CO GOP At-large delegate election contest

7/26/2019 CO GOP At-large delegate election contest

1/30

1

NOTICE OF CONTEST

June 13, 2016

Attn: The Honorable Susie HudsonRepublican National Committee

Attn.: Counsels OfficeCONTESTS

310 First Street, S.E.

Washington, D.C 20003

Also via [email protected]

Contest of Colorados At-Large Delegates and Alternates (26 of 26)

Contestants:

Kathryn Porter, Lana Fore, and Susan Carr

Respondents:

Delegates: Ken Buck, Patrick Neville, Sue Sharkey, Ted Harvey, Kim

Ransom, Kevin Grantham, George Teal, Lori Saine, Wayne W.

Williams, Dudley Brown, Jim Gilbreath, Kristi Brown Burton, andStephen Humphrey.

Alternates: Scott Anderson, Jon Hotaling, Sharon Bjorklund, Patrick

Davis, Edward Stephen E. Barlock, Sherry M. Dooley, Beverly A.

Gerlock, Jimmy Sengenberger, Michael Dimanna, Bradley A. Holbrook,

Seth Keith, Mark Baisley, and Kimberly Jajack.


2/30

2

CONTENTS

I. Nature of the contest

A. Nature of the controversy

B. Jurisdiction of this Committee to hear the contest

C. Failed attempts to resolve controversy at state level

D. Access to required supporting documents for this contest

improperly denied

II. Advisory list of issues and grounds for contest

A. Ballot format violated bylaw and rule requirements to

identify names and pledged information of candidates

B. Unfair treatment of some delegates and increased voter

confusion due to errors in ballot supplements

C. Respondents further advantage due to error-prone and

incomplete ballot supplement lists

D. Material errors, voter confusion, and questionable

tabulations

E. Unknown impact of 2,132 potentially improperly invalidated

votes

F. Not possible for contestants and delegates to raise objections

during the convention

1. No Professional Registered Parliamentarian

2. Meeting rules unavailable to delegates

3. Microphones unavailable

4. Vote tallies and Teller report unavailable for timely

review or objection

G. Unknown but likely material impact of errors on close-

margin results


3/30

3

H. Unfair advantage to Cruzs official slate due to display of

slates candidate names

I. Ineligible candidates listed on ballot supplements and

improperly credited with votes

J. Prejudicial publication of candidates names on COGOP

website

K. Ballot size unwieldy, confusing, and caused voter error

L. Willful CRC negligence in repeating known April 8 errors on

April 9

M. Improper certification in violation of RNC Rule 20

N. Chaotic, improper credentialing

O. Porter and Fores claimed rights to sit as delegates to

represent the class of hundreds of candidates who were

harmed by the unfair election processes

P. Possible CRC acceptance of some untimely filed Intent to

Run forms

III. Relief Requested

IV. Urgent request of this CommitteeNecessity of additional

documentation

V. Contact information for Contestants

VI. Non-attorney representative


4/30

4

Contestants Kathryn Porter (Porter), Lana Fore (Fore), and

Susan Carr (Carr) hereby respectfully submit this Notice of Contest

under Republican National Convention Rule 23.

I. Nature of the contest

A. Nature of the controversy

The Procedures for Contests of Elections of Delegates and

Alternate Delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention (RNC)

state that a contest is deemed to exist when a resident of a state who iseligible to serve as a delegate claims that according to procedures set

forth in the Rules, one or more delegates from that persons district or

state have been selected by means which violate the Rules.

This contest arises from widespread, pervasive Rules violations

that resulted in the improper selection and certification of all Colorado

at-large delegates and alternates. The underlying purpose of RNC

Rules, party bylaws, and rules of order is to ensure that the election of

delegates is fair and accurate so that only eligible delegates vote and

only eligible candidates are certified. Significant rules violations and

materially irregular balloting processes occurred before and during the

April 9, 2016, Colorado state convention election of delegates to the

Republican National Convention. Election irregularities were prevalent

and of such magnitude that the results selecting the 26 Respondents

are materially inaccurate, unverifiable, and unreliable. The conduct of

the April 9 State Convention did not permit the will of the body to be

determined with a reasonable degree of certainty. The Respondents


5/30

5

cannot be reasonably seated as certified delegates because of the

resulting uncertainty of the election outcomes. Seating the Respondents

without mitigation for the material election irregularities would send a

discouraging message of tolerance for unfair and manipulated elections.

