The vote: use it or lose it

Measure would jeopardize integrity of voter rolls

The Rocky

Monday, February 25, 2008

A bill pending in the legislature threatens to unravel efforts by Gov. Bill Ritter and other top state and local officials to restore public confidence in the integrity of elections.

Fair elections depend on assurances that those who vote live where they say they do. House Bill 1329 would undermine this basic compact between citizens and the government by making it far too difficult for county clerks to maintain current, accurate voter rolls.

Moreover, the bill would invite fraud by allowing people who have moved outside the city where they're registered - or even out of state, for that matter - to influence the outcome of political races.

HB 1329 would change the way Colorado considers voters inactive. Now, registered voters - meaning most Coloradans with driver's licenses - are ruled inactive if they have not voted in the most recent general (even-numbered year) election.

County clerks send every inactive voter a postcard within 90 days of the missed election, allowing the inactive voter to get back on the rolls by returning it. Postcards are forwarded to a current address if the voter has moved.

Inactive voters can also regain active status by requesting a mail ballot or showing up at the polls on election day.

Registered voters are purged from county rolls only after they've missed two straight general elections. Current law affords ample opportunities for voters who want to stay active to do so.

Some political activists, led by Common Cause, think that this sensible system, which expects residents to engage with the political process once every couple of years before they can vote, disenfranchises people.

Nonsense. And the remedy in HB 1329 is hardly a cure for this purported disease. Under it, voters would stay on the active rolls unless they missed two consecutive general elections. So a person who got a Colorado driver's license in 2007 and registered using the motor-voter method could miss the 2008 and 2009 elections and still be considered active when 2010 rolls around.

What if this person had moved once or twice - even left Colorado - before November 2010? By showing up at a polling place with that 2007 driver's license, the person could cast a ballot, no sweat.

Registration rolls could become wildly inaccurate. Many Coloradans change addresses every year or so. Last year at this time, El Paso County had 130,000 inactive voters. In Denver, roughly 40 percent of registered voters - nearly 155,000 people - are now inactive.

Under HB 1329, tens of thousands of Coloradans (at least) could vote in elections even though they had moved to different cities, counties - or states.

If that's not troubling enough, just wait until the next all-mail election, which is becoming routine in odd-numbered years. Since all active voters are sent ballots during mail elections, hundreds of thousands of ballots could arrive at the wrong addresses throughout Colorado (at no small expense, we might add).

We would hope that few of those stray ballots would be cast illegally. But there's little way to prevent it. Voter fraud may be a felony, but one clerk admitted the law isn't diligently enforced unless there's some highly organized conspiracy the government can target.

Recent elections have tested Coloradans' faith in the integrity of the franchise. Restoring that confidence will be difficult, and HB 1329 would in fact cast more doubt on citizens' fundamental trust in how elections are handled.

• February 25, 2008

  6:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Earl writes:

  gee I wonder if ditter would consider asking people to show a valid ID to vote. they could be swiped just like a credit card to validate them. oh wait that was tried in Georgia and the dnc and ucla jumped them as it was not fair to the poor who didnt have any ID and at the time they were being given away free.

• February 25, 2008

  9:19 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  angka writes:

  You know, I don't see "use it or lose it" anywhere in the Constitution in reference to the right to vote. What a crock.

• February 25, 2008

  9:44 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rushrulesbaby writes:

  Another voter fraud bill introduced by democrats. When do they stop?

• February 25, 2008

  9:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ghoax writes:

  my gut is hurting from laughing so hard, once again, the democrats instead of acknowledging the existing rules (like you go register to vote when you move out of your district, having identification like you're supposed to) ..instead seek to change the rules instead of enforce the existing ones...I'm sorry but, the dems just flat don't get it...this is exactly why we need to vote...to keep idiots like this from getting on the payroll

• February 25, 2008

  12:06 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Andy writes:

  "Many Coloradans change addresses every year or so."

  "What if this person had moved once or twice - even left Colorado - before November 2010?"

  "Under HB 1329, tens of thousands of Coloradans (at least) could vote in elections even though they had moved to different cities, counties - or states."

  "Registration rolls could become wildly inaccurate."

  Where do these assertions come from, Rocky? There's a lot of guessing in this opinion ("could become wildly inaccurate") and very little research. You might be right, but you've offered nothing concrete on which to base your opinion.

• February 25, 2008

  5:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  fntsymtn writes:

  Who cares if people lose their automated right to vote because they have continuously chosen to not vote? All that person who suddenly wants to get completely out of character and vote has to do is re-register. Not difficult, free, and ensures that your records are up to date.

  While "use it or lose it" is nowhere in the constitution, the people who are affected by the "use it or lose it" rules, never use it anyway so they'll never know the difference.

  The concern is that people could vote multiple times by moving around, or without legal documentation -- as hypothesized in the piece. While, this sounds like a great idea (as long as they vote for my candidate), I'm sure it doesn't follow the spirit of fair voting standards.

  And since it's an opinion piece, Andy, and not slated as a news report, making opinions about what "could" happen is perfectly acceptable.