1437 Bannock St . Denver , Colorado 80202 - Brennan Center for ...

federal law “includes not only a duty to monitor but also to enforce.” United States v. Arkansas,794 F.Supp.2d 935, 983 (E.D.Ark 2011)Clerk Johnson states that neither Lamm nor Huddleston is dispositive or persuasivebecause the statutory constructs are different. (Clerk’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 13)Clerk Johnson’s analysis misses the key common denominator. Both Lamm and Huddleston andthis case address a circumstance in which a statute gives a state official authority over a localpublic official for the purpose of applying state laws in a uniform manner. There is no significantdistinction between the statutes underlying the Lamm and Huddleston cases and the provisions ofthe Uniform Election Code.Clerk Johnson attempts to support her argument by noting that clerks generally havemore direct contact with the members of the public who may have questions or concerns aboutthe election process. (Clerk’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 11-12) This argument does notadvance Clerk Johnson’s position because it is irrelevant. The issue is not whether county clerkshave greater access to the public. The question instead is whether the clerk is acting on her ownor whether she is acting as an agent for the Secretary when conducting elections other thanpurely local elections.The Uniform Election Code makes the Secretary the “chief election official” in charge of“overseeing and coordinating elections and in enforcing and implementing the provisions ofHAVA and of this code.” Section 1-1.5-102(1)(g), C.R.S. (2012). The administration of electionsis a state function. By making the Secretary the chief election official, the Election Codedesignates the Secretary as the principal and the clerk as the agent of the Secretary. Thus, whenthe clerk engages the public, the clerk is acting on behalf of the Secretary.15