1. law, govt and politics
2. politics
3. elections

1
[Colorado Springs City Clerk]
2
3
Robert Blancken,
4
5
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
vs.
6
Colorado Springs City Clerk and
7
Petitioners Committee: Deborah Hendrix,
8
Victor Torres, and Woody Longmire,
9
Respondent/Defendant
)
)
) [Recall Petition Challenge/Protest and
) request for Independent hearing]
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
10
11
12
Dated this 17th day of February, 2015
13
14
15
I, Robert Blancken of 2917 Del Mar Circle, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80910, a
16
resident elector of Colorado Springs, District 4 do hereby request a hearing to
17
protest the certification of the RECALL PETITION submitted by the Petition Committee
18
of Deborah Hendrix, Victor Torres and Woody Longmire.
And that since this
19
complaint/protest is in large part launched because of the City Clerk of Colorado
20
Springs, in that the City Clerk hastily certified a petition which is in violation of
21
City Charter and of any reasonable rules of certification, the Clerk Sarah B. Johnson
22
should recuse herself from presiding over a hearing that would allow her to justify
23
her questionable methods of certification.
While I grant that the City Charter
24
specifically allows the City Clerk to preside over this hearing, I respectfully
25
request that a neutral third party such as the County Clerk, or an appointed hearing
26
officer selected by Secretary of State Wayne Williams, preside over this hearing since
27
the Clerk has a direct conflict and great potential for bias to clear her actions.
28
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 1
1
2
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
A RECALL PETITION to recall city Councilwoman Helen Collins (District 4) was
3
submitted by the Petition Committee of Deborah Hendrix, Victor Torres, and Woody
4
Longmire, on or around January 8, 2015.
5
committee’s RECALL PETITION “Sufficient” on January 14, 2015 claiming that 3,007
6
signatures were submitted and that 1,292 signatures were not accepted. 1,715
7
signatures were accepted and that 1,485 signatures were required to commence a recall
8
election of Councilwomen Collins who represents District 4 of Colorado Springs,
9
Colorado.
City Clerk Sarah B. Johnson certified the
Colorado Springs City Charter allows a 40-day time frame, with a deadline
10
of February 17 in this case, to protest a recall petition submitted and that any
11
resident elector of Colorado Springs may protest as long as the protest is within the
12
protest period.
13
Colorado Springs, a home rule city, relies upon its Charter for direction in
14
governance and matters that concern the residents of Colorado Springs:
A home rule
15
municipality under Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution. As such, Colorado
16
Springs has "plenary authority to regulate matters of local concern." Article XX of
17
the Colorado Constitution "grant[s] to home rule municipalities every power
18
theretofore possessed by the legislature to authorize municipalities to function in
19
local and municipal affairs." City & County of Denver v. Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d 748, 755
20
(Colo. 2001) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Colorado Springs can,
21
therefore, "within its sphere [,] exercise as much legislative power as the
22
Legislature." Burks v. City of Lafayette, 349 P.2d 692, 695 (Colo. 1960) (en banc).(1)
23
24
COMPLAINT SUMMARY
25
After a thorough review of the RECALL PETITION by interested persons and a
26
third party, I, Robert Blancken, have found that the RECALL PETITION that was
27
certified by City Clerk Sarah B. Johnson on January 14, 2015 should not have been
28
certified due to the following reasons:
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 2
1
FATAL FLAWS IN PETITION
2
The RECALL PETITION packet handed out by Clerk Johnson itself was flawed.
The
3
RECALL PETITION sections did not include any requirement even though Colorado Springs
4
City Charter requires that circulators be registered electors of Colorado Springs.
5
The Affidavit of Electors (EXHIBIT A, see attached) to commence recall itself declares
6
that petitioners be at least 18, Registered Electors of Colorado Springs and that they
7
will be responsible for circulating the petition. But the RECALL PETITION sections
8
that were circulated were missing ALL requirements to circulate a petition.
9
City Charter requires that “(b) Affidavit of Circulator. To each section of a
10
petition, which section may consist of one or more sheets, shall be attached an
11
affidavit by the Circulator, signed under oath before a Notary Public, stating that
12
the Circulator is a registered elector of the City of Colorado Springs, [Emphasis
13
added] and that the Circulator personally circulated the paper, the number of
14
signatures thereon, that all the signatures were affixed in the Circulator's presence,
15
that to the best of the Circulator's knowledge each signature appended to the paper is
16
the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be, that each signer had
17
an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the matter proposed or sought
18
to be reconsidered, and that to the best of the Circulator's knowledge each signer is
19
an elector of the City of Colorado Springs (1979; 1985; 1993).”
20
Despite what voters decided in two elections (EXHIBIT B, see attached) and
21
despite the City Charter requiring circulators to be registered electors of Colorado
22
Springs, it would appear that the City Clerk has created new policy that there is no
23
requirement to circulate petitions AT ALL.
24
In testimony provided by Britt Haley, Corporate Division Chief in the Office of
25
the City Attorney, (January 27, 2015) to place the recall election on the ballot,
26
Haley argued before City Council that I. Supreme Court Case Buckley v ACLF has
27
stricken the elector requirement from the City Charter (as unconstitutional) and II.
28
That Chandler v City of Arvada struck down the residency requirement.
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 3
See attached
1
meeting minutes EXHIBIT C.
Ms. Haley stated [City Council Video Archive at 2:57:16 –
2
2:58:01] that Title 31.10.101 CRS (and onward) had no requirement. [“That particular
3
section does not have any requirements for circulators”.]