The election of the 13 at-large delegates and 13 at-large alternates

was in material violation of multiple Rules of the Republican Party

(RNC Rules), the Rule 16(f) filing by the Colorado Republican

Committee (CRC), the Bylaws and Standing Rules of the Colorado

Republican State Central Committee (CRC bylaws) incorporated

therein, and the Standing Rules adopted for the conduct of the state

convention. The CRCs certification of Respondents as delegates and

alternates and delivery of their credentials under RNC Rule 19 to the

RNC was not made in good faith, given Colorado Republican State

Chairman Steve Houses (House) knowledge of the material election

inaccuracies and Rules violations.

This contest focuses primarily on the balloting irregularities and

errors created by delegates marking materially noncompliant printed

ballots, inaccurate tabulations, erroneous and incomplete candidate

lists, unequal treatment of candidates, votes counted for ineligible

candidates, and voter confusion. The combination of significant

violations of election rules and the chaotic environment of the

convention resulted in a materially inaccurate, unfair, and reckless

election and certification of at-large delegates that must not stand.

Porter and Fore are properly credentialed voting delegates from El

Paso County to the Colorado Republican State Convention and were


6/30

6

candidates for National Convention delegates. Susan Carr is a resident

of Pueblo, Colorado, and participated in her caucus, where she was

elected as an alternate delegate to the county assembly, but was not a

national delegate candidate herself.

All Contestants bring this action to contest the certification of

Colorados at-large delegates and alternates. Contestants Fore and

Porter bring this action in their capacity as at-large state delegate

candidates and as voting delegates who claim that one or more

delegates from that persons district or state have been selected by

means which violate the Rules. Carr brings this action under the

provisions of Rule 23 (b) as a resident of the state of the challenged

delegate(s) or alternate delegate(s) who participated at any level in the

delegate selection process of that state.

The reckless, noncompliant manner in which the April 9 state at-

large election was conducted was essentially a willful repetition of the

chaotic election processes for congressional district (CDs) 2, 3, 4, and 5

held on April 8. In each case, essential rules were violated, resulting in

materially erroneous results. The same planners, Teller personnel, and

the El Paso County Clerks Office (EPCO) election staff were employed

to conduct the balloting operations for the April 8 and April 9 elections.

The majority of the violations detailed in this complaint also occurred

amid objections in the April 8 CD elections. Although the flawed results

of those CD elections are not a part of this contest, it is important to

understand the Colorado Republican Committees willful and repeated

pattern of disregard of the governing bylaws, rules, and statutes


7/30

7

common to all 2016 elections planned and executed by the CRC and its

election processing contractor, EPCO. In contrast, the independently

conducted CD 1, 6, and 7 elections were generally compliant with the

rules and not subject to material errors in the delegate election results.

Despite the numerous complaints and national news coverage of the

chaotic and erroneous balloting during the April 8th CD elections, the

CRC made no known effort to remedy the gross errors and rule

violations, but knowingly and recklessly repeated them on a larger scale

during the at-large elections on April 9, hereby being contested.

B. Jurisdiction of this Committee to hear the contest

The controversy arises from irregular and unlawful actions of

CRC officials in the April 9, 2016, election of at-large state delegates to

the 2016 national convention. The Standing Committee on Contests has

jurisdiction to hear this matter under Rule No. 24.

C. Failed attempts to resolve controversy at state level

The CRC Executive Committee was informed of the most

significant issues listed in this Notice of Contest, but on May 20, 2016,

voted not to undertake an internal investigation of the alleged election

irregularities prior to the certification of the delegation. The failed

proposal was intended to find resolutions and avoid contests of the

delegation. With CRC Executive Committee approval, Chairman House

moved forward to certify the Respondents as delegates and forwarded

their credentials to the RNC despite credible allegations of fraud and

documented material errors in the election results.


