1. Ballots should be affirmed as not exempt from the Colorado Open Records Act.
Other states (among them Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, and California) provide citizen-level verification and oversight of ballots and/or ballot images (even via the Internet) for increased transparency and confidence in elections.

1. Watchers and authorized observers must not be subject to a six-foot limit during the following steps in the election process except when voters’ personal information is present:
• logic and accuracy testing
• mail ballot processing
• post-casting processing of ballots voted in a polling place, vote center, or service center
• hand counting
• auditing

1. The Colorado Open Meetings law (C.R.S. 24-6-402(1)(d)) should be amended to require meetings to be open to the public that involve formal and informal groups of more than two elected officials attending as part of their official role.

1. Ballots should be affirmed as not exempt from the Colorado Open Records Act.
Other states (among them Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, and California) provide citizen-level verification and oversight of ballots and/or ballot images (even via the Internet) for increased transparency and confidence in elections.

A. Titles 1 and 31 and Other Statutory Language Concerning Elections

1. Statutory language concerning elections should be reconciled with particular attention to issues of transparency, security, and verifiability.

A. Internet Voting

1. Eminent computer security scientists at organizations like NIST (see www.cfvi.us for Essential Election Integrity Documents) say that the present Internet’s architecture cannot be made secure for public elections, despite claims to the contrary. The appearance of the University of Michigan Fight Song on Washington DC’s 2010 mock Internet election website,