4
Clerk is relying on legal council who overlooked requirements stated in Title 31.
5
City Code at 5.1.101 states that State Law is applicable “Except as is provided in the
6
City Charter and ordinances of the City, the provisions of the Colorado Municipal
7
Election Code of 19651 as the same may be now or hereinafter amended, except as
8
otherwise provided, shall govern all municipal elections2. (Ord. 957; Ord. 4493; 1968
9
Code §4-1; Ord. 00-175; Ord. 01-42)” The Clerk and Ms. Haley demonstrate, through Ms.
So it appears that the City
10
Haley’s opinion (which I view to be a mischaracterization), that Title 31 does not
11
have requirements to circulate petitions. This is also the case with respect to her
12
opinion of Buckley v ACLF as well as her opinion of Chandler v City of Arvada.
13
One can only speculate that Ms. Haley’s reasoning is an example of why the
14
Clerk failed to hold any standard at all for petition circulators or that Ms. Haley is
15
only trying to cover for the omission of important requirements from the RECALL
16
PETITION packet.
17
Nevertheless the packet is inadequate.
The Colorado Springs City Charter requirement that circulators be registered
18
electors of Colorado Springs accomplished three objectives:
i) RESIDENCY the language
19
in the City Charter isn’t simply registered electors.
20
“registered elector of Colorado Springs.”
21
and still maintain residency of Colorado Springs.
22
to be a registered elector of Colorado Springs. Title 31 governing Municipal Elections
23
also spells out 31-10-201. “Qualifications of municipal electors. (1)(a) He is a
24
citizen of the United States. (b) The person is a resident of the municipal precinct
25
and has resided in this state for twenty-two days immediately preceding the election
26
at which the person offers to vote.” [Emphasis added]. Even the language that the
27
Colorado Springs City Charter mandates to be printed at the top of each petition
It specifically reads
One cannot be a resident of another state
Residency is a requirement in order
28
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 4
1
defines registered elector “to be a registered elector you must be a citizen of
2
Colorado and registered to vote in the City of Colorado Springs.”
3
ii) MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT To be a Registered Elector in Colorado Springs 31-
4
10-201. Qualifications of municipal electors. “(1) Every person who has attained the
5
age of eighteen years possessing the following qualifications is entitled to register
6
to vote at all municipal elections.”
7
of Buckley v ACLF).
8
9
iii) VOTER REGISTRATION
(not at issue in light
Both the Supreme Court upheld in Buckley v ACLF and the Tenth Circuit’s
Chandler v City of Arvada decision addressed and held is I. Power to Summons is
10
important and II.
Enforce a minimum age requirement of 18.
Since the RECALL PETITION
11
was lacking any age requirement the RECALL PETITION should not have been certified.
12
Lines validated by the City Clerk did not meet all requirements of the City Code and
13
City Charter; the RECALL PETITION should not have been certified.
14
15
16
PRESERVATION OF THE POWER TO SUMMONS
In the Buckley v ACLF decision the Supreme Court did not address the residency
17
requirement specifically citing the Power to Summons.
And, the Colorado Springs
18
Charter reflected the will of the voters of Colorado Springs when the voters at least
19
two times affirmed the Colorado Springs City Charter by wide margins in both the
20
coordinated election of November 2, 1999, and the April 1993 election that petition
21
circulators specifically meet the requirement of registered electors of Colorado
22
Springs.
23
Springs by throwing out all requirements to circulate petitions.
24
plenary authority afforded the City by creating minimal standards of petition
25
circulation, which are upheld by both the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit
26
decisions, and which would be more in line with the City Charter, Clerk Johnson
27
decided to enforce no standard at all in the collection of signatures by circulators.
28
In Chandler v City of Arvada the case before them was specifically about city
But Clerk Johnson abrogated her responsibility to the voters of Colorado
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 5
Instead of using the
1
residency and did not address state residency – however the Tenth Circuit was
2
concerned about preserving the Power to Summons by the city should a resident of
3
another city in Colorado circulate in Arvada.
4
residency requirement imposed by the City of Arvada, the Tenth Circuit suggested in
5
their Chandler opinion that “The City could achieve its interest without wholly
6
banning non-residents from circulating petitions in Arvada.
7
argument, Arvada could require, for example, as a prerequisite to circulating an
8
initiative, referendum, or recall petition in the City, the prospective circulator
9
agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Arvada Municipal Court for the purpose of
But, in striking down the city
As suggested at oral
10
subpoena enforcement.
11
3590.
12
moves outside the City, but is later called upon by the City Clerk for a protest
13
hearing, is beyond the reach of the City Clerk's subpoena power.
14
all circulators were required to submit to Arvada's jurisdiction, the City Clerk's
15
reach for petition protest purposes would be assured.” Chandler v The City of Arvada
16
at II A.
17
This suggestion would also obviate a loophole in Ordinance No.
Presently, an Arvada resident who circulates a petition in Arvada, subsequently
If, as suggested,
Further, Justice Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion for Buckley v ACLF
18
“ACLF did not challenge Colorado's right to require that all circulators be residents,
19
a requirement that, the Tenth Circuit said, ‘more precisely achieved’ the State's
20
subpoena service objective. 120 F.3d, at 1100. Nor was any eligible-to-vote
21
qualification in contest in this lawsuit. Colorado maintains that it is more difficult
22
to determine who is a state resident than it is to determine who is a registered
23
voter. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, 14. The force of that argument is diminished, however,
24
by the affidavit attesting to residence that each circulator must submit with each
25
petition section.”
