By Doug Chapin on February 6, 2012

On January 24 Saguache County, CO voters overwhelmingly recalled County Clerk Melinda Myers. Myers had been under fire ever since presiding over a hotly-disputed 2010 election in which preliminary results - which showed some candidates, including Myers' GOP opponent, leading - were ultimately reversed due to reported machine problems and other errors. Although a grand jury found no evidence of criminal conduct, the 2010 election led to a long-running battle involving Myers, local activists, election officials and the courts about whether and how to allow scrutiny of voted ballots in the name of transparency.

Those battles do not end with Myers' recall. Myers' successor - Carla Gomez, the candidate who won, then lost the 2010 election - is now in charge of an office whose conduct has sparked a legislative battle between Colorado clerks and activists about access to voted ballots.

In addition, Saguache's 2010 election will be the subject of a hearing on formal complaint filed in April 2011 with the Secretary of State's Office under the Help America Vote Act. On February 2, 2012,

Addendum Issued February 2, 2012

For Immediate Release

Secretary of State Must Hear Voting Complaints—

Denver Court Ruling

Aspen, CO, February 3, 2012 — Today the Colorado District Court for the City and County of Denver clarified that the court’s order of October 24, 2011 requires Secretary of State Scott Gessler to hold a public hearing to investigate formal complaints filed under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) related to voting system irregularities in Saguache County’s November 2010 election.

In April 2011 Aspen citizen Marilyn Marks filed a comprehensive formal complaint with Secretary of State Gessler in accordance with the provision of state law and HAVA, which permits “any person” who believes violations of Title III of HAVA have occurred to file such a complaint. Despite the numerous irregularities documented by Ms. Marks, including voting system computer logs that show unexplained out-of-sequence time stamps of computer operations during this contentious election, Secretary Gessler refused to investigate the evidence and instead dismissed Ms. Marks’s complaint for lack of standing. Marks sued Gessler to appeal the dismissal of her complaint.

The Secretary based his dismissal of Marks’s complaint on the theory that any complainant has to prove that she has been personally aggrieved by or has personally witnessed the irregularities in question, regardless of the persuasiveness of the evidence presented on its own. Marks commented, “The court disagreed with Secretary Gessler and upheld the public policy in federal law that promotes transparency in the operation of voting systems, where problems should be exposed and investigated, not concealed through officials’ refusal to investigate documented irregularities.”

Marks’ attorney, Robert A. McGuire, commented, “The Court affirmed that both state and federal law allow any person who believes a violation of HAVA has occurred to file a complaint. This decision vindicates the right of every citizen to ensure that our elections are conducted lawfully. Voting is the fundamental mechanism that makes a functioning democracy possible, and all of us have an interest in preserving the integrity of the voting process. Our democracy belongs to the people, not to government and not to corporate voting system providers. Today’s decision will help keep it that way.”

Hopefully the legislators will reject the officials' attempt to make Colorado's elections some of the least transparent in the country.

Here is what the editorial boards and columnists are saying:

Denver Post, (In Saguache, a vote for voters.) 

Daily Camera, (Right to know vs. Anonymity in Elections) 

Denver Post on Traceable Ballots

Denver Post (Murphy)  (Colorado must show that ballot integrity counts for something)

Grand Junction Sentinel Protecting Ballots is Legislative Imperative. 

Letter to the Editor-- The Colorado Statesman 

(My letter to Senator Heath) Choose transparency and sunshine in Colorado’s election process

A list of participants will be posted soon.

 http://www.glassballotbox.org/storage/HeathMeeting12.13.11.aiff

See her denial of the request for voted ballot review and my response:

http://www.glassballotbox.org/storage/8.16.11Response_CORA_denial.pdf

This ruling is of great importance to  Colorado voters as it allows the press and citizens to review and verify their elections at the most  essential level---the voted ballots.

 Click here for  the opinion handed down Thursday night.

Numerous news articles have been written about this decision:

Colorado: Saguache Co. clerk ordered to turn over ballots | The Denver Post

Colorado: Saguache ballots to be part of election review | The Pueblo Chieftain

Center Post Dispatch--Judge orders county clerk to hand over ballots

Click here to read Secretary Gessler’s comments.

I have renewed my request for a  citizens'  and press review of the Saguache ballots that will likely be more comprehensive than the SOS review.

More troublesome is her claim that she considers the public's records of anonymous votes cast on the touch-screen machines to be a "secret," to be maintained by the clerk and hand picked election officials. See my response to her specious claims.

Note that a similar denial was recieved from the Jefferson County clerk.

Hopefully, the public and press will soon start asking why the election officials are blocking public  access to fundamental election records.

The email sent from Elections Manager Josh Liss to Assitant County Attorney David Wunderlich was particularly telling as Liss suggested that the County delay its response, despite the CORA requirements to make records available in 3 business days. Liss also referenced the then pending Gessler v Myers case, which was to be ruled on almost immediately thereafter.  But most interesting was   Liss comment  to his colleague that although they had to retain the data which they had initially claimed not to have,  the rule did not require them to release it.

The public will surely ask  why Jefferson is taking this anti-transparency view when the press and public in other states may verify election results through access to these records. See http://www.scvotinginfo.com/wp/.  The very  same records which Jefferson County refuses to disclose have been reviewed in the  South Carolina election and  are posted and audited by the SC state auditor.  http://www.scvotes.org/2011/08/03/2010_general_election_audit_files. To see the benefits of such transparency, read this press release , or this academic report about the process.

In the August 4, 2011 edition, the editor of the Center Post-Dispatch takes Secretary of State Scott Gessler to task for his lack of election reform efforts in election transparency and verifiability.

They make the formal request that Gessler go to the Denver District Court and request that the transcripts of testimony of SOS officials regarding the Grand Jury's  Saguache election investigation be made public.

The article has been linked and reprinted here with permission of the paper.

http://www.glassballotbox.org/storage/08-04-11.pdf

The meeting became rather contentious and spirited.  See the 25 minute meeting at http://vimeo.com/27232014 .

 The requests of the Committee included:

1. The appointment of a Designated Election Officer with certified clerk credentials.

2. The acknowledgement that mail-in ballots will  be allowed but not mandated, allowing voters who wish to vote in person to do so at their precinct polling places.

3. The acknowledgement that the M650 is not a certified system, and should not be used for the recall election. The Committee requests that the ballots be hand counted by bi-partisan election judges.

The BOCC had done their homework and sought legal advice, and acted to appoint County Treasurer Connie Trujillo as the Designated Election Officer. They assured the public that she would be given the resource of an election expert to consult with her throughout the process.

During the meeting one citizen named Martin claimed that a new law requires a mail ballot (only) election for recall elections. The claim was inaccurate, as he was referring to a proposed bill that never made it out of committee.

Other citizens felt that the reviews of the Grand Jury and SOS indicated that Clerk Myers had