March 26, 2026 · State, Veterans, & Military Affairs · 10,201 words · 13 speakers · 61 segments
We will begin with House Bill 1023. Thank you to the sponsors, Senator Baisley and Majority Leader Rodriguez. Would one of you, Senator Baisley, please kick us off, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members. Honored to appear before you and to present House Bill 26-1023. The purpose of this bill is to move the liability for not getting it just right when it comes to accessibility during caucus and assembly processes for the parties. It moves that liability from the volunteers to the party themselves. So I'm going to walk through it in a little more detail right now. So a couple of years ago, a bill was moved into law, signed into law, that requires access, remote access, for those who require that for ability purposes, to access caucus and assembly. So that's levied on both the major parties, of course. And the result of that, that both parties realized, was that they were losing volunteers because volunteers then started realizing, wow, I could be liable for a $3,500 fine if the Internet goes down and I'm not giving remote access at a caucus. So this seeks to rectify it. It has three parts to it. On page two at the very beginning, it does a clarification because this was an oversight in the original language of the original law where it says notwithstanding any provision, the contrary, which is the key legal piece. So what's added is this applies to any person who is eligible to participate, meaning that the way it was originally written, anyone who wanted to demand access could from anywhere, from Canada or something, could demand access. This limits it to anyone who is eligible to vote in that caucus or assembly. They're the ones who can demand access remotely. So that's a good cleanup. Also, the second one here on page three is mere reassembling of the same language in a better flow of the statute. And then lastly is on page four, just before the safety clause there, is the designation that any monetary damages up to $3,500 are payable and liable by the party, either the county party who committed the violation or the state party, but not the individual. So that's the idea, and this hopefully will give some relief of concern to the volunteers that have been working on our caucus and assemblies for both parties for all these years, and we'll get the service of those good volunteers who have been stepping aside this year.
Thank you. Sir, Majority Leader Roger, yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee, for hearing the bill. So it's a pretty simple, straightforward fix with a tweak just to make sure that the parties, as we have been through the assembly process and watched the current successes of current technology systems that we just make sure we providing it and we not holding the volunteers accountable and just making sure that goes through the party process And also for me anytime I with Senator Baisley on a bill and he has a safety clause you got to join it
Thank you both so much. Members, are there questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, you actually can remain there for a moment. We do not have witnesses currently signed up on this bill. Is there anyone in the room or online that we missed that would like to testify? Seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Gentlemen, amendments?
No.
Committee members, no amendments. There you have it. The amendment phase is closed. Any closing comments? Senator Baisley.
Thank you. I did want to explain the safety clause. For the sake of speed, the volunteers need to know that that is going to affect as soon as possible since assemblies are happening now. And that's it. And you know how I love safety clauses.
Senator, Mr. Majority Leader. Hypocrisy has no bounds in the legislature. I appreciate that. Senator Pelton, closing statements.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for bringing this bill. It had been nice to have it a month ago, because not all my counties are done with their assembly now. Mike, multi-county is still to come, but I thank you for bringing this bill. Some troublesome language is being fixed with this, and I appreciate it, so I'm a yes vote.
Senator Zemora Wilson.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate this bill. I know there was a lot of volunteers that were concerned, and I hope this alleviates, because we definitely need people to be more engaged in our caucus and our assemblies, and hopefully this will put the incentives in the right place. Thank you.
Further closing comments? I will just say I appreciate the expeditious nature of this bill and getting this in for our volunteers, regardless of what party. They're doing tremendous work, and it always kind of boggles my mind that one of the mechanisms to our ballot is entirely volunteer-run or nearly entirely volunteer-run. It's a miraculous thing about our democracy here and something to be lauded and ensured that we can protect and make sure that we can keep encouraging. So I appreciate you, sponsors, for bringing this measure forward. And with that, is there a motion, Mr. Vice Chair?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1023 to the committee on the whole with a favorable recommendation.
That is a proper motion. Mr. Sayed, please call the roll.
Setters.
Linstead. Aye.
Elton R. Aye.
Zamora Wilson. Aye.
Sullivan. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That motion is adopted 5-0. Would consent calendar? Okay.
Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we put this on the consent calendar.
Any objection? Seeing none, welcome to the consent calendar. See you at the cow. Next, we will hear Senate Bill 119. Senator Mullica, opening statements, presenting your bill, sir. Senator Mullica, opening statements, presenting your bill, sir.
Senator Mullica, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for giving the opportunity to hear Senate Bill 119 and look into this issue At the crux of what we trying to do with Senate Bill 119 is really trying to meet voters where they at and trying to get more participation in our democracy I think our democracy is better when we have more people vote. It doesn't matter the party, affiliation, anything like that. It's just better when more people are engaged and are voting in the system. Colorado's long been at the forefront of voter access and election innovation. Our state has built one of the most secure, transparent, and accessible election systems in the country. We have led the way with vote-by-mail, ballot tracking, and expanded access for voters who face barriers to participation. Senate Bill 119 represents the next step in that leadership. We already allow electronic ballot returns and county-run elections for specific populations, such as active military members stationed overseas, overseas citizens, voters with disabilities. and individuals displaced by national disasters. And these policies recognize the simple truth. Access matters. When barriers prevent participation, democracy is diminished.
