Colorado Voter Group

The Colorado Voter Group is a private entity working to improve Colorado's election system.

Home     State Oversight     November 2008     County Oversight     Election Oversight     Election System     CAMBER      
2008 Contacts
Legislative Update
Requirements
Eligibility
Framework
- Polling place
- Unsolicited mail
- Electronic ballot
Acceptance Test
Hardware Test
Logic Test
Random Audit
Never use Unsolicited Mail Ballots when it matters.
 
Facts about Colorado's unsolicited mail ballot elections. 
 
  • Proof that unsolicited mail ballot elections do not meet election requirements 

     


      What's the difference - unsolicited ballots vs traditional voting?
       
      Vote interpretation and counting
      Unsolicited mail ballot elections use the same paper ballot counting mechanisms as do precinct polling place elections with early and absentee voting options.
       
      Accessible voting with DRE
      Unsolicited mail ballot elections use the same DRE voting equipment for accessible voting as do precinct and early voting. 
       
      Voter eligiblility and ballot control
      Unsolicited mail ballots differ from absentee ballots because they are mailed, like junk mail, to addresses where a once eligible voter once lived.  The US Postal Service acknowledges that it cannot guarantee against mis-delivered mail, and it is irresponsible to turn control of ballots over to the post office.  Parents, spouses and roommates often master the art of signature forgery, and can vote improbperly delivered ballots.  Many many ballots are not voted by their "owner" and are available for others to collect in community mail drops and trash collectin centers.  Absentee ballots are mailed only to those eligible voters who request them.  No junk mail.  If an absentee ballot is not delivered, the voter most likely will ask for a replacement ballot and alert officials to the fact the the original ballot is now VOID. 
       
      Public support
      The people trust traditional paper ballots voted in precinct polling places with early and absentee voting options.  The public has vigorously voted down the use of unsolicited mail ballots for presidential years.
       
      Compliance with voting requirements.
      Unsolicited mail ballots cannot meet the election system requirements. 
      1.   Accurate
      2.   Accessible
      3.   Verifiable
      4.   Reliable
      5.   Secure
      6.   Transparent
      7.   Accountable
      8.   Anonymous
      9.   Secret Ballot
      10.   Intimidation-free
      11.   No vote buying/selling
      12.   No illegal electioneering
       

      Scheme to overturn the 2002 vote against unsolicited mail ballots.
       
      Several county clerks are scheming to overturn the 2002 vote which rejected the use of unsolicited mail ballot elections for major elections.  Rumors persist that certain state legislators are involved in the plot.
       
      Colorado Voter Group hopes to inform readers of the background and facts regarding Colorado's current voting system mess.
       
      1.   In November 2002, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 28, which would have deprived voters of the right to vote in precincts by anonymous ballot.

        63 of 64 Colorado counties voted this amendment down. 757,299 voters, nearly 60 percent of the votes, voted “no”.  See election results on pages 145 and 159 of the
        November 2002 Abstract of Votes.

        2.  It appears from a Rocky Mountain News article, County clerks urge all-mail vote in '08, that county clerks are meeting in secret with the Secretary of State to overturn the vote of the people. 

        Further, it appears that clerks are refusing to discuss the Colorado Voter Group's framework for 2008 elections.  This alternative fulfills both the law and the wishes of the people of Colorado, and is a superior alternative to unsolicited mail ballot elections.

        3.  Unsolicited mail ballot elections have been proven to be undesirable. They are not secure, not accurate, not verifiable, not accessible, not anonymous, not transparent, and not accountable. Those who claim otherwise are either not informed or don’t care.

      None of the problems brought out during the debate on Amendment 28 have been fixed.
       
      • The Rocky Mountain News published an Editorial, Don't take chance on mail ballots.
      • The Denver Post published PRO-CON opinions of Rutt Bridges (Bighorn Center) and Al Kolwicz (CAMBER) that addressed many of the issues. 
      • CBS investigative reporter Rick Salinger, in an October 31, 2002 televised report, disproved the accuracy and security claims of election officials.
       
      It is wrong for Colorado officials to secretly scheme to override the vote of the people.   
       
      It would be wrong to force Colorado voters to vote using a system that cannot be trusted because it cannot be verified.
       
      Colorado legislators should reject any attempt to get them to join in this conspiracy to override the will of Colorado voters.  They should use their position of trust to represent the people, not the bureaucracy. 
       
      We challenge the Secretary of State, the county clerks, and Colorado Legislators to an independently moderated public debate on whether unsolicited mail ballot elections are secure, accurate, verifiable, anonymous, accessible, accountable, and transparent.