1 00:00:50,900 --> 00:01:07,500 Good morning. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining this public rulemaking hearing held in accordance with the State Administrative Procedure Act, specifically section 24-4-103 of Colorado Revised Statutes. 2 00:01:08,380 --> 00:01:14,160 Today's date is Friday, December 5th, 2025, and the time is 9.01 a.m. 3 00:01:15,160 --> 00:01:18,680 We're meeting in the Department of State's Red Rocks conference room on the fifth floor, 4 00:01:19,240 --> 00:01:23,240 the Department of State's office at 1700 Broadway, Denver, Colorado, 5 00:01:23,680 --> 00:01:26,920 hosting this rule-making hearing in person and online. 6 00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:32,120 Online attendees will remain muted until the online testimony phase of the hearing. 7 00:01:33,120 --> 00:01:38,460 Those attending in person shall remain seated until called upon during the in-person testimony 8 00:01:38,460 --> 00:01:38,880 phase. 9 00:01:39,900 --> 00:01:44,000 I'm Andrew Klein, Deputy Secretary of State, and I'm convening this hearing on behalf 10 00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:48,040 of the Secretary of State in accordance with the rulemaking notice that we issued on 11 00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:50,220 October 31, 2025. 12 00:01:51,400 --> 00:01:56,440 That notice was also published in the Colorado Register November 10, 2025. 13 00:01:57,880 --> 00:02:02,680 Several additional members of the Department of State staff are present as panel members 14 00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:04,560 otherwise facilitating this meeting. 15 00:02:05,580 --> 00:02:09,200 My immediate right, Judge Chote, Vision Director, Elections Division. 16 00:02:09,820 --> 00:02:14,740 My immediate left, Caleb Thornton, Legal Unit Manager, Elections Division. 17 00:02:15,500 --> 00:02:20,560 To the right of Mr. Chote, Theresa Connolly, Strategic Legal and Policy Manager, Elections 18 00:02:20,560 --> 00:02:21,040 Division. 19 00:02:21,740 --> 00:02:26,320 To the right of Ms. Connolly, Dwight Schellman, Annie Support Manager, Elections 20 00:02:26,320 --> 00:02:31,680 Division, the left of Caleb is Shannon Kenney, Policy Analyst Administrative. 21 00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:37,800 Purpose of this hearing is to review comments from the public on proposed amendments to 22 00:02:37,800 --> 00:02:44,040 the election rules to ensure uniform and proper administration, implementation, and enforcement 23 00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:45,140 of Colorado elections. 24 00:02:45,980 --> 00:02:50,160 Specifically the Department proposes permanent rule revisions for instant run-off voting 25 00:02:50,160 --> 00:03:14,180 including requirements for tabulation, hoarding, canvassing of results, and risk-limiting audits for local jurisdictions located in more than one county, as required by sections 1-7-18-5 and 1-7-515-4B1 of the Colorado Rules. 26 00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:34,360 The department may consider additional rule amendments, including revisions necessary to eliminate obsolete provisions, organize existing rules for clarity, simplify the language of existing rules, remove language that is duplicative to statute, and ensure consistency with the department rulemaking standards. 27 00:03:35,540 --> 00:03:40,400 The Department of State released a preliminary draft of proposed rules with a notice of rulemaking. 28 00:03:41,200 --> 00:03:46,140 All documents are available on the department's website, which is linked in the chat of the webinar. 29 00:03:46,860 --> 00:03:50,040 Poppies are also available on the table at the back of the conference room. 30 00:03:52,250 --> 00:03:56,150 This is a formal rulemaking hearing that is broadcast live and over the Internet. 31 00:03:56,750 --> 00:04:01,810 This hearing is audio-recorded and all comments become part of the official rulemaking record. 32 00:04:02,450 --> 00:04:08,730 For anyone who wishes to testify in person, you must fill out sign-in sheet, table, at the back of the room. 33 00:04:10,310 --> 00:04:13,890 For the record, our office has received written comments and the proposed rules. 34 00:04:14,890 --> 00:04:21,210 All comments received during the comment period become part of the official record of this rulemaking when we post it online. 35 00:04:22,670 --> 00:04:25,830 When you begin your testimony, please introduce yourselves for the record. 