This bill builds on what we already know works. Let me be clear what this bill does, and just as importantly, what it does not do. Senable 119 is not a mandate. It does not require any jurisdiction to adopt electronic ballot return. Instead, it creates an option, limited specifically to Title 32 special districts and statutory towns. These are often smaller local governments that may face unique challenges in reaching their voters. Under this bill, they would have the authority to offer an electronic ballot return only if and when they determine they are ready to do so. Senate Bill 119 is about meeting voters where they are. It is about recognizing that the way people live, work, and serve has changed, and our systems must evolve alongside them. It is about ensuring that every eligible voter has a voice, especially in decisions that affect their homes, their families, and their communities. Colorado has never shied away from leading on elections. We have done so thoughtfully, securely, and with a commitment to expanding access while maintaining integrity. This bill continues that tradition. And members, you're going to have some testimony today hearing from folks who are proponents of the bill, probably some folks who are opponents of this bill. I will just, I guess, lay the foundation before that, Madam Chair, is that I think in the feedback that we've heard, I think that we probably need more opportunities to work on this bill over the interim. And so I will be asking after testimony to lay this bill over until after we adjourn session to give us that ability to continue working on this issue. but I do think it's important that we hear from some of the folks who have worked on this issue so that we can really start laying that foundation and see if we can't find a solution to address what we're trying to address here in Senate Bill 119. And I'll take any questions if you have any. Thank you so much, Senator Malika, and do appreciate you sharing with us the plans for next steps for this legislation, and we appreciate you still having this conversation today. With that, questions for our sponsor? Seeing none, we will move on to the witness phase. I'm sorry. Whatever you want. Great. So to begin, we will call up Jocelyn Baccaro. Perfect. You knew. Forrest Senti. Clerk Ziegelbaum and Andrew Moore Mayer Moore I believe Is Forrest here in person? Okay. We can move for right now to Curtis Chong, who is online. Nope. Tim Mackey. Okay. How about for one moment, if you don't mind taking a seat, and we'll move maybe to an opposition panel to begin with and wait for some other proponents to arrive. So we'll call up Mr. Todd Davidson, and then also Holly Monkman, Dylan Rankin, and Celeste Landry. We can also call up CJ Coles. Oh, I'm sorry. Celeste is here. Never mind. Hi. All right. Mr. Lincoln, we'll start down here with you, sir. If you could state your name, who you represent, you'll have two minutes to present. Everybody today will have two minutes to testify. and then we will have five minutes of questions from the senators. Now, Mr. Rankin, please take us away. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dylan Rankin. I'm with Colorado Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civic organization that works to create a more accessible, transparent, and accountable civic life for all Coloradans. And I'm here today on Common Cause's behalf to respectfully oppose Senate Bill 119. Common Cause wholeheartedly supports efforts to increase civic participation and voter turnout, especially in local elections. That's why we worked last year with Senator Gonzalez, Representative Bacon, and other legislators to pass the Colorado Voting Rights Act. However, we are opposed to this bill because electronic voting systems raise very real election security concerns. First and foremost, no electronic ballot return system is invulnerable to large-scale exploitation by even just a few bad actors. Voter credentials can be forged. Malware can change votes or overwhelm ballot return systems to prevent voters from submitting ballots. Voters can be redirected to fake voting websites or ballot submission portals, and these are just a few of the many risks for increased election tampering that come with electronic ballot return. This scientific consensus has been established and validated by cybersecurity experts from across the country, but because vendors of these systems have strong financial incentives to promote online voting, these concerns are consistently downplayed. Secondly, electronic ballot return compromises the secret ballot because paper trails currently used by electronic ballot return systems cannot be both verifiable and untraceable back to the original voter. The right to vote anonymously is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the benefits of electronic voting do not justify abridging it. And one final point that might not be covered by others' testimony today, we have no point that the bill sponsors have nothing but good intentions and want to expand access to voting through a more accessible ballot. However, the method proposed by the bill could be implemented only by local governments who conduct their elections off-cycle that do not appear on a November ballot. This policy thereby incentivizes these jurisdictions to continue holding low turnout off-cycle elections. If we really want to increase voter participation, let's focus on moving these low turnout off-cycle elections to November when data from every single Colorado jurisdiction shows higher turnout, particularly from voters of color. So for these reasons, we would respectfully ask the committee to oppose Senate Bill 119. I know it will be laid over. But thank you very much for your time. Thank you so much. Ma'am, if you would like to introduce yourself and who you represent, you will also Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Holly Monkman, and I am speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Colorado. The League is a nonpartisan grassroots organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in their government and influences public policy through education and advocacy. The League of Women Voters of Colorado is strongly opposed to Senate Bill 119. Allowing the use of an electronic ballot return or EBR system for elections held in special districts and municipalities would be a huge mistake. The League is not aware of an EBR system that meets the security and anonymity requirements of our elections. We strongly advocate for voter-verifiable paper ballots with rigorous auditing processes while ensuring voter anonymity. In discussions about the viability of EBR systems, online banking is frequently referenced. When online banking security fails, and it does, the customer's identity is known, and corrections and restitution can be made, even well after the fact. However, similar techniques cannot be used in online elections because ballots must not be traceable to individual voters. Please vote no on Senate Bill 26-119, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Todd Davidson. I'm the Director of Elections for the City and County of Denver. I'm here representing the Denver County Clerk and Recorder's Office, as well as the Colorado County Clerks Association. As a note, Denver did run a pilot of this very similar system in 2019. However, currently we are opposed to this bill. The environment has changed drastically. since 2020. Election denialisms continue to be prominent. The Save America Act is currently being debated. State election laws across the West are under threat from the Supreme Court. U.S. Justice Department continues to be weaponized. See Fulton County, Georgia. This week, San Bernardino County Sheriff seized 650,000 ballots from their election director because he was unhappy with the outcome of Prop 50, and he's running for governor. And while this bill only affects special districts and statutory cities, voters associate elections with county clerk and recorders. This bill will continue to make our jobs harder and our lives more difficult. Further elections overseen by counties in Colorado are highly regulated by law, secretary of state rule, and policy. Statutory cities have much less oversight. The U.S. Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency notes multiple unmitigated security risks, and that's a quote, and systemic fragilities to a system such as this. We strongly recommend that you vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Landry, if you could please introduce yourself and who you represent. You also will have two minutes. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the Senate Committee My name is Celeste Landry and I representing myself I won't repeat the problems that the other people have explained with electronic voting, but they are serious. I think if the goal of this is to increase turnout, I think there are better, lower-risk ways to increase turnout in these smaller elections than using electronic ballots. in particular competitive elections drive turnout and competitive elections almost always happen in November so moving an election to November as Mr. Rankin said is a great idea I worry that going to electronic ballot return would jeopardize Colorado's reputation as a gold standard state with election integrity. In 2021 there was a bill to allow one-sixth of the electorate to return an electronic ballot. It made it through the Senate, and then in the House, fortunately, we were able to have an amendment made to limit it to a very small portion of the population that really only needed that electronic ballot return. And I think electronic ballot return is important when it's absolutely necessary. But paper ballots are the standard, and we should try to stick with those. So like in the 2021 situation, if we had questions about one-sixth of the ballots, that's the margin of victory for a lot of elections. and we don't want to have the margin of victory be questioned in any of these municipal elections where 100% of the ballots could be returned electronically. Thank you. Thank you all so much. Ms. Landry, did you have an organization that you were testifying here with today? I'm by myself. Sorry, I forgot. That's okay. Further questions? Okay. Seeing none, thank you all so much for being here. Okay. Okay, so next we'll call... Okay. Next, we will call up Jocelyn Buccaro again. Thank you for your patience. Forrest Senti, Josh Siegelbaum, and then we will... Tim Maki, and David Stringfellow. And then online we will keep CJ Coles, and then also bring up Curtis Chong. Thank you so much again for your patience. If you want to start us off, state your name and who you represent. You'll have two minutes. Did I get it? Apologies Does that work Okay Thank you Madam Chair and Senators for your time My name is Jocelyn Boccaro I here on behalf of the Mobile Voting Foundation I also a resident of Arvada and the former elections director in the city and county of Denver Senate Bill 119 is grounded in two principles that should be non in any election system, access and security. This bill advances both. In 2019, I oversaw Denver's mobile voting pilot for military and overseas voters. Turnout among those voters nearly doubled compared to the prior election, and in post-election surveys, every participant said voting on their phone was their preferred method. Just as important, the system worked. 18 independent auditors confirmed 100% accuracy in the tabulation and recording of every ballot cast. Colorado has built one of the most accessible and secure voting systems in the country, but that system does not fully extend to statutory towns and special districts, where participation is often extremely low, even though those elections directly affect people's lives. Senate Bill 119 does not mandate change. It simply gives local governments the option to offer mobile voting if they are ready. Importantly, it does not replace any existing voting methods. It adds an optional pathway and only for jurisdictions that choose to adopt it and can meet rigorous security and audit standards. And we know access makes a difference. In a special district in King County, Washington, turnout increased from just six ballots cast before mobile voting was available to nearly 11,000 ballots in just 2024. On security, I've worked directly on developing this technology. A new open source protocol now available is a significant advancement. It's fully auditable, end-to-end encrypted, and end-to-end verifiable, offering in several respects greater transparency and a clearer audit trail than traditional methods. Colorado has built something to be proud of. This bill extends that success to voters who have too often been left out, especially in local elections that affect them most. Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. You will also have two minutes. Cool. Thank you. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Forrest Senti. I'm speaking in support today, and I'm speaking as a cybersecurity advisor for the Mobile Voting Project. I've spent years designing and implementing a secure system for the United States Air Force, the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Army, and here in Colorado I actually served as an executive at the National Cyber Security Center in Colorado Springs where I was directly involved with Jocelyn and the nation's first pilots of mobile voting systems. And that experience was positive and instructive. I came to this work with one rule. Assume adversaries exist, build for resilience, and verify everything. Senate Bill 26-119 enables exactly that at the local level. And before I explain how, I want to address something you may have already heard. Last week's caucus technology failures were caused by a business workflow application. not designed for elections, with no cryptographic protections, no ballot verification, and no fallback. And that is precisely the opposite of what this bill authorizes. The distinction matters. This bill would enable the opt-in use of an election-specific protocol with six concrete security properties. First, end-to-end verifiability. Voters can confirm their ballot was cast, recorded, and counted correctly at every single stage. Second, enhance multi-factor authentication, the same standards that we use today in places like banking and health care, including biometric verification of the voters on device. Third, end-to-end encryption. Votes can only be read by election officials and only after proper authorization. Fourth, full auditability through a public log of all system activity, a level of transparency that simply is not possible with today's system. Fifth, open source code. Anyone can verify that the software is functioning correctly, eliminating things like blind trust in vendors. And sixth, air gapping. Every digital ballot is taken offline printed and counted alongside physical ballots External actors cannot disrupt that part of the process when done correctly When something goes wrong in this system it fails loudly Attacks produce mathematically verifiable evidence rather than succeeding silently. This provides an opportunity to correct whatever may have gone wrong and ensure the results of the elections are accurate. Colorado already permits similar systems, but this bill can raise the bar for statutory towns and special districts. I thank you for your time. Thank you so much, sir. You will We also have two minutes, if you could state your name and who you represent. Chair, members of the board, thank you for your time. My name is Timothy Mackey, and I'm a 14-year Army veteran who has served in numerous positions both here in the States and abroad. I'm here to support Bill SB 26-119. I have been a voter representative in numerous units in the Army and saw firsthand that a lot of guys are not interested in voting because of the amount of time it takes for us to receive the ballots. You have to get the briefing, fill out your ballot, the voter rep then collects everything to send back. The system for the military is mail-in only, and to be a voter rep where you distribute and collect a service member's vote is an initial duty that is not always taken seriously, if at all. There's a prevalent belief that our votes do not matter, specifically when you're overseas. Military mail is slow and often lost in transition. So when or if our votes arrive late, the decision is already made, thus why does it matter? A lot of guys just don't understand that your votes do matter and late votes still count. As part of our duty to defend the country, we also need to be involved in what our elected officials are doing and who our elected officials are. Adapting to new threats means assuming risk, being honest, accountable, and iterating based off threats and improving systems. Not relying on old methods because that's how things have always been done. To be involved means making the vote process easier, more reliable, and bringing that awareness to Coloradans who are serving in different states both here and abroad. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. And finally, you will round us out, sir. Madam Chair, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this bill today. I'm David Stringfellow, and I represent myself today. I live in Adams County, Senator Mullica's district. And I'm here today because I care deeply about how technology can help more Coloradans participate in the decisions that shape their daily lives. As a 40-year engineering person, I've researched ways to modernize elections. When I looked at mobile voting, I didn't see an experiment. I saw a proven tool. As you've heard from Ms. Buccaro, the pilot in Denver was quite impressive, and I'll reiterate, it doubled participation. That's pretty significant. Since moving to Colorado from Texas in 2023, I've been very impressed by our leadership here in accessibility. So we have universal mail-in ballots, fabulous for someone coming from Texas. Secure drop boxes and the electronic returns for the military and overseas voters. However, I was very surprised to learn the innovations don't reach out to the special districts and the statutory towns. In these jurisdictions, residents vote on property tax increases or maintaining water infrastructure, basic stuff. Just last year, dozens of these districts held elections where deployed, disabled, or homebound voters had no reliable way or method to weigh in. Senate Bill 119, it addresses this gap. It doesn't mandate mobile voting, as you've heard. It just gives another useful option. It's practical and it's cost effective. Please support SB 26-119. Thank you. Thank you so much. Members, questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you all so much. Thank you, sir, for your service and for advocating for veterans around this particular issue. I appreciate it. Okay, so next we will go to an online panel in opposition. We'll bring up C.J. Coles. Susanna Goodman, Liz Locobucci, and Lisa Donets. CJ, if you want to start us off, state your name and who you represent. You will have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Good morning. My name is CJ Coles, and I represent Verified Voting, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization founded by computer scientists with a mission to strengthen democracy for all voters by promoting the responsible use of technology in elections. Today, I'm speaking in opposition to Senate Bill 119 because subject matter and national security experts agree there is no way to transfer votes over the Internet without compromising either secrecy or security. In fact, there are no national certification standards for election ballot return. And four federal agencies, the FBI, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Department of Homeland Security, and the United States Election Assistance Commission have consistently stated that returning voted ballots electronically is high risk and has the potential to not only compromise voter privacy, but also to disrupt an entire election. The consensus on the security challenges should be viewed within the current risk landscape. For at least a decade, our foreign adversaries have launched cyber attacks targeting the United States digital election infrastructure with the goal of undermining confidence in our elections. At the same time, federal agencies have cut back on cyber and other election security support for local election offices. It was encouraging to hear the sponsor this morning state that this bill, his request is going to be that it is laid over, that there perhaps is more work to be done, more study to be conducted. And we agree this issue should be studied. Emerging technologies should be studied. But the science should be proven before it is deployed in public elections. Now, more than ever, voters deserve to have confidence that their votes are counted as cast. and electronic ballot return fails to confer that trust. So I urge you to reject Senate Bill 119 and accept the sponsor's request to lay it over. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you so much. Now we'll hear Susanna Goodman. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Susanna Goodman, and I work at the National Common Cause on our voting rights team, and I direct our election security work. As my colleague has stated in person, Colorado Common Cause has long championed efforts to increase access to the polls for all Colorado voters. We've advocated for election day registration, early voting, vote by mail, all of the reforms that have made Colorado the gold standard for voting. However this legislation would expand internet voting in Colorado on a system of voting for which there are no federal standards Four federal agencies as my colleague has said including DHS the FBI EAC and NIST have warned against Internet voting because of the clear security risks to the ballots and to the integrity of the vote. Because of this, Colorado has wisely only allowed Internet voting for very discreet groups of voters. folks who could not vote any other way so one thing I'd like to talk about is that when we talk about a lot of times when we talk about voting online we like to talk about banking online and that we can bank online and online banking has all the properties promised by the mobile voting project and other vendors and to end encryption and to end verifiability strong security standards but consumers using Zelle, PayPal, and other phone apps have lost billions to scams and hacking. Last April, New York Attorney General Tish James sued Zelle due to the security lapses that led to $1 billion in losses. Banks and consumers are stuck with these losses. With banks, it's just seen as a cost of doing business. So let me ask, how many votes would it be okay to lose to hackers or scammers in the next election. Internet voting for all voters is a very appealing idea, but it is not ready for prime time. Research should continue, yes? Thank you so much, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Your time has expired. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next, we'll hear from Liz Locobucci. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Liz Locobucci, and I'm representing Public Citizen, a nonpartisan nonprofit with almost 30,000 supporters in Colorado. Thank you for this opportunity to testify against Senate Bill 119. Colorado did authorize electronic ballot return for certain voters back in 2019. This bill could be viewed as the next logical step, but let me tell you why I believe it's not. In 2020, as Mr. Coles mentioned, four federal agencies issued a security bill bulletin about internet voting. I'll quote from Electronic ballot return faces significant security risks to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of voted ballots. These risks can affect the tabulation and results and can occur at scale. Let me translate that very careful wording. It means ballots transmitted over the Internet can be compromised before tabulation, which could change election results. In 2022, a working group of 13 experts was convened to write security standards for Internet voting. they concluded it was not possible to do that. That's because ballots are supposed to be secret and there's no way to discover whether or not those ballots were changed during transmission. 