8/30

8

D. Access to required supporting documents for this

contest improperly denied

Production of supporting documentation by the CRC will be

required to properly present the evidence in this contest. To date, CRCand House and EPCO have wrongfully denied potential contestants

access to needed documentation.

The improper denial by CRC and unlawful withholding by EPCO

of key documents prejudice the position of the Contestants in this

contest. In Section IV below, Contestants request that the Committee

order CRC to immediately provide the necessary documents to the

Contestants.

Additionally, House denied members, such as the Contestants,

copies of the amended Rule 16(f) filing, stating that he would only

provide the document to presidential campaigns, not to potential

independent candidates for delegate. This action not only

disadvantaged candidates not included in slates such as the official

Cruz slate, but also disadvantages the Contestants now who do not

have access to the official rules.

II. Advisory list of issues and grounds for contest

A. Ballot format violated bylaw and rule requirements to

identify names and pledged information of candidates

The failure to meet the most basic ballot layout requirements and

related rules and bylaws created a fatal error from which the election

could not recover. Fundamental election principles and CRC Bylaw

Article XIII 5c require that the ballot include the presidential candidate


9/30

9

pledge for each delegate candidate or indicate that the candidate is

unpledged. The April 9, 2016, State Convention Rules (CO Rules) also

require that the ballot shall include the presidential preference of

those so pledging. (CO Rule 7.4(b)) Ballots must include the name of

the candidate to reduce risk of error, voter confusion, and fraud. CRC

officials made the affirmative decision to exclude the candidates

required names and pledged information from the face of the at-large

state ballots and CDs 2, 3, 4, and 5 ballots. The at-large ballot contained

only target areas for voting (ovals) and a series of numbers 1 through

948 (Exhibit 1) assigned to 636 candidates. The resulting confusion,

errors, and unequal treatment of candidates as described herein created

a materially inaccurate and flawed election.

B. Unfair treatment of some delegates and increased

voter confusion due to errors in ballot supplements

In a failed attempt to compensate for the improper and purposeful

exclusion of candidate names from the ballot, the convention program

listed the candidates through number 588. This program was

distributed at credentialing. An additional ballot supplement booklet

listing 595 candidate names, pledged information, and ballot numbers

was distributed to all delegates during balloting. A third one-page

ballot supplement addendum with similar information for additional

candidates who were purportedly excluded from the ballot supplement

booklet was distributed separately during ballot issuance. A fourth

supplemental list of ballot numbers was projected on the screen for a

brief period, after ballots had been distributed and voting had begun. A

fifth list of 7 selected candidates and ballot numbers left out of the


10/30

10

program was projected on the convention screen. CRCs failure to

disclose the names of 48 candidates until just as voting began gave

unfair advantage to the Respondents.

Additionally, the sequencing of the candidates names on both

supplements violated CO Rule 7.4(d) sequencing rules intended for

ballot name sequencing and caused further confusion and voter error.

Voter confusion was also created by the exclusion of names from the

ballot and by the purportedly mitigating ballot supplements and

supplemental projected slides with candidates listed in a different order

than voting delegates had been instructed to expect. Voters could not

reasonably consider all candidates in the constantly changing list of

candidates.

C. Respondents further advantage due to error-prone

and incomplete ballot supplement lists

Even if candidate number reference ballot supplements had been

sufficient to substitute for the exclusion of required names and pledged

status on the ballot, the errors and omissions in the 5 known and

inconsistent supplements created voter confusion and ballot-marking

errors through misinformation.

In addition to confusion caused by the multiple ballot

supplements described in Subsection B above, several candidates were

given multiple ballot numbers, causing a split of their own already

unfairly depressed votes.

Some candidates had to use their short 10 seconds of allotted

campaign speech at the microphone to attempt to correct their


11/30

11

assigned number because of the erroneous supplements. Contestants

and other voters found it impossible to access all the candidates names

as they attempted to juggle two ballot supplements, a verbal

announcement of ballot number corrections, and a number-only ballot

with 312 unassigned but live target voting areas. The prejudicial impact

of such unequal treatment on the Contestants and other candidates

cannot be quantitatively estimated to determine which candidates truly

had the winning support of the voting state convention delegates.

All such errors would have been unlikely if the ballot had included

names and pledges as the bylaws require. None of the candidates on the

second or third supplemental list, made available after voting began,

was elected.

