[Badger1]

I don’t have a problem with the ruling made in this case, other than the law states that provisional ballots have to be marked with a reason why the voter is voting provisionally. Jefferson County did not include this check off box on its ballots, and the other two counties did. Jefferson County counted all provisional ballots, and the other two counties disqualified ballots that did meet the requirements of the law. This ruling has the effect of changing election law after the election, but it does provide for equal protection for all the voters between the three counties in question. Colorado needs to change its election law so that in the future, all counties have the provisional ballot applications so this does not occur again.

[Badger1]

That should be -

all counties have the SAME provisional ballot applications so this does not occur again.

[SolidSupplySide]

This ruling has the effect of changing election law

No it doesn't. 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. This ruling merely applies the same treatment to provisional voters in Adams and Arapahoe counties.

This case is so similar to Bush v. Gore it surprises me that people don't see it. SCOTUS did not review the fact that the FLASC changed election law. SCOTUS merely stated that everyone should be treated the same under the new law created from the Florida bench.