The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!



Colorado AG Reaches Agreement With Legal Team To Improve Security And Integrity Of November Election PDF  | Print |  Email
By VoterAction   
October 02, 2006

Court-Ordered Emergency Security Procedures Follow On Court Decision Calling Colorado Machines’ Security ‘Abysmal’

On September 27, the Colorado Attorney General’s office and the legal team that successfully challenged Dennis’ certification of DRE computerized voting machines in Colorado, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy and Voter Action, today completed negotiations regarding enhanced security procedures to be used in the November election. The negotiations began following Judge Lawrence Manzanares’s order last Friday that Secretary of State Gigi Dennis implement emergency statewide electronic voting security procedures for the November 7th election. The current agreement provides short-term measures to carry the state through November; following this election, the state will have to make further efforts to guarantee vote security. The enhanced security procedures were filed in court last week.


"The length and complexity of the security procedures that will be put in place for the November election, including the complicated chain of custody measures, demonstrate how badly the system is broken and that Judge Manzanares understood the critical need for additional security to mitigate the risks of the dubious DRE computerized voting machines," said Paul Hultin, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, who headed a team of lawyers from the firm of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, in Denver, which is providing pro bono legal services in the case.

Court Upholds Colorado Voters Challenge to Electronic Voting System PDF  | Print |  Email
By VoterAction   
September 22, 2006
Certification - New Standards, Testing for Security to be Required After November Elections

Judge orders Secretary of State to produce and implement voting security plan for all counties

In a legal victory this afternoon in the Colorado voters' lawsuit challenging Secretary of State's Gigi Dennis' cursory certification of electronic  voting systems manufactured by Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, and Hart Intercivic, the  District Court in Denver decided that it will not permit the use of  these systems post November 7th until real security standards are  adopted and the machines are retested to meet these standards. In his ruling, Judge Lawrence Manzanares said the Secretary of state had  failed to create minimum security standards, as required by state law, and did an "abysmal" job of documenting the  testing during its certification process. He also ordered the Secretary of State to adopt state-wide security standards before the November  2006 election, and ensure compliance from all Colorado counties using the machines.

"The Colorado voter plaintiffs are extremely pleased with this victory. The Court's decision upholds our challenge to the reliability of the certification process as well as the security of the vote when electronic voting systems are in use," said Paul Hultin, Counsel for the plaintiffs, who led the litigation team at Wheeler Trigg  & Kennedy LLP,  in Denver, which is providing pro bono legal services in the case.
Colorado's E-Voting 'Expert' is no Expert, Admits 'Expert' PDF  | Print |  Email
By Brad Friedman, The Brad Blog   
September 15, 2006
Man Appointed by SoS to Certify Voting Machines for State Has No Computer Science College Education, Failed to Test Machines for Hackability or Much Else


Colorado Democratic Party Calls on Voters to Vote by Absentee Ballot, Citizens Group Calls for Investigation of SoS


This article was posted on The Brad Blog. It is reposted here with permission of the author. 


It's incredible (or is it at this point?) but the lawsuit filed by several Colorado voters to ban touch-screen voting machines manufactured by Diebold, ES&S, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia in the state has revealed that the state's appointed "expert" — responsible for certifying voting systems — has no actual college training in computer science and failed to do any actual testing of the systems before certifying them!


Colorado: Litigation Update PDF  | Print |  Email
By VoterAction   
July 29, 2006

After a lengthy hearing in Denver on Friday, July 19, 2006, Colorado District Court Judge Lawrence Manzanares ruled that the Plaintiffs have stated viable claims against Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis and could proceed against her. The judge dismissed the claims against the Defendant Counties and County Clerks. The lead attorney for the Counties stated that the Counties would honor any order of the Court, even though they might no longer be parties to the case. With this understanding, having the Counties out of the case simplifies and focuses the issues.