36 00:04:25,830 --> 00:04:31,030 If you represent an organization or other interested party, please identify the organization 37 00:04:31,030 --> 00:04:32,790 or party you are speaking on behalf of. 38 00:04:33,970 --> 00:04:38,210 In the interest of time, I would request that you simply avoid repeating the testimony 39 00:04:38,210 --> 00:04:38,710 of others. 40 00:04:40,570 --> 00:04:44,790 All the testimony is limited to three minutes in order to ensure that everyone has the 41 00:04:44,790 --> 00:04:45,550 opportunity to speak. 42 00:04:47,010 --> 00:04:50,990 Additionally, please address your comments to me, the hearing officer, and refrain 43 00:04:50,990 --> 00:04:53,090 from directing comments to other panel members. 44 00:04:53,790 --> 00:04:57,570 When speaking about a particular provision in the proposed rules, it will assist the 45 00:04:57,570 --> 00:05:00,190 process if you say the rule number that you're addressing. 46 00:05:00,910 --> 00:05:03,770 Rule number is listed in the revised draft of the proposed rules. 47 00:05:04,330 --> 00:05:08,030 If you don't know the rule number, please simply state the general topic of the proposed 48 00:05:08,030 --> 00:05:09,910 rule that you wish to address. 49 00:05:11,330 --> 00:05:15,450 The sake of efficiency in-person speakers will be called upon first to provide their 50 00:05:15,450 --> 00:05:15,870 testimony. 51 00:05:16,510 --> 00:05:20,570 We will reference the sign-in sheet and individually call upon those interested 52 00:05:20,570 --> 00:05:23,950 in providing testimony in the order in which they signed in. 53 00:05:24,950 --> 00:05:26,950 Once we've exhausted that sign-in sheet, 54 00:05:27,030 --> 00:05:28,690 we'll move forward to the online testimony. 55 00:05:29,590 --> 00:05:32,270 We will first reference the online registration records 56 00:05:32,270 --> 00:05:33,910 and individually unmute those 57 00:05:34,430 --> 00:05:37,370 who indicated interest in providing testimony. 58 00:05:38,190 --> 00:05:40,090 Pre-registered speakers will be called upon 59 00:05:40,090 --> 00:05:41,250 in the order in which they register. 60 00:05:42,110 --> 00:05:45,050 After we've exhausted the list of the pre-registered speakers, 61 00:05:45,230 --> 00:05:49,110 we'll call upon online attendees to use the hand raise icon 62 00:05:49,110 --> 00:05:53,810 to indicate that they wish to speak. For all online speakers, we will announce your 63 00:05:53,810 --> 00:05:58,430 name and state when you're unmuted. When you finish, we will meet you again and move 64 00:05:58,430 --> 00:05:59,070 down the list. 65 00:06:27,780 --> 00:06:30,620 We'll now begin the in-person phase of the testimony period, 66 00:06:32,980 --> 00:06:35,040 and we'll ask Salise D'Landry, 67 00:06:38,420 --> 00:06:38,980 to merge the podium. 68 00:06:45,620 --> 00:06:46,360 Good morning. 69 00:06:48,780 --> 00:06:49,300 Thank you for 70 00:06:49,300 --> 00:06:54,220 having this rule-making testimony. My name is Salise D'Landry and I'm 71 00:06:54,220 --> 00:06:56,520 representing the League of Women Voters of Colorado. 72 00:06:57,540 --> 00:07:00,360 We are very pleased that the Department of State 73 00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:04,360 is writing rules for multi-county instant runoff voting 74 00:07:04,360 --> 00:07:06,540 elections, or IRV elections. 75 00:07:08,140 --> 00:07:10,560 As far as I know, no jurisdiction 76 00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,220 has adopted instant runoff voting. 77 00:07:14,100 --> 00:07:19,040 No multi-county jurisdiction has adopted instant runoff 78 00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:22,220 voting conditional upon these rules being promulgated. 79 00:07:22,220 --> 00:07:34,800 so I commend the proactive moving forward with these rules. Colorado has a high standard 80 00:07:34,800 --> 00:07:42,480 for its election, so I know that you are taking this job very seriously, and I know that there 81 00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:47,460 are lots of people who have submitted comments or will be submitting them soon. 82 00:07:47,460 --> 00:08:07,240 The League of Women Voters is hopeful that the Department of State will soon write rules for the other type of ranked voting allowed in 1-7-1003 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, namely single transferable vote or STV. 83 00:08:07,240 --> 00:08:18,320 As the instant runoff voting rules are written, please consider using broad language so that whenever possible the rules are also applicable to STV. 84 00:08:19,320 --> 00:08:29,300 We also have some recommendations around terminology with the goal of providing a good description and consistency throughout the election rules. 