D. Material errors, voter confusion, and questionable

tabulations

The vote total summary discloses 136 votes were counted for

invalid ballot numbers higher than 636, which were not associated with

a candidate. The ballot contained 948 numbers and oval target areas,

312 of which were ineligible but permitted recording of votes. These

votes were improperly countedalthough there was no candidate

associated with the ballot number. One-third of the ballot was invalid,

but marks on the invalid area were counted. The delegates and

alternates officially elected were elected with vote tallies between 380

votes and 2,272 votes; therefore, the anomaly of 136 votes became a

material irregularity that likely impacted the close, thin-margin

election outcomes. As an example, 41 votes were counted for


12/30

12

nonexistent candidate #948, but those votes were likely intended for

eligible candidates.

Tallies for unassigned ballot numbers suggest the lack of names

on the ballots, multiple, confusing ballot supplements, and 312 excess

ballot numbers on the ballot caused voter confusion and mismarked

ballots. Given the material percentage of over-voted ballots (82) and the

136 votes for nonexistent candidate numbers, questions have been

raised as to the accuracy of the ballot scanning and tabulation

equipment as well. Requested access to ballots and electronic ballot

scans in order to investigate the source of the problem has been denied

by the state party and EPCO, which performed the Teller operation.

CRCs Executive Committee also voted not to investigate.

CO Convention Standing Rule 8.4 required ballot tabulations to be

recorded and reported by county. CRC violated this rule by adopting the

noncompliant ballot layout and permitting the ballots to be commingled

without regard to county. Thus, no county tabulations are possible,

rendering it more difficult to detect error, fraud, or other source of the

irregularities or make real-time objections to the reported tallies.

Contestants agents request to inspect the ballots or electronic

ballot images has been denied. (Section IV)

E. Unknown impact of 2,132 potentially improperly

invalidated votes

The vote tally data appears to indicate that 82 ballots and all

votes thereon (2,132 votes) were invalidated because of over-voting

(voting for more than 26 candidates.)Additionally,136 votes were


13/30

13

counted for ballot numbers not assigned to candidates. Delegates were

not informed of the highly unusual situation that marks in unassigned

ovals were live and would count toward the maximum of 26 votes. If

marks in any target areas associated with unassigned numbers caused

some ballots to be invalidated as over-voted, all valid votes on those 82

ballots should be counted. A review of those ballots for voter intent is

essential to determine the impact of this particular potential error.

Additionally, votes for any candidate with two ballot numbers should

not be penalized as over-votes.

Further, 2,132 votes exceed 3% of the votes cast. Rejecting 3% of

the votes cast on noncompliant ballots is improper and calls the election

results into question.

F. Not possible for contestants and delegates to raise

objections during the convention

1. No Professional Registered Parliamentarian

RNC-stated requirements at the January 2016 Chairmans

Session were clear that a Professional Registered Parliamentarian must

be engaged to avoid parliamentary and process errors that may invite

contests. The acting parliamentarian for the Colorado convention was

not professionally credentialed and was ineffective in carrying out his

responsibility to correct pre- and real-time convention process errors.

2. Meeting rules unavailable to delegates

Contestants, other candidates, and all voting delegates were

prejudiced by the failure of CRC officials to make the proposed state

convention meeting rules available prior to their adoption and during


14/30

14

the conduct of the meeting. Timely objections were made to the rules

adoption without reasonable access to a copy, but objections could not

be heard in the chaotic environment caused by CRCs failure to run an

orderly meeting under the CO Rules and RNC-stated requirements as

well as by CRCs failure to provide floor microphones.

The unavailable rules included requirements for balloting and

challenges to balloting that were therefore unknown to candidates and

all participants, prejudicing the Contestants ability to make timely

objections to material ballot processing errors.

3. Microphones unavailable

Meeting protocol requires microphones be made available on the

convention floor for delegate access to raise objections, motions, and

points of order. The lack of available microphones in an arena with over

4,000 attendees made real-time objections impossible. Porter lodged a

complaint with House concerning the lack of floor microphones as the

meeting was beginning. The complaint was ignored.

