Update:  The City claims they did not provide all of the transit logs in the initial CORA request.  Below, we have updated the serious irregularities which need to be investigated.  We should start by saying that there have been questions raised about elections from both sides of the aisle for decades now.  Rather than speculate, we are using City-provided data, their own security camera video footage and documents (i.e. ballot transit logs) that are owned by and available to the public. We do recognize that, especially with mail-in and drop-box ballot voting, there are serious challenges to ensuring election integrity and avoiding fraud in our elections.  Because we have powerful business interests who are shameless in the lengths to which they will take to buy our leadership, and because we were privy to polling data that dramatically contradicted the 4/4/2023 outcome (namely, two opposing groups' polls that reported the same low response for Wayne Williams putting him at 9% with a 52% unfavorable rating), we felt it was our duty to do a deep dive into the data.  What we have found, thus far, is extremely alarming.  

​

Daily Returns Analysis by District

The first giant red flag was seeing voter turnout jumps like 61.18% in district 6 as compared to the 2021 election.  We, initially, thought this was due to population growth, but then looked at 2019 and saw that the turnout was higher than 2021.  Coupled with the fact that the electorate sharply grew by 43,218 from 2019 to 2021 and only 973 from 2021 to 2023, we were troubled.  In addition, 48.65% of the votes came in the last two days of the April 4, 2023 election, when, historically, the last two days produced 34% and 38% in 2021 and 2019 respectively.  

 

City Denies Data Requests & Stalls

Concerned, we immediately began asking our City Clerk for data, and the City's denials and stalling worsened our concerns.  This is OUR data.  We fund these elections, and it should all be immediately handed-over, free of charge (we already pay for it) whenever any registered voter asks to see it.  For those curious, you can see the email exchanges showing how difficult this process has been here.  Even at-large candidate, Kat Gayle, who has joined Integrity Matters as Chief Legal Counsel and, as a candidate, has legal standing to see the return ballot envelopes is being ignored.  This is wrong and needs to be fixed.

​

What we have learned so far.  Buckle-up, it is pretty horrifying.

​

Deceased people voting? 

When we finally got the database of voters from another entity (the city took 3 weeks to finally respond to our request for data which is immediately e-mailable after each day of voting), we were curious to see if there were any dead voters.  So, we did a very cursory  look (i.e. we are concerned there are more, and, when we have time, we will go look more exhaustively), and found two people who voted after they were deceased.  This prompted us to ask for the signature settings and audits of the ESS MBV1000 ballot envelope machines used as their signatures would have been approved by the two ballot envelope scanning machines used to verify signatures.  Though we have been yet unable to get audit reports for those machines or inspect the ballot return envelopes, we understood that, for this to occur, those settings had to be low.  Sure enough, we were just recently informed that the sensitivity setting is 25 on a scale of 0-99 though the City says the scale isn't linear or a percent trying to minimize the low setting used.  It must mean something to set it at 25 on that scale, and we believe it's a very low sensitivity setting which should be further investigated.  Otherwise, if one had access to, for example, printing ballots (which they do on-demand now) or access to, for example, blank ballots to be printed surreptitiously (i.e. if one were a paid consultant, for example, to the election company, then having those signature sensitivity settings low would enable fake signatures to be easily approved.)  Whether that did or did not occur is superfluous to the point that it should never be so easy to do, under any circumstances. 

​

Two individuals, so far, who appear to have not been able to vote are:

​

1.  Virginia Ruth Newman:  Ms. Newman's obituary shows her as passing on March 4th, 2023, before the ballots were mailed on March 10th.  The 4/4/2023 Voter Returns Database show with the same voter ID and address as the 1/6/2023 County Voter Database.

​

2.  Jennifer Lynn Scott:  Ms. Scott's obituary shows her as passing on February 25th, 2023, before the ballots were mailed on March 10th.  Her obituary identifies her husband as David who is also listed at the same address in the 4/4/2023 Voter Returns Database which matches the voter ID and address of the 1/6/2023 County Voter Registration Database.

 

The low signature setting sensitivity of 25 suggests other illegally cast votes could exist, and the City Clerk's Office failed to prevent them from being cast.

​

26,400 Voters Who Never Voted in a City Election Going Back to 2011?

One of the analyses of the Returned Ballot Database showed that 26,400 of the total 109,768 votes were from voters who had never voted in a municipal election going back to 2011.  Nearly 1/4th of all votes cast, were from this "first-time-city-election voter".  It's a jaw-dropping stat.  We wondered if maybe it was because Yemi Mobolade turned-out a youth vote.  So, we calculated the mean age which was 46.5 years.  Only 5% of these first-time-city-election voters are 30 years of age or younger.  So, it wasn't a "youth turn-out".  We have serious concerns about this stat.  The service we were using to enable easy search of the voter database expired.  We are looking for a replacement; in the interim, feel free to email us your name, and we will look up your name to see if you voted and isn't there; or, more importantly, if you didn't vote, and it is there: integritymatterscos@gmail.com.

​

Chain of Custody & the Ballot Transit logs:  with the updated transit logs, we now have 397 votes for which there are no transit logs and even worse problems.

Because the City was so late in responding to our requests for data, it took a team of people to analyze what we have been able to do so far.  We will continue to request data, and strongly encourage citizens and the media to do the same, to correct these copious errors and demand swift action so we never have another municipal election so, at best, carelessly, at worst, nefariously conducted.  In this analysis, we looked at every single transit log and entered the information as it was presented here.  We also conducted pivot table analyses comparing the ballot log data to the City Clerk's own reported totals. 

