STATE OF COLORADO

Department of State
1700 Broadway
Suite 200
Denver, CO 80290

Wayne W. Williams
Secretary of State
Suzanne Staiert
Deputy Secretary of State
Annotations by Marilyn Marks 4.21.15

April 17, 2015

The Honorable Sponsors ofHB15-1130
State of Colorado
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203

If goal was to mirror Nov.

elections, HB1130 should not
attempt to take dozens of
shortcuts to avoid adopting
Uniform Election Code provisions.

Dear Reps. Ryden and Nordberg and Sens. Hill and Garcia:

Thank you for your tireless work to advance HB-1130 and help more of our military and
overseas citizens participate in their municipal elections. As you know, our aim was to have
municipal elections mirror our November elections to maximize voter participation. And while
the collaborative groundwork we laid chartered the bill for success, recent senate amendments
create significant challenges for our voters and municipal election administrators.
Unifonnity with respect to the various types of elections is important. A soldier deployed
overseas should not be confronted with having to decipher different rules and standards for
different elections, and unfortunately several amendments do just that. Some municipalities
participate in coordinated November elections-in which the Title I protections for military
voters apply--while other municipalities conduct independent elections in April or May. A
voter's rights should not vary based on when her municipality chooses to have its election.
My gravest concern involves amendment L.038, which requires that military or overseas citizens
vote a mail ballot unless it is "not feasible." Only then, can these voters scan and electronically
send their voted ballots. This puts a significant onus on the voter to detennine whether the
overseas mail system is or isn't capable of delivering her ballot on time.
It also potentially leaves our overseas voters susceptible to challenges if the clerk or domestic
watchers believe that voter, who delivered her ballot electronically, could have voted a mail
ballot instead. While I have great confidence in our municipal clerks and judges, the fact
remains that a locality could either intentionally or unwittingly disallow military votes based on

this provision.
Moreover, determining whether this standard is met is problematic. In many foreign countries
the mail service is neither secure nor timely. Even here in the United States I have personally
received remnants of a piece of mail weeks later wrapped in a plastic bag that says "WE CARE."
So to try to force a soldier deployed overseas to use a system that is not secure over a system that
allows him or her to confirm the same day that their ballot actually arrived is very concerning.

This is exactly what

the Uniform
Elec.Code requires
today. The law
requires that the voter
sign under penalty of
perjury that it is not
feasible to send by
secure mail, The
current affidavits do
not comply with law.
Legislative intent in
2006 was to be very
restricte for email
voting.

SOS is making
argument for no
subjectivity in
standard, and
therefore this would
lead to argument for
all to vote by internet.

As the former El Paso County Clerk and Recorder, I took great pride in maintaining the state's
largest UOCAVA voter population. My office worked closely with this select pool of voters and

'k11nNumber

(303) 894-2200 ext. 6383

TDD

Ad.,1inistration

(303) 860-6900
(303) 869-4860

Web Site

: 'I'

r-111ail

t30.l) 86Y-i8o7
www sos.state.co.u,
cpfhelp'.g sos.stat~.co. us

they found the electronic transmission option to be the most effective and their best opportunity
to participate. These voters should have the same opportunity to cast their ballot for mayor as
they do for governor.

22% voted by email in El

Paso 11/14. Seems high
percentage for secure mail
not to be available.

My second concern involves L.036. The state uses an innovative application from Everyone
Counts that allows UOCAV A voters to specifically access their ballot online, mark it and print it
out to verify their selections. The concern that the system is hackable is a nonstarter because the
voter must still print it, sign it, scan it and send it back to the clerk's office. To expressly restrict
municipalities from accessing the state's system or one like it wrongly excludes a user-friendly
and popular option for our military and overseas voters. Obviously email is hackable!
But, munis
have
EASY
access to
sig. files
through
county
clerks.

Finally, amendment L.031 requires that municipal election officials verify signatures for
UOCAVA voters. While I wholeheartedly support requiring signature verification, currently
municipalities are not yet required nor equipped to verify voter signatures. As we explained to
the sponsor of this amendment, the statewide voter registration system, to which municipalities
do not have direct access, collects and stores signatures. The Municipal League has commited to
work with my office this summer to identify the best path forward to help these clerks implement
best practices for signature verification for all voters. However, with the current amendment
added, clerks will verify signatures for all military and overseas voters but not domestic voters,
which doesn't make sense.

some
munis
verify
signatures
I appreciate both chambers thorough review of this legislation, but I am requesting a conference
using
those SOS ! committee to remove these three unworkable amendments.' You have my commit:rllent to
files.
recornm~nd.signature verification legislation next session using a thorough and collaborative

approach~

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Wayne Williams
Colorado Secretary of State

Voter's privacy is invaded

in on-line ballot marking.
Additionally, SOS implies
that the printing is to
paper, not electronic
saving. Electronic saving
by screenshot, or pdf, etc.
is typical, further
escalating the on-line
manipulation risk. If the
ballot is printed on paper,
marked on paper and
mailed by postal mail back,
there is far less security
risk.

The reason it "makes

sense" and is essential to
require sig verification for
email ballot submission is
that e-ballots can be
duplicated by the
hundreds. That is much
harder for a recipient of a
printed paper ballot on
ballot stock to do. Mail
ballots should have
signatures as well, but
lawmakers have not yet
agreed.