2024, again, those same four federal agencies reviewed the state of technology and reissued their security bulletin assessing electronic ballot return to still be high risk. In January of this year, 21 computer scientists, some of the most respected names in election security, issued a statement headlined, Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections. That was less than three months ago. It's not just security risks, there are reliability risks. In 2021, in New South Wales, Australia, the Internet voting system crashed and three different elections had to be rerun. In 2023, a similar thing happened in Ecuador. That crash was attributed to cyber attacks from seven different countries. again elections had to be rerun Senate Bill 119 would open Colorado local elections to these types of risks I urge you to postpone it indefinitely Thank you for your time Thank you so much And now we go on to Lisa Donets Madam Chair Wallace, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Lisa Donets, and I am testifying on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice, a national nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice to oppose Senate Bill 26-119 because the normalization and expansion of electronic ballot return increases risk to the security of Colorado elections. Every independent review has found we lack the technology to make electronic ballot returns secure from attack. You've already heard multiple times about the federal four agency report issued on this issue in 2020 and again in 2024. It's worth noting that NIST and DHS have repeatedly opined negatively on the issue. The Department of Defense and the United States Select Senate Committee on Intelligence also have warned against electronic ballot return. The Select Senate Committee concluded that states should resist pushes for online voting because no system of online voting has yet established itself as secure. You've also heard about the working group from UC Berkeley, a center for security and politics, specifically formed to determine feasibility standards, which instead concluded that the current cybersecurity environment and state of technology made it infeasible to draft responsibility, sorry, to draft responsible standards. Normalization and expansion of electronic ballot return also should be viewed within the nation's current risk landscape. There is an active movement within the U.S. to undermine confidence in our elections, and we should not give it more oxygen through use of an untested, unproven technology for which there are currently no federal standards. You've also heard about our federal adversaries and how there are now fewer resources to address the threats because federal agencies have cut back on cyber and other election security support for election offices. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you all so much. Members, are there questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you for being here. We'll move back to a panel of supporters. Alana Dye, Josh Ziegelbaum, and then Mayor Andrew Moore. Welcome. Mr. Mayor, we will start in person here with you, sir, if you are ready. If you state your name and who you represent, you will have two minutes. Very good. Madam Chair, members of the committee. Got it. Can you hear me now? Very good. Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm Andrew Moore, the mayor of the town of Erie, and I'm here in support of Senate Bill 119. I do serve as the mayor of Erie, but I'm also the chief information officer of Colorado School of Mines, where I'm responsible for the technology at the university, including cybersecurity.
Today, I represent the town of Erie and the Colorado Municipal League. As an elected officials, we must always answer the question, why? Why mobile voting and why now It the year 2026 We manage our lives and our finances through devices conducting some of the most security transactions imaginable via mobile banking Yet we still lack a modern path to participate in the bedrock of our democracy the vote Given my background, I'd not be sitting here if I believed the security risks were insurmountable. They're not. By leveraging the same biometric, multi-factor authentication and encryption technologies that secure our global economy, we can ensure the absolute integrity of the ballot. The leading mobile voting solution ensures that the digital ballot is printed at the clerk's office and co-mingled with mailed-in and in-person ballots. This maintains a physical paper trail and total anonymity. With open-source code and third-party security audits, the argument that mobile voting is unsafe is simply outdated. At a minimum, our veterans and seniors and students deserve the same accessibility to vote that they already enjoy in every other aspect of their life. To put the human face on this, my wife and I raise puppies for the guide dogs for the blind. I see firsthand how the visually impaired rely on mobile ADA features to navigate the world. For them, mobile voting isn't just a convenience. It's about the dignity of an independent vote. Senate Bill 119 is a measured step. By starting with statutory and municipalities, we can build public trust through the proven success. The technology exists, the security is ready, and the need is clear. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you. Thank you. Can we please pull up Curtis Chong online as well, please? And then we will start with Ms. Dye. You can state your name and who you represent. You will have two minutes. Thank you.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Elena Dye, and I'm an attorney with Disability Law Colorado, which is a non-profit civil rights organization authorized by federal law to protect and promote the rights of people with disabilities in Colorado. I am here today in support of SB 119. This bill represents an important step towards inclusion of people with disabilities in the democratic process. The bill significantly improves accessibility for voters with disabilities by reducing barriers encountered when using traditional paper ballots. electronic ballot return supports the use of assistive technology such as screen readers, adjustable fonts, zooming in on content, and language options. This makes ballots significantly more accessible. Additionally, electronic ballot return offers a practical alternative for voters who have difficulty handling or marking paper ballots due to physical impairments. This bill also helps alleviate barriers related to transportation and in-person polling sites. Many voters with disabilities face significant challenges traveling to polling site places due to mobility limitations or medical conditions. Accessible transportation for the disability community is often limited, costly, or unreliable. Even when transportation is available, voters may still encounter physical accessibility barriers at the polling location. Electronic ballot return allows voters to participate without the added burden of arranging transportation or navigating potential ADA compliance issues. Long wait times at polling locations can also disproportionately impact voters with disabilities and discourage participation. Finally, this bill promotes independent decision-making and voter privacy. Voting is a fundamental right and all voters, regardless of disability, should be able to vote privately and independently. Too often, voters with disabilities must rely on others to assist with marking or returning their ballots, which can compromise the privacy of their vote. Electronic ballot return allows voters to submit their ballots privately while still offering the option to seek assistance from a trusted caregiver. This flexibility supports autonomy, dignity, and equal participation for the disability community. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to support the bill. Thank you.