 

A quick primer on the chain of custody of the ballots:  the chain of custody of ballots is supposed to have two people, typically of differing political parties in November county elections, who take oaths to be "transit judges" to count, document and tightly control the transport of the ballots from the drop-boxes to the City Clerk, where per page 6 of the 2023 Mail Ballot Manual, two City Office Services EMPLOYEES (titled "City Clerk's Signature" on the Ballot Log transmittal form) are to sign for receipt of those ballots from the 2-person transit judge team.  The public pays for the ballot boxes to be videotaped 24/7.  We were able to get copies of the Centennial (Vermejo & Cascade) boxes and the City Administration Building (CAB) which we viewed also for additional insight. 

 

Below is a summary of the problems with the transit logs we have been able to identify thus far:

​

• Over the span of the voting period, 397 votes have no transit logs.  309 ballots that have no location for a net of 88 ballots, at a minimum, now that are reported without any possible transit log.  Given the egregiously unprofessional, at best, transit logs and chain of custody, citizens can have no confidence in this process.

• Slumbering ballots: 

  • 1,199 ballots collected from 15 drop-boxes on 3/13/2023 were not logged into the clerk's office until the following day, 3/14.

  • 17 ballots collected on 3/29/2023 from the UCCS drop-box were not logged into the clerk's office until the following day, 3/30 on the log.  The City Clerk reports a total of 0 ballots on 3/29 at that location.  

​Click on any of the ballot transit logs below for a larger image:

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

• Every single transit log had an error be it missing a date, time, illegible signature, no transit seal number, etc.

• 99.6% (764 of the 767) transit logs had illegible signatures making it impossible to transparently track the chain of custody

• The ballot drop-box location was unclear on 7 of the 767 logs representing 309 votes.

• 110 of the 767 transit logs accounting for 12,271 votes were missing signatures

• Transit judges signing for the City Clerk receiving the ballots on 371 of the 767 pick-ups representing 37,138 votes.

• Summary of discrepancies between City Clerk reported totals and the ballot logs supplied by the city:

  • ​3/14, CAB, 96 votes reported, 47 votes in logs

  • 3/29, Bear Creek, 149 votes reported, 22 votes in logs

  • 3/14 Broadmoor Town Center, 83 votes reported, 56 votes in logs

  • 3/29, Chuck Brown Transportation Complex, 54 votes reported, 35 votes in logs

  • 3/14, Citadel Mall North, 26 votes reported, 36 votes in logs

  • 3/14, Senior Center, 51 votes reported, 61 votes in logs

  • 3/31, Citizen Service Center, 427 votes reported, 477 votes in logs

  • 3/29, Centennial Hall, 189 votes reported, 239 votes in logs

  • 3/14, Centennial Hall, 73 votes reported, 72 votes in logs

  • 3/14, Union Town Center, 94 votes reported, 114 votes in logs

  • 3/14, Powers DMV, 147 votes reported, 130 votes in logs

  • 3/27, Union Town Center, 440 votes reported, 585 votes in logs

  • 3/29, Union Town Center, 237 votes reported, 322 votes in logs

  • 3/27, Powers DMV, 390 votes reported, 245 votes in logs

  • 3/29, Powers DMV, 220 votes reported, 135 votes in logs

  • 3/14, Leon Young Sports Complex, 24 votes reported, 10 votes in logs

  • 3/14, PPSC Centennial, 11 votes reported, 6 votes in logs

  • 3/30, PPSC Centennial, 24 votes reported, 17 votes in logs

  • 3/14, PPSC Rampart Range, 19 votes reported, 8 votes in logs

  • 3/14, Tiffany Square, 20 votes reported, 40 votes in logs

  • 3/31, Tiffany Square, 129 votes reported, 54 votes in logs

  • 3/29, UCCS Library, 0 votes reported, 17 votes in logs

  • 3/30, UCCS Library, 40 votes reported, 23 votes in logs

  • 3/31, UCCS Library, 41 votes reported, 36 votes in logs

  • 4/4, Centennial Hall (both), 2918 votes reported, 3018 votes in logs

  • 4/4, PPSC Centennial, 583 votes reported, 246 votes in logs

  • 4/4, PPSC [Unclear], 0 votes reported, 98 votes in logs

​​

What we have learned thus far from our examination of the ballot drop-box video from the City Administration Building (CAB) and Centennial Hall - Vermejo/Centennial Hall - Cascade ballot drop-boxes (we had to pay about $1,000 and have spent now more than a month analyzing this data):

​

• Election fraud?:  We suspect there are many others instances of where the ballot box video contradicts the logs, but we have not been able to get the video for the other drop-boxes for review which has, in and of itself, been a troubling misinformation and delay effort.  For the CAB, there were many pick-ups for which the City provided no transit logs.  For example, on 4/4/2023, the last day of voting, the CORA requested security camera video at the City Administration there were two Ballot Box Closers Transit Logs.   A transit log for the CAB (below) claims 387 ballots were collected which appears to be a falsified document.  The CAB video for the outside and inside ballot boxes disproves this claim.  Election Night Judges removed 336 ballots from the outside drop box and there is a box closer transmittal log at 7:01 PM. That box was then closed for the election.  The security surveillance camera inside the Clerk's Office shows that this drop box was opened at 12:34 PM.  It was resealed and was not opened again until 7:34 PM per the video surveillance footage (though the log claimed an open time of 7:44 PM).  There was no pick up at 7:06 or near that time.   The same is true for the inside box which the transit log shows as being picked up at 7:06.  Jana Blosser and illegible opened and removed ballots at 7:34 PM - 7:44 PM.   Jana Blosser and Illegible were not able to use the Box Closer Transit log because it was used for the 387 that came out of thin air.  No blue box was used at either drop box.  Where did these ballots originate?

​