Colorado's electoral mockery
Colorado is poised to deliver an object lesson in the chaos Democrats create when they have a free hand to “reform” election law.
The state Legislature passed the Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act in May without a single Republican vote. Its first test comes this week in Colorado Springs and Pueblo, with recall elections of Democrat state senators who supported sweeping gun-control legislation.
The new election law doesn't require photo ID. At least one dead voter has been mailed a special recall-voting registration card, The Washington Times reports. But it gets worse.
All that's now required to vote in Colorado, says the free-market Independence Institute of Denver via its Bring in the Vote website, is being 18 or older; living in Colorado for at least 22 days; having an address, even if it's a hotel or homeless shelter; and affirming intent to make that address one's permanent home.
“Because both recall elections allow early voting, Colorado voters could declare their intent to live in Colorado Springs on Monday, then declare their intention to live in Pueblo on Tuesday, which would allow them to cast ballots in both elections,” The Times says.
“I believe the winner ... will be the candidate who has the most buses” to bring in what are being called “gypsy voters,” says Jon Caldara, the institute's president.
If Democrats intended their new law to make Colorado balloting a mockery of electoral integrity, they're succeeding.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- Saturday essay: Waltz of the robins
- The ‘green’ ruse: Germany’s poor ‘model’
- Volunteers’ contributions: Growing flowers & more in Connellsville
- Baltimore burns: Destruction’s culture
- Benghazi: The gun smokes
- 2 sound gun rulings
- The Plum sex scandal: New, sad questions