Now we will go on to Clerk Sigelbaum, sir. Thank you.
Good day, Madam Chair and committee members. It's nice to be back with you all again. I am Josh Sigelbaum, the Adams County Clerk and Recorder. I'm testifying on behalf of myself, my office, and my constituents in support of SB 26-119. I support this bill for many reasons. Primarily, it comes down to voter accessibility, cost, and the protection of our elections. Military and overseas voters have been voting remotely since the Civil War. Several years ago, Colorado rolled out Democracy Live to allow these individuals to vote electronically. On our end, we print these ballots in bipartisan teams and we tabulate them or we tabulate from the paper ballots. It's safe, it's effective, and it's been unquestioned for years. During quarantine, this same service became available as an important method of voting for the public who were homebound or confined to a hospital. Again, it was safe and effective. Nobody questioned the security around these ballots. This bill simply expands the use of Democracy Live! to a broader pool of voters, making it easier for citizens to vote securely. The cost is also important. Since 2020, my paper and printing costs have doubled, and it continues to increase annually. I allocate over a million dollars a year to ballot printing and postage. By implementing electronic ballot delivery, we'll be reducing the need to print and mail ballots, saving local government, special districts, and taxpayers huge amounts of money across the state. This method of voting is financially responsible and fiscally conservative. Over the last several years, vote by mail has been inappropriately called into question by the President of the United States as well. Errant claims of fraud have been politicized to attack our institutions. Our primary delivery method is the United States Postal Service, and even though delivery has always been extremely efficient, the administration has claimed otherwise. It's now a way to disrupt vote-by-mail through inhibiting the post office from doing its job. Election mail is no longer considered a priority, as it has been for many years, and as that is no longer the case, the ballots and other election-related mail will not be delivered as efficiently, or at least it won't be guaranteed.
Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Clark Zieglebaum. Your time has expired, but we appreciate you bringing your viewpoint. Could I please call up as well for this panel, Kimberly Gold and Mike Duran? Curtis Chong, you will be next. If you could state your name and who you represent, you will have two minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Curtis Chong, and I'm here representing the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 26-119, a bill which seeks to allow statutory towns and special districts to offer mobile voting. For people who are blind, have low vision, or who are unable through physical disability to hold, mark, or manipulate a ballot, or to focus, or to move their eyes to the Orient that would be normally acceptable for reading or marking a ballot, accessible electronic ballot delivery and return systems are not just nice to have. For many of us they represent the only way we can cast a ballot that is truly secret We already have such a system in Colorado as others have pointed out and while we might wish for some simplification of that system it has served our community extremely well In rural areas where transportation is much more difficult than in urban areas, it is far more difficult for people with disabilities, especially if they cannot drive, to go to voter service and polling centers to cast their ballots. mobile vote offers the potential to make it easier for a person who cannot drive or who cannot handle the traditional mail ballot to vote. What SB 26-119 proposes to do is to make electronic ballot return available in areas where it is not available today. We support Senate Bill 26-119, but only as long as provisions. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Very much appreciate your perspective. Next, we'll go to Mike Duran.
Yeah, hi. My name's Mike Duran, and I'm a Colorado Springs resident. I'm the CEO of a software company headquartered in Colorado Springs and the former chair of the Colorado Springs Chamber and Economic Development Corporation. I'm here to support SB 26119. I want to be upfront. Okay, so I've spent my whole career in software, and I approach anything involving technology and elections with a healthy skepticism. But that instinct is precisely why I support this bill quite strongly. Not all, but many electronic and mobile solutions are proven safe. And, you know, for example, I safely do all of my corporate banking, my company legal work on my smartphone using multi-factor authentication. And that kind of led me to investigate supporting this vote. And I think it's going to be really useful, especially for military members, people who must travel for work and voters with disabilities who already jumped through hoops. So right now, especially in municipal elections, Colorado allows certain voters to return ballots by email fax, online portals. I know they're there for necessity, but they don't really meet modern security standards. And I think this gap can be filled with this technology. And that's why I support the bill. Also, I think mobile voting in this bill, which I've looked at closely, is a genuine gold standard. Votes are encrypted. The system is end-to-end verifiable. Voters can confirm their ballots that they were cast properly. So it's all good. And I support this bill 100%.
Thank you so much, sir. Are there questions, Senators, for this panel? Seeing none, thank you all so much for being here. Okay, so I believe we have just one more panel in opposition. can I please pull up Mickey Mills Nancy Eason Barrett Jones and Aaron Meshke Great. Mickey Mills, you will start us off.