4. Vote tallies and Teller report unavailable for

timely review or objection

Vote tallies require 38 pages to print. The Teller Committee failed

to disclose anomalies to the convention delegates such as the 136 votes

for nonexistent candidates counted in the results. They did not

disclose ballot formatting and ballot supplement printing errors. The

convention body had no way to consider the errors and their impact on

the reported results during their vote to approve the Teller Committee

report. The Teller Committee had the duty to present an accurate


15/30

15

report and disclose any such discrepancies and anomalies prior to

asking the convention to adopt the results.

The Teller Committee violated their duties by conducting this

reckless and error-riddled election and by reporting the results as if

material problems did not impact the results.

G. Unknown but likely material impact of errors on

close-margin results

A material number of votes were improperly tabulated. The result

was a likely impact on the outcome, particularly in determining the

close races between the lowest vote-ranked delegates and highest vote-

ranked alternates. For example, only 2 votes separated the 13th

delegate from the 1st alternate. Only 8 votes separated the 13th

delegate from the 2nd alternate. Only 7 votes separate the 4th alternate

from the 5th alternate. These are but a few examples of the close

reported vote tallies as further detailed on the Election Summary

(Exhibit 2 [provided by link in the paper copy of this complaint.])

http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

Given the pervasive errors and tabulation questions, it is likely

that results are in error, but accurate results are unknowable. It is

likely that some Respondents have been improperly certified as

delegates because of the material errors in the election process. It is

impossible to know exactly which candidates, alternates, and delegateswere impacted in favorable or unfavorable material ways.

H. Unfair advantage to Cruzs official slate due to display

of slates candidate names


16/30

16

Campaigning for a slate is a legitimate and desirable convention

activity. However, solely for the 16-member Ted Cruz slate, CRC

officials effectively mitigated the Rule violation of names being

excluded from the ballots. All 16 slate members became the highest-

ranking delegates and alternates. Given the lack of printed names on

the face of the ballot, the Cruz official slate was granted unfair

advantage when CRC projected the Cruz official slate names and

numbers for 20 to 30 minutes on large screens during Senator Cruzs

speech. (Exhibit 3). When this fact is considered in light of other

candidates names being improperly excluded from the face of the ballot,

compounded by the fact that some candidates names or numbers were

missing from or misprinted on the ballot supplements, it is clear that

CRC officials actions prejudiced the election of all but the Cruz official

slate candidates.

In addition, 5 of the 16 official Cruz slate candidates names and

two unpledged candidates names, whose names were added as the last

entries in the convention booklet, were projected on a large screen by

the CRC for additional information, although this benefit was not

offered to other similarly situated candidates.

The 16 official Cruz slate candidates won the top 16

delegate/alternate slots. Candidates whose names and numbers were

projected for an extended time on the screen each received over 1,000

more votes than any candidate who was not given this favored

treatment. Effective campaigning by the Cruz team certainly

contributed to their victories. However, unfair advantage provided by


17/30

17

the CRC could be reasonably concluded to have been a factor in their

victories.

I. Ineligible candidates listed on ballot supplements and

improperly credited with votes

Some ineligible state delegate candidates names were included on

the ballot supplements as national convention candidates. For example,

some delegates failed to pay their badge feesbut were assigned ballot

numbers and were credited with votes, which were votes likely taken

from eligible candidates. The total number of votes impacted is

undeterminable, but such known cases exceed the victory margin for

several winning delegates.

J. Prejudicial publication of candidates names on

COGOP website

Under provisions of CRC bylaws (Article XIII A. 5a.), national

delegate candidates were required to submit an Intent to Run form by

March 28. House publicly committed to promptly post all candidate

names on the CRC website to permit delegates to consider candidates in

advance of the meeting. However, only partial lists were published; the

names of many eligible candidates were excluded from the April 1, 5,

and 8 website candidate lists, thereby prejudicing the excluded

candidates and their potential voters. All of the official 16 Cruz slate

names were included on the April 5 and April 8 lists, whereas other

candidates were unfairly excluded from these CRC official lists.