Judge Manzanares stated that he was going to hear evidence on whether the Secretary had followed the law and her own regulations in certifying the subject DREs. The judge will allow discovery against the Secretary and will hold an evidentiary hearing on August 28 at 8:30 a.m. in Denver District Court.

The August 28 hearing date allows more time to discover and digest information about the Secretary’s certification process and the material supplied by the DRE manufacturers, particularly as to security and Independent Testing Authority issues. The hearing is now set for two days. We remain optimistic that the court will act to protect the integrity of Colorado elections and Colorado citizens’ individual voting rights.

Colorado Response To HAVA Complaint Is Unfair and Incomplete PDF  | Print |  Email
By Al Lolwicz, CAMBER   
July 14, 2006
Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis (pictured at right) has published her HAVA complaint finding and Al Kolwicz, the person who filed the complaint, has objected to the report.


The July 10, 2006 determination regarding HAVA complaint SOS-HAVA-01-06-0001 is unfair and incomplete.  The conclusions reached are not supported by the facts. I do not accept this determination.


1. According to the report, both administration and public testimony agree that both of the charges made in the complaint are true. Yet, the report fails to recommend that the law be enforced.
a. There is no disagreement that when a ballot is marked on a continuous roll, it is “marked in any way whereby the ballot can be identified as the ballot of the person casting it.”  Instead of recommending enforcement of the law, the report argues why it is OK to use unconstitutional ballots.

b. There is no disagreement that a blind voter cannot verify that their votes are correctly printed before they are cast.  Instead of recommending enforcement of the law, the report argues that blind voters do not need the protections offered by the law.
Colorado: Key Government Document Altered PDF  | Print |  Email
By Al Kolwicz, CAMBER   
July 03, 2006

This article appeared on coloradovoter on July 1, 2006. It is reposted here with permission of the author.


Somebody altered an official government document, and the Secretary of State is being very quiet about it.

The altered document is the Certificate of Approval for Voting System Use for the Hart InterCivic voting system. A copy resides on the Secretary of State website, and it authorizes Colorado counties to use the Hart voting system.

The certificate was issued on February 28, 2006 after what the state describes as extensive testing of the Hart voting system.

Because of concerns regarding secret ballots, the certificate was issued with a restriction. The use of serial numbers on paper ballots is forbidden.

Colorado Voters File Lawsuit to Halt State’s Purchase or Use of DRE Computerized Voting Systems PDF  | Print |  Email
By VoterAction   
June 01, 2006
Group Cites Deficiencies in Security, Reliability, and Verifiability in Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S and Hart Computerized Voting Systems


A non-partisan and diverse group of Colorado voters who seek to protect the integrity and purity of elections as required by the Colorado Constitution, filed a lawsuit today challenging theSecretary of State’s certification of certain computerized Direct Recording Electronic (“DRE”) computerized voting systems and asking the Court to prevent the use of these computerized voting systems in Colorado elections. The DREs manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems, ES & S, and Hart InterCivic have a well-documented history of problems with security, reliability, verifiability, and disability access.  Named defendants are Secretary of State Gigi Dennis and the boards of county commissioners of Adams, Araphahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, Eagle, Jefferson, La Plata, and Larimer Counties which are representative of the counties around the state planning to use the DREs.

The law firms Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP in Denver, and the Law Offices of Lowell Finley, representing the Colorado voters, filed the complaint in Denver District Court.

"The Secretary of State is not upholding her duty to Colorado’s citizens to ensure reliable, secure, and verifiable voting as required by our State Constitution and election laws," said Myriah Conroy, a plaintiff in the Colorado voters’ suit. "Colorado voters deserve to know that the state’s voting systems preserve the fundamental right to have their votes recorded and counted as intended. DRE computerized voting systems from these manufacturers are easily hacked and compromised, and have a history of operational problems which have disrupted elections across the country. Further, they are virtually impossible to recount in a contested election, and fail to accommodate voters with a broad range of disabilities,” said Conroy. 