If you could state your name and who you represent, you will have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Mickey Mills and I'm here on behalf of the Special District Association to oppose Senate Bill 26-119. I am also a paralegal with Kegger Law, representing hundreds of special districts statewide. While we support efforts to improve voter accessibility and convenience in local government elections, the bill creates more questions and challenges than it resolves. The bill only allows electors to return ballots electronically, but does not authorize election officials to deliver ballots to the electors electronically. Electors will still receive fiscal ballots, raising doubts about how this process meaningfully improves accessibility or convenience. The bill provides no reliable method for election officials to verify the individual returning a ballot electronically is the elector to whom it was issued. Special districts do not have access to sensitive personal identifiers such as social security numbers, phone numbers, or email addresses needed to authenticate voters. This creates significant risk of fraud. The bill does not establish a secure process for anonymously transcribing electronically returned ballots onto paper ballots. It merely assigns responsibility to the DEO without requiring duplication by at least two election judges or setting any security protocols. The bill requires systems to protect ballot secrecy while also requiring the DEO to verify the elector's identity, effectively linking voters to their ballots. The bill allows the DEO to count the ballots in the same manner as under the election code, yet all other elections require only election judges to count the ballots. DEOs are not even permitted in the counting room. This bill could be interpreted to allow DEO participation in counting, which conflicts with established safeguards. If enacted, Senate Bill 26-119 could have significant negative consequences for the administration and integrity of special district elections. So we respectfully urge you
to oppose this bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next we will hear from Nancy Eason.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Nancy Eason. I represent myself. I have worked as an election judge in Larimer County for decades. And I've also worked in the county department and I've duplicated electronic return ballots from overseas voters. So I have some familiarity with that process. And I'm opposed to this bill for the following reasons. People have already addressed the security concerns, so I won't repeat those. But I just want to talk about the duplication process. As the previous speaker said, it's not specified. It just says in the bill, anonymously done. It's not, there's no requirement for election judges. But I know from my experience that the duplication process is slow. It takes two, here in Lerman County, we use two bipartisan, you know, election judges. One reads the ballot, the other one marks the ballot, and then we go through and check it very carefully. This is a slow process, and I think it would really slow down the election and really delay the results, I think is a big concern I'd have if we use people use judges in that way. And to not use judges disturbs me So I think it a problem The other concern I have is just we already have the convenience of all mail ballots And the reason I don think the main reason people don't vote in local elections is because they didn't, it's not electronic. It's because they don't know what's going on. They don't pay attention. At least that's been my experience. and given the security concerns and possible voter confusion about the process I urge you to vote no and to lay it over indefinitely because I don't think this is a good idea. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Barrett Jones?
Yeah, hi. I'm the chair in the committee. My name is Barrett Jones. I'm 18 years old. I'm a new voter and a student at Brown Community College. I'm testifying against this bill because it opens the door for both significant more doubt in election results and poses a great security risk to our elections. And as of right now, there is no rigorously tested scientific way of conducting electronic ballots in a way that could be verified. And any other methods are not close to the horizon. I want you on the chair to imagine if to cast a vote you had to just you had to walk into a room and you had to tell somebody else who you voted for would you trust that they would that they would write down that they would write down your vote correctly I certainly wouldn't and I hope that you wouldn't either that is the level of distrust that electronic voting that electronic voting will bring because average voters aren't going to know how well the encryption outvoting is, how much better two-factor authentication is, and this doubt will result in much greater skepticism around elections and might even and even greater skepticism. Thank you.
Thank you so much for being here as a new voter. And two of the senators on this committee also went to Front Range Community College. So I don't know what our mascot is, but go that mascot. And thank you for being here. Aaron Meschke, you will be next.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. It's not hard to vote in Colorado. You usually have weeks to take your ballot to a drop box, put it in the mail, or hand it to a person at a polling location on Election Day. So SB 26119 is wholly unnecessary and could lead to accusations of fraud as well as potential for algorithmic interference and more distrust. keep mail in ballots for those out of the country or with documented disabilities but in order to remove suspicion from elections we should go back to in-person voting on one day like we did for most of our country's history moving towards digital or mobile voting options may be more convenient but it is not secure in both sections two and four of the bill subsection four as good goals, but we have seen breaches in all manner of government and private online security, and this is not a risk we should take with our elections. There is also a disconnect between voter verification and anonymity that many have addressed. Not all uses of technology have benefited our society, so we should take what we have learned about online security and election confidence over the past decade to move toward more protected analog elections. It should be noted that the majority of the developed world is still doing one-day in-person paper voting. While this measure doesn't have a fiscal note, the cost of these electronic systems and proper security should be disclosed so municipalities and special districts can realistically decide if they support this change. To preserve whatever election confidence we have left, I ask for your no vote on SB 26-119.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Mrs. Meshke. Go wolves. Apparently, I've been texted that the front range is the wolves. So, wonderful. That was the end of this panel. Are there questions, members? Seeing none, thank you all so much for being here. Is there anybody else who would like to testify either in support or opposition of this measure? Please come on up. And I don't think we have anyone else online, right? Thank you, Fred. Oh, we do. Oh, yes, please call them up too. Thank you. Hi, welcome. Hi, good morning. So we'll start off here in person with you. If you could state your name and who you represent, you will have two minutes.
Good morning, everyone.