26
the Colorado’s residency requirement.
Buckley struck down the registration requirement and defaulted to
27
Even since Buckley v ACLF and after Chandler v City of Arvada the newly revised
28
Colorado Statute regarding circulators reads in part “that he or she was a resident of
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 6
1
the state, a citizen of the United States, and at least eighteen years of age at the
2
time the section of the petition was circulated and signed by the listed electors;”
3
CRS 1-40-111 (2014) – This pertains because the State did not change their state
4
residency requirement – even after the Tenth Circuit Chandler v City of Arvada.
5
the State of Colorado DID change their registration requirement per Buckley v ACLF.
6
So, the question begs, why did the City Clerk go so far as to throw ALL
7
requirements out?
8
control over the process of circulation.
9
requirement that would satisfy the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Decision?
10
But
Clearly the Charter and the voters of Colorado Springs want some
Why didn’t the Clerk default to the minimum
Under the Colorado Springs City Charter there is a severability clause “15-
11
90.Severability of Charter Provisions. If any provision, section, article, or clause
12
of this Charter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be
13
found to be invalid by a court, such invalidity shall not affect any remaining portion
14
or application of the Charter which can be given effect without the invalid portion or
15
application, provided such remaining portions or applications are not determined by
16
the court to be inoperable, and to this end this Charter is declared to be severable.
17
(1979)”
18
Since Colorado Springs Residency automatically grants Colorado Residency, Clerk
19
Johnson should not have made the assumption to allow any resident of any state and
20
perhaps even another country to circulate petitions for a recall in our city.
21
Therefore, Clerk Johnson ignored the City Charter and chose instead to wipe all
22
reference to circulator requirements from the petition sections without regard to
23
citizenship, state residency requirements, and without regard to age requirements.
24
Clerk Johnson bypassed the will of voters and the intent of City Charter to instead
25
allow absolutely anyone to circulate a petition.
26
of Colorado and for our City Charter should render the entire petition insufficient
27
specifically because she abrogated her responsibility to preserve subpoena power by
28
allowing out-of-state parties to circulate petitions.
This blatant disregard for the laws
Had the opinion in Chandler v
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 7
1
City of Arvada not been ignored, Clerk Johnson may have heeded their advice and
2
included a provision to circulators that they avail themselves to be summoned; but
3
this wanton disregard for subpoena power will make this entire hearing difficult,
4
because it is unlikely that the circulators will be available for subpoena.
5
validated by City Clerk did not meet all requirements of the City Code and City
6
Charter; the RECALL PETITION should not have been certified.
Lines
7
8
MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT
9
Since the City Charter requires circulators to be “registered electors of
10
Colorado Springs” as established above, according to Meriam Webster elector is 1. One
11
qualified to vote in an election and 2. One entitled to participate in an election. To
12
be a Registered Elector in Colorado Springs according to 31-10-201. Qualifications of
13
municipal electors. “(1) Every person who has attained the age of eighteen years
14
possessing the following qualifications is entitled to register to vote at all
15
municipal elections.”
16
There is no dispute that Buckley v ACLF overturned the requirement to be a
17
registered voter in order to circulate a petition.
18
far by throwing out ALL requirements and particularly the age requirement.
19
email from Clerk Sarah B. Johnson dated December 22, 2014 to Blain Johnson CC Powell,
20
Bill W. (EXHIBIT D, see attached, Pg 28) Sarah Johnson wrote “No requirement on
21
circulator on our code or charter.
22
Clerk Johnson was somewhat correct in her email; Title 31 also had a requirement – the
23
age requirement.
24
At a minimum, Title 31-11-107 of Colorado states “No section of a petition for any
25
initiative or referendum measure shall be circulated by any person who is not at least
26
eighteen years of age at the time the section is circulated.”
27
28
However, Clerk Johnson went too
In an
Refer him to Title 31, might be some there.”
Justice Thomas concurring on opinion Buckley v ACLF wrote “The Tenth Circuit
recognized that ‘age commonly is used as a proxy for maturity,’ and that ‘maturity is
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 8
1
reasonably related to Colorado's interest in preserving the integrity of ballot issue
2
elections.’ 120 F. 3d, at 1101. Such a restriction, the Court of Appeals said, need
3
not satisfy ‘[e]xacting scrutiny,’ for it is both ‘neutral’ and ‘temporary’; it
4
‘merely postpones the opportunity to circulate.’
5
and the City Clerk have taken upon themselves the additional responsibility of
6
interpreting Supreme Court Law and have completely thrown out their own City Charter
7
(for petitioners) in lieu of a personal interpretation of Buckley v ACLF and Chandler
8
v City of Arvada, but the Supreme Court case Buckley v ACLF does not overturn age
9
requirements to be at least 18 years of age as reasonable in order to circulate a
10
11
Notwithstanding, the City Attorney
petition.
In no part of the RECALL PETITION sections approved by Clerk Johnson and
12
circulated by any person who wanted payment, were any requirements made; especially
13
that a minimum age requirement of 18 be recognized, therefore we have no idea what
14
child or foreign national, felon, or other disinterested party may be circulating
15
petitions to recall a Colorado Springs City Council Member.
16
Clerk Johnson incorrectly stated (in her email) that no requirements existed in
17
the City Charter.
