[Badger1]

SolidSupplySide, your refrence to Roe v Alabama would be an argument against counting the absentee ballots that did not have the check off box for stating the reason the voter wanted to cast a provisional ballot. Roe v Alabama states that "Fundamental fairness requires election officials to refrain from changing the rules for counting ballots once the election is over." Using this reasoning, all the provisional ballots in Jefferson county should have been discarded. I do not believe this would have been the right thing to do, and I don't think you do either.

The Colorado Secratary tried to reconcile the law with the situation by applying the law as written as closely as possible. However, this brought up equal protection arguments, allowing the judge to rule that all provisional ballots be counted so that all the votes would be treated equally.

As I said before, the Colorado Legislator needs to modify the law and require that all provisional ballot applications be exactly the same throughout the state so this situation does not occur again.

[SolidSupplySide]

Here is my thinking:

1. Colorado law no longer requires a reason for voting a provisional ballot. This was the first case (Ruling #1) decided in Jefferson County. I have never passed an opinion on this case, and I'm glad I didn't have to. But suffice it to say, it is the law of the land in Colorado.

2. The ruling we have been discussing (Ruling #2) was necessary. It says that Colorado laws apply equally in all counties. For some reason, you oppose this ruling.

3. My statement regarding Roe v Alabama was with respect to the 2004 election. Since the law in Colorado has now been interpreted that no reason is necessary to vote provisionally, it will apply in the 2004 election. If reasons *are* required in 2004, then there is a new equal protection problem because the rules will have changed again.

Reading what I had written, I think it is disingenuous of you to apply my statement of Roe v Alabama to the 2002 case. Furthermore, I don't think Roe v Alabama applies to Ruling #2. While it may apply to Ruling #1, I have passed no judgment on Ruling #1. And even so, I don't think the errors of JeffCo officials should have prevented otherwise lawful provisional votes to be counted (you apparently do because you say they should have been "discarded"). But because of the errors of JeffCo officials, there was no way to determine which provisional ballots were legit and which weren't. The judge in Ruling #1 had a hard time.