85 00:08:29,300 --> 00:08:29,980 rules. 86 00:08:30,820 --> 00:08:36,260 Those are not as interesting to talk about, so they are in the written testimony. 87 00:08:37,500 --> 00:08:48,040 And we also submitted a letter to the Colorado Secretary of State's office, including two 88 00:08:48,040 --> 00:08:53,060 people on this dais, Judge Chote and Dwight Schellman received it. 89 00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:58,340 I have a copy of it here if you need another copy from the League of Women Voters. 90 00:08:58,340 --> 00:09:08,760 It's dated September 10th, 2025, we are asking for the promulgation of rules for the proportional ranked voting method known as single transferable vote. 91 00:09:09,560 --> 00:09:24,620 And STV has been authorized since the enactment of House Bill 8-1378, but no county clerk will run an STV election and they have been asked to do so. 92 00:09:24,620 --> 00:09:41,100 So it's time to help municipalities and county clerks conduct not just multi-county instant runoff voting elections, but also multi-county single transferable vote elections. Thank you very much. 93 00:09:49,650 --> 00:09:55,490 That concludes the in-person testimony phase. We'll now reference the list of those who indicated they wish to assist. 94 00:09:55,490 --> 00:09:56,450 We 95 00:10:05,990 --> 00:10:12,170 have clerk Stephanie Noza, election director Stephanie Noza. 96 00:10:18,120 --> 00:10:19,380 There are two 97 00:10:19,380 --> 00:10:23,640 online I have unmuted both. 98 00:10:26,340 --> 00:10:27,260 Hi can you hear me? 99 00:10:30,870 --> 00:10:32,450 We cannot really let me. 100 00:10:34,690 --> 00:10:35,030 Could you 101 00:10:35,030 --> 00:10:35,430 try again? 102 00:10:38,110 --> 00:10:39,550 Yes we can hear you now. 103 00:10:44,300 --> 00:10:46,200 I'm Stephanie Noza, Boulder County elections 104 00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:50,040 Director, and my comments today are on behalf of Boulder County. 105 00:10:51,500 --> 00:10:58,000 Boulder would like to say that we support the idea, as in the proposed rules, that 106 00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:02,380 four cross-county ranked voting elections, additional responsibilities will fall to 107 00:11:02,380 --> 00:11:07,220 the controlling county, and we support the idea of utilizing a certified third-party 108 00:11:07,220 --> 00:11:10,100 software for tabulation in these contests. 109 00:11:10,100 --> 00:11:16,820 However, we would like to advocate that this third-party software be hosted by the Secretary's 110 00:11:16,820 --> 00:11:22,820 Office similar to how election night reporting is already hosted and that it is not required 111 00:11:22,820 --> 00:11:24,780 to be installed on a county's voting system. 112 00:11:25,980 --> 00:11:32,500 We believe this is the right approach for several key reasons, but firstly, the Secretary's 113 00:11:32,500 --> 00:11:36,740 Office already performs this function for cross-county and statewide plurality races 114 00:11:36,740 --> 00:11:39,380 in their election night reporting. 115 00:11:40,660 --> 00:11:46,780 It also preserves the voting system's ecosystem and does not require that a controlling county 116 00:11:46,780 --> 00:11:50,480 upload results files from another county into their voting system. 117 00:11:51,340 --> 00:11:59,100 It also would allow counties to upload results as they are available on reducing some of 118 00:11:59,100 --> 00:12:02,280 the manual steps and coordination as currently proposed. 119 00:12:03,900 --> 00:12:09,320 We believe there's adequate time to work on a solution like this and would be interested 120 00:12:09,320 --> 00:12:11,280 in partnering with you to design and test it. 121 00:12:12,960 --> 00:12:19,040 While we are not currently a county that might be in this position, we know that a municipality 122 00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:25,900 where Boulder will be the controlling county if adopted would be in this position possibly 123 00:12:25,900 --> 00:12:27,860 around October of 2027. 124 00:12:31,460 --> 00:12:38,100 should the Secretary's office oppose this approach, we would then advocate to have the 125 00:12:38,100 --> 00:12:45,460 Controlling County host the third-party software still off the voting system, which would achieve 126 00:12:45,460 --> 00:12:46,600 many of the same benefits. 127 00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:53,240 Two other areas that I'd like to highlight are Canvas Board, so we would like to advocate 128 00:12:53,240 --> 00:12:58,240 that the Canvas Board of the Controlling County is the Board to provide 129 00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:03,900 certification, primarily as they are the entity already proposed to confirm the 130 00:13:03,900 --> 00:13:08,920 tabulation as part of the logic and accuracy test. And then secondly, regarding 131 00:13:08,920 --> 00:13:12,780 the logic and accuracy testing, we would advocate to simplify these proposed 132 00:13:12,780 --> 00:13:17,280 rules and have the Controlling County be responsible for ensuring that the 133 00:13:17,280 --> 00:13:22,360 compiled tabulation goes past Round 1. We do have additional technical 134 00:13:22,360 --> 00:13:26,760 and our written comments, and I'm happy to talk about those or any of these points. 135 00:13:32,840 --> 00:13:34,800 Stephanie, thanks for your comments. This is Caleb. 136 00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:40,760 If assuming the software does not need to be placed on voting system components, 137 00:13:40,860 --> 00:13:43,400 because I don't think that is our intent with these rules, 138 00:13:45,100 --> 00:13:48,200 though maybe they could have been affected in a way that was unclear. 139 00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:54,580 I'm sure that's probably what's happened here, but assuming that that is not an issue, 140 00:13:54,580 --> 00:13:56,620 Do you have any other questions or concerns 141 00:13:56,620 --> 00:13:59,500 about the certification process of the third-party software 142 00:14:00,260 --> 00:14:01,600 if that is taken away? 143 00:14:04,660 --> 00:14:06,840 I would say generally speaking, no. 144 00:14:07,420 --> 00:14:10,140 I didn't currently provide lying comments. 145 00:14:10,420 --> 00:14:12,680 And because you are correct, we did interpret them 146 00:14:12,680 --> 00:14:16,120 as being required to be on the voting system. 147 00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:19,480 But what I will say is, generally speaking, 148 00:14:19,540 --> 00:14:22,300 we do support that they are certified by your office 149 00:14:22,300 --> 00:14:28,860 because we think that provides a level of both independence for the counties and transparency 150 00:14:28,860 --> 00:14:35,540 and support for public confidence in the elections. And I would say that I will go back and read 151 00:14:35,540 --> 00:14:39,940 them through that lens. And if I do have additional comments, can provide those. 152 00:14:41,220 --> 00:14:42,160 Great. Thank you. 153 00:14:48,510 --> 00:14:53,090 Morning, Stephanie. This is Dwight Schellman. Thank you for your comments. 154 00:14:56,380 --> 00:14:57,420 In your view, 155 00:14:57,420 --> 00:14:59,980 does one 156 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:10,880 17118 carve out a role for the secretary of state's office to perform the ultimately final 157 00:15:10,880 --> 00:15:23,360 tabulation for a multi-county IRB race. And specifically, I'm referring to 17118 for B. 158 00:15:24,620 --> 00:15:41,060 And to me, that statute requires each canvas to certify their abstract to the DEO of the municipality that is coordinating the multi-county IR. 159 00:15:41,760 --> 00:15:48,200 Under the current statutory scheme, I personally don't see a role as Secretary of State. 160 00:15:48,200 --> 00:15:52,760 I'm wondering if I've overlooked something and you do. 161 00:15:55,840 --> 00:15:56,700 Thanks, Dwight. 162 00:15:57,640 --> 00:16:06,220 Sue, we did consider this and kind of we did debate back and forth about the best way to achieve the compiled results, 163 00:16:06,520 --> 00:16:14,500 because we do appreciate that the compilation of the ranked results is slightly more complicated than plurality, 164 00:16:14,500 --> 00:16:19,660 although in the grand scheme of things still relatively simple mathematics. 165 00:16:20,920 --> 00:16:26,580 So we don't see a role in which the Secretary's office is expected to certify the results. 166 00:16:26,880 --> 00:16:31,140 We do understand that that is probably a step outside the bounds of statute, 167 00:16:31,680 --> 00:16:39,120 which is why we do still propose that the controlling county or the runoff tabulation entity as now defined 168 00:16:39,120 --> 00:16:44,840 would be the entity that certifies the accuracy of the tabulation as part of the logic and 169 00:16:44,840 --> 00:16:51,880 accuracy testing, and then also would be the Canvas board to certify the compiled results. 170 00:16:52,660 --> 00:16:58,200 I think our proposal is centered around the fact that the state already has infrastructure 171 00:16:58,200 --> 00:17:04,820 to receive voting systems data and reporting from counties on, you know, throughout election 172 00:17:04,820 --> 00:17:10,620 night and in the days that follow on any schedule that county is processing under and so we would 173 00:17:10,620 --> 00:17:15,720 like to see the infrastructure be set up in a way that we could leverage both that process 174 00:17:16,260 --> 00:17:21,580 and all of the controls around those processes around validity of files the hashing of files 175 00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:27,240 and we have mild concerns I would say not knowing the third party software 176 00:17:28,020 --> 00:17:33,000 where if each county or each controlling county for that matter would have to host it individually 177 00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:35,040 would there be variations? 178 00:17:35,700 --> 00:17:42,260 We also think the hosting of the software would remove a lot of the complications that 179 00:17:42,260 --> 00:17:49,000 the current proposed rules create in terms of timing, in terms of handoffs, in terms 180 00:17:49,000 --> 00:17:55,440 of a controlling county needing to potentially work days that they were not intending 181 00:17:55,440 --> 00:18:01,400 to work, if the subordinate county, if you will, processes valid. 182 00:18:01,400 --> 00:18:05,020 So, that's the reason for our proposal for the hosting. 183 00:18:05,360 --> 00:18:08,760 But we do think that the control and county should be the one to certify the results. 184 00:18:10,020 --> 00:18:11,180 Thank you. 185 00:18:18,460 --> 00:18:18,780 Great. 186 00:18:19,240 --> 00:18:19,940 Thank you so much. 187 00:18:20,060 --> 00:18:21,480 And apologies for the sun promotion. 188 00:18:22,580 --> 00:18:23,640 No worries. 189 00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:24,500 Understand. 190 00:18:25,340 --> 00:18:25,700 Thank you. 191 00:18:26,660 --> 00:18:28,300 And you're now being muted. 192 00:18:30,900 --> 00:18:33,140 Next we have, 193 00:18:36,380 --> 00:18:43,280 we have Yahya Immalik and they are not present. 194 00:18:50,800 --> 00:18:56,020 We have an Amanda Redden, they're also not present. 195 00:19:00,200 --> 00:19:05,660 There is also a Nancy Marais and Nancy is also not present. 196 00:19:09,000 --> 00:19:13,740 There is also a Jeremiah Attridge, I'm unmuting you now. 197 00:19:17,410 --> 00:19:19,130 Hi, are you able to hear me? 198 00:19:19,130 --> 00:19:20,610 Yes, thank you. 199 00:19:21,370 --> 00:19:22,250 Cool, thank you. 200 00:19:22,550 --> 00:19:23,750 Good morning, Deputy Director. 201 00:19:24,170 --> 00:19:25,590 My name is Jeremiah Adridge. 202 00:19:25,910 --> 00:19:29,890 I'm a student at the University of Colorado Law School here in my capacity as a 203 00:19:29,890 --> 00:19:31,350 citizen of Colorado. 204 00:19:32,590 --> 00:19:36,170 I wanted to begin by saying that I'm in full support of the changes that the 205 00:19:36,170 --> 00:19:37,670 department has proposed here. 206 00:19:38,170 --> 00:19:40,950 I believe that these updates have the capacity to make a meaningful 207 00:19:40,950 --> 00:19:43,670 difference in the state's ability to tabulate election results. 208 00:19:44,750 --> 00:19:47,150 My only concern today relates to the wording. 209 00:19:47,150 --> 00:19:55,550 in section 21127A regarding the decertification of software that's been certified as an amendment 210 00:19:56,050 --> 00:19:57,730 to a certified voting system. 211 00:19:58,390 --> 00:20:03,770 I wonder whether the decertification process could benefit from a broader and more clearly 212 00:20:03,770 --> 00:20:08,890 articulated set of criteria to guide when the Department of State decides to decertify 213 00:20:08,890 --> 00:20:10,050 such software. 214 00:20:11,110 --> 00:20:15,470 With that said, I'd like to reiterate my support for the proposed changes and thank 215 00:20:15,470 --> 00:20:15,910 you for your time. 216 00:20:15,910 --> 00:20:16,710 That's all. 217 00:20:22,490 --> 00:20:23,010 Thank you. 218 00:20:24,170 --> 00:20:27,090 Thank you, Mr. Attridge. I will mute you now. 219 00:20:28,510 --> 00:20:28,690 Oops. 220 00:20:30,230 --> 00:20:30,490 Oops. 221 00:20:32,270 --> 00:20:32,930 Sorry. 222 00:20:37,610 --> 00:20:41,830 And those are all who pre-registered online. 223 00:20:48,310 --> 00:20:56,090 There are the other attendees who wish to testify online, so please raise your hand by clicking the icon on the panel. 224 00:21:02,520 --> 00:21:05,900 Then we have a Neil McBurnett. 225 00:21:08,100 --> 00:21:09,400 I'm unmuting you now. 226 00:21:13,820 --> 00:21:14,760 Thank you. Can you hear me? 227 00:21:15,580 --> 00:21:16,640 Yes, we can. 228 00:21:17,240 --> 00:21:23,460 Thank you. This is Neil McBurnett. I introduced risk limiting audits into the state of Colorado, 229 00:21:24,240 --> 00:21:28,940 and I have worked for a long time on transparency issues, 230 00:21:29,160 --> 00:21:34,860 and I appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposed rulemaking. 231 00:21:34,860 --> 00:21:35,080 speaking. 232 00:21:37,640 --> 00:21:44,760 And I'm speaking on my own behalf. I will have written testimony to provide, but 233 00:21:44,760 --> 00:21:54,360 I've also read the Jefferson County submission and they raise a point that I think is important 234 00:21:54,360 --> 00:22:01,080 to consider in terms of clarity around what the word tabulation means. It's used in a 235 00:22:01,080 --> 00:22:11,800 different ways. So I agree that we need to change that, use more specific terms, but 236 00:22:11,800 --> 00:22:19,260 I think it should go the other way than they suggest. I think tabulation around the world 237 00:22:19,260 --> 00:22:26,860 for IRV and STV and other things refers only to the round-by-round ranked choice counting 238 00:22:26,860 --> 00:22:35,940 process and the term central count is used in distinguishing from precinct count to talk 239 00:22:35,940 --> 00:22:43,560 about where the interpretation of the ballots, the scanning of the ballots happens, so I would 240 00:22:43,560 --> 00:22:51,160 recommend that those terms be used consistently with how they're used in Colorado and elsewhere 241 00:22:51,160 --> 00:22:59,080 and the language be clarified to call out which kind of tabulation. There's a 242 00:22:59,080 --> 00:23:11,820 third kind of process that is important for ranked voting contests and 243 00:23:11,820 --> 00:23:19,280 tabulation, which is what we call a ranking profile. It is essentially a 244 00:23:20,220 --> 00:23:30,000 summarized CAS vote record that indicates for every unique way that someone 245 00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:39,460 has ranked the choices it provides the number of times that was ranked and that 246 00:23:39,460 --> 00:23:44,420 is the input that you need to process in the third-party software that has 247 00:23:44,420 --> 00:23:51,480 been discussed. So we should introduce a proper term for that. I would propose 248 00:23:51,480 --> 00:24:00,060 ranking profile and right now the statute uses the term tabulation data 249 00:24:00,060 --> 00:24:06,620 which as I just noted is a little bit unusual and the rule uses the term 250 00:24:06,620 --> 00:24:12,240 results file which again sounds like you've you're presenting the actual 251 00:24:12,240 --> 00:24:18,800 results, but a county can't produce the results file, that's why they need to send their ranking 252 00:24:18,800 --> 00:24:25,620 profile of the ballots they received up to the entity that does the final tabulation. 253 00:24:26,100 --> 00:24:32,960 So I'll give you written clarity on that, but I suggest that we go in that direction. 254 00:24:32,960 --> 00:24:37,160 And more importantly, I want to urge 255 00:24:37,840 --> 00:24:41,980 that those ranking profiles, that data, 256 00:24:42,620 --> 00:24:44,820 that is the input to the third party software 257 00:24:44,820 --> 00:24:49,080 be provided early and often. 258 00:24:49,640 --> 00:24:52,640 What we saw in Alameda, California in 2022, 259 00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:57,040 a school board contest that was improperly certified, 260 00:24:57,280 --> 00:24:58,900 they actually got the wrong winner 261 00:24:58,900 --> 00:25:10,220 in the certified election and it took the eventual sharing of their ranking 262 00:25:10,220 --> 00:25:16,300 profiles and CAS vote records and recalculation with the proper set of 263 00:25:16,300 --> 00:25:22,980 rules to discover that problem. This is especially a problem with rank voting 264 00:25:22,980 --> 00:25:28,880 methods because there are so many ways to handle where somebody skips a 265 00:25:28,880 --> 00:25:35,000 ranking and what happens if they use a write-in vote for the first ranking and just all kinds 266 00:25:35,000 --> 00:25:40,380 of things can go wrong and did go wrong and have gone wrong under other circumstances. 267 00:25:40,640 --> 00:25:49,540 So it's critical that Colorado avoid those problems and publish the data that is used 268 00:25:50,180 --> 00:25:54,900 to calculate the results any time they provide results. 269 00:25:55,920 --> 00:26:05,360 San Francisco does this. They actually provide a full cast vote record every night and every time they present results. 