18
January 27, 2015) ignored the City Charter (and thus the will of the majority of
19
voters of Colorado Springs) that circulators be registered electors of Colorado
20
Springs, and they ignored specific legal requirements that circulators be at least 18
21
years of age.
22
The Clerk and Ms. Haley (in her testimony before City Council
The Affidavit of Electors (EXHIBIT A, see attached) to Commence Recall itself
23
declares that petitioners be at least 18, so, remembering the severability clause and
24
the specific reference to Title 31 in regards to the Colorado Springs City Charter,
25
Clerk Johnson should have insisted on the circulation requirement that petition
26
circulators be at least 18 years of age because, the City Charter specifically points
27
out that you must be a “registered elector”; and even though Buckley v ACLF throws out
28
the requirement that you be registered to vote in order to circulate a petition, the
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 9
1
City Charter did not specifically spell out the age requirement of 18 because you
2
can’t be an eligible elector unless you are 18 years of age or more.
3
But, alas, we have no way of knowing the age or actual citizenship of any
4
circulators, because, absolutely NO requirement was made and therefore the petition
5
packet should not have been handed out in the first place, much less certified.
6
the circulators simply happen to be at least 18, it is purely coincidental, but how
7
should we know – because no such requirement was given.
8
failed to preserve my right as a protester and her own right as the City Clerk to
9
subpoena them, we may never know.
If
And, since Clerk Johnson
Lines validated by City Clerk did not meet all
10
requirements of the City Code and City Charter; the RECALL PETITION should not have
11
been certified.
12
13
14
OTHER FLAWS IN PETITION PACKET
Clerks all over Colorado, and even the Secretary of State, hand out petition
15
examples so that potential petitioners will follow the proper form and format.
16
Clerk has the duty to reject a petition that does not meet a standard.
17
sets the standard in this case.
18
name, address, signature and date be affixed to a valid petition signature.
19
The
The Charter
And the Charter insists, among other things, that a
Since this poorly and hastily drawn up petition did not include the language
20
the City Charter originally required “(b)Affidavit of Circulator. To each section of a
21
petition, which section may consist of one or more sheets, shall be attached an
22
affidavit by the Circulator, signed under oath before a Notary Public, stating that
23
the Circulator is a registered elector of the City of Colorado Springs, and that the
24
Circulator personally circulated the paper, the number of signatures thereon, that all
25
the signatures were affixed in the Circulator's presence, that to the best of the
26
Circulator's knowledge each signature appended to the paper is the genuine signature
27
of the person whose name it purports to be, that each signer had an opportunity before
28
signing to read the full text of the matter proposed or sought to be reconsidered, and
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 10
1
that to the best of the Circulator's knowledge each signer is an elector of the City
2
of Colorado Springs (1979; 1985; 1993)” of which the clerk handed out to the Petition
3
Committee, someone had to have removed the previously stated language (of city
4
residency and voter registration).
5
missing vital information for instructional purposes as well.
6
But, the RECALL PETITION sections themselves were
Flaws in petition sections and the RECALL PETITION overall should have caused
7
the Clerk to request the Petition Committee to print and circulate corrected petition
8
sections to electors.
9
PETITION by demonstrating non-compliance with the City Charter. It is clear to this
These flaws in form and instruction invalidate the RECALL
10
complainant that the RECALL PETITION packet handed to the Petitioners Committee by
11
City Clerk Johnson was outdated at best OR hastily put together to meet what the Clerk
12
felt was a remnant of the petition required by the City Charter at worst.
13
The RECALL PETITION pages were also missing headers from lines 53-100 (pages 4
14
and 5, Exhibit E, see attached) which indicated Printed Name, Signature, Street
15
Address, Zip, and Date all of which are required to be a valid signature.
16
Charter 12.30 “(a)(1) Uniform Petition Blanks. The City Clerk shall issue appropriate
17
petition blanks consisting of sheets having such general form printed at the top
18
[emphasis added] as designated by the City Clerk, for either recall, initiative, or
19
referendum. (3) Signatures. Each signer must sign his/her own proper signature, the
20
date of signing said petition, and his/her place of residence, giving his/her street
21
and number.”
22
City
The petition headers are an important part of the instructions to the signer in
23
order to help the signer fill in the required information.
In many cases the sections
24
without headers had a larger number of petition signer errors.
25
the errors were caused by “inappropriate petition blanks” which did NOT HAVE the
26
general form printed at the top of the page as required by the City Charter.
27
Therefore the RECALL PETITION as designed failed in form resulting in content errors.
28
The Clerk should not have handed out such poorly designed petition forms, and she
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 11
It is my belief that
1
never should have allowed them to go to print without correction.
Subsequently, lines
2
validated by City Clerk did not meet all requirements of the City Code and City
3
Charter; the RECALL PETITION should not have been certified.
4
5
6
CIRCULATORS ARE NOT STATE RESIDENTS
City Clerk Johnson approved 470 signatures which were gathered by out-of-state
7
Circulators they include, Sections 11, 47, 66, 67, 68, by Michigan addressee Arron
8
Olivias; Sections 22, 43 by California addressee Christo Oceguera; Sections 2, 4, 56,
9
57, 58, 62, 69, 70, by Nevada addressee Christopher Salvo; Sections 36, 49 by Texas
10
addressee Jeremy Doucett;
11
Section 32 by Arizona addressee Travis Owen.
12
interest in the outcome of any recall election and potential damage they inflict on
13
Colorado Springs residents (recalling a competent representative) will not affect them
14
in any way.
