Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
should guard against extensive last-minute scrambles<br />
in <strong>the</strong> few weeks before Election Day. 66 Grounds for<br />
challenge include citizenship, residency, and age. 67<br />
Challenges must be made in writing and include <strong>the</strong><br />
basis for <strong>the</strong> challenge, <strong>the</strong> supporting facts, and “some<br />
documentary evidence to support <strong>the</strong> basis for <strong>the</strong><br />
challenge.” 68 This requirement is helpful because it<br />
requires more than mere alleg<strong>at</strong>ions, <strong>the</strong>reby decreasing<br />
<strong>the</strong> risk th<strong>at</strong> frivolous challenges will affect too many<br />
voters. However, anyone registered to vote in Colorado<br />
is entitled to challenge any person whose name appears<br />
in a county registr<strong>at</strong>ion record. 69 This is problem<strong>at</strong>ic,<br />
because it could allow large-scale challenges by a few<br />
coordin<strong>at</strong>ed actors st<strong>at</strong>e-wide.<br />
Hearings are required in Colorado, which<br />
provides important protections for challenged voters.<br />
No l<strong>at</strong>er than thirty days after filing <strong>the</strong> challenge,<br />
<strong>the</strong> county clerk and recorder must hold a hearing <strong>at</strong><br />
which <strong>the</strong> challenged registrant is entitled to appear. 70<br />
Critically, <strong>the</strong> challenger is required to appear and<br />
bears <strong>the</strong> burden of proof of <strong>the</strong> alleg<strong>at</strong>ions in <strong>the</strong><br />
written challenge. 71 Within five days of <strong>the</strong> hearing,<br />
<strong>the</strong> county clerk and recorder must make a decision<br />
based on <strong>the</strong> sufficiency of <strong>the</strong> evidence to reject <strong>the</strong><br />
challenge, accept <strong>the</strong> challenge and cancel <strong>the</strong> elector’s<br />
name from <strong>the</strong> registr<strong>at</strong>ion book or mark <strong>the</strong> voter<br />
as “inactive,” which triggers Colorado’s procedures<br />
concerning voters who fail to vote in a general<br />
election. 72 Marking <strong>the</strong> voter “inactive” occurs if <strong>the</strong><br />
county clerk and recorder “finds some evidence but<br />
not sufficient evidence to support <strong>the</strong> alleg<strong>at</strong>ions in <strong>the</strong><br />
challenge.” 73<br />
Colorado’s law protects <strong>the</strong> rights of voters<br />
by requiring th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> person who brings <strong>the</strong> challenge<br />
show up and prove his or her alleg<strong>at</strong>ions before <strong>the</strong><br />
challenged voter is kicked off <strong>the</strong> registr<strong>at</strong>ion rolls.<br />
It is also laudable th<strong>at</strong> challenges are not all-ornothing,<br />
and th<strong>at</strong> insufficient evidence does not result<br />
in autom<strong>at</strong>ic cancell<strong>at</strong>ion of a voter’s registr<strong>at</strong>ion. 74<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re is room within Colorado law to<br />
clarify wh<strong>at</strong> it means for a county clerk to “find[]<br />
some evidence but not sufficient evidence to support”<br />
alleg<strong>at</strong>ions, particularly if <strong>the</strong> remedy for th<strong>at</strong> situ<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
is marking <strong>the</strong> voter as “inactive.” 75 Colorado should<br />
also restrict <strong>the</strong> people th<strong>at</strong> can make pre-Election Day<br />
challenges to only voters registered within <strong>the</strong> same<br />
precinct.<br />
LATE DEVELOPMENT: Just as this report<br />
was being finalized, we understand th<strong>at</strong> Colorado<br />
Secretary of St<strong>at</strong>e Gessler has proposed a new<br />
to Bill Internicola, a<br />
rule, Rule 52 “VERIFICATION AND HEARING<br />
PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS IDENTIFIED AS<br />
91-year-old World War<br />
NON-CITIZENS” [ http://www.sos.st<strong>at</strong>e.co.us/<br />
pubs/rule_making/files/2012/20120824_Election_<br />
II veteran and bronze<br />
NoticePublicMeetingDraftNewRule5 ], which appears<br />
inconsistent star recipient with <strong>the</strong> protections who has in Colo. Rev.<br />
St<strong>at</strong>. § 1-9-101 “Challenge of illegal or fraudulent<br />
registr<strong>at</strong>ion.” been voting Under in this Florida new rule, if d<strong>at</strong>a from <strong>the</strong><br />
federal citizenship d<strong>at</strong>abase indic<strong>at</strong>es th<strong>at</strong> a registered<br />
voter for is fourteen not a citizen, years, <strong>the</strong> voter it will receive written<br />
notice th<strong>at</strong> a hearing will be held and asking <strong>the</strong> voter<br />
for was proof “like of citizenship. an insult” Verbal to reports indic<strong>at</strong>e th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Secretary intends to hold hearings in local counties to<br />
pursue be told challenges he had against 30 allegedly days ineligible persons<br />
and th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> Secretary of St<strong>at</strong>e will continue to bear <strong>the</strong><br />
burden to prove of proof he in was providing a citizen evidence th<strong>at</strong> a registered<br />
voter is not a citizen. However, questions of procedural<br />
fairness or he are would raised since be a removed<br />
deputy Secretary of St<strong>at</strong>e may<br />
be both <strong>the</strong> presenter and <strong>the</strong> decider <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong>se hearings.<br />
from <strong>the</strong> voting rolls.”<br />
In addition, this new rule does not contain <strong>the</strong> same<br />
protections found in <strong>the</strong> law, such as requiring<br />
challenges to be filed 60 days before <strong>the</strong> elections. Laws<br />
mu<br />
FloriDa<br />
Since 2000, Florida remains a prominent b<strong>at</strong>tleground<br />
st<strong>at</strong>e. Florida also has <strong>the</strong> highest foreclosure inventory<br />
after <strong>the</strong> financial crisis of 2008. 76 The subsequent<br />
changes in residency makes Florida particularly fertile<br />
ground for challenges to voter registr<strong>at</strong>ion based on<br />
residency. Unfortun<strong>at</strong>ely, Florida’s procedures for<br />
voter eligibility challenges before Election Day are<br />
insufficiently voter protective.<br />
Florida law requires pre-Election Day voter<br />
challenges by priv<strong>at</strong>e citizens to be filed no sooner than<br />
30 days before an election. 77 Any registered elector in<br />
Florida may challenge <strong>the</strong> right of a person to vote,<br />
but <strong>the</strong>y may only challenge o<strong>the</strong>r voters registered in<br />
<strong>the</strong> same county, which is an important limit<strong>at</strong>ion. 78<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> challenge must be in writing and contain<br />
an o<strong>at</strong>h th<strong>at</strong> is specifically prescribed by <strong>the</strong> st<strong>at</strong>ute<br />
September 2012 | <strong>Bullies</strong> <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Ballot</strong> <strong>Box</strong> • 9