[Badger1]

The previous ruling changed the law when it told Jefferson County to count all provisional ballots despite the fact that reasons for voting provisionally were unclear.

Both rulings had the effect of changing the election law. The Secretary of State's ruling was an attempt to apply the law as closely as possible to how it was written. The Judges ruling was an attempt to apply the law as the Supreme Court interpreted it in Bush v. Gore. In this case, the only way to apply the law exactly as written would have been to throw out all the provisional ballots in Jefferson County, which is obviously unfair. Again, I have no problem with the Judges ruling, but you have to admit that making the counties who followed the law as written now go back and count ballots that violate the law as written is a de-facto change in the law. In my opinion, it was probably the right thing to do in this case, but the law needs to be clarified so that this type of thing does not happen again.

[SolidSupplySide]

Question decided in Ruling #1:
Must provisional voters declare reasons for doing so? Answer: No

This changed Colorado law which up until that point required provisional voters to declare reasons.

Question decided in Ruling #2:
Does the new law created in Ruling #1 apply to all counties in Colorado? Answer: Yes

This simply applies the new law created in Ruling #1 statewide. This ruling was required under equal protection rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Ruling #2 did not change the law as decided in Ruling #1.