You are on page 1of 2

Annotations, M.

Marks, Centennial State Action

Committee, May 26.2105

filed 5/24
Merlin Klotz, Douglas County Clerk and Recorder,
on SOS
website by Additional comment on proposed election rule changes
Remember these are proposed RULE changes. Rules are secondary
M. Klotz
to LAWS. Rules must comply with LAWS.

RE: Proposed changes to 16.2.1 (C) and 16.2.3

Klotz makes a
personal value
judgment here,
rather than
looking at the
law. Klotz and
the SOS do not
get to impose
their personal
values. They get
to implement the

Klontz's comments on Rule 16 are concerning the question which

military, military dependent, and overseas voters should be allowed to
vote by Internet. The law is clear--- email is allowed ONLY if postal
mail (or other more secure method) is NOT AVAILABLE, or NOT
FEASIBLE. The SOS has proposed that the voter be able to decide
whether to vote by email if he believes that the "timely delivery by mail
is not certain." Of course most users of the USPS and Military mail are
somewhat "not certain" that the mail will arrive on time. When the law
was passed in 2006 and 2011, SOS testified that Internet voting would
only be permitted for a very small population of users---true hardship
cases. Clerks and SOS want to make Internet voting a convenience for
stateside and all military voters who might wait until the last minute to
mail their ballot and then decide they want to email it instead.

From an operational perspective, I could do without any of the accommodations afforded under
UOCAVA. However, these special accommodations are made primarily to our Military by UOCAVA and
Colorado derivatives of that law. In reality, our Military are the most deserving to vote and from a
fairness perspective we must provide every opportunity for their desired vote to be delivered and

They are not necessarily blessed with the luxury of mail every day or to the domestic standard
for mail delivery that the rest of us have become accustomed.
They do not always benefit from an 8 to 5 job but rather may find themselves in combat or
exercises that keep them away from all communications for extended periods.
The fact that a Clerk is obligated to mail a UOCAVA ballot 45 days before an election does not
guarantee that a service man receives it immediately. Receipt may not be until days or hours
before an election. They can request that a blank email ballot be sent to them 45 days ahead.
Instead of formatting rules that would restrict the ability of our Military to vote based on local
communication norms we are morally obligated to establish every possible vehicle for their vote
to count. we are first "obligated" to follow the restrictive law on the books and the recorded legislative intent.

This issue is a point of conflict between two rights in the United States.. The right to vote and the right
of privacy in ones vote. It is more criminal than a poll tax to say, If your vote isnt private, you cant
vote! For this reason if the two rights are in conflict it must be the voter, not the rule maker, who
makes the decision as to whether privacy in how he voted out weighs his desire to vote.

red herring
argument. Law
does not allow
voter to give up
privacy at his
option---only in
true necessity.

If I were that Military person, I would prefer to make my own decision as to whether any risk of loss of
privacy in transmission of my vote outweighs my desire to vote. I would never want to abdicate that
decision to people who can merely use a 24/7 drop box to return their ballot and who seem to believe I
could do the same. We cannot and do not leave it to other civilians voters' opinions as to whether mail will arrive in time, and hence allow
them to vote by email.

It is ironic that the same groups/individuals who work to insure every homeless person can vote would
look for ways to disenfranchise the very people insure our right to vote. This is offensive that Klotz accuses others of attempting to
disenfranchise military voters.

Until a 100% secure, private, remote delivery method of voted ballots is developed, the recommended
SoS rule refinements places the right/privilege decision to vote in the hands of that UOCAVA voter
where it should be. Why should military voters (and their families) in DC, NYC, San Diego, Ft.Bragg, Pearl Harbor, or St. Louis who get ballots
mailed and emailed 45 days ahead and have 8 extra days to return ballots get to vote by email?

The proposed rule changes in Section 16.2 are appropriate.

RE: 20.5.2 (f) Use of WIFI in elections.

Acquisition of the legislatively required number and format of polling places for up to 2 weeks before
elections that meet all ADA regulations and SoS rules can be a near impossibility. Every location where

election equipment is used is different. This proposed rule change provides for Clerk to only use WI-FI in
situations where the SoS specifically authorizes.
A point of understanding should be behind the rule. The WiFi definition legally is only local area wireless
computer networking technology .On the other hand the common/layman definition assumes a
further connection to the internet.
Specific SoS authorization is necessary as inherent in such authorization is consideration of the reach of
such wireless signal from the specific devices used.. Effective reach may be no more than to the walls of
the room or several hundred feet.
It cannot be assumed that the perfect polling place room in the perfect location is available in all areas
of the State. Rules must not preclude adaptations, with SoS approval, to avoid disenfranchisement of
voters. Even in metropolitan Douglas County, it has been impossible to provide a polling place that
meets all technical requirements to serve voters in the South Half of the County.
This requested rule modification is appropriate.