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

purging procedure and in our view it far outweighs the light burden of re-registering.” Id., 184Colo. at 76, 518 P.2d at 810.Similar to the State’s interest in the integrity of the voter registration list, the State has astrong interest in refusing to send ballots to person who failed to vote in previous elections. Onlya small percentage of mail ballots are returned. The fate of most other ballots is unknown.Because the clerk cannot unilaterally track the ballots after they are mailed, there is a greaterpotential for fraud.Clerk Johnson cites Colon-Marrero v. Conty-Perez, 2012 WL 5185997 (October 17,2012) for the proposition that the harm is not irreparable. (Clerk’s Motion for SummaryJudgment, pp. 26-27) This case differs in several significant respects. First, the voters who wereremoved were not allowed to vote because they were deemed to be not registered. This situationdiffers considerably from the case before this court. Here, electors who are designated as“inactive-failed to vote” may cast a ballot. In addition, the court did not completely dismiss thepotential irreparable injury. “This does not mean, however, that there is no need to establishsafeguards if the Court ultimately allows the I-8 voter the right to vote in the 2012 election.” Id.at 5. The Court then suggested that voters could go to the polls, present a card and voteprovisional ballots. Id. **9-10. In essence, he proposed the system similar to Colorado’s systemfor those who are denominated “inactive-failed to vote.”In addition, election protocols must be implemented uniformly throughout the state.Uniformity of process is necessary to give to voters who reside in counties that opt for mailballots to be treated equally. Clerk Johnson states that Election Code does not require uniformitybecause counties may opt out of mail ballot elections. (Clerk’s Motion for Summary Judgment,p. 25) This argument misses the point. All voters in counties that choose the mail ballot process33