August 15, 2013 07:21 PM UTC

Recall Updates--SoS Opens Public Comments on Rules

• 1 Comments
• by: kwtree

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

UPDATE: Today, August 15, 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court denied an appeal to McGahey’s previous ruling.  County Clerk and Recorder Gilbert “Bo” Ortiz had  appealed to the court to not allow the Libertarian candidates extra time (until August 26) to get on the recall ballots as “successor” candidates. By a vote of 3-3, with Chief Justices Bender,  Coats and Marquez voting to review the appeal, and Justices Rice, Eid, and Boatwright declining to review the appeal, and with Judge Hobbs abstaining,  and no further appeal allowed,  Ortiz’s appeal was denied.

So on September 10, it will in fact be a polling place election. Ortiz and Williams, the El Paso Clerk, are asking for extra days and hours,  including the entire weekend before September 10, for voters to vote at polling places.

There are some exceptions allowed for voters to use mail in ballots, but the rules for this are stricter than they were in 2012.  Voters have to be in the military or overseas, out of Colorado and have applied for an absentee ballot previously, in a hospital or health care facility ( skilled care nursing residential), and certain other exceptions. A voter can apply for an absentee ballot prior to the election, say it is an "emergency ballot", and this cannot be challenged, according to my reading of the statutes and the draft rules.  Even if the voter had a permanent mail in ballot he/she will still have to apply for an absentee or emergency ballot for this recall election September 10.

 If, like myself, you think that this will disenfranchise many disabled  and elderly voters of whatever party, feel free to let Secretary Gessler know how you feel.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON ELECTION RULES:

Today, and tomorrow, Friday, August 16, until 3 pm, (my correction) the Secretary of State’s office is taking public comment on the draft rules for this recall election.   Of particular interest are the rules for absentee and emergency ballots, starting on page 4, section D.  To comment by email on the rules and make suggestions, write to:  SoS.Rulemaking@sos.state.co.us

I listened to the public comments today, and was struck by how Marilyn Marks from Aspen is still yammering away  about the “gypsy voters” and how they’re likely to wreck the election by showing up at the polls  with a fake address change. Again, people patiently explained to her that doing this would be election fraud, prosecutable as a felony.

I believe that Ms. Marks has intended all along to throw a wrench into this recall election process. It was looking like the recalls might not succeed*, and if mail in ballots were not allowed by the introduction of Libertarian Gordon Butt in the Springs, and Democrat Anglund in Pueblo, then the recall would have a better chance of success, due to lower participation by Democrats. Apologies to the Libertarians on this board, but Butt is a really weak candidate, (no elected office experience – he's a defense contractor) and so is Anglund – a one issue candidate.  Marks couldn't have looked for any real chances of electing these guys – it must have been all about screwing up the mail-in ballots to make it harder for Dems to vote.

Ms. Mizel from the Pueblo Republican party also got on to share her grave concerns about the cameras on the voting machines in storage. Apparently, just having a camera in the hallway leading to the locked storage area where the machines are is not enough for Ms. Mizel; she wants a camera on the machines themselves 24/7.Because Democrats have those mad teleportation skills, you know.

She would also please like to make sure that there are Republican poll watchers and judges at each of the 10 Pueblo polling places. She wasn’t volunteering to help; she was demanding that Ortiz make it happen.  In the Springs, Libertarian Butt would like to make sure that the Libertarians are represented by unaffiliated judges and poll watchers. He darkly intimated that there would be hijinks and shenanigans by Dems and Republicans, if not. Again, not offering to actually find unaffiliated poll watchers and judges; but he's demanding it as his right.

On a lighter note, if Richard Anglund, who is now forthright about his pro-gun activism,  gathers enough signatures to make it onto the Pueblo ballot as a successor candidate,  his poll watchers are covered. Yup, the poll watchers are per issue (recall or no recall), or per party, not per candidate. So since he’s such a strong Democrat, I’m sure that there will be a friendly Democratic poll watcher there to make sure there’s no hanky-panky with Mr. Anglund’s votes.

Just to refresh your memory: If you think, as I do, that this recall is a gigantic waste of time and money, please vote "No" on the recall. It is not necessary to vote for a successor candidate.  The number of votes Rivera and/or Anglund receive in Pueblo, or Butt and Herpin receive in El Paso County, matter not at all compared to the number of Yes or No recall votes.  If you vote for a successor candidate, but don't mark either a yes or a no on the recall question, your successor candidate vote will not be counted.

* My estimation of the recall's chances for success is entirely subjective, based on data from phone calls I've made to seniors in Pueblo. Out of any 10 people I  have actually talked with, 7 of them are voting "No" on the recall. That comfortable margin will certainly go down if some of them can't make it to the polling places to vote, because they need a mail-in ballot.