"The Secretary of State’s Office has failed to issue rules setting minimum standards for security of these systems. The election rules permit the DRE manufacturers to simply tell the State that their machines are secure," said Paul Hultin, an attorney with Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP.  "Worse, the Secretary is not following the law. No certification reports required by law have been prepared even though these systems have been certified for months and counties are preparing to use these dubious systems in the upcoming election," stated Hultin. 
Colorado Political Party Hires Colorado's Elections Director PDF  | Print |  Email
By Al Kolwicz, CAMBER   
March 09, 2006

Colorado’s Director of Elections, Bill Compton is leaving to become Political Director for the Colorado Democratic Party


This article appeared on ColoradoVoter. It is reposted here with permission of the author. 


Is it proper for a high ranking Colorado election official to move to a high ranking position with a Colorado political party? It does not matter which party -- it does raise serious questions.

Can Colorado's 2006 elections be trusted? Compton is not the only employee to leave, and Secretary of State Gigi Dennis is new to the office. Who will be running the 2006 elections, certifying equipment and elections, and resolving election disputes?

Knowledge and contacts learned while serving as top election official could be used to tip election results. The Secretary of State must take specific actions to protect the people of Colorado from this threat.

• Not all election information has been released to the public. For example, detailed databases have not been released to the public, and they can give an edge to a campaign.

• Confidential knowledge of voting equipment is not public and can be used to secretly manipulate elections.

• Weaknesses in Colorado’s election system are known to Compton and can be exploited without much risk of detection.
Compton leaves behind an election system that is not secure, not accurate, not verifiable, not transparent, and not private. The system is open to error, fraud and abuse.
Colorado: Say NO To Email And Fax Voting PDF  | Print |  Email
By Al Kolwicz, CAMBER   
March 06, 2006

Colorado legislators act to weaken secure elections. Through Senate Bill SB-062, Colorado legislators and election oficials intend to permit voting by email and by fax.

If "limited" email voting were available to anybody, I believe that the “equal protection” clause of the law would permit others to gain access to the voting method. Can anybody guarantee that this would not happen?.

In any event, there are many elected officials who have experienced an election win or loss due to a very small number of votes. The point being -- EVERY SINGLE VOTE IS IMPORTANT, AND WE CANNOT SACRIFICE ANY. These officials should understand this. Elections are getting closer and closer. Every ineligible vote counted is a way to disenfranchise an eligible voter – by cancelling the eligible voter’s choices.

Also, for those who would vote for this bill I ask, “how can it be verified that the person voting by email is the specific person who is authorized to vote the ballot? The bill does not address this major defect. Consequently, email voting credentials will instantly have significant value.

Email voting credentials will be sold by voters who don’t care about the election contests. They will be bought by those who are able to collect these credentials and sell them (in a block) to the highest bidder. It will be like selling your user-ID and password to your internet account. Nobody will know if it is you, or your friend, or some miscreant who is logged into your account. Think of the power an individual will have when he says to a candidate, “I can offer you voting credentials for 15,000 votes if you will give me …” has issued an action alert to Colorado lawmakers urging them to reject SB06-062.

Colorado: No More Sunshine In Boulder County PDF  | Print |  Email
By Al Kolwicz, CAMBER   
January 20, 2006
This article appeared on Coloradovoter. It is reposted with permission of the author.

Using legal loopholes, Boulder County officials have taken new steps to block public oversight of its scheme to control the ballot box. They don't care who votes as long as they get to count the votes?

Boulder County has refused public inspection of its voting equipment draft RFP. In response to CAMBER's Open Records Request the county has slithered behind the law to hide its intentions and block the public from participating in voting equipment decisions.

Colorado law does not require that public officials keep plans secret. Public officials who believe in transparent government engage the public before making decisions.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

Results 16 - 30 of 37
Colorado Resources
Election Administration
2004 Elections
Get Involved
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>
State Pages
District of Columbia
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia
Puerto Rico
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>