Colorado rebuilt how it votes twice. Its federal plan never caught up.

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold has called the state’s switch to mail-in voting a transformation of democracy.

The federal election plan Colorado keeps on file describes an election system mostly built around precinct polling places.

Both come from the state.

One appeared in a 2023 news release celebrating the 10th anniversary of Colorado’s vote-by-mail law. 

The other appears in Colorado’s official Help America Vote Act State Plan, which has not been updated since 2008 despite two major changes to how Coloradans vote and register.

The issue surfaced through a HAVA complaint filed in February by Highlands Ranch resident Michael Cahoon and Wisconsin election researcher Peter Bernegger. At the May 11 hearing, they were joined by Harry Haury, chairman of Unite4Freedom, who testified that he served as a technical design consultant on voting-system standards and security during development of the Help America Vote Act.

The complaint focused on alleged post-certification changes in Colorado voter records. It also raised a separate question:

If Colorado transformed how people vote, why does the federal plan describing that system still describe a Colorado that no longer exists?

The complainants argue the issue is more than administrative housekeeping. They contend Colorado continued receiving and spending federal HAVA funds while operating under a plan that no longer reflected the state’s election system. 

A plan built after Florida

Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, in 2002 after the Florida recount and the disputed 2000 presidential election.

The law created new federal election requirements, including statewide voter registration databases, provisional ballots and accessibility standards for voting systems. It also provided federal funding to help states comply.

In return, states filed plans explaining how they would meet those requirements and spend the federal money.

Colorado’s current HAVA plan was revised in 2007 and published in the Federal Register in 2008 under then-Secretary of State Mike Coffman.

The plan itself anticipated future changes.

It states that future material changes in administration would be developed and published in the Federal Register in accordance with HAVA procedures.

The question is whether the federal document Colorado uses to certify compliance and receive HAVA funds still accurately describes the election system those funds support.

Two major changes

In 2013, House Bill 13-1303 transformed Colorado into a universal mail-ballot state.

Ballots began going to every registered voter. Assigned precinct polling places were eliminated and replaced with voter service and polling centers. Same-day voter registration was added.

A 2016 analysis by The Pew Charitable Trusts found the law “fundamentally changed how elections are administered in the state.”

Ten years later, Griswold celebrated the law’s anniversary by saying: “Embracing Vote-by-Mail for All transformed Colorado’s democracy.”

HAVA Then and Now: Colorado’s 2008 HAVA State Plan states that future material changes will be published in the Federal Register. In 2023, Secretary of State Jena Griswold said vote-by-mail “transformed Colorado’s democracy.” Sources: Federal Register (July 14, 2008); Colorado Secretary of State (May 10, 2023).

In 2019, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 19-235, creating automatic voter registration through the Department of Revenue. Automatic voter registration tied to driver’s license applications and renewals began in 2020. 

The complainants argue both laws constituted material changes requiring an updated HAVA plan.

They say they found no such update.

Their Exhibit J documents searches of the Federal Register, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission website and Colorado’s own publications page that found no Colorado HAVA State Plan update after 2008.

Other states continued updating their HAVA plans. West Virginia published a revised plan in 2006 and 2018. South Dakota did so in 2014. Colorado’s most recent published update remains the 2008 filing.

The complaint 

The complaint alleged that public voter-history records showed 487,887 post-certification changes across the 2020, 2022 and 2024 general elections.

It did not allege that any election result changed. It argues that post-certification changes to voter records required explanation. 

The state concluded the apparent discrepancies resulted from ordinary voter-list maintenance and differences among public voter-history exports. The complainants dispute that conclusion.

At a May 11 hearing, Cahoon testified that the figure represented 5.36 percent of the approximately 9.1 million ballots Colorado reported as counted across those elections.

The hearing featured testimony from the complainants. The state’s technical explanation later appeared in a declaration signed by Elections Division Legal Manager Caleb Thornton and incorporated into the May 21 determination.

Thornton’s declaration formed the basis for the state’s dismissal. In it, he attributed the apparent discrepancies to routine voter-list maintenance and said the complainants had misinterpreted Colorado’s voter-history exports.

Deputy Secretary of State Andrew Kline’s final determination adopted that analysis, concluding that Colorado’s voter registration database does not permit the type of post-certification vote-history modifications alleged in the complaint.

The state dismissed all counts.

The state answered the data claim.

It did not answer whether the plan should have been updated.

Instead, Kline ruled that the office lacked jurisdiction to consider that claim because HAVA State Plan requirements arise under a different section of federal law than the provisions covered by Colorado’s HAVA complaint process. The determination also concluded the challenge came too late.

How the hearing was conducted

Before the May 11 proceeding, Elections Division legal analyst Kathleen Wallace informed the complainants that the Division would not mount a defense at the hearing, that there would be no cross-examination and that Secretary Griswold and Elections Director Choate would not be available as witnesses.

The complainants had also requested information before the hearing regarding the state’s investigation, witness list and exhibits. Their filings indicate those requests received no response.

The unanswered question

RMV asked both the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission whether Colorado still considers the 2008 plan current, whether vote-by-mail and automatic voter registration required an update and whether any amendments were ever filed.

Neither agency responded before publication. Haury is scheduled to discuss the complaint and the state’s dismissal during a Kim Monson Community Town Hall on June 16.

The state dismissed the complaint. But the question it raised wasn’t dismissed.

The federal plan Colorado uses to describe how it conducts elections was written for a system the state itself replaced more than a decade ago.

Whether that required an update is the question neither the hearing nor the dismissal resolved.