Lundeen declined to discuss specifics of the proposal or explain why his bill seeks to limit a mail voting system that has been in place for several years. Instead, he said the purpose of his bill was \u201cto start a conversation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, who has long worked on election and voter-access issues, called the slate of legislation a political move by Republicans.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy sense is, they know it\u2019s bad policy, and they know it\u2019s not going to pass, but it\u2019s a statement,\u201d Fenberg said, adding that the conversation that Lundeen wants to initiate is \u201cperpetuating a lie.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a false premise that there\u2019s rampant fraud and we need to tighten restrictions, even if it means disenfranchising people,\u201d Fenberg said.<\/p>\n
County clerks may have objections as well. Lundeen\u2019s bill would cost the state an estimated $1 million in the 2022-23 fiscal year, and would cost small counties a minimum of $37,000 each and large counties up to $1.5 million, according to a fiscal analysis by nonpartisan legislative staff members.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think our folks will have some very interesting comments on that bill,\u201d said Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association. Crane, a Republican, is a former Arapahoe County clerk and recorder.<\/p>\n
The new costs for counties would come from mailing notices to voters, adding more polling places and to hire more staff members to manage mail ballot requests and count votes by Election Day.<\/p>\n
Election results are virtually never completed and finalized on Election Day, said Crane, adding that the association so far has not taken a stance on the legislation. \u201cThat perception has never been reality.\u201d<\/p>\n
A recent report from free-market think tank R Street argues against efforts to limit voting by mail.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe don\u2019t see any evidence from the election that mail-in voting was any sort of problem,\u201d said Steven Greenhut, Western region director for R Street. \u201cRepublicans did well (in 2020). One particular Republican didn\u2019t do well.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser on elections at the Democracy Fund, said Colorado is considered a model for other states for how to conduct \u201ca safe, secure, accessible vote-by-mail election.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo in this moment, the fact that (some in) Colorado are now saying they need to change, is very interesting,\u201d Patrick said. \u201cIf that was a problem with their system, those changes would have been introduced years ago, not just in this moment when a certain candidate didn\u2019t win.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lundeen\u2019s bill is far from the only legislative changes Republicans are seeking to Colorado\u2019s election processes.<\/p>\n House Bill 1086, introduced by Rep. Stephanie Luck, a first-year Republican from Penrose, would require voters to appear in-person and present proof of citizenship in order to vote if documentation isn\u2019t already on file.<\/p>\n State and federal law already requires citizenship to vote. Voting by noncitizens is \u201cextraordinarily rare,\u201d according to numerous studies compiled by the Brennan Center.<\/p>\n Former Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, said in 2011 that he suspected thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote and that more than 4,000 had illegally cast ballots in Colorado. An investigation by his own office found just a fraction \u2013 35 people \u2013 cast ballots, or 0.001% of the state\u2019s total registered voters.<\/p>\n Griswold said federal courts have struck down such laws in the past.<\/p>\n The other election-related bills proposed by Republicans are more technical. They include:<\/p>\n HB 1053, which would allow any registered voter, not just a candidate or political party, to request a recount. The requester would have to cover the cost of the recount.<\/em>HB 1088, which would require an annual audit of voter registration lists.<\/em>SB 10, which would require witnesses helping voters who are unable to sign their own ballots to live in the same county as the voter.<\/em>Griswold said her office will support a separate bill, which has yet to be introduced, making minor election law changes. She said her office is working with county clerks and others on the measure, which will be sponsored by Fenberg.<\/p>\n Griswold\u2019s 2022 re-election campaign sent a fundraising email Thursday citing Lundeen\u2019s proposal. \u201cThis bill would reduce early voting and restrict access to mail ballots \u2013 hallmarks of Colorado\u2019s best-in-class election system,\u201d the email said.<\/p>\n Republicans, echoing back to a daylong election integrity hearing in December, have failed to offer substantive evidence of widespread fraud. They also say Colorado\u2019s elections system is robust and that their bills aren\u2019t about Trump\u2019s loss. Instead, their messaging focuses on the notion that lawmakers should curtail the mere potential for fraud, even if it hasn\u2019t been shown to be a major issue.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can\u2019t move forward looking in your rearview mirror,\u201d said Lundeen, who said he wants to initiate a conversation that moves beyond Trump or the 2020 election.<\/p>\n He also took aim at Griswold for what he characterized as failing to offer any proposals or ideas about how to make improvements to the state\u2019s election processes. Griswold didn\u2019t appear in person at the December hearing, but submitted a statement and written response to questions from lawmakers.<\/p>\n Rep. Dave Williams, R-Colorado Springs, supports Lundeen\u2019s bill.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t agree with the secretary of state that this would disenfranchise voters,\u201d Williams said. \u201cThere is a massive potential for fraud when we mail out ballots when the voter rolls aren\u2019t completely cleaned up.\u201d<\/p>\n But Democrats have said that there\u2019s not much to fix. Griswold said state voter rolls are updated daily with information from other state agencies, and checked monthly against the Social Security death registry. \u201cOur voter rolls are considered some of the cleanest in the nation,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Williams, who is sponsoring the recount bill, said his legislation is targeted at issues that shouldn\u2019t be considered partisan, an argument echoed by other Republican lawmakers.<\/p>\n First-year Rep. Andy Pico, R-Colorado Springs, is requesting the bill to require annual audits of voter rolls.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a validation of procedures in place already,\u201d Pico said. \u201cI think an audit is appropriate regardless of whatever you think happened in November.\u201d<\/p>\n Patrick, with the Democracy Fund said changing long-standing policies without evidence of a problem is reactionary, and can hurt the public\u2019s understanding of election processes when it\u2019s time to participate<\/p>\n \u201cI think part of the challenge when we talk about access and the security trade-offs comes from a presupposed risk of unsubstantiated fraud,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cSo to presuppose something that happens in such an infinitesimal amount \u2026 well, the backside of that pendulum is going to negatively affect far more people than (those who) ever experience any sort of fraudulent activity.\u201d<\/p>\n