A very interesting post today over at the Junction Daily Blog, where our friend Ralphie reprints an email from Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler to an unnamed Mesa County Republican from the end of March. The subject? Senate Bill 109, the bill to solve problems uncovered last year with mail ballots and so-called “inactive-failed to vote” voters. As you know, that bill died in the GOP-controlled House at Gessler’s urging, leading to a call from Colorado Democrats to remove Gessler from office by recall or other legal methods.
Mesa County’s Republican clerk, Shiela Reiner, just wouldn’t cooperate:
Right now, Sheila Reiner is convinced this will save 20k per year. She is flat out wrong, and fails to recognize how this will hurt voter integrity. By contrast, most other clerks, except democrats and a handful of liberal republicans, are dead set against the bill.
That includes Arapahoe county and El Paso. Laura Bradford, chair of the committee for the hearing tomorrow, plans to vote her county, which currently means Sheila’s position. I’m confident if people in Mesa have the full story, they will be outraged that something like this could become law in Colorado.
The same goes for Don Coram. I think he’s backed himself into a corner, even though his clerks, like Fran Long in Montrose, are steadfast against this bill.
At a minimum, it would be good to delay the bill so that people – and Laura – can get full information before them. Do you know anyone who can talk to Bradford? Could some county commissioners talk to her, since it is Mesa that will have added costs, and regardless of whether everyone thinks things in Mesa are hunky-dory, you have to ask yourself if everything is just fine in Denver and Pueblo. It is not.
Thanks!
Scott
A few points, some of which were noted by Ralphie:
1. Senate Bill 109 was killed shortly after this email was sent in Rep. Laura Bradford’s Local Government Committee. So we’d assume that this lobbying by proxy request was successful! The problem is that there are already people whose job it is to lobby on behalf of the Secretary of State, and it probably wasn’t the recipient of this email.
2. As Ralphie asks, what does Gessler mean when he indicates things are not “just fine” in Denver and Pueblo? Not “just fine,” meaning what exactly? Ralphie asked Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert Ortiz, who responded only that his county complies with “all state laws.” In terms of an actual substantiated allegation that has been made? We haven’t seen one.
3. Also noted by Ralphie–this email was sent from Gessler’s personal email address, scott@scottgessler.com, even though it would certainly seem to be pertinent to official business. Moreover, Gessler appears to have cc:ed his official spokesman Rich Coolidge, at Coolidge’s personal Comcast email address. Ralphie logically asks if this was meant to circumvent a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request. It unsettlingly looks that way.
In conclusion, it’s clear that Gessler very much wanted SB-109 to die, and it appears that he was taking extraordinary, maybe even unethical steps to ensure it did. Particularly since this was the same bill that precipitated the call by Colorado Democrats to remove Gessler from office, the contents of this “personal” email scheming against it could become a major issue.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments