By Vince Phillips
Throughout this series I have raised specific, documented concerns about Colorado’s election system: altered ballot images, unwitnessed signatures reviewed by minimally trained judges, opaque scanner settings, narrow Risk-Limiting Audits, restricted access to original paper ballots, and the thin statistical protection most local races actually receive. A consistent and troubling pattern has emerged in how these concerns are often received by officials: instead of addressing the substance, the response frequently shifts to attacking the critic, labeling questions as “election denial,” or issuing broad reassurances that avoid the specific issues raised. This is not healthy oversight.
Recent Examples from Around the State:
- When partial BIOS passwords for voting machines across nearly every Colorado county were inadvertently posted on the Secretary of State’s website for months, the response was not immediate full transparency or independent review. Officials downplayed the breach and focused on damage control.
- When citizens or candidates request meaningful access to original paper ballots for verification, they are often met with delays, legal barriers, or outright refusal.
- When detailed questions are asked about scanner image alterations (as documented in Chaffee County in 2022) or the extremely narrow scope and limited resolution of RLAs, especially for local races decided by margins of roughly 7 points, the common reply is to dismiss the concerns rather than provide configuration logs, programmer capabilities, or clear procedural explanations.
This pattern — prioritizing defense of the system over addressing legitimate procedural weaknesses, sends a clear message: officials appear to believe the current framework can do no wrong, and that questioning it is somehow inappropriate or dangerous, and constitutes a personal threat to election officials. . A genuinely strong election system should welcome scrutiny. It should respond to specific concerns with specific answers:
- Here are the scanner configuration logs.
- Here is exactly what the programmer can and cannot change.
- Here is the full process for independent review of paper ballots.
- Here is why small discrepancies by ballot style are not collated and investigated for patterns.
Instead, we too often see attacks on the motives of those asking questions, while the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This approach does not strengthen public confidence, it undermines it. When those in charge of the system treat substantive criticism as an attack rather than an opportunity for improvement, it suggests the priority is protecting the narrative, not perfecting the process.
I continue to invite the Secretary of State’s office and county clerks to break this pattern. Engage with the specific points raised across this series. Provide clear, documented answers instead of broad reassurances or personal attacks. Transparency is not the enemy of elections; it is the foundation of trust in them.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