270 00:26:05,660 --> 00:26:10,640 And this is important for people to verify that everything worked properly. 271 00:26:13,400 --> 00:26:17,780 Mr. McBernadine, I just need to ask you to wrap up where I think beyond the three minutes, please. 272 00:26:17,780 --> 00:26:39,600 Okay. Thank you very much. I think that's important, and if that is not done, I think there should be a public meeting in order with representatives of the candidates present to do the final, whether you call it canvassing or certification of the outcome. 273 00:26:39,600 --> 00:26:48,640 I think it's very important to have public visibility and a chance to correct that kind of error in the process. 274 00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:49,440 Thank you. 275 00:26:50,540 --> 00:26:51,240 Mr. Schellman. 276 00:26:52,820 --> 00:27:08,760 Good morning, Neil. This is Dwight Schellman. Just to clarify your point, are you suggesting or proposing that the non-controlling counties in a multi-county IRB contest 277 00:27:08,760 --> 00:27:19,200 provide the controlling county both with their whole CDR file and called the 278 00:27:19,200 --> 00:27:25,000 ranking profile? Not at all. No, I think they should provide the ranking profile. 279 00:27:25,260 --> 00:27:30,920 Boulder provided to the public their what I'll call a ranking profile. It 280 00:27:30,920 --> 00:27:41,040 it didn't have information on the location and precinct and style of each ranking. 281 00:27:41,340 --> 00:27:47,720 It only provided the rankings themselves so that avoids anonymity issues that I know that 282 00:27:47,720 --> 00:27:51,000 you're intimately aware of and we've been working on for years. 283 00:27:51,200 --> 00:27:59,160 So this is a way to provide full transparency for the tabulation without those issues. 284 00:27:59,160 --> 00:28:04,640 and it's separate from the places where it is indeed very critical that the 285 00:28:04,640 --> 00:28:10,500 CAS vote record itself in redacted form be available to the public early and 286 00:28:10,500 --> 00:28:14,960 often because for the public to observe the RLA that's also very important but 287 00:28:14,960 --> 00:28:18,540 that's not what I'm talking about for the tabulation check that we're talking 288 00:28:18,540 --> 00:28:23,880 about here. Got it. Thank you very much. And I like Boulder's suggestion that the 289 00:28:23,880 --> 00:28:33,340 DSOS host the software, I think that simplifies everybody's life, except yours, and 290 00:28:35,940 --> 00:28:37,120 maybe yours. 291 00:28:37,880 --> 00:28:38,880 Thank you, Neil. 292 00:28:39,540 --> 00:28:39,940 Thank you. 293 00:28:40,080 --> 00:28:42,380 I'm muting you now, Mr. McBurnett. 294 00:28:45,220 --> 00:28:48,940 Next we have Linda Templin, I'm muting you now. 295 00:28:53,440 --> 00:28:57,340 Ms. Templin has unraised her hand. 296 00:28:59,300 --> 00:29:00,660 Oh, she's back. 297 00:29:03,900 --> 00:29:04,840 You are unmuted. 298 00:29:12,100 --> 00:29:12,440 Okay. 299 00:29:12,560 --> 00:29:13,320 You can hear me now? 300 00:29:13,780 --> 00:29:14,520 Yes, we can. 301 00:29:14,620 --> 00:29:14,840 Thank you. 302 00:29:15,300 --> 00:29:15,520 Okay. 303 00:29:16,940 --> 00:29:18,360 My name is Linda Templin. 304 00:29:18,500 --> 00:29:21,880 I'm the Executive Director of Ranked Choice Voting for Colorado. 305 00:29:21,880 --> 00:29:32,060 data. And I wanted to underscore a few things that have been previously stated as also being 306 00:29:33,380 --> 00:29:46,720 in our view very important to consistent and consistent and concise rulemaking. The first 307 00:29:46,720 --> 00:29:54,160 being that in 2027 there may be a multi-county jurisdiction using single transferable vote. 308 00:29:54,940 --> 00:29:59,980 And as such we suggest that the Office of the Secretary of State use language that 309 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:07,180 That encompasses both instant runoff voting and single transferrable vote. So that's our 310 00:30:07,180 --> 00:30:18,240 first suggestion and our second is to also underscore the points made by the Boulder, the office of 311 00:30:18,240 --> 00:30:26,420 their county clerk, that prior policy inputs from the county clerk's association has been 312 00:30:26,420 --> 00:30:33,420 that they prefer to have all the rules promulgated by the Secretary of State for the sake of consistency 313 00:30:33,420 --> 00:30:34,720 between jurisdictions. 