Gov. Hickenlooper should veto this flawed election reform bill

When I learned the Colorado Legislature had passed a bill “to protect voting privacy while also ensuring transparency in the process,” I was taken aback. I thought the Constitution did that.

Though silent on the topic of ballot privacy, the U. S. Constitution is usually interpreted as requiring that ballots be secret.

Americans have been protected by secret ballots from coercion, intimidation or retaliation for their election choices since the founding of the American nation.

The Carter Center, internationally famous for its work to ensure free and fair elections in emerging democracies, makes the secret ballot the foundational requirement for a democratic vote.

In addition, the Carter standards require that elections be conducted by “impartial officials” to ensure confidence in the integrity of the vote, and that the election be transparent to voters, the press and media and organizations that certify the integrity of the election.

The Colorado Constitution makes the requirement for a secret ballot explicit. “All elections by the people shall be by secret ballot, and in case paper ballots are required, no ballots shall be marked in any way whereby the ballot can be identified as the ballot of the person casting it.” The section authorizes the use of voting machines, “provided that secrecy in voting is preserved.”

Unfortunately, Colorado elections fail to meet either international standards, or those of the state Constitution. Signing House Bill 1036 into law would remove any incentive for changing present practices.

County clerks in several counties have acknowledged and even demonstrated that they can, in certain circumstances, link a specific ballot to a particular voter. As Grand Junction resident Bill Hugenberg explained in a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper, “Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Sheila Reiner proved to a group of local citizens that — in certain situations — individually identifiable voters could be definitively linked to their ballots using a series of reports ... generated at the time of signature verification.”

Conducted under the supervision of an elected secretary of state by a cadre of elected county clerks — almost all from the same party as the current secretary of state — Colorado fails entirely the requirement for election supervision by “impartial officials.”

The blackout period required by HB 1036 when the Colorado Open Records Act does not apply circumvents the transparency essential to protect the integrity of elections.

Given the explicit requirements of the Colorado Constitution, it seems strange that legislators of both parties would side with the county clerks — the only major group supporting HB 1036 — rather than attempt to protect the rights of Coloradans to a secret ballot.

The measure passed the Senate (as Senate Bill 155) unanimously with little debate, while a separate bill to restrict access to records of public officials (House Bill 1036) was set to pass on its own. The ballot provisions of SB 155 were grafted on to HB 1036 in the waning days of the regular session, and were passed by both houses of the Legislature on the final day of the regular session.

The most controversial provision of the bill creates blackout periods after an election when access to voted ballots is restricted to county clerks, election officials and “interested parties.” The “interested parties” may include not only candidates, but “political parties and even representatives of issue committees that gave money to ballot measures,” according to critics challenging the law.

A coalition of high-profile individuals and organizations appealed to Hickenlooper to veto the bill. Among other faults, they charge that the “restriction of CORA rights during an election to political parties and candidates creates — for the first time — a favored class of citizens” with civil rights surpassing those of others.

Former Colorado Speaker of the House Terrence Carroll joined the Colorado Lawyers Committee Election Task Force, Colorado Union of Taxpayers, Colorado Common Cause, Colorado Ethics Watch and the ACLU of Colorado in signing the letter to the governor, according to the Colorado Independent.

Newspapers throughout the state have published editorials urging the governor to veto HB 1036. Organizations and individuals also have sent the governor messages opposing the bill.

Hickenlooper should veto this ill-conceived legislation and consider appointing an independent commission to recommend legislation assuring Colorado elections meet the highest standards for ballot secrecy, open records and impartiality.

Bill Grant lives in Grand Junction. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


May 23, 2012

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
734 South 7th Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Dear Editors:
  The Daily Sentinel’s recent editorial – “Manipulative process taints a ballot bill” (May 17, 2012), and Bill Grant’s column—“Gov. Hickenlooper should veto this flawed election reform bill” (May 23, 2012), demonstrate why a gubernatorial veto of SB 155 is necessary but not sufficient to restore the integrity of the secret ballot in Colorado.

  Underlying the controversey over public access to voted ballots and the linkage of voters to their ballots is the pernicious influence of “money in politics”.

  As former Secretary of State (SOS) Bernie Buescher noted, Colorado’s election system is overly decentralized and sorely needs more standardization and supervision.

  Colorado elections are currently conducted by 64 County Clerks and Recorders (61 of whom are elected Republicans).  Through the Colorado County Clerks Association (“CCCA”), the clerks consistently resist all efforts – including those of Republican SOS Scott Gessler – to limit their prerogatives as independently elected statutory officials.

  “Most disturbing”, as former State Representative Kathleen Curry recently wrote Governor Hickenlooper, while the CCCA is nominally funded by dues paid by member counties (i.e., by taxpayers), its “lobbying dollars are coming from the electronic voting machine manufacturers”.

  Thus, the CCCA – including Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Sheila Reiner – have a profound conflict of interest when it comes to protecting election integrity, being beholden to the very vendors who have the most to gain from election nontransparency.

  This explains why the CCCA and Reiner seek to impose a “blackout” period to deny public access to voted ballots until after an election is certified, while refusing to fix the real problem – locally discretionary procedures that enable election officials to link a voter’s identity with his/her voted ballot, in violation of the Colorado constitution.

  That is also why Bill Grant’s call for an “independent commission” to examine and eliminate this threat to free and fair democratic elections in Colorado is most timely.

              Bill Hugenberg
              543 Rim Drive
              Grand Junction, CO 81507
Word Count = 300         257-1998

Correction to above:  Of Colorado’s 64 County Clerks and Recorders, 18 are Democrats, 3 are unaffiliated, and 43 are Republicans—so 2/3 (not 61) of the Clerks are Republicans.
Bill Hugenberg

Page 1 of 1




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
Information

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy