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*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

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
April 30, 2010 01:50 AM UTC

MAJOR Electioneering Change Perhaps Unleashed

  • 25 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

John Haney, a candidate for Denver City Council, issued a press release today that could have tremendous implications on electioneering rules nationwide…if what he claims is really true.

According to the press release, Haney says that the 18th Judicial District ruled today in his favor that he can distribute 61 cent stamps along with his get out the vote efforts (Denver’s City Council election is all mail-ballot).

Last week The Denver Post had a brief story on the issue and an investigation into the legality of providing voters with stamps:

Prosecutors are reviewing whether a Denver police detective running for City Council violated state law by including 61-cent stamps on door hangings that potential voters could use for the all-mail election.

John Haney maintains that the 2,000 stamps he provided in his campaign literature were legal, but others are disputing the tactic…

…Colorado law states it is unlawful to offer “any valuable consideration” to encourage an individual to vote at any election. State law also specifies that voters “must provide postage” when returning their ballot by mail.

Haney, in an interview, said he had two lawyers advise him that the stamps he provided voters were legal. He declined to give the names of the lawyers because he said they wanted to remain confidential. He said he gave the stamps to encourage residents to vote in the special all-mail-ballot election May 4.

“It’s the same thing as transporting them to the polls,” Haney said. “It’s not for them to vote for me. It’s just for them to vote.”

If Haney’s statement is true, and he was informed today that he can provide stamps for GOTV efforts, then we’re about to see every campaign in the country ratcheting up their GOTV budgets in order to increase the chances of getting mail ballots returned.

We’re not ready to take Haney’s word for it that everything is hunky-dorey here, because from what we understand most campaign finance attorneys have always advised that providing stamps is illegal. If Haney really does have a solid legal ruling, this decision would be a huge surprise, and we’d have to imagine that this would be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court — if nothing else because of the whole “slippery slope” argument. If you can give someone a stamp, who’s to say that you can’t give them an entire book of stamps? If the Post Office runs out of stamps, can you give a voter the 61 cents in cash?

Politically, the repercussions of this would be tremendous. Both Democrats and Republicans would have to increase their fundraising by millions of dollars in order to provide stamps. And every campaign would have to provide stamps for fear that their opponent was doing it as well; voters could end up getting dozens of stamps in the mail from various candidates and causes.

Come to think of it, maybe this is all just an ingenious evil plan by the Post Office.

Tweet
Share

Comments

25 thoughts on “MAJOR Electioneering Change Perhaps Unleashed”

    1. how it’s any different than providing rides to the polls. It’s not like you can pay your Public Service bill with postage stamps anymore (maybe Voyageur and a few others will remember when you could). Can someone who’s followed this closer than I have explain the difference?

      1. But we would argue that it is different. When you give someone a ride to the polls, you’re just helping them to get to the location where they will vote. By providing a stamp, you are, in a manner of speaking, assisting them in the process of voting.

        But we can certainly see both sides of the argument.  

        1. Not really much difference, IMHO.

          If I were to make any one change, I’d say that the stamp needed to be affixed to a pre-addressed return envelope so that it couldn’t be used except as a ballot return.

            1. … or any reason a GOTV campaign couldn’t request extras of those envelopes?  Is there a security measure preventing distribution of extra envelopes?  (Like perhaps someone distributing envelopes with the wrong address on purpose?)

              Because I have to agree, a stamp on its own is an “item of value” that could be used for purposes other than voting, and could be construed as a (very minimal) bribe.

      2. Postage stamps have a monetary value. A ride to the polls does not. You can trade postage stamps for money. You cannot trade a ride for money in the future.  

        Instead of one 44 &c stamp, say it is block of 10 Express Mail stamps at $183.00 just to make sure the cost of mailing is covered?  Use one to get your ballot into the clerks office and sell/trade the other 9?

        That is why postage stamps are buying a vote.

        1. but the law takes practicalities into account. And if a candidate was handing out $183 to every voter, that would be a different story. What if a well-off campaign sent taxis to pick up voters and said “keep the meter running,” so the voter could make additional stops? Would that be OK, even if it isn’t something you can trade for money in the future?

          1. Maybe not 10 $18.30/ea stamps. How about $5 flowers? Maybe a crispy new $10 bill.

            The precedent set with this decision means cash is good for votes. Presidential campaigns have billions to spend. Congressional campaigns a few tens of millions. You only need to buy one vote more than your opponents have.  It might cost a cool million but that one vote is all you need.

            This decision if correctly reported stands there are no more limits on vote buying.  Which goes along with everything the R’s like. No minorities messing up the vote tally because they are deported from the state (AZ style and McInnis wanting the same here). Only rich white guys paying bucks for votes.  

            1. not to prosecute something doesn’t set a precedent, except maybe in that particular DA’s office.

              This decision if correctly reported stands there are no more limits on vote buying.

              You really need to check out the facts in this story. It does no such thing.

  2. There is case law that says that giving stamps to a campaign is considered an “in-kind” donation, subject to limits.  Therefore, it seems that stamps are “a thing of value” under election laws.  It seems inconsistent to consider a stamp a “thing of value” when given to a candidate, but not when a candidate gives it to a voter.

    If I want to get around contribution limits, shouldn’t I just give my favorite candidate $100,000 in stamps?

    1. to a campaign. And your $100,000 in stamps is already subject to reporting and donation limits, as you said above.

      I’m not saying I agree campaigns should be able to give stamps to voters, but if that’s the case, neither should they be able to supply other things of value, like rides to the polls or child care. That stamps are minimally negotiable doesn’t change this.

  3. 1) If you mail a ballot with no postage it will get delivered to the county clerk and they will pay. I know because I have tested this. So all you really have to do is tell people to mail it with no postage.

    2) If I remember correctly, you can’t pay someone to “cast” a ballot. But it’s not clear on a mail in ballot if it is “cast” when it is filled out (stamp is post-cast), or when it is mailed (stamp is pre-cast).

    3) I do agree that this is equivalent to driving someone to the polls. If anything it is less as there is no last-minute pushing for a candidate as there is in a ride to the polls.

      1. During the Election Reform Commission last year, Clerks asked the legislature to set aside State money to pay for postage-paid mail ballots.  This recommendation was forwarded, but not ultimately adopted by the legislature.

        Many of the clerks are willing to pay for a ballot’s postage if it arrives at the office, as happened with your ballot DavidThi808.  However, other clerks testified they would not pay for the postage and instructed the postal carriers to return the ballots to the senders.  Oftentimes, this returned postage would arrive after the closing of the polls.

  4. This is about poll taxes. If you only allow mail-in ballot, and then charge voters to pay postage on submitting that ballot, how is not a poll tax? Sure there are options you can take like dropping your ballot off at the county clerk or just mailing it without postage, but how many people know they have these options? Not everyone lives close to their County Clerk’s office. And even then, they would have to pay gas. If a city or state goes strictly to mail-in ballots then that municipality should cover the postage.

    The purpose of mail-in ballots was to provide more options for voters. It strengthened our democratic participation. By restricting voting to only mail-in ballots you are regressing that participation.

    The cost of operating an election should NEVER be a reason to limit voter participation!

    1. No one is REQUIRED to put a stamp on an envelope.  In fact, I can’t remember the last time I mailed a “mail-in” ballot.  I always drop mine off in person at the local motor vehicle office.

      See CRS 1-7.5-107(4.5)(a)(I):

      Except as provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), if a primary election is conducted as a mail ballot  election pursuant to this article, the county clerk and recorder shall designate service centers equal to no fewer than the number of county motor vehicle offices in the county; except that each county shall have no fewer than one service center for every sixty thousand affiliated active registered electors. Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection (4.5) to the contrary, if a county has fewer than fifteen thousand affiliated active registered electors for each county motor vehicle office in the county, the county clerk and recorder shall designate at least one service center for each twenty-five thousand affiliated active registered electors.

      And CRS 1-7.5-107(4)(b):

      The eligible elector may return the marked ballot to the designated election official by United States mail  or by depositing the ballot at the office of the official or any place designated by the official. The ballot must be returned in the return envelope…

      Therefore, it is not a poll tax.  No one is required to do it.

  6. On the Post’s Spot blog, which I’d link to if I could figure out how, there’s a story that the DA in the 18th Judicial District declined to file criminal charges against Haney.

    This is not exactly sprinkling holy water on his stamp idea.

    The question probably belongs in front of an administrative law judge to see if it’s kosher within the state’s election laws.

    1. That’s right, this is a ruling by DA Carol Chambers’ office (who was handed the case because Morrissey supports one of the stamp-sender’s opponents). It doesn’t mean much other than no criminal charges will be filed now.

    2. That answers the question that confused me so, considering that the 18th Judicial District comprises Arapahoe, Douglas, and Elbert Counties (whereas Denver City Council District 1 is NW Denver).  Also, how misleading is it for Haney to suggest that the “Judicial District” (implying that a judge in the district) held it was okay for him to do this?  He’s a veteran member of the judicial system, making his spin that much more egregious.

  7. Whether it’s actually against the law is one thing, and out of fairness, candidates should comply with the law even when the law is stupid…

    But seriously, there’s just no way to see this as an abusive practice.  Mailing ballots is the main way people are expected to vote, and he’s helping them vote.  This should be legal, and encouraged.  Better yet, mail-in ballots should be postage paid to avoid the issue.

  8. Ignoring the substantive issue for the moment, this makes no sense jurisdictionally.  Why would the Arapahoe County District Court issue a ruling on electioneering activity of a Denver City Council candidate?  Gertie 97’s comment sounds closer to the mark.  It is not at all surprising that the Arapahoe County DA declined to file charges on conduct that presumably occurred in a different jursidiction (i.e., City and County of Denver).  Not exactly a judicial endorsement of the stamp issue….

    1. The Arapahoe (and Douglas and Elbert) DA, Carol Chambers, said she wasn’t going to prosecute this as a crime. The Denver DA asked her to take the case because he is involved in the election and has endorsed the guy’s opponent.

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

97 readers online now

Newsletter

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