Email to Colorado State Senators

March 1, 2017

Re: 2nd reading today--Serious harmful impacts of the "ballot selfie" bill

Dear Senators,

Please dont strip Colorado voters of the protections of a secret ballot, which appears to
be the goal of HB1014 set for second reading today. The secret ballot provisions of our
system are mandatory, not optional, and must remain so.

Some of HB1014s damaging flaws explained below:

--Permits electioneering in the polling place.

--Facilitates proof of votes to authority figures and candidates, and fosters voter
intimidation.
--Facilitates vote trading.
--Fails to accomplish stated goal of social media sharing.
--Fails to adopt a simple no-cost solution to sharing voting choices on social
media.

Please take a careful, serious-minded look at the real impacts of the misleadingly
named the ballot selfie bill. HB17-1014 is a dangerous anti-secret ballot bill that does
far more than legalize posting photos of ones ballot on Facebook. It is gravely
damaging to the longstanding guarantees of free and fair elections. If Colorado passes
this bill, there is little doubt that it will generate national ridicule. Consider how it can
damage your own re-election efforts in the vote trading that it facilitates, which I have
explained below.

This bill strips away the 100+ year old protections of the secret ballot, using the weak
argument that there should be unbridled free speech when it comes to elections.

Senators Donovan and Hill are the co-sponsors. My communications have been
directed to Senator Hill and Senate Republicans to date, so my comments below relate
to what I know about Senator Hills positions on this bill.

Senator Hill attempts to conceal the dangers of this bill by calling it a ballot selfie bill.
But the impacts apply to all types of voting and ballots, quite broadly, not merely
photographs of mail ballots. Dont be fooled by the innocent-sounding language!

-- Electioneering in the polling place. The bill trumps the traditional polling place
electioneering prohibitions by permitting a voter (think union boss, influential church
minister, or local sheriff) to come into the polling place while other voters are voting,
show his voted ballot to other voters, showing them how they should vote. It allows the
dutiful members to show their union boss or authority figure whether they voted right
before they cast their ballots into the ballot box. This violates all concepts of Americas
polling place anti-electioneering laws of the past 100+ years.

-- Proof of votes to candidates, authority figures. The bill permits voters to photograph
their voted official ballot and share that as well, say on Twitter or Facebook or via text or
email. Voters would be permitted to send a copy of their ballot to anyone, including their
employer, the candidate, county chair, or military commanding officer. It essentially
invites union bosses, church ministers, the county sheriff, employers, county chairs, the
tax assessor, etc. to make it clear that loyal incumbents/members/employees should
post proof of how they voted on their official ballots. So much for fair elections, free from
undue pressure! The prohibition against inducing a voter to share his/her ballot is
written in vague language to be unenforceable. The perpetrator may review the voted
ballots after the election to verify that the picture of the ballot posted is actually reflected
on an official ballot.

-- Facilitates vote trading,-- federal and state elections. Senator Hill has rejected
amendments recommended by the Secretary of State to prohibit the use of such voting
proof in vote trading, ---allowing voters in swing states for presidential elections can
trade their votes with people in other states and prove their vote to facilitate the vote
trade through a ballot photograph permitted by this bill. There were press reports of vote
trading in other states in the 2016 election. This law would greatly facilitate the practice
because vote trading would no longer have to rely on the honor system. One could
provide proof of the vote.

Consider the impact within the state between legislative districts. Vote trading would
be facilitated as voters traded votes from safe districts for votes in other races in
competitive districts. (Example in footnote 1.) Votes can be traded between ballot
questions as well. It is hard to understand why bill sponsors would want to corrupt the
system this way.

-Bill fails to fulfil stated goal of social media sharing. Senator Hill claims that the purpose
of the bill is to allow postings on Facebook and social media to encourage people to
vote for certain candidates or questions and share the information with other social
media users. Yet, he is aware that the very next section of election law (1-13-712(3))
prohibits anyone from sharing how a voter voted. Therefore, if your constituent posts his
voted ballot on Twitter and you Retweet it, you are guilty of a punishable crime. It also
appears that Facebook or Twitter would be guilty of crimes by publishing what the voter
attempts to post on those sites. Senator Hill insists that his bill must remain as is
although it does not accomplish the purported goals of social media sharing of voter
choices.

--Simple no cost solution rejected. Senator Hill has rejected proposed amendments that
would make sample ballots (virtually identical to official ballots) available on Clerks
websites for use by those who want to post ballot selfies. (Clerks are currently posting
sample ballots in almost all counties.) Voters may currently post or share a marked
sample ballot, but it is illegal to share your official ballot proving how you voted.
Proponents could satisfy their purported goal of visually sharing their voting preferences
and encouragement of others by using clearly marked Sample ballots while not
proving their actual official vote. Why wouldnt this satisfy anyone who did not have
questionable intentions of undue pressure or vote trading?

It is difficult to see what the motives are driving this bill. Secret ballot protections protect
the voter from undue pressure or coercion from others. These secret ballot protections
are what cleaned up our country's elections in the 1890s from the corrupt elections
where vote buying, selling and high pressure tactics were used to win elections. Hill and
his co-sponsors are attempting to roll back these protections in the name of free
speech. Yes, we had unbridled free speech in the corrupt elections of the 1800s. Why
would the legislature want to send Colorado back to such electoral chaos? Secret ballot
protection is a key reason that Internet voting is not legal. That safeguard should not be
abandoned.

Until now, we would not want authority figures or candidates coming into the voting
place pressuring us to vote their way, and expecting us to show them our ballots. But bill
sponsors are telling us that unfettered free speech is more important than voter
protections that all other modern democratic societies rely on. Colorado will be subject
to national ridicule if this bill is passed as it is written.
Proponents claim that the protection is present because they retained the prohibition
against inducing others to show their ballots. That is unenforceable. Almost anything
can be considered inducing someone to show their balloteven someone saying, Its
a great idea for voters to show their ballots. That can be considered "inducement."
Their claim of protection is no protection at all.

Please stand up for our rights to a secret ballot and the mandatory protections it brings,
and reject this bill. If you favor social media posting of visual representations of votes,
then ask for amendments that simply require sample ballots to be made available for
such use, and maintain the prohibitions on proving how voters actually vote.

Footnote
1. Sam lives in Senate District A. Mary lives in Senate District B. Sam strongly
supports a Republican Senate District B, and Mary supports a Democratic
candidate in district A. Sam and Mary make a deal on vote trading sites (already
being used nationally) to vote for the others candidate and prove their vote to
each other through exchanging copies of their ballots. It is easy to imagine that
Internet vote trading boards in Colorado would become quite robust with trades
across county and district lines up and down the ballot.

Another example would be vote trading between ballot questions. Voters may
trade vote for pro-life amendment for votes against abolishing TABOR. Voters
may trade votes for local taxes for votes against a certain candidate.

Thank you for your consideration and your service to Colorado.

Marilyn Marks