15
an unconcerned body of men in the control through the ballot box of municipal affairs
16
in whose further conduct they have no interest, and from the mismanagement of which by
17
the officers their ballots might elect, they sustain no injury." In Re Cunningham, et
18
al., 91 N.Y. Supp. 974.
19
Sections 35, 64, by California addressee Tieva Saylor;
These parties who have no “pecuniary”
See: "This provision of the Constitution is aimed at the participation of
The Clerk abrogated her responsibility to the voters to preserve the ability to
20
subpoena as expressed in the Tenth Circuit Decision of Chandler v City of Arvada.
21
Chandler v City of Arvada the case before them was specifically about city residency
22
and did not address state residency – however the Tenth Circuit was concerned (as was
23
the Supreme Court in Buckley v ACLF) about preserving the Power to Summons by the city
24
should a resident of another city in Colorado circulate in Arvada.
25
suggested in their Chandler opinion that “The City could achieve its interest without
26
wholly banning nonresidents from circulating petitions in Arvada.
27
oral argument, Arvada could require, for example, as a prerequisite to circulating an
28
initiative, referendum, or recall petition in the City, the prospective circulator
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 12
In
The Tenth Circuit
As suggested at
1
agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Arvada Municipal Court for the purpose of
2
subpoena enforcement.
3
3590.
4
subsequently moves outside the City, but is later called upon by the City Clerk for a
5
protest hearing, is beyond the reach of the City Clerk's subpoena power.
6
suggested, all circulators were required to submit to Arvada's jurisdiction, the City
7
Clerk's reach for petition protest purposes would be assured.”
8
9
This suggestion would also obviate a loophole in Ordinance No.
Presently, an Arvada resident who circulates a petition in Arvada,
If, as
The Clerk in Arvada was concerned about his/her ability to subpoena outside the
city limits and the Tenth Circuit addressed those concerns, however, Clerk Johnson
10
does not appear to be concerned for her ability to subpoena.
11
concern for the voters in Colorado Springs, who voted for some restrictions to be in
12
place for circulators, and she appears to have no concern for trying to preserve the
13
City Charter concerning petition circulators in any way.
14
She appears to have no
The Tenth Circuit case Chandler v City of Arvada did not address specifically
15
out-of-state circulators, but the case brought before the Tenth Circuit involved out-
16
of-city circulators.
17
circulate a petition in Arvada was that it would reduce the pool of potential
18
circulators to a narrow population of only city residents.
19
population is roughly 6.4 million people, it would be a difficult assertion to make
20
that Colorado just doesn’t contain enough people who would circulate petitions in the
21
city of Colorado Springs in order to collect the required 1,485 signatures.
The Tenth Circuit’s objection to requiring city residency to
Since Colorado’s
22
Tenth Circuit Decision Chandler v City of Arvada states, "there must be a
23
substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort
24
of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes." ACLF, 525 U.S.
25
at 187 (citations omitted).
26
CRS 1-40-111 (Revised 2014) which states in part “(2) (a) To each petition
27
section shall be attached a signed, notarized, and dated affidavit executed by the
28
person who circulated the petition section, which shall include his or her printed
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 13
1
name, the address at which he or she resides, including the street name and number,
2
the city or town, the county, and the date he or she signed the affidavit; that he or
3
she has read and understands the laws governing the circulation of petitions; that he
4
or she was a resident of the state, a citizen of the United States,[Emphasis Added]
5
and at least eighteen years of age at the time the section of the petition was
6
circulated and signed by the listed electors.”
7
The City of Colorado Springs, and City Council should exercise its plenary
8
authority to preserve as much of the Charter, and the will of the people as expressed
9
in our elections as much as possible.
10
Clerk Johnson should not have certified any of the out-of-state circulators and
11
it is a stretch to assume that Chandler v City of Arvada gives her permission to allow
12
any person, foreign national, illegal alien, or any child to circulate a petition in
13
Colorado Springs.
14
Colorado Springs expressed their desire to have petitions circulated by residents of
15
Colorado Springs – The City of Colorado Springs is in Colorado.
16
residency requirement that was NOT struck down by Buckley v ACLF or Chandler v City of
17
Arvada, the Chandler v City of Arvada decision cited thus at B “Although the Supreme
18
Court in ACLF did not decide whether a state residency requirement for petition
19
circulators offends the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiffs submit the Court's
20
opinion suggests such a requirement would be upheld. See ACLF, 525 U.S. at 197.
21
Plaintiffs offer post-ACLF cases that expressly hold constitutional state residency
22
requirements. See, e.g., Initiative & Referendum Inst v. Jaeger, 241 F.3d 614, 616
23
(8th Cir. 2001) ("As the State has a compelling interest in preventing fraud and the
24
regulation does not unduly restrict speech, we conclude that the residency requirement
25
is constitutional."); Kean v. Clark, 56 F. Supp. 2d 719, 733 (S.D. Miss. 1999) ("[T]he
26
circulator residency requirement imposed by way of the amendment to Miss. Const. art.
27
15, § 273(12) is constitutional because it is narrowly tailored to the aim of
28
preventing campaign fraud.").”
She went too far by throwing out ALL requirements.
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 14
The voters of
Colorado has a state
1
2
Lines validated by the City Clerk did not meet all requirements of the City
Code and City Charter; the RECALL PETITION should not have been certified.
3
4
CLERK FAILED TO PRESERVE SUBPOENA POWER FOR OUT OF CITY RESIDENTS
5
Out-of-city signatures that the Clerk approved represent a total of 1066
6
signatures.