I don't think your mic is on. Do I have to press this? Okay. Here? Awesome. Is this working? Awesome. I'll lower it because I'm short.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Nora Kalilian, and I'm a college student from Aurora, Colorado, urging you to support Senate Bill 119. Voting is family bonding time in the Kalilian household. My mom, dad, brother, and I would argue different sides of the Colorado ballot measures, and we were just exhausted from weighing the pros from the cons. Finally, watch our parents vote. When I turned 18, I was excited to do just this. But things changed when I moved into my freshman year college dorm at UC Berkeley, which is in California. In the midst of a chaotic freshman year, busy with almost 20 units of classes, working two jobs at the same time, I missed the deadline for my parents to receive the ballot, mail it to me, have me fill it back, mail it back to them, and then mail it to the voting process center in time. So I was upset and took my only option to register and vote in California. This made me upset because I felt like I didn't cast my vote where it mattered, the home of my family now and a family that I hope to start one day. Today's hearing isn't about whether or not electronic ballot return is a good or a bad idea. In fact, Coloradans like it so much that it already exists in the status quo. This bill is about whether or not we extend it to statuary towns and special districts, which is where elections don fall in November That hurts many of my neighbors the elderly people with disabilities those displaced by natural disasters and especially active duty military This means that the same Coloradans on active duty who put their lives on the line to support my safety don't have a say in local decisions that impact their families directly. When more voices are heard, decisions better reflect the diverse needs of the community, which means that no group feels excluded or ignored. A healthier democracy where everyone participates creates a safer, more representative, united Colorado. I urge you to support Senate Bill 119 and support my family voting wherever family bonding time takes us. Thank you so much.
Thank you so much. Next, we will go online to Kimberly Gold.
Thank you so much for taking time to listen to me. My name is Kimberly Gold. I'm a Colorado Springs City Councilor. I'm here virtually today in my capacity as a city counselor for Colorado Springs District 4, and more importantly, as a person who had to navigate the challenges of voting while deployed, and as a former national-level military spouse of the year for the United States Army. During the pandemic, I was deployed with the American Red Cross supporting families in Kuwait. Due to extenuating circumstances, I deployed to multiple regions in the month before the November 2020 election. In fact, I watched the election in a quarantine room in Korea, and I fell through a gap in our UOCAVA system and was unable to vote. While Colorado generally has accommodations for military families and those living abroad, those accommodations can be challenging to navigate and often don't extend to our most local elections. In rural terms, to me, this means that Coloradans from small towns who are currently deployed overseas or fighting in the war against Iran and have an April election coming up in just a few weeks, they don't get to participate in their democracy. This is a problem that must be addressed, and I believe mobile voting is the solution. Furthermore, I represent a district that encompasses some of the lowest turnout precincts in the entire state. District 4 largely overlaps with the district of your colleague, Senator Tony Exum. It is a young, low-income district that, due to proximity to two military installations, also has a large population of military families. I have no doubt that mobile voting technology would make it easier for the families I represent to participate in our democracy. It's a solution that would give our most marginalized communities greater and more access to vote. Colorado wouldn't be the first state. King County, Washington has safely and securely used mobile voting. Senate Bill 2619 would allow our deployed military families to participate in local elections while protecting their secret ballot. Mobile voting is a common sense step. Thank you and please support.
Thank you so much. Members, other questions for these witnesses? Seeing none, thank you for being here. Final call for any last witnesses online or in person. Seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Welcome back Senator Mullica Thank you for the engaging conversation from all the witnesses Are there amendments sir I don know Not Committee no amendments
Thank you.
The amendment phase is closed. Senator Mullica. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for taking the time to hear testimony today. I think that you heard that there's a strong desire from a lot of folks to really, I think, look into this and support this. and I think that there's some valid conversation of some concerns around it as well that we need to try to figure out how to address. And so at the end of the day, I just want to be clear what we were doing with this bill is we weren't forcing it. We were trying to give an option, I think, to some smaller type elections in our state to try to get better turnout and to try to open that door. We weren't taking other options away, mail-in, in-person, and other forms of voting. And so I just want to be clear with that. But I do think it's important that when we're looking at policy in this state, that we're always trying to figure out how do we get more people involved? How do we get more people engaged? And when possible, how do we meet them where they're at and not make it harder for them to participate in our democracy, which I think, as I said in my opening comments, our democracy is better and works better the more people that we have participating. And so that's the intent of this bill, is really trying to do that. I think that we have some more work to do and some more conversations to have. I fully intend on bringing this back next year and seeing if we can't get some of these issues addressed. I really appreciate all the folks who have worked on this bill and the testimony that we've heard, both who are against it and who are for it. I think that they're both extremely valuable. And so with that, Madam Chair, I would ask that the bill is laid over until after session to give us some time over the interim to try to work on a policy that we can address some of the concerns that we heard today.
Thank you so much, Senator Millicott. Before we proceed with further closing comments from the committee, is there a motion, Mr. Vice Chair?
I make an aye motion that we lay over this bill until May the 17th.
That is a proper motion. Mr. Sayed, please call the roll, sir. I'm sorry. Closing remarks first. Are there closing remarks, members?
I will just say I truly appreciate the conversation today and your efforts here, Senator Mullica. I particularly appreciated hearing from folks with the disabilities rights community and the dignity that steps like this can help them, and not only just in accessibility, but again, in dignity in voting. And so that was powerful to hear. And then it was great to hear from young people kind of on both sides of this issue about how they want to see this approach. So I look forward to your further conversations.
And with that, Mr. Sayed, please call the roll.
Senators Linstead Excused Excused Satyrs Lindstedt Excused Peltanar At the sponsor's request, yes.
Samoa Wilson. Aye.
Sullivan. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That bill will be postponed until May the 17th. Thank you so much, sir. And with that, that is all the business before us. the State Veteran and Military Affairs Committee will be adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.