1-8.3-101. Short title

Editor’s note: Articles 1 to 13 were numbered as articles 1, 3, 4, 9 to 19, and 21 of chapter 49, C.R.S. 1963. The substantive provisions of these articles were repealed and reenacted in 1980, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to these articles prior to 1980, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note and the table itemizing the replacement volumes and supplements to the original volume of C.R.S. 1973 beginning on page vii in the front of this volume. Former C.R.S. numbers prior to 1980 are shown in editor’s notes following those sections that were relocated. For a detailed comparison of these articles for 1980, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index.

Cross references: For school elections, see articles 30, 31, and 42 of title 22; for elections for removal of county seats, see article 8 of title 30; for municipal elections, see article 10 of title 31; for special district elections, see part 8 of article 1 of title 32; for exemption of certain statutory proceedings from the rules of civil procedure, see C.R.C.P. 81; for recall from office, see article XXI of the state constitution; for recall of state and county officers, see part 1 of article 12 of this title; for recall of municipal officers, see part 5 of article 4 of title 31; for recall of directors of special districts, see § § 32-1-906, 32-1-907.

Editor’s note: This article was added with relocations in 2011. Former C.R.S. section numbers are shown in editor’s notes following those sections that were relocated.

ARTICLE 8.3 PREFATORY NOTE: Over five million military personnel and overseas civilians face a variety of legal and logistical obstacles to participating in American elections. These problems persist notwithstanding repeated congressional efforts, as well as various state efforts, to facilitate these voters’ ability to vote, most prominently the enactment of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA), and its amendment with the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 (MOVE). The obstacles include: difficulties in registering to vote from abroad; ballots or ballot applications that never arrive; frequent changes of address; slow mail delivery times to and from overseas citizens, especially military personnel; failures to complete absentee voting materials properly, including noncompliance with notarization or verification requirements that can be difficult to meet abroad; and difficulties in obtaining information about issues and candidates. Data from the 2006 federal midterm election provide dramatic evidence of the problems that these voters have recently faced. In 2006 U.S. military personnel were slightly more likely to have registered to vote than the general U.S. population (87percnt; vs. 83percnt;), yet the voter participation rate among the military was about half that of the general population (roughly 20percnt; vs. roughly 40percnt;). Furthermore, only 25percnt; of overseas and military voters who requested an absentee ballot in 2006 completed and returned one, compared to 85percnt; of all voters who requested an absentee ballot. Meanwhile, more than one in five ballots cast by military service members was rejected.

Although some of these figures improved during the high-interest 2008 presidential election, the overall picture remains troubling. In 2008, roughly two-thirds of those overseas and military voters who requested a ballot returned it, and the rejection rate for those ballots dropped to under one in fifteen ballots. Yet both of these rates remain substantially worse than the comparable 2008 rates for absentee voters generally (which were a return rate of over 90percnt;, and a ballot rejection rate of 1.7percnt;). Meanwhile, according to data collected by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, fewer than 700,000 absentee ballots were returned by military and overseas voters in 2008. This figure is not much different from the comparable figure for the 2006 federal midterm elections, meaning that the voter participation rate among these voters remained well below 20percnt;, despite the fact that among voters generally the 2008 election produced an overall voter participation rate of over 61percnt;, the largest in four decades. Without additional reforms to the voting processes for military and overseas voters, their ability to participate in American elections likely will continue to suffer. Strong popular support exists among the American public to make voting much easier and more reliable for these voters than it has been. A 2008 public opinion survey conducted for the Pew Center on the States found “strong universal support . . . across age, regional, and party lines” for the idea that military and overseas voters should be able to participate in elections “back home.” A variety of stakeholders who participated in the ULC drafting process for this act were overwhelmingly of a similar disposition.

In important part, the obstacles that overseas and military voters face can be traced to the fact that American elections are conducted at the state and local levels under procedures that often vary dramatically by jurisdiction. This lack of uniformity complicates any federal effort, such as the UOCAVA, to assist these voters to surmount the other major obstacles that they face. For instance, while some states permit overseas absentee ballots to arrive up to ten days after Election Day, other states require that all absentee ballots, including those from overseas, be received by Election Day. Meanwhile, some states permit overseas and military voters to request, and in a smaller number of cases also to cast, an absentee ballot electronically, but other states require transmission by regular mail. Some states require a notary or other witness to vouch for the absentee voter’s execution of the absentee ballot affirmation. These and other variations across states both complicate the procedures developed under the UOCAVA to help overseas and military voters, and make it difficult for consular officials, the U.S. military, and non-governmental voting assistance groups to give standard advice to these voters.

In confronting these problems, this act has two independent purposes that can only be achieved through uniform state legislation. The first is to extend to state elections the assistance and protections for military and overseas voters currently found in federal law, which covers only biennial federal elections. The second is to bring greater uniformity to the military and overseas voting processes, which the several states will continue to have primary responsibility for administering, in both federal and non-federal elections. In addition to these two primary purposes, many provisions of the act also enhance the assistance and protections provided to military and overseas voters, wherever this can be done without compromising the integrity of the voting process or imposing inappropriately on election officials.

Critical to both enhancing and bringing uniformity to the voting process for military and overseas voters is establishing adequate time for this group of voters to request, receive, and return a ballot. Directly related to the amount of time needed to accomplish these voting processes is the extent to which electronic transmission mechanisms are employed. The act requires that electronic transmission methods be available for purposes of requesting and receiving unvoted ballots, but does not require the use of electronic means for transmitting voted ballots. This is because no consensus yet exists on the question of whether and how electronic voting can occur securely and privately. However, using electronic transmission methods for just those steps in the absentee voting process prior to the casting of a ballot (such as registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot, and receiving a blank ballot) can alone dramatically reduce the time required to permit these voters to vote successfully.

Without uniform state legislation, military and overseas voters will continue to confront a panoply of diverging voting requirements, notwithstanding the important role that UOCAVA has played in facilitating military and overseas voting in federal elections for more than two decades, and the additional enhancements that the MOVE Act of 2009 provides. Accordingly, this act should be widely adopted both to simplify the voting process for these voters, and to extend similar protections to state elections not covered by existing federal law.