Petition Sections 20, 25 were circulated by Aaron Ellis a Lakewood, CO
7
Resident; petition sections 14, 35 were circulated by Bryan Crumpton a Pueblo, CO
8
resident; petition sections 29, 52 were circulated by Burnett Bartlett a Highlands
9
Ranch resident; petition sections 5, 46 were circulated by Charles Chavez a Thornton
10
CO resident; sections 26, 33 were circulated by Cynthia Nieland a Fountain, CO
11
resident; sections 13, 15, 16, 71 were circulated by Felicisimo Santos a Pueblo
12
resident; sections 6, 19, 21 were circulated by Irina Bulkley-Hopkins a Denver
13
resident; section 9 was circulated by Jeffrey Cunnigan an Aurora, CO resident;
14
sections 38, 40 were circulated by John Affourtit a Denver resident; sections 8, 10,
15
44, 45 was circulated by Keith Moore an Aurora, CO resident; petition sections 17, 18,
16
51 were circulated by Kenneth Dillman a Pueblo resident; petition section 41 was
17
circulated by Sandra Avila a Littleton CO, resident; sections 30, 31 were circulated
18
by Stephanee Rose a Lakewood, CO resident; section 37 was circulated by Tiontee
19
Johnson a Denver, CO resident; sections 7, 24 were circulated by Trevor Donarski, a
20
Denver, CO resident.
21
The Tenth Circuit struck down Arvada’s city residency requirement in Chandler v
22
The City of Arvada, but the Tenth Circuit also acknowledges the Arvada clerk’s desire
23
to protect the subpoena power.
24
the City Attorney, was quick to point out Chandler v The City of Arvada which strikes
25
down the residency requirement, but since Chandler was filed on June 11, 2002 some 13
26
years ago, our Clerk and the city of Colorado Springs has had 13 years in which to
27
draft a document to be handed out with the petition packets that preserved subpoena
28
power.
Britt Haley, Corporate Division Chief in the Office of
Therefore, the City Clerk should have insisted that the out-of-city
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 15
1
circulators, of whom she may not be able to subpoena, meet the minimum standards to
2
preserve the subpoena power.
3
4
5
INVALID NOTARY
The petition instructions and the City Charter include provisions that a valid
6
notary public notarizes petitions. [12-30(b)].
Petition sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
7
10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 3k6, 43, 44,
8
45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and
9
representing 1,293 signatures verified by Clerk Johnson were notarized by Aaron Ellis.
10
Mr. Ellis may not have been a valid notary when he notarized the RECALL PETITION
11
sections listed above.
12
Notaries public are governed by Colorado notary laws and are not defined and
13
validated by City Charter.
14
notary in Colorado and is currently under investigation by the Secretary of State
15
(EXHIBIT F, see attached). The Notary Handbook states, “The Notaries Public Act
16
requires every notary to keep his or her record with the Secretary of State's office
17
accurate and up-to-date at all times during his or her commission term [12-55-113,
18
114, and 115 CRS].”
19
the information in the notary's official file, including name, business address, and
20
home address changes, phone number and e-mail address changes.
21
The Notary did not fulfill minimum requirements to be a
A notary must notify the Secretary of State of: 1.
Changes to
Notary Violation I: Mr. Ellis represented his address on several petitions as a
22
notary at 1825 S Adams St., Denver, CO
80210 [Exhibit NC A, see attached].
The
23
address 1825 S Adams St. is a residential address.
24
National Change of Address (NCOA) indicates that Mr. Ellis changed his address to 371
25
S Estes St, Apt 10, Lakewood, CO
26
address in the month of September, 2014 [Exhibit NC B, see attached].
27
public records filed with the Secretary of State's office shows that as of January 23,
28
2015 Mr. Ellis' address is listed at 1825 S Adams St., Denver, CO
A search of Postal Service
80226 and that he filed an official change of
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 16
A search of
80210 [Exhibit NC
1
C, see attached].
2
1,293 signatures.
3
This address matches the address he used to notarize the validated
Mr. Ellis represented sections of the same petition that he circulated that his
4
address is actually 371 S Estes St. Apt 10, Lakewood, CO
5
attached].
6
petition sections he notarized may constitute fraud.
7
80226 [Exhibit NC D, see
The fact that Mr. Ellis deliberately misrepresented his address on all the
Mr. Ellis appeared to be aware that the Secretary of State office had the
8
incorrect address on file and it appears he intentionally wrote down an incorrect
9
address on RECALL PETITION sections that he notarized.
Even worse, Mr. Ellis also
10
appears to have intentionally misrepresented his address on an official petition
11
document.
12
The only thing that binds the petition circulator is the oath they swear before
13
the Notary Public and the sanctity of that oath.
14
was given properly before the notary public is the word of the notary.
15
public must be in compliance with state law in order to give the assurance we can rely
16
on the affidavit.
17
oath, including name and address, disqualified the petition.
18
Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v Meyer, 830 P. 2d 884 (Colo. 1992) – third
19
party authentication of circulators is to prevent irregularities and administer the
20
oath.