K. Ballot size unwieldy, confusing, and caused voter

error


18/30

18

The 22-inch-long ballot was difficult to review, handle, and mark

as the delegates held the ballots on their laps to vote. There was no

legitimate reason for this unwieldy, improperly formatted ballot

containing 312 unassigned target voting areas and no voting area on

the back of the ballot. The voting system vendor (Dominion) could not

accommodate a standard-size, double-sided, multi-face ballot with the

required candidate information printed on the face. Other vendors could

meet this requirement. The 2012 Colorado at-large delegate election

had 852 national delegate names and pledges printed on the ballot,

with no write-in national delegate candidates. Those vendors were

rejected. CRC officials allowed Dominions limitations to trump the

bylaw requirements and the common sense need for easy-to-mark,

legible ballots with printed candidate names and pledge status.

The ballot inadequacy served to further disadvantage candidates

who were not on the official Cruz slate, given the 20- to 30-minute

continuous projection of the Cruz slate names and assigned numbers

and the additional projection time for the 5 official Cruz candidates

listed at the end of the ballot booklet.

L. Willful CRC negligence in repeating known April 8

errors on April 9

CRC officials and EPCO managed the balloting process for CDs 2,

3, 4, and 5 on April 8 by using essentially the same flawed,

noncompliant processes as described above. CDs 1, 6, and 7 elections

were independently conducted prior to April 8 and reported only

material problems associated with the CRC-generated national delegate


19/30

19

candidate lists. Each CD elected 3 national convention delegates and 3

alternates.

The April 8 CD elections were plagued with most of the same

problems identified above. Ballots excluded the required candidate

name and information. April 8 CD ballots included 300 live voting

ovals, more than three times the number of candidates in any CD

election. All April 8 CD elections recorded a material number of

erroneous votes for unassigned numbers, clearly impacting the votes

for eligible candidates and possibly impacting the outcomes. In their

role of conducting Teller functions, EPCO concealed such errors from

the delegates as the Teller reports were presented. The winners were

never presented to or approved by the bodies of CDs 2, 3, 4, and 5. The

incomplete and materially inaccurate Teller reports in those districts

were unilaterally adopted by the Chair with known material errors

after adjournment of the meetings, and the convention bodies were

denied their right to hear, object to, amend, or reject the Teller reports.

Allegations of material voter fraud are pervasive in CD3 where

some eligible voters were denied ballots because their ballots had been

reportedly fraudulently voted by another countys delegation. This

result was approved by the Teller Committee and EPCO.

The erroneous procedures, wrong ballot numbers, and voter

confusion of the April 8 elections attracted the attention of the national

press. EPCO, CD officers, House, and CRC received numerous

complaints about the noncompliant balloting processes amid the

negative press reports on April 8. CRC and EPCO made no known


20/30

20

attempts to redesign and improve the process and materials for the

hereby contested state at-large election on April 9. CRC and EPCO

made no attempt to investigate the excess invalid votes counted for

unassigned numbers, to reprint the ballots, reprogram the software,

repair the ballot scanner, print a complete and accurate candidate list,

etc. in order to avoid repetition of the balloting errors the following day

for the at-large election. CRC and EPCO had a full business day after

material flaws were exposed early on April 8 and chose not to address

the similar known errors and predictable failures for the April 9 at-

large election.

The decision to repeat and not correct the known April 8th

noncompliant and failed processes indicates that the CRC, House, and

EPCO knowingly permitted the April 9th at-large election to be flawed

by the same violations.

M. Improper certification in violation of RNC Rule 20

Respondents have been certified by House and Brandi Meeks

(CRC Secretary) under the provisions of RNC Rule 20. The certification

is not a certification in good faith given the known material election

irregularities, rules violations, and inaccurate results as reported above.

Such material irregularities were raised by members of the CRC

Executive Committee during their May 20 meeting. A motion to

undertake an internal investigation before delegate certification to the

RNC was defeated.


21/30

21

House and Ms. Meeks are aware of the numerous material

discrepancies, the allegations of fraud, and the election bylaws and

rules violations both from their April 9 convention experience and the

Executive Committee discussion. Despite this knowledge that should

have prevented delegation certification, Contestants believe that such a

certification was delivered to the RNC.

