[EL] A dissenting opinion on the Colorado absentee controversy

Tue Oct 11 14:02:28 PDT 2011

Yes, we don't know of any state that makes voters inactive for the failure to vote as quickly

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Gronke [mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Jenny Flanagan
Cc: Bev Harris; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] A dissenting opinion on the Colorado absentee controversy

Jenny

Thank you for the additional context.  Are you aware if Colorado is
particularly quick to move registered citizens to "fail to vote"
status?  The provisions in Colorado seem awfully quick to move to
inactive status.  As noted in a Common Cause report on
Oregon(http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/IMPROVINGVOTERPARTICIPATION_080409.PDF),
citizens are not moved here until they fail to vote in two generals:

Registered voters are moved to inactive status under Oregon law (ORS
247.013) if "the county
clerk has received evidence that there has been a change in the
information required for
registration" or "the elector has neither voted nor updated the
registration for a period of not less
than five years." A county clerk must have mailed a notice (described
in ORS 247.563) that may
be forwarded and includes a postage prepaid, preaddressed return card
on which the voter may
provide his or her current address. If this postcard is not returned
and the registrant "neither votes
nor updates the registration before two general elections have been
held" then a registration
changes from inactive status to canceled. An individual cannot be
moved to inactive status
during the 60-day period prior to any election.

In our state, these provisions already hit different parts of the
population very differently, as the report shows.  Newly naturalized
citizens, Latinos, and young people are particularly hit by these
provisions.  And anyone who follows politics knows that many off-year
congressional elections are non-competitive, only further depressing
turnout and thereby moving people off the active rolls.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jenny Flanagan
<JFlanagan at commoncause.org> wrote:
> I wanted to clarify a few things and provide more information about the
> inactive fail to vote issue in Colorado last week:
>
>
>
> In Colorado, counties can choose to conduct their election by mail in
> certain elections (nonpartisan non-general elections and primary
> elections*).  In these elections voters automatically receive ballots in the
> mail from their county clerks.  There is no requirement to have polling
> places or for voters to request ballots. The controversy was over whether or
> not 'inactive fail to vote' voters could receive those ballots.  Colorado
> law requires ballots be mailed to 'active' registered electors (Section
> 1-7.5-107(3)(a)(I), C.R.S.).
>
>
>
> Inactive fail to vote voters are eligible voters who missed 1 general
> election and did not respond to a post card or other notice.  There are
> other categories of inactive voters in Colorado, such as inactive bad
> address; these voters are not at issue, and do not receive ballots unless
> they proactively update their registration.
>
>
>
> Based on the court decision last Friday a number of counties in addition to
> Denver are now mailing to inactive fail to vote voters, including Mesa
> (mailing to military IFTV only), Pitkin, Boulder and Pueblo (all inactive
> FTV).
>
>
>
> For more information and court filings:
> www.commoncause.org/co/inactivevoterlitigation
>
>
>
> Recent news:
>
>
>
> More Counties Sending Ballots to Inactive Voters
>
> http://www.chieftain.com/news/metro/more-counties-sending-ballots-to-inactive-voters/article_b1c436e4-f3c0-11e0-bff4-001cc4c002e0.html
>
>
>
> PitCo Mail-In Election to Include Inactives
>
> http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/149550
>
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-brater/a-win-for-voters-is-gessl_b_1003759.html
>
>
>
> *Primary elections do require counties to mail to inactive fail to vote
> voters, and to set up a minimum number of voter service centers for in
> person voting.
>
>
>
> Jenny Flanagan
>
> Colorado Common Cause
>
> jflanagan at commoncause.org
>
> 303-292-2163
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Bev
> Harris
>
> Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 12:39 PM
>
> To: law-election at UCI.EDU
>
> Subject: [EL] A dissenting opinion on the Colorado absentee controversy
>
>
>
> A controversy erupted in two Colorado counties this past week (Pueblo and
> Denver
>
> counties) regarding their desire to mail absentee ballots automatically to
>
> voters who are inactive, who had not requested a ballot, nor responded to a
>
> mailing asking them if they wanted one.
>
>
>
> The counties wanted to mail ballots to the inactive voters, the Colorado
>
> secretary of state tried to block the mailings; courts ruled to allow the
>
> mailings to go out.
>
>
>
> The media hype was framed in terms of prohibiting inactive military voters
> from
>
> casting ballots, but the real controversy was generic -- the counties wanted
> to
>
> send unrequested ballots to everyone on an opt-in list, almost all of the
>
> voters actually not military, and not even overseas or out of state.
>
>
>
> So let's be clear: the prime risk for wholesale election fraud with absentee
>
> voting systems is insiders exploiting known inactives, casting votes in
> their
>
> names.
>
>
>
> For this reason, no-fault absentee is high risk, but opt-in or permanent or
>
> forced absentee is reckless.
>
>
>
> What I would look for as a symptom in a location about to commit insider
>
> absentee fraud is aggressive balloting to (or in the name of) voters known
> to
>
> be inactive. Contrary to the prefab talking point that it's necessary to
> push
>
> unasked-for ballots out to known inactive voters on a wholesale basis to
> make
>
> it "easier to vote", this is actually helping insiders commit identity theft
> to
>
> cast votes FOR those they know are unlikely to vote for themselves. That
>
> enables massive disenfranchisement for valid voters who cast honest ballots.
>
>
>
> There is a mitigation for this, but the Colorado Clerks Association is doing
> its
>
> best to block that, too. Recently they announced that no open records
> requests
>
> would be honored around election time.
>
>
>
> First: permanent absentee systems are reckless and fraud-inviting.
>
>
>
> Second: Using permanent absentee systems to push ballots out to inactive
> voters
>
> exacerbates the fraud potential
>
>
>
> Third: The only real mitigation is public examination of the list of who can
>
> vote and who did vote. By blocking public access to those records, Colorado
>
> Clerks in Pueblo and Denver counties are taking sole power over the
> election,
>
> with no ability for the public to see or authenticate the most essential
>
> components.
>
>
>
> IF the public has prompt access to the records, by obtaining the voter list
>
> (which should be marked by active and inactive) and the participating voter
>
> list (which should contain method of voting, such as at polls, absentee), it
>
> might be possible to determine whether insiders or the real voter had cast
> the
>
> vote.
>
>
>
> This is what I recommend for Colorado citizens and political parties,
> LITIGATING
>
> if necessary to obtain the necessary prompt access to crucial records.
>
>
>
> Now, I realize that the Democratic political position favors permanent
> absentee
>
> and pushing ballots out to inactives. But I think we have to question this:
> Why
>
> are proponents not also demanding the necessary transparency measures needed
> to
>
> mitigate fraud? Instead, not a peep of protest about the clerks position to
>
> block all open records requests for election records (including voter lists
> and
>
> who the ballots were sent to, and who chose to vote these inactive ballots).
>
>
>
> I hope the public and political candidates will demand prompt access to
> these
>
> records.
>
>
>
> Bev Harris
>
> Founder - Black Box Voting
>
> http://www.blackboxvoting.org
>
>
>
> * * * * *
>
>
>
> Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
>
> people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right
>
> to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them
> to
>
> know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over the
>
> instruments of government we have created.
>
>
>
> Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501c(3) elections watchdog
> group
>
> funded entirely by citizen donations.
>
> http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
>
> Black Box Voting
>
> 330 SW 43rd St Suite K
>
> PMB 547
>
> Renton WA 98057
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
---
Paul Gronke    Ph: 503-771-3142
paul.gronke at gmail.com
Professor of Political Science and
Director, Early Voting Information Center
Reed College

http://earlyvoting.net