21
The assurance we have that the oath
Notaries
See Hazelwood v. Saul, 619 P. 2d 499 (Colo. 1980) – An improper
Notary Violation II:
Committee for Better
Mr. Ellis was a paid circulator [Exhibit NC E, see
22
attached] for the same recall effort in which he notarized petitions. Mr. Ellis
23
therefore had a financially disqualifying interest in the transaction (RECALL
24
PETITION) CRS 12-55-110 “(2) A notary public who has a disqualifying interest in a
25
transaction may not legally perform any notarial act in connection with such
26
transaction. For the purposes of this section, a notary public has a disqualifying
27
interest in a transaction in connection with which notarial services are requested if
28
he:(a) May receive directly, and as a proximate result of the notarization, any
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 17
1
advantage, right, title, interest, cash, or property exceeding in value the sum of any
2
fee properly received in accordance with this part 1; or (b) Is named, individually,
3
as a party to the transaction.”
4
Elections, 367 A. 2d 232 (Pa. 1976) and Howell v. Tidwell, 368 SE. 2d 311 (Ga. 1988)].
5
These courts held that participation in the petition process was a disqualifying
6
interest.
7
See [Citizen’s Com. To Recall Rizzo v Bd. Of
Mr. Ellis received compensation to collect signatures; he directly participated
8
in the transaction (RECALL PETITION) and was well compensated for doing so. The
9
compensation Mr. Ellis received was a proximate result of the notarization and
10
entitled him to an interest in and cash payment and Mr. Ellis, as a circulator is
11
named, individually, as a party to the transaction.
12
a notary may receive for each document attested by a person before the notary public
13
to five dollars ($5.00).
14
CRS 12-55-121 (1) Limits the fee
For the specific reasons of Notary Disqualification and lines validated by City
15
Clerk did not meet all requirements of the City Code and City Charter; the RECALL
16
PETITION should not have been certified.
17
18
SIGNATURE DISQUALIFICATIONS
19
After an exhaustive search for signatures on the voter file provided by El Paso
20
County Clerk and Recorder provided on January 23, 2015 the number of signatures found
21
were actually 1,697 which is 18 less than 1,715 signatures the Clerk certified to be
22
valid.
23
demonstrate that the total number that should have been accepted falls below the
24
required 1,485 signatures.
Even though 1,697 still exceeds the required number of 1,485, complainant will
25
26
27
28
OBVIOUS HANDWRITING SIMILARITIES
At least 4 instances of forgery occurred in petition sections 19.45, 19.46,
18.20, and 18.21. These were accepted as valid where two or more signatures on a
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 18
1
petition are in the same handwriting, all such must be rejected. Miller v. Armstrong,
2
84 Colo. 416, 270 P. 877 (1928).
3
4
CANNOT FIND SIGNATURES
5
26 Signatures were not able to be found due to complete illegibility, bad
6
addresses, and that completely illegible signatures were marked as accepted in
7
petition sections 2.19, 6.44, 6.21, 11.7, 11.58 name crossed out, 13.04, 16.85, 18.10,
8
19.19, 19.36, 19.59, 24.79, 24.98, 25.70, 25.90, 27.32, 27.37, 34.32, 35.15, 36.27,
9
37.57, 43.89, 44.8, 55.29, 67.38, 69.17 (unfound names). (EXHIBIT G, see attached)
10
11
BAD ADDRESSES
12
Postal records through CASS Certification indicate that 4 of the addresses
13
listed at 22.36, 36.07, 20.34, and 43.30 are graded as wrong addresses (EXHIBIT H see
14
attached (CASS)) that are invalid addresses and are undeliverable.
15
16
17
ELECTOR MOVED BEFORE SIGNING
National Change of Address (NCOA link) indicated that 23 accepted signers do
18
not live at the address signed on the RECALL PETITION.
19
and being a registered elector, their addresses are invalid.
20
yet somehow signed their invalid address.
21
or the entire family moved (F) Petition sections 06.61 (I), 11.26 (F), 15.23 (I),
22
19.52 (I) inactive, 20.34 (F) inactive, 22.36 (I) inactive, 26.32 (I), 29.61 (I),
23
31.05 (I), 36.11 (I) inactive, 36.45 (F) inactive, 36.55 (I), 36.60 (I) inactive,
24
36.77 (I) inactive, 43.88 (F), 47.66 (I) inactive, 49.05 (I), 51.34 (I), 51.35 (I),
25
52.09 (F), 52.10 (F), 60.14 (F) inactive, 60.19 (I) inactive.
26
27
For the purposes of balloting
Petitioners moved and
Either the individual who signed moved (I)
If a person moves from one county or precinct in this state to another with the
intention of making the new county or precinct a permanent residence, after thirty
28
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 19
1
days the person shall be considered to have lost residency in the county or precinct
2
from which the person moved.
3
4
INVALID ZIP CODES LISTED ON PETITION
5
73 Petitioners either included no zip code (nz), put the wrong zip code down
6
(wz), or the zip code was added (za) by another party (not the signer – most likely
7
the circulator) at Petition Sections 02.36, 04.01, 04.07, 04.09, 04.22, 04.48 wz,
8
07.01 wz, 07.06 za, 07.07 za, 07.08 za, 07.09 za, 07.11 za, 07.12 za, 07.13 za, 08.02
9
nz, 08.08 nz, 08.14 nz, 08.15 nz, 08.21 nz, 08.25 nz, 09.34 nz, 11.35 wz, 11.40 nz,
10
11.68 nz, 16. 27 nz, 16.29 nz, 16.30 nz, 16.31 nz, 16.42 nz, 16.43 nz, 16.47 nz, 16.48
11
nz, 16.49 nz, 17.38 nz, 18.31 nz, 18.74 wz, 19.35 nz, 19.64 nz, 22.04 wz, 22.33 nz,
12
24.83 nz, 24.84 nz, 25.91 za, 25.92 za, 25.93 za, 26.08 wz, 26.25 za, 29.50 nz, 29.51
13
nz, 29.52 nz, 29.69 nz, 29.90 nz, 30.07 nz, 35.05 nz, 35.48 nz, 35.79 nz, 35.95 nz,
14
40.37 nz, 41.53 nz, 55.47 nz, 58.23 nz, 58.35 nz, 59.29 za, 60.17 nz, 62.03 nz, 62.09
15
nz, 62.20 nz, 62.24 nz, 62.31 nz, 62.46 nz, 67.07 nz, 69.19 nz, 69.24 nz.
