Monday, May 11, 2015 at 6:45:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time

Page 1 of 2

Subject: FW: HB15-1130--2006 Legisla5ve intent on email ballots and "secure" and "feasible" access topostal mail

Date: Monday, May 11, 2015 at 6:45:07 AM Mountain Daylight Time

From: Marilyn Marks

This email was sent April 12 in response to proposed HB15-1130 that would have promoted email voting with the same language in the state election law today. The 2006 authorizing legislation was quite clear in the hearings that only very rare circumstances would justify email voting. Unfortunately, the SOS has exceeded the legislative authority and permitted email voting by military and overseas voters to become the rule rather than the exception.

As the SOS attempts to refine its rule for email voting, the SOS is attempting to expand email voting, and activists are attempting to have the dangerous practice curtailed except in extreme hardship cases.

Feel free to contact me if you wish to receive the transcript or audio files. Marilyn Marks

From: Marilyn Marks [MarilynRMarks [at] earthlink [dot ]net Date: Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 10:21 PMTo: "wayne.williams@sos.state.co.us" Cc: Suzanne Staiert , "Dana US>" , [other recipient email addresses removed for privacy considera5ons] Subject: Re: HB15-1130--2006 Legisla5ve intent on email ballots and "secure" and "feasible" access to postal mail

Secretary Williams,

I am writing to request that you reconsider the DOSs position on the subject of email return of voted ballots from UOCAVA voters. Please consider the clear legislative intent expressed in the hearings on the attached SB06-62 that first allowed email ballots. I have attached a detailed notes from the testimony and a copy of the audio file for your review.

The bill that introduced the language that allowed email transmission "IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE ANOTHER MORE SECUREVOTING METHOD IS NOT AVAILABLE OR FEASIBLE, was intended to merely allow the limited group of voters who used fax machines to use email IF there was no postal mail service or fax service available.

The testimony in the House makes it clear that the email security was considered a serious problem and this was to be a very limited exception, and only permitted if fax was unavailable and postal mail was not available.

Bill Compton of the DOS testified at length about the security concerns with email voting. A number of citizens and groups including Common Cause, opposed the bill for this reason.

The application of this 2006 language has become perverted to become the rule not the exceptionwhen the Pueblo clerk boasts that 90% of his UOCAVA voters vote by email! Email voting is being promoted as voting convenience without legislative authority.

The problem appears to be that the affidavit language does not reflect the legislative intent or language

Page 2 of 2

of the statute. The SOS crated affidavit language isI swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that: I am a member of the Uniformed Services or Merchant Marine on active duty, or an eligible spouse or dependent of such a member, or a U.S. citizen temporarily residing outside the U.S., or Other U.S. citizen residing outside the U.S.

With no restrictions for hardship or lack of availability of mail.

CRS 1-8.3-104(5) provides that the SOS shall prescribe the voters declaration to be consistent with the provisions of Article 8.3, which of course requires the restrictions that the 2006 intent indicates: (5) The secretary of state shall prescribe the form and content of a declaration for use by a covered voter to swear or affirm specific representations pertaining to the voter's identity, eligibility to vote, status as a covered voter, and timely and proper completion of a ballot. The declaration shall be based on the declaration prescribed to accompany a federal write-in absentee ballot, as modified to be consistent with this article. The secretary of state shall ensure that a form for the execution of the declaration, including an indication of the date of execution of the declaration, is a prominent part of all balloting materials for which the declaration is required.

I request that your office review the applicable statutes, the attached legislative history and the current wording of the affidavit/declaration to provide an affirmation consistent with the restricted nature of the legislative intent for electronically transmitted ballots.

In that regard, I ask that this review serve to also inform your advice on the HB15-1130 legislation.

I hope this bit of history and legislative intent is helpful. Thanks to Mary Eberle for transcribing!!

Thank you for your consideration.

Marilyn Marks