Federal order puts Colorado’s mail ballot system on a collision course

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

The way Colorado runs elections hasn’t changed—but a new federal order could force it to.

The order would have federal agencies assemble a nationwide list of verified U.S. citizens and share it with state election officials.

States could then choose to send their own voter lists to the U.S. Postal Service about 60 days before an election. If they do, ballots would be limited to the names on those lists.

In Colorado, that framework could fundamentally change how elections work.

Colorado’s system leaves very little room to miss your chance. Ballots go out to every active voter—even those who register just days before Election Day. And for anyone who doesn’t, same-day registration still allows them to walk in and vote right up until polls close.

That’s where the system starts to run into the new order, said Mesa County Clerk Bobbie Gross, who pointed to a basic question: who actually ends up receiving a ballot.

“This would only affect federal races,” Gross said. “Making the county send out two different ballots to voters—if they are not on the list, voters in Colorado would still be able to vote in state and local elections.”

In practice, that could mean some voters receive a full ballot, while others receive a ballot without federal races—or are required to vote in person to access them.

“Compliance would be a major operational overhaul, not a simple tweak,” she said, pointing to the need to redesign ballot envelopes, coordinate with USPS systems and potentially manage multiple ballot formats across the county.

The timing alone raises concerns. Because Colorado allows same-day voter registration, voters who register within 60 days of an election would not appear on a pre-submitted federal eligibility list.

“If the rule requires a voter list to be submitted 60 days in advance, late registrants wouldn’t be included,” Gross said. “This would create a gap where they may not be eligible to receive a ballot with federal races on it.”

El Paso County Clerk Steve Schleiker said election officials are still trying to understand what implementation would even look like.

“Same-day registration and late registration activity would create real questions about how a 60-day list could remain complete and current,” Schleiker said.

He said key details have not yet been defined.

“Until those federal agencies define what the requirements actually are, local election officials do not have enough operational detail to determine implementation timelines with confidence,” Schleiker said.

But the mechanics of how ballots are delivered are only part of the story.

What happens next may matter more than how the system is built.

The order signals that federal officials could begin taking a closer look at how ballots are issued, particularly in cases where eligibility is in question. It points to existing law and creates a new way to compare federal data with state voter records—raising the possibility that discrepancies could draw closer scrutiny.

That tension—between federal oversight and state-run elections—is where the legal and political fight is expected to play out. Supporters say that’s long overdue.

Bob Cooper, a director with the Colorado Institute for Fair Elections (COIFFE), said the order addresses a gap that states alone cannot close.

“Citizenship data is only available from the federal government,” Cooper said. “By producing a list of citizens in each state, states must compare that list to the voter registration list to determine what registrations have no record of citizenship.”

Cooper said that comparison is not just administrative—it carries legal implications.

“It is both a federal and state crime to register illegal voters,” he said. “Non-citizen voter registration is the crime of creating a false government record. Each one is a felony.”

Cooper pointed to those enforcement provisions—especially the ability to withhold funding and refer cases for investigation—as proof the order is designed to ensure compliance.

“The federal government has every legal right to do this to enforce compliance with federal election law,” Cooper said. “In fact, the federal government is the only entity that can provide such a list.”

Mark Milliman, a COIFFE board member, said the group has already identified potential issues in Colorado’s voter data, though he noted the analysis is still ongoing and not yet comprehensive.

“We do know from sampling that there are thousands of ballots that come back as undeliverable,” he said, citing voters who may have moved, died or otherwise no longer reside at the registered address.

He said the group has also observed possible duplicate registrations and irregular entries, including records that appear inconsistent with known demographic data. 

“Right now, we don’t have a direct way to verify citizenship across the voter rolls,” he said. “That’s where federal data becomes important.”

He said the problem starts with the limits of the data the state already has. He said the state’s existing data only goes so far. Social Security records may confirm identity and Social Security participation, but not citizenship.

That’s where federal systems come in. Milliman pointed to tools like the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE database as one way to check eligibility more directly.

Milliman said a federal cross-check could help identify discrepancies that state systems alone may miss.

Another COIFFE board member, Bill Lehman, said the issue isn’t just what shows up in the data—it’s what outside reviewers can’t fully access.

“The inability of any outside auditor to accomplish a complete public review of voter rolls is part of the problem,” Lehman said.

He said it’s one thing to spot problems in smaller samples—duplicate registrations or outdated addresses—but getting a clear picture across the entire state is much harder without better access and consistent oversight.

Lehman said a federal cross-check could change that dynamic.

“This would enable county clerks to add another layer of verification,” he said, referring to the use of federal data to confirm citizenship status—something he said cannot currently be done at the state level.

Whether the order ultimately takes effect remains uncertain.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold signaled the state will challenge the order, calling it “undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous” in a statement issued Tuesday.

Schleiker said Colorado’s Attorney General has moved to join a multistate lawsuit challenging the order, though as of Wednesday there was still no formal filing or public confirmation.

For county clerks, that uncertainty feels familiar.

“In practical terms, county clerks administer elections under current Colorado law and under the direction and rules that are legally in effect,” said El Paso County Clerk Steve Schleiker. “Right now, nothing has changed in Colorado election law or procedures.”

On the ground, not much looks different.

Clerks are still printing ballots, updating voter rolls and preparing for the June primary—even as the rules around them could change, face legal challenges or never take effect at all.

“I think most people can agree that protecting the integrity of the ballot and ensuring only citizens vote are foundational goals for any democracy,” Gross said. “The intent to provide better tracking and verification tools is understandable.”

She said the concern is how that goal translates into practice.

“There is a significant gap between the intent of this order and the practical reality of running an election,” Gross said.

For Gross, the issue ultimately comes down to who is shaping how elections are run.

“If this moves forward, local election officials must have a seat at the table,” she said. “Those of us on the ground understand the logistics of ballot printing, USPS delivery windows, and the high stakes of record accuracy. Without that expertise, we risk a one-size-fits-all approach that could create administrative chaos, increase taxpayer costs, and potentially disenfranchise eligible voters, all while trying to solve a problem that current state-level security measures already manage effectively.”