16
17
18
WRONG NAMES
25 Petitioners put either the wrong name (wn) or someone else’s name, first
19
name errors (fn), last name errors (ln) or someone altered the petition document to
20
reflect a different name in Petition Sections 06.44 fn, 07.85 ln, 10.02 ln, 13.05 ln,
21
13.53 wn, 13.55 mn, 13.66 wn, 13.76 fn, 13.81 abbreviated name, 15.18 wn, 16.06 wn,
22
20.28 fn, 24.60 ln, 25.90 ln, 27.32 ln, 29.20 altered name, 30.11 altered name, 38.17
23
ln, 40.12 ln, 43.12 wn, 43.72 ln, 60.06 ln, 61.41 no last name, 62.25 ln, 68.06 ln,
24
25
26
WRONG STREET NAME OR ADDRESS
40 Petitioners wrote wrong street names (sn), wrong house numbers (wh), wrong
27
addresses (wa), or no house number (nn). These were accepted in Petition Sections
28
04.63 sn, 06.56 wa, 07.18 sn, 07.19 sn, 07.21 sn, 07.31 wh, 07.62 sn, 07.91 sn, 08.08
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 20
1
sn, 11.18 wa, 11.58 wa, 13.15 sn, 27.06 wh, 29.78 wh, 29.93 wh, 32.28 wa, 36.46 sn,
2
36.65 wa, 36.71 sn, 36.77 sn, 36.79 wa, 36.83 sn, 36.92 wa, 36.93 wa, 37.16 wa, 38.07
3
sn, 41.30 sn, 41.51 wa, 41.46 wa, 41.64 wa, 43.15 wa, 43.68 wa, 44.03 wa, 44.25 wa,
4
45.11 wa, 47.31 wa, 47.40 nn, 58.36 wa, 59.36 wa, 67.24 wa,
5
6
7
8
DATE ERROR
6 Petitioners had wrong dates or no date at all in Petition Sections 07.50 nd,
15.31 nd, 27.17 wd, 27.18 wd, 35.62 nd, 60.18 nd.
9
10
APARTMENT OR UNIT ERRORS
11
58 Petitioners did not include apartment or units (na), listed the wrong
12
apartment (wa) or someone added apt number after signed in Petition Sections 08.08 na,
13
08.14 na, 08.15 na, 08.21 na, 09.15 na, 09.22 na, 09.23 na, 09.25 wa, 10.05 na, 10.06
14
na, 11.08 na, 11.26 added apt num, 11.31 na, 11.44 na, 11.47 na, 11.56 na, 11.64 na,
15
13.55 na, 16.11 na, 19.28 na, 27.59 na, 27.60 na, 36.28 na, 36.29 na, 36.35 na, 36.36
16
na, 36.37 na, 36.38 na, 36.40 na, 36.41 na, 36.42 na, 36.43 na, 36.37 na, 41.62 na,
17
47.10 na, 47.17 na, 47.18 na, 47.20 na, 47.22 na, 47.29 na, 47.30 na, 47.39 na, 47.41
18
na, 47.60 na, 55.06 na, 55.08 na, 55.42 na, 55.45 na, 59.14 na, 59.38 na, 60.01 na,
19
62.09 wa, 62.19 na, 62.27 na, 62.87 na, 62.31 na, 64.24 na, 69.19 wa.
20
21
Error in certification cited above in IV and lines validated by City Clerk did
22
not meet all requirements of the City Code and City Charter; the RECALL PETITION
23
should have forced the Clerk to invalidate the petition as insufficient.
24
25
26
27
28
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 21
1
2
CONCLUSION
It is for the reasons cited above that Clerk Sarah B. Johnson should not have
3
certified the petition.
I am therefore asserting my right as a resident elector of
4
Colorado Springs to a fair and unbiased hearing of my protest to the RECALL PETITION
5
circulated by out–of-state, non-resident circulators and by the Petitioners Committee
6
(Deborah Hendrix, Victor Torres, and Woody Longmire) to recall Councilwoman Helen
7
Collins. I further request that a neutral third party such as the County Clerk, or an
8
appointed hearing officer selected by the Secretary of State, preside over this
9
hearing since there is great potential bias for the Clerk to clear her actions.
10
11
Respectfully,
12
Robert Blancken
13
14
Printed Name: Robert Blancken
Phone Number: 719-473-5586
15
Address: 2917 Del Mar Circle, Colorado Springs, CO 80910
16
17
Signature: ____________________________ Date: February 17, 2015
18
19
STATE OF: Colorado
20
COUNTY OF: El Paso
21
22
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
20___, by
.
23
24
25
(Notary’s official signature)
Notary Seal
(Commission Expiration)
26
27
28
[Collins Recall Petition Protest] - 22