NOTICE OF CONTEST

June 13, 2016

Attn: The Honorable Susie Hudson
Republican National Committee
Attn.: Counsels OfficeCONTESTS
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C 20003
Also via counsel@gop.com
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, and
Stephen 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.

CONTENTS
I.

II.

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

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

G.

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

Unknown but likely material impact of errors on closemargin results

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

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 is
eligible 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

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

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 atlarge 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

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.

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, CRC
and 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

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

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

10

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 counted although 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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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 voteranked 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 delegates
were impacted in favorable or unfavorable material ways.
H.

Unfair advantage to Cruzs official slate due to display

of slates candidate names

15

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 highestranking 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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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 atlarge 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.

20

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
21

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

22

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 Contests
deems 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.

23

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

24

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, Marilyn@AspenOffice.com
Respectfully submitted,
Lana Fore
Kathryn Porter
Susan Carr

25

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 3

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_ElectionSummaryReportNational-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 Intent
to 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.

Exhibit 5
Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 11:09:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Subject: FW: Request for 2016 State Conven7on Records

Date: Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 11:09:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Marilyn Marks

From: Chairman House <steve@cologop.org>

Date: June 3, 2016 at 4:15:43 PM MDT
To:
Cc: Shana Kohn <Shana@cologop.org>, "Christopher O. Murray"
Subject: Request for 2016 State Convention Records
Ms. Sullivan,
I received your emails below. The first step you must take is to file a contest to the Secretary of
the RNC. I will in a separate email, provide you with the rules regarding submitting a contest to
the RNC. The deadline for submission is June 13th.
We will take no further action on this matter until your contest has been filed and the
committee has decided how we should proceed.
Sincerely,
Steve House
Chairman
Colorado Republican Committee

1.

A.
4.
A.

From: Molly Sullivan

Date: June 1, 2016 at 3:52:58 PM MDT
To: steve@cologop.org
Cc: dw@cologop.org, brandirmeek
shana@cologop.org
Subject: Re: Request for 2016 State Convention Records
Chairman House,
Request number (7) was inadvertently left off of the original e-mail. I
apologize for the inconvenience.
Please be advised that the below request is an addition to the
previous six requests outlined in my e-mail from 10:36 A.M. this
morning.
I am requesting that all seven record requests be sent to me by
Friday June 3rd, 2016. Below is the additional record sought:
7) Provide the credential and certification documents of the

Page 1 of 3

delegation and alternates that the Colorado Republican Party sent to

the Republican National Committee in accordance with Rule 20 (b)
and (c).
Thank you for your diligent attention to this formal request for
Colorado GOP State Convention records. My contact information is
repeated below.
Regards,
Molly A. Sullivan
E-mail:
Phone:
Molly Sullivan
J.D. Candidate, 2016
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Molly Sullivan
wrote:
Chairman House,
My name is Molly Sullivan, and I was a delegate to the COGOP 2016 state
convention and a national delegate candidate. I spoke to you several times, as well
as Vice Chairman Derrick Wilburn, to object to election irregularities, rules and bylaw
violations relating to national delegate balloting at the state convention.
I am making a formal request for records, as a person with standing to file a
delegate 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 counts
showing ballot numbers with no names on the published Election Summary for
National Delegates.
http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReportNational-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf
2) Numerous votes were cast for ballot number positions higher than 620. Explain
ballot numbers exceeding 620 and provide corresponding candidates' names for
those ballot numbers, for the at-large national delegate election. Please include in
your explanation how votes for ballot numbers higher than 620 impacted the
identification of over-voted ballots.
3) Provide scans of all ballots rejected due to over-votes, for the national delegate
at-large election.
4) Provide Intent to Run forms for the at-large delegates and at-large alternates
elected (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 is
provided below.
Regards,
Molly A. Sullivan
E-mail:
Phone:

Molly Sullivan
J.D. Candidate, 2016

Page 2 of 3