N. Chaotic, improper credentialing

El Paso County delegate credentialing took place in an

unannounced parking lot, out of the back of a truck, prior to the

meeting. This makeshift operation substituted for orderly credentialing

in compliance with the meeting instructions. It is believed that some

eligible delegates were denied their credentials because of this

unconventional and improper credentialing method that could not be

overseen and verified by observers.

O. Porter and Fores claimed rights to sit as delegates to

represent the class of hundreds of candidates who

were harmed by the unfair election processes

The actual convention delegate voters intent and intended

winners of the election cannot be reasonably determined because of the

material and pervasive violation of the bylaws, the rules for the conduct

of the election, and tabulation errors. Porter and Fore are

representatives of the class of candidates who were disadvantaged by

the gross negligence and material violation of rules and who did not

receive the favorable treatment that all 13 delegates received.

P. Possible CRC acceptance of some untimely filed

Intent to Run forms


22/30

22

CRC posted many iterations of the list of candidates filing Intent

to Run forms. The list should have been complete and remained

constant after the March 28 deadline, but several iterations were

posted, leading to confusion and further bias against some candidates.

The website lists also included many errors and omissions of eligible

candidates through April 9. Many candidates names were added to the

CRC website well after the bylaw-imposed March 28 deadline for filing

the Intent to Run form. Some candidates were disadvantaged by late

posting of their names, whereas the CRCs partial listings prior to April

9 advantaged those whose names were posted in earlier iterations of the

candidates list.

It has been alleged by some candidates that CRC permitted the

late and untimely filing of some Intent to Run forms. Names of five

winning Cruz slate members were added to the CRC website listing of

candidates after April 1, well after the deadline of March 28. These are

the same five candidates whose names were specially projected on the

convention screen for additional information. Requested documentation

in this contest should allow determination of whether any of the

Respondents were permitted to file untimely Intent to Run forms, as

has been alleged.

III. Relief Requested

Determining the voting delegates will as of April 9 as to who will

represent them at the National Convention is an impossible task given

the material nature of the errors. The broad discretion of this


23/30

23

Committee will be required to determine an equitable remedy under

such circumstances.

Porter and Fore should be declared as delegates to the convention,

taking the place of two delegates chosen to be decertified at the

discretion of this Committee.

We request that three additional delegates be decertified and

replaced by three other candidates as representatives of the 610

candidates who were treated less favorably than the Respondents. We

further request such additional relief that the Committee on Contestsdeems appropriate to assure a more equitable representation in

Colorados delegation.

IV. Urgent request of this CommitteeNecessity of additional

documentation

Contestants respectfully request the Committee on Contests

require the CRC to immediately deliver to Contestants the information

requested in Exhibit 4, to ensure all information presented in the

Contestants Statement of Position is accurate and complete before

submission to this Committee. Electronic scans of all voted ballots

should also be delivered to Contestants. They are available as standard

records created by the Dominion voting system. We respectfully request

that the RNC Counsels office provide a copy of the CRCs amended 16(f)

filings for 2016. House denied party members a copy of this amended

filing when requested, stating that the CRC would make it available

only to presidential campaigns. It is essential that the Contestants have

access to this fundamental document.


24/30

24

On June 1, Molly Sullivan, potential contestant, requested copies

of necessary documentation from the state party. On June 3, Chairman

House denied her document request, stating that potential contestants

would be required to file a contest in order to obtain the information.

(Exhibit 5) It should be noted that House therein misinformed Sullivan

of the deadline for filing this contest. This followed a similar

unsuccessful request for documents by Nicholas Lundberg, potential

contestant and delegate to the state convention who was unable to vote

for certain eligible candidates whose ballot numbers were improperly

excluded from the ballot. House also denied Lundberg the needed

documentation.

In an attempt both to resolve this controversy without a contest

and to properly prepare documentation for this Committee if a contest

could not be averted, agents assisting Contestants requested documents

from CRC officials as public records prepared under contract with the

EPCO staff to conduct the convention balloting services. The public

records were improperly denied by the El Paso County Clerks office.

CRC officials denied Contestants agents access to needed documents to

fully document this contest.