314 00:30:35,680 --> 00:30:44,440 And it is possible that in future years, less well-resourced rural counties would be using 315 00:30:47,220 --> 00:30:54,200 single transferable vote, and they absolutely need the Secretary of State's office to 316 00:30:54,200 --> 00:31:00,500 handle as much as possible. And that's those are my comments. I'll be submitting 317 00:31:00,500 --> 00:31:01,920 written online. 318 00:31:07,110 --> 00:31:12,710 Thank you so much. I will be muting you now. At this time there are 319 00:31:12,710 --> 00:31:17,250 no other raised hands. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? 320 00:31:22,560 --> 00:31:23,960 Is a Lori 321 00:31:23,960 --> 00:31:25,900 Stevens who has raised their hand. 322 00:31:29,000 --> 00:31:34,480 You are unmuted. Thank you. I am a Canvas 323 00:31:34,480 --> 00:31:41,800 board member for Broomfield County and I have only one comment to I want to add to Neil McBurnett's 324 00:31:41,800 --> 00:31:46,580 testimony which is one of the things that he mentioned was making the cast foot records 325 00:31:46,580 --> 00:31:53,580 available as he said early and often and as a as a canvas board member I would like additional 326 00:31:53,580 --> 00:32:01,560 ways to possibly do my own validation of the of the tabulations you know from that that data 327 00:32:01,560 --> 00:32:06,560 And so, while it's a bigger subject, in general, I want to emphasize, and this is in our – I 328 00:32:06,560 --> 00:32:15,980 believe in Neil's written comments as well, that we provide ways in which – by making 329 00:32:15,980 --> 00:32:23,340 the CASVOID records public, when possible, that gives the opportunity for independent 330 00:32:23,340 --> 00:32:31,700 validation of the computation and the sums of the totals that I value as a 331 00:32:31,700 --> 00:32:36,120 Canvas board member because it increases my ability to fulfill my 332 00:32:36,120 --> 00:32:41,320 responsibility to certify the result of the election. That's all, thank you. 333 00:32:46,050 --> 00:32:47,330 Thank you, I'm muting you now. 334 00:32:51,180 --> 00:32:53,460 And Ms. Nimmick-Burnett has also 335 00:32:53,460 --> 00:32:54,560 re-raised his hand. 336 00:33:00,520 --> 00:33:03,360 We'll give you a few more minutes, but please try to 337 00:33:03,360 --> 00:33:07,120 respect the three limit to the best of your ability. 338 00:33:07,800 --> 00:33:14,400 I very much appreciate that and only have a couple of brief supports for other things. 339 00:33:14,600 --> 00:33:26,020 I also absolutely support Celeste Landry's testimony for the Lee woman voters to try 340 00:33:26,020 --> 00:33:34,700 to include single transferable vote as much as possible by making the language here broad 341 00:33:34,700 --> 00:33:38,680 and inclusive and I thank Linda Templin for making the same point. 342 00:33:38,960 --> 00:33:45,860 I think that's the best voting method that we could have for most elections with multi-member 343 00:33:46,800 --> 00:33:53,200 councils and getting that underway is important and I appreciate Lori's comments about 344 00:33:53,760 --> 00:33:58,480 other good reasons for having the cast vote record available, 345 00:33:58,820 --> 00:34:03,180 and we have software that can help do the redaction of those cast vote records 346 00:34:03,180 --> 00:34:05,640 for the other auditing purposes. 347 00:34:06,320 --> 00:34:07,340 Thank you so much. 348 00:34:14,900 --> 00:34:18,060 At this time, there are no other people who have raised their hand. 349 00:34:19,800 --> 00:34:22,000 Is there anyone else who would like to testify? 350 00:34:28,560 --> 00:34:31,420 I'd like to thank everyone who provided testimony today. 351 00:34:31,560 --> 00:34:35,080 I thought the comments were extremely helpful and respectful. 352 00:34:35,080 --> 00:34:41,340 I particularly like to thank Stephanie and by extension Molly for their steadfast public 353 00:34:41,340 --> 00:34:43,620 service to the county of Boulder. 354 00:34:44,820 --> 00:34:48,600 That concludes this public rulemaking hearing. 355 00:34:49,180 --> 00:34:53,260 Our office will take on our advisement possible amendments to the Department of State's election 356 00:34:53,260 --> 00:34:57,180 rules have been discussed or otherwise proposed through the rulemaking process. 357 00:34:58,100 --> 00:35:04,240 The record will be an open through 5 p.m. Friday, December 12th, 2025 to allow the 358 00:35:04,240 --> 00:35:09,500 submission of Lab 4, the submission of additional written comments, please email 359 00:35:09,500 --> 00:35:20,440 written comments to SOS dot rulemaking at Colorado SOS dot gov. That's SOS dot 360 00:35:20,440 --> 00:35:27,880 rulemaking at Colorado SOS dot gov. That concludes today's hearing. Time is 9 361 00:35:27,880 --> 00:35:29,160 36 in the morning.