioning their right to vote.

The ACLU’s Colorado branch said Tuesday the voters are among the nearly 4,000 people who Gessler sent letters to earlier this month asking them to voluntarily withdraw their registration or prove their citizenship…

—–

AP’s Ivan Moreno reports via CBS4:

Democrats and independent voters got 86 percent of the requests to withdraw from voting rolls if they’re not citizens as part of an initiative from Colorado’s Republican Secretary of State, The Associated Press learned Monday.

The breakdown renewed skepticism that Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler has a political motivation in sending the letters. His office provided the figures to the AP. Gessler has repeatedly denied claims that party registration plays a factor in his efforts to make sure ineligible voters are not on rolls.

Gessler spokesman Rich Coolidge said officials did not look at party registration when they mailed the letters, and that they only compiled the information because of a media request.

He said Gessler’s office is committed to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots. He said about skeptics, “We’re not going to respond to the political noise around this issue.”

Democrats are angrily pointing to the fact that less than 13% of Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s nearly 4,000 “questionable” registered voters are Republicans. Gessler’s spokesman Rich Coolidge insists in response that party affiliation wasn’t factored at all when compiling this list, though–and to be honest, we see no reason to dispute that assertion.

Because it really doesn’t matter.

It was a foregone conclusion based on a wealth of empirical facts, and the ethnic breakdown of voter registrations in Colorado that the overwhelming majority of these voters with citizenship “questions” would be Democrats or unaffiliated. Remember, the rate of regular naturalization of new citizens in Colorado is more than enough to account for this “discrepancy”–as Gessler himself admits, the number of actual problem registrations is believed to be a small fraction of the 4,000 who got letters at most. But the fact is, Gessler didn’t “target” one party more than another because he didn’t have to–the partisan effects of this campaign are self-evident.

At this point, everybody has to wait for Gessler to announce the results. Democrats are right to question him, but they need to do it for the right reasons and avoid credibility pitfalls along the way. Without proper context, Gessler’s actions will be positively received by a number of voters–of all parties. The problem comes when he tries to justify such a large expenditure of time and effort to “root out” what will in all likelihood be a tiny fraction of the 4,000 voters who were sent a letter. How many ballots are chewed up in reading machines, miscounted, left behind at the polling place, otherwise lost or delayed in counting, in every election?

Until Gessler can justify his devotion to ferreting out a tiny number of “illegal voters,” while other problems in any election can produce a greater error rate, the whole effort is politically dubious.

And it opens Republicans to more criticism than these few voters are worth to either side.

Full story: Gessler’s “Illegal Voter” Hunt Finds Highly Predictable Targets

Big news breaking late Friday from Denver District Court:

In November, 2011, the Secretary instituted a rulemaking process to promulgate new rules to administer and enforce Colorado’s campaign finance and election laws. The new rules became permanently effective on April 12, 2012.

Plaintiffs consist of numerous public interest groups, watchdog organizations, and individuals, all of whom have an interest in the new rules. Plaintiffs filed two separate complaints, which were consolidated in this action, challenging the following rules implemented by the Secretary pursuant to the rulemaking process: 1.7; 1.10; 1.12; 1.18; 4.1; 4.2; 6.1; 6.2; 7.2; 14; and 18.1.8. The parties agree that in light of subsequent changes implemented by the Secretary, the challenges to Rules 6.1; 6.2 and 14 are moot. Defendant does not challenge Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action…

To briefly summarize the challenge filed against Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s revised election and campaign finance rules, 1.7 pertained to electioneering communications, and the test employed to determine “express advocacy.” This particular rule was upheld by the judge as consistent with precedent and Gessler’s rulemaking authority. Two other of Gessler’s proposed rules, which would have increased the reporting limits for issue committees to $5,000, were not ruled on as Gessler has agreed to not enforce them already as a result of other litigation. And that brings us to the remaining five, that is, most of what was challenged:

[In Challenged Rule 1.12.3], The additional 30% requirement adds a restriction not found in the statute and not supported by the record. The revenue requirement works further mischief in that it appears notto be income neutral. In other words, issue committees with very little income, which presumably spend most of that income on election-related matters, will be required to report. But large corporations or wealthy individuals could spend substantial sums of money on issues and yet not have to report because they are spending less than 30% of their revenue on these activities. [Pols emphasis] Certainly this is contrary to the intent of the electorate, which has expressed aninterest in compelling more disclosure, not less.

Regardless of the consequences of the 30 percent requirement, its addition to the major purpose definition inappropriately modifies and contravenes an existing statute, C.R.S. § 1-45-103(12)(b)…Moreover the revenue test clearly is at odds with the express intent of the legislature, [Pols emphasis] which has enacted a definition without use of such a test. For these reasons, Rule1.12.3 is invalid as it exceeds the Secretary’s delegated authority…

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Can the Secretary add a “major purpose” limitation to Section 2(12)(a) to save the provision, or is it a matter for a the legislature or the citizens, through referendum, to fix it? While the Secretary’s pragmatism is to be respected, removing a critical element of 2(12)(a) by rule goes beyond the Secretary’s powers…He assumes a solution without legislative or voter input, and thereby exceeds his delegated authority. [Pols emphasis] C.R.S. § 24-4-103(8)(a). For these reasons, Rule 1.18.2 is invalid.

…the Secretary’s rules improperly narrow the definition of “political organization.”Under the statute, it is an organization that “is engaged in” influencing elections or appointments of individuals to public office. Under Rule 7.2.1, this is narrowed to organizations with a “major  purpose” in influencing elections. Rule 1.10 further narrows the definition to groups which “expressly advocate” for or against candidates. These narrowing rules effectively eliminate distinctions between “political organization” and “political committee.” [Pols emphasis]

…[Rule 18.1.8] substantially denudes the statutory penalty and raises the possibility that thosesubject to the penalty simply will not report knowing that the fine amount will be fixed on Election Day. The Secretary does not address the effect of the cutoff date in his brief. Stopping accrual of the fine on Election Day is contrary to the stated interests of “strong enforcement of campaign finance requirements” [Pols emphasis] as stated in Art. XVIII § 1. Furthermore, the rule removes an enforcement element from C.R.S. § 1-45-111.5(c) by setting an ultimate limit on fines for lack of reporting…

For the reasons set forth above, Rule 1.7 is valid. Rules 1.10; 1.12; 1.18; 7.2; and 18.1.8 are invalid.

Here’s the complete text of today’s ruling, courtesy Colorado Ethics Watch.

Needless to say, Gessler is not happy about this turn of events, from his release:

“Today’s ruling is problematic. On one hand, we prevailed on the most important issue. On the other, it prevents me from following free speech protections handed down by federal courts. The people of Colorado remain mired in uncertainty. Small community groups face heavy fines and ambush lawsuits, while big-money groups can afford attorneys and accountants to navigate the difficult campaign finance laws.”

“This case isn’t about transparency. When these partisan attack groups start revealing who pays for their activities, then I’ll believe that they care about an equal playing field.”

Gessler’s next move remains to be seen and is sure to be the topic of speculation. Until then, Common Cause, Ethics Watch, and other longtime Gessler adversaries are celebrating.

Full story: BREAKING: Numerous Gessler-Proposed Election Rules Invalidated