March 10, 2017

Dear Colorado Voter:

Your immediate action is needed to defeat the most dangerous election law in
Colorados history. HB17-1014 strips 125 year-old protections that secret ballots provide
to the voter and to the integrity of the election processprotections that all other states
and modern democratic societies demand.

The General Assembly passed the bill March 4th. It is now headed to the Governors
desk. Please immediately contact Governor Hickenlooper to ask him to veto this bill.
(HB17-1014) The email should go to Jefferey Riester Jefferey.Riester@state.co.us .

The bill (with problems detailed in the letter below) is based on the 18 th and 19th century
corrupting practice that voters should be able prove how they voted to anyonetheir
boss, their commanding officer, the sheriff, the tax assessor, the mayor, their pastor,
their landlord, etc. HB17-1014 even permits ballot voting parties with group voting at
churches, union meetings, bars, clubs, employee meetings, colleges, etc. where voters
can show their voted ballots to their associates to encourage the group to support
certain candidates or issues. Partisan watchers will be permitted to be stationed in the
polling place where voters may bring their voted ballots to prove to the party or
campaign that they voted the right way. Voters can take copies of their voted ballots to
meetings with their officials to prove that they voted the right way, when seeking a
building permit, liquor license, etc. See the letter below for more alarming examples of
this bills impact. Obviously, permitting voters to prove how they voted to those in a
position to distribute favors leads to the corruption of the Boss Tweed era. Colorado
lawmakers have adopted that alarming election scheme in their desire to promote
unrestricted Free Speech in elections.

I wrote the following letter yesterday to all 100 lawmakers to urge that they reconsider or
recall the bill before it reaches the Governor, but to no avail. Please write Governor
Hickenlooper, asking him to veto. (contact info below)

March 5, 2017

Dear Colorado Lawmakers:

Major problems with the misnamed ballot selfie bill (HB17-1014) passed last
week both undercut the intent of the bill and invite corruption of Colorados
elections. A simple, no-cost solution has been overlooked.

I have explained the background of these seven serious bill problems below in
the body of this letter:

1. Bill does not permit sharing selfies on social media as promised

 2. Facilitates vote-trading
3. Coercion not effectively prevented
4. Permits electioneering in the polling place
5. Permits group voting
6. Creates door-to-door ballot harvesting dangers
7. Permits sending ballot copies to authority figures
8. Conflicts with state constitution and existing law

No other state or modern democratic country permits the election activities that
this bill permits. Most of these activities were banned in the late 1800s as part of
this nations election reform. Colorado lawmakers should fully deliberate whether
citizens really support this broad rollback of voter protections to Boss Tweed
times. The 125+ year old concepts of secret ballot rights are based on both
a right and a duty to maintain a secret, anonymous ballot. The duty is mandatory
to protect elections from corruption and voters from undue influence. The abiding
concept for 125 years had been that a voter should never be able to prove how
they voted. To do so invites election corruption. HB1014 fails because it retains
the right, but not the duty of a secret ballot, --the fundamental principle of free
and fair elections. Our elections must retain both the unshakable right and duty to
stop a perversion of the democratic process. Please consider the destructive
impacts of this bill and the opportunity to recall the bill before it reaches Governor
Hickenloopers desk.

There is a simple no-cost solution that addresses the citizens demand for
ballot selfies. I have explained it at the end of this letter.

I have listed seven major flaws in the bill, although there are numerous others.

1. Bill does not permit sharing selfies on social media as

promised. Sponsors misled the General Assembly and the press in
claiming that this bill grants the voter the ability to legally post a picture of
his/her official voted ballot on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. The
existing law provisions (not amended by this bill) still prohibit any person
from disclosing to any other person the name of any candidate for whom
a voter has voted. (CRS 1-13-712(3)) While the voter may attempt to post
a voted ballot on social media, this longstanding provision would
technically prohibit Twitter, Facebook, etc. from publishing (disclosing) that
ballot image. If the social media site published the voters posting despite
the law, it still would be illegal for other users to share or retweet the
image, making the situation even more confusing. In summary, the
bill does not live up to its claims-- to permit voters and social media users
to freely share voted ballot images.

We opponents are pleased with the remaining restrictions because

sharing voted ballots (or posting ballot selfies) is clearly a danger to the
integrity of the election, by encouraging voter intimidation and trading
 votes for favors. However, voters, proponents and supporters of the bill
should not be fooled into believing that the bill is what the sponsors
claimed or that sharing selfies is now protected by law.

2. Potential national impact---facilitating vote-trading. The Secretary of State

is rightly concerned about Colorado becoming the epicenter for vote-
trading because voters can show their ballots or copies to anyone
anywhere. Colorado has no law preventing vote-trading. The fact that
secret ballot requirements prevent disclosing ballots in most states caused
vote trading to be in limited use because of reliance on the honor
system. With this new law, the vote-traders will not have to rely on the
honor system in CO. Vote trading is just beginning to attract attention in
the press. Obviously the most wide-scale national impact would be trading
votes for electoral college impact. But even Colorado Congressional
election vote-trading would have national impact. Here are some
examples:

Democratic Party voters in red CD-4 could agree to vote for the R or
independent candidate in exchange for someone voting for the D
candidate in very competitive CD-6.

Trades can be made up and down the ballot based on value of the
vote. Votes in swing district CD-6 are more valuable than votes from
solidly blue Boulder County. So, it could take 3 votes for R's in various
races on the Boulder ballot to get 1 D vote in CD-6. Ballot questions
could be traded as well---Voter A agrees to vote for the pro-life
amendment, if Voter B will vote for a marijuana tax.

Of course trades can occur down to city council wards.