Under the Colorado Open Records Act, the electronic ballot images

are public records created by the El Paso County Clerks Office

(EPCO) and subject to public disclosure, but have been wrongfully

denied by EPCO. Without proper disclosure, Contestants are further

prejudiced in this contest, as CRC controls the original ballots. Without


25/30

25

orders to the contrary from this committee, CRC may provide favored

access to records to the Respondents.

Contestants also request the Committee to advise the CRC that

all requested information related to this action must be shared with all

parties on a fully equal basis.

V. Contact information for Contestants

Kathryn Porter

Lana Fore

]

Susan Carr

VI. Non-attorney representative

Contestants designate Marilyn Marks as their non-attorney

representative for this contest. Please send all correspondence to:

Marilyn Marks (agent for contestants)

704 552 1618, [email protected]

Respectfully submitted,

Lana Fore

Kathryn Porter

Susan Carr


26/30

Exhibit 1


27/30

Exhibit 3


28/30

Exhibit 4

Requested Documentation from Colorado Republican Party

The following information is needed promptly to provide appropriate documentation

for claims in this contest. The majority of this information has been requested by

potential contestants and denied by CRC. (See Exhibit 4).

1) Provide national delegate candidate names corresponding to all ballot counts

showing ballot numbers with no names on the published Election Summary for

National Delegates.

http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-

National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

2) Provide high quality electronic scans of all ballots, which are automatically

generated by the Dominion voting equipment used.

3) Provide Intent to Run forms of all Respondents. Provide documentation of the

date the form was received in CRC office.

4) Provide the recording of the YouTube live-stream of the assembly/convention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2k8PB0gIxw

5) Provide all slides shown on the projection screen at the assembly/convention

relating to national delegate balloting.

6) Provide copies of all ballot supplements whether paper or electronically projected

at the convention.

7) Provide the written scope of services excerpted from the agreements with

Dominion (voting system vendor), and the El Paso County Clerks office.

8) Provide each iteration of national delegate candidate list posted to the CRC

website from inception through April 9, 2016.

9) Provide Intent to Run forms from all candidates who were allowed to file Intentto Run forms after the deadline of March 28, 2016.

10) Provide a copy of the amended Rule 16(f) filing.

We respectfully request that the Committee on Contest order the CRC to give

Contestants and Respondents equal access to documents.


29/30

!"#$%&' )"#* +' ,-./ %0 ..1-213, 45 6%70*8# 9%&:;;?*

4%


30/30

delegation and alternates that the Colorado Republican Party sent tothe Republican National Committee in accordance with Rule 20 (b)and (c).

Thank you for your diligent attention to this formal request forColorado GOP State Convention records. My contact information isrepeated below.

Regards,Molly A. Sullivan

E-mail:Phone:

Molly SullivanJ.D. Candidate, 2016

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Molly Sullivanwrote:

Chairman House,

My name is Molly Sullivan, and I was a delegate to the COGOP 2016 stateconvention and a national delegate candidate. I spoke to you several times, as wellas Vice Chairman Derrick Wilburn, to object to election irregularities, rules and bylawviolations relating to national delegate balloting at the state convention.

I am making a formal request for records, as a person with standing to file adelegate contest with the Republican National Committee.

I formally request the following records are sent to me by Friday, June 3rd, 2016:

1) Provide national delegate candidate names corresponding to all ballot countsshowing ballot numbers with no names on the published Election Summary forNational Delegates.

http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

2) Numerous votes were cast for ballot number positions higher than 620. Explainballot numbers exceeding 620 and provide corresponding candidates' names forthose ballot numbers, for the at-large national delegate election. Please include inyour explanation how votes for ballot numbers higher than 620 impacted theidentification of over-voted ballots.

3) Provide scans of all ballots rejected due to over-votes, for the national delegateat-large election.

4) Provide Intent to Run forms for the at-large delegates and at-large alternateselected (or since elevated).

5) Provide the recording of the YouTube livestream of the assembly/convention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2k8PB0gIxw

6) Provide all PowerPoint slides used on the projection screen at the

assembly/convention.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. My contact information isprovided below.

Regards,Molly A. Sullivan

E-mail:Phone:

Molly SullivanJ D Candidate 2016
http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdfhttp://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2k8PB0gIxwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2k8PB0gIxwhttp://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

Documents

CO GOP At-large delegate election contest