October 06, 2011 09:44 PM UTC

No On 103 Campaign Hopes Gessler Suppresses Denver Vote

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

A revealing admission in a Colorado Public Radio story today regarding the lawsuit against Denver by Secretary of State Scott Gessler to stop ballots from being mailed to “inactive” voters. CPR correspondent Ben Markus follows up on the insistence by Gessler that withholding ballots from “inactive” voters won’t make a difference, since response rates are “so low” and it’s so easy to “reactivate” your registration. For one thing, you can try later if the website is down.

Oddly, at least one fellow conservative seems kind of worried about something:

Reporter Ben Markus: There are 55,000 inactive voters in Denver.  And Debra Johnson, the City and County’s Clerk and Recorder, says they could have missed voting in the last election for any number of reasons.

Johnson: I mean, you had to work late — overtime — you know, I mean, you’re sick.  I mean, so should they have one time and not have the same ballot mailed to them?

Reporter: She thinks they should get a ballot.  And Denver has mailed ballots to inactive voters in the last 5 elections…

But Victor Mitchell a former Republican State Representative, who runs SaveColoradoJobs.org says if voters have become inactive then that’s [their] own fault.  Mitchell’s concerned that if liberal Denver’s 55-thousand inactive voters get ballots in the mail, that could unfairly tip the scales in favor of Proposition 103 — which would raise taxes for the state’s schools.

Mitchell: It could have a significant impact potentially on the outcome of this. Right now the polls are neck and neck on how Prop 103 will turn out. [Pols emphasis]

What a fascinating slip! Apparently, despite the confident bluster, Proposition 103 is not the lost cause Republicans would have you believe it is! What’s more, mail ballots delivered to “inactive” voters might make a difference in an election after all! That makes the idea of denying them, either in Denver or anywhere else, much more problematic to justify–unless, of course, your goal (like Victor Mitchell’s unusually blunt admission) is to have fewer people voting.

After all, there’s “no vote suppression” going on here, right? Either Gessler is right that this isn’t about reducing the number of votes from Denver, or Mitchell is right that reducing the number of “liberal Denver” voters, thereby preventing “a significant impact,” is exactly what this is about.

They can’t both be right, folks.