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
October 11, 2011 05:44 PM UTC

Still waiting to hear why Gessler thinks there's "fraud" in Denver elections

  • 21 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(How long do you think he’ll be waiting? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

For about two weeks now, I’ve been calling Scott Gessler’s office most every day, trying to find out if he really believes there’s fraud in Denver elections.

It’s a pretty serious accusation, given that we like to think we live in a functioning democracy and all.

Gessler made the fraud accusation once, for sure, on Oct. 2, when he claimed that “there’s a pretty high incidence of fraud in inactive-voters returned ballots” in Denver. And he may have said it last year, when as candidate he asserted there wasn’t “massive fraud” in the Denver elections office, but implied that there appeared to be a little bit of fraud happening.

You can’t assume your Secretary of State plays fast and loose with the “F” word, so if I were Gessler, I would have jumped at the chance to return my call, to make sure I had it right, even if I’m a lowly blogger.

And if I were a reporter at a legacy media outfit, I’d be chasing this story, as a public-interest matter.

In any case, it was good to see The Denver Post’s Sara Burnett tweet on Friday that the chief of Colorado’s elections division apparently disagrees with Gessler about fraud in Denver elections.

It’s also a relief that Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson denied Gessler’s fraud accusations categorically.

But you have to take it seriously when Colorado’s Secretary of State cries fraud and then won’t talk about it.

I know it’s been a really busy week for Gessler. In fact, it seems like every week is really busy for him.

But still, I’m hoping his office returns my call. It’s not like I’m trying to find out if Gessler buys fancy dog food with his public-sector salary.

His accusation is disturbing. It was made in a public forum. It’s not too much to ask him to explain himself.

Tweet
Share

Comments

21 thoughts on “Still waiting to hear why Gessler thinks there’s “fraud” in Denver elections”

      4. Any ballots turned over to the DA would have been unvoted balltos. So, at worst, it was attempted AND UNSUCCESSFUL fraud. In most cases it is simple voter apathy in that the voter chose not correct some error or address a signature discrepency they made.

        I don’t know the processes of the DA’s office, so I can;t say what happens to them after that.

      5. what you’re talking about, or, worse, you do and just don’t care about the facts.

        Do you have any idea how many ballots voted by active voters were rejected for the same reasons, and were turned over to the DA? Do you know how many ballots, by active or inactive voters, were found to have problems in El Paso County, and what happened to them?

        You can repeat the bullshit talking points endlessly, they won’t magically turn into valid points.  

  3. the less said the better.  Once he makes a statement all the rebuttals will come out with records showing voter fraud is barely existent unlike the much, much more common instances of dirty tricks such as informing voters of fictional changes in polling places or dates, jamming phone lines used to get voters rides to polling places etc. … you know, the R specialties. The R can stand for Republican, Rove, or both.  

  6. It’s free and he’s required to respond within 3 business days. Here’s what anyone can write (and this same format can be used to pry information out of other public officials who clam up):

    The Hon. Scott Gessler, Colorado Secretary of State

    Colorado Department of State

    1700 Broadway

    Denver, CO 80290

    Re: Colorado Open Records Act Request

    Dear Secretary Gessler:

    As authorized by the Colorado Open Records Act, I am hereby requesting either free electronic files, if possible, or otherwise permission to inspect the following:

    1. All records upon which you based your October 2, 2011 statement on KHOW radio that “there’s a pretty high incidence of fraud in inactive-voters returned ballots.”

    2. All records of studies done or obtained by your office under your tenure as Colorado Secretary of State reviewing the incidence of fraud in inactive-voters returned ballots.

    I would prefer to have electronic copies emailed to me. I ask that you send all communications and produced documents to me by email to ______________________.

    If any fees are charged, please first contact me. If your office will waive fees, I am hereby requesting a fee waiver; please let me know if I may or should submit anything more to support a waiver request.

    If there are records responsive to my requests but inspection is denied, please provide me with a written description of such records and the basis and reasons for denial of inspection of each record.

    If the records will not be provided within 3 days, please explain why and please let me know when I can expect them.

    Thank you. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience.  

  7. The Myth of Voter Fraud

    (Editorial)

    It has been a record year for new legislation designed to make it harder for Democrats to vote – 19 laws and two executive actions in 14 states dominated by Republicans, according to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice. As a result, more than five million eligible voters will have a harder time participating in the 2012 election.

    Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities. They insist that laws requiring government identification cards to vote are only to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters. Cutting back on early voting, which has been popular among working people who often cannot afford to take off from their jobs on Election Day, will save money, they claim.

    None of these explanations are true. There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10…

    1. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.

      they are working so hard on that, is…

      it is their only hope of winning.

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

114 readers online now

Newsletter

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