A robust marketplace would likely develop for trading votes in Colorado as the
traders would be able to prove the trades, not just rely on the honor system.
The trade could be verified in numerous ways in Colorado---because voter
can show the voted ballot to anyone via any means who can witness or
notarize the accuracy of the voted ballot. There is nothing in the law to
prevent this. It would be very hard to police when voted ballots can be
displayed. In my view, this is institutionalized voter fraud.

It should be noted that the original bill as introduced included prohibitions on

vote trading, but sponsors removed those prohibitions in amendments.

3. Coercion not effectively prohibited. The voter protections against coercion

to disclose the ballot are weak. The law only prohibits inducing a voter to
show his ballot, without defining induce beyond the Websters meaning
of inspire, motivate, convince, invite, etc. The provision is so vague as to
make it unenforceable. The voter intimidation statute does not seem to
 directly apply to creating undue pressure to disclose a voters ballot.
Voters are simply not adequately protected from pressure to disclose how
they voted.

4. Electioneering in the polling place.--This bill permits voters to enter a

polling place and show watchers and other voters their voted ballots.
Voters can show campaign, candidate, and issue committees watchers
their voted ballots before they cast them, proving that they voted right.
Imagine the abuse and social pressure voters will experience as members
of unions, political parties, churches, or clubs or whose employers have
"suggested" how they should vote, and have stationed appointed official
watchers in the polling place to inspect ballots of the
member/employee/constituents who are willing to prove their loyalty.
Proponents argue that voters are not required to show their ballots---it is
their choice. That is not realistic when authority figures are standing by the
ballot box expecting to see voters voted ballots. Imagine the union boss
standing by the ballot box as a watcher. Of course, his members are going
to feel that they must show their ballots and loyal votes. Imagine the
uniformed fireman watcher there looking for votes for the fire district tax
increase. [In theory, each clerk can control the activities in the polling
place, but this discretionary determination will not survive legal scrutiny.
Different standards for electioneering and ballot disclosure cannot be
applied. And in practice, the clerks are not going to tell local power-brokers
that they are prohibited from the electioneering that the state law permits.]

5. Group voting.--The new bill permits group voting. In our mail ballot state,
it is easy for an employer or union to host a voting party. "Everyone bring
your ballot Friday, and we will go to happy hour and vote our choices."
Imagine how "souls to the polls" becomes "ballots to the pews" at a
Sunday morning group voting meeting where everyone brings their mail
ballot. Imagine the pressure that could be put on public housing residents
by their manager holding a voting meeting. Political parties can have
voting parties during their precinct captains' meetings, to assure that
everyone votes as they should. Which precinct captain is going to fail to
follow the crowd and show his ballot? Teachers can vote together to votes
on the school board candidates, which school management or the union is
in the room expecting to inspect their ballots.

6. Door-to-door harvesting ballot reviews.-- Colorado permits door-to-door

mail ballot harvesting now, but until now, the voter was not to disclose the
marked ballot to anyone. Now, harvesters can "help" the voter by
"checking the ballot for accuracy and clarity." Imagine the pressure many
will feel to show the union, employer, church, or political party "harvester"
their ballot choices. Organizations will announce that they will send
harvesters around to collect the ballots, discouraging voters from mailing
the ballots.
 7. Emailing copies of the voted ballot to authority figures.--This bill permits
voters to prove how they voted to their employer, commanding officer,
union, church leaders, family, political party, candidate, sheriff, city council,
etc. by emailing a copy of the marked ballot to them. Although the
authority figure should not request such disclosure, the subtle pressure
will certainly happen. The voted ballots become open records, and after
the election, the receiving party can verify that there is a counted ballot
that appears to be the one the voter claimed to cast. (This eliminates the
voter sending a picture that does not match his official cast ballot.)

8. Conflicts with other election statutes and state constitutional

provisions. Colorados election law is built on the concept of a secret,
anonymous ballot as a mandatory key principle. HB1014 flips that modern
democratic concept on its head. The bill makes such fundamental
philosophical changes in the way Colorado elections are conducted that
many other sections of the election code must be amended, and the
conflicts with the state constitution addressed. For example, election
judges are not to see, inquire or disclose how individual voters vote. The
state constitution requires that they take an oath not to do so. When voters
will be displaying their ballots in the polling place and presenting their
proof of voting right to their favorite partisan judges, such an oath is
unworkable. The same is true for appointed watchers who are not to be
able to see how individuals vote. Their natural role will become to receive
what willing voters will prove to the watchers campaigns as to how they
voted. If all other members of the public are free to know and discuss how
a voter voted, the judges and watchers should not be held to a different
standard of confidentiality, and the avoidance of even looking at what is
put in front of them.
Electioneering statutes must be modified to permit the polling place
electioneering provided in this bill. CORA laws that prohibit the disclosure
of identifiable ballots must be amended to acknowledge that many ballots
will be identifiable under this bill, and to make them available to the public
after the election. Identifying ones ballot should not reduce transparency
of verification of the election.

No-cost solutionAlmost all election officials publish copies of sample ballots

on their websites. The old law can be amended simply to have the clerk clearly
mark the website ballot as a sample. The voter may then download the unofficial
ballot to share, post, email, etc. ---which would not prove how he voted, but
would allow his full political expression of his stated voting choice. Sponsors
rejected this solution, insisting that voters should be able to prove how they vote.
This should be reconsidered. No other changes to the existing law would be
required. The bill can be recalled, and remedied with a brief substitute bill to
provide sample ballots online.
 I am happy to discuss this further if you have questions or comments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Marilyn Marks

Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Marilyn Marks
MarilynRMarks@earthlink.net