Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 34

NOTICE OF CONTEST (Amended and Refiled)

June 18, 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, Kelsey Alexander, Celeste Gamache 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.

Nature of the contest


A.

Nature of the controversy

II.

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
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 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.

Contestants claim 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), Kelsey


Alexander (Alexander), Celeste Gamache (Gamache) 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 duly elected candidates are certified as National
Convention delegates. 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 a culture of 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, provisions of the Colorado Uniform Election Code, 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) and Secretary Brandi Meeks 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. Alexander was a
properly credentialed delegate to the State Convention from Douglas
County and a candidate for National Convention delegate. Gamache
was a properly credentialed delegate from Denver and a candidate for
National Convention delegate. 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,
Alexander, Gamache, 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 and state statutes were

violated, resulting in materially erroneous results, delegate complaints,


and press reports of chaotic balloting processes. 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.
Even in the face of scores of CD 2,3,4 and 5 delegate complaints, and
media coverage, CRC chose to repeat the flawed processes on April 9 for
the election at issue. 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, now 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
and Secretary Brandi Meeks certified the Respondents as delegates and
forwarded their credentials to the RNC despite credible allegations of
fraud and documented material errors in the election results.
Alexander raised issues with House during the balloting process
on April 9, and immediately thereafter by filing a protest under the
parameters for remedy House gave her. Alexander has received no
substantive response or determination to her protest and complaints.
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 EPCOs unlawful withholding of
key documents prejudices the position of the Contestants in this
contest. In Section IV below, Contestants request that the Committee

request that CRC 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, and not to potential
individual candidates for delegate. This action not only disadvantaged
candidates not included in slates such as the official Cruz slate, but also
disadvantages the Contestants who do not have access to the official
rules that governed the election at issue.
Additional follow up requests for the documents on Exhibit 4
were filed with House on June 13, June 16, and June 17, and no
response has been received.
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 during credentialing. An additional ballot supplement
booklet listing 595 candidate names, pledged information, and ballot
numbers was distributed to all delegates during balloting. A third onepage 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 seven selected candidates, five of which were
sequential ballot numbers on the Cruz slate, was projected on the
convention screen although the names and numbers had been printed
in the original program at the end of the alphabetical list. The CRC
therefore provided the 5 Cruz slate members with more exposure than
candidates on the supplemental lists only, and did not include in the
screen projection the eight and only other identically situated

10

candidate, a Trump delegate. CRCs failure to disclose the names of 48


candidates until 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, including
Fore, Porter, Alexander, and Gamache, could not reasonably know the
universe of candidates in the constantly changing list of candidates,
several with duplicate and erroneous ballot numbers.
Alexander arrived at the Convention where she learned that her
name was not listed on the program or either printed ballot
supplement, despite the fact that she had filed a timely and complete
Intent to Run form. After seeking out multiple CRC officials to inquire,
and after a long wait, she was told by CRC officials that her assigned
number was 632. Without campaign materials or a listing in the official
printed ballot number listings, she had a friend write her number 632
on her forehead to help supporters remember her ballot number. She
campaigned in the arena using number 632. After voting began, a
fourth addendum to the ballot lists was projected on the screen,
disclosing her name as a candidate for the first time. However, her
number was listed as 636, not 632, the ballot number she had been told.

11

The projected information showed that 632 had been assigned to


another candidate. Alexander immediately contacted House before the
polls were closed, and complained and requested immediate remedies.
House informed her that after tabulations were made, she should
combine the votes for both 632 and 636 and if the total was
significant, he would make it right. Following his instruction,
Alexander submitted the facts in person at CRC headquarters and in
the form of a written protest with multiple follow-up emails to House
who has provided no substantive response. As recently as June 16,
Houses responses continue to state that he is awaiting an answer from
CRC s attorney as to the ability to have Alexander seated in the
delegation.
As the Contestants Statement of Position will document, such
experiences were not unusual for voting delegates and candidates who
were disenfranchised by the irresponsible ballot layout and inequitable
candidate list disclosures.
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 five 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

12

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
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 determined in order to know 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

13

alternates officially elected were elected with margins of victory


between 380 votes and 2,272 tallied 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 nonexistent candidate #948, but those votes were likely intended
for eligible candidates, and must be investigated.
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 its contractor, which performed the Teller
operation. CRCs Executive Committee voted not to investigate the
tabulation irregularities.
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 repeatedly denied. (Section IV)

14

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
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 from
suspected but not actual over-voting. Additionally, votes for any
candidate with two ballot numbers should not be penalized as overvotes.
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

15

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


Registered Parliamentarian attended the meeting as a participant and
offered her services to fill this void, but House refused her offer.
2.

Meeting rules unavailable to delegates

Contestants, other candidates, and all voting delegates were


harmed by the failure of CRC officials to make the proposed state
convention meeting rules available prior to their adoption and during
the conduct of the meeting. Timely objections were made to the rules
adoption without reasonable access to the rules being adopted, but
objections could not be heard in the chaotic environment caused by
CRCs failure to run an orderly meeting under the CO Rules and RNCstated 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.

16

4.

Vote tallies and Teller report unavailable for


timely review or objection

Vote tallies require 38 pages to print, and were unavailable for


reasonable review by the delegates before the adoption of the Teller
Report. 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 Teller Committee had the duty to
present an accurate 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
non-compliant, 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 errors


likely impacted 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/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

17

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

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 exclusion of printed names
from 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 that were added out of order as the
last entries in the convention booklet were projected on a large screen

18

by the CRC for additional information, although this benefit was not
afforded other similarly situated candidates. These 5 Cruz slate
candidates each received over 1,000 more votes than any non-Cruz slate
candidate who was not given this favored treatment. Effective
campaigning by the Cruz team certainly contributed to their victories.
However, unfair advantage provided by 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 incomplete 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. For example, Alexanders name

19

was on the March 23 website list and deleted on the site by April 5. 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 website lists.
K.

Ballot size unwieldy, confusing, and caused voter


error

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
compelling 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. Those vendors were rejected. 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.
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 layout failure served to further disadvantage
candidates who were not on the official Cruz slate, given the 20- to 30minute 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.

20

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 material
problems limited to the CRC-generated national delegate 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 and wrongfully certified by the Chair despite the
known material errors. The certifications occurred 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

21

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
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 watched as material flaws
were exposed early on April 8 and chose not to have staff or the voting
system vendor address the similar known errors and predictable
failures that would occur again without intervention during the April 9
at-large election.
The decision to repeat and not correct the material, serious 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

22

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.
House and Ms. Meeks were aware of the numerous material
discrepancies, the allegations of fraud in CD3, and the election state
statutes, bylaws and rules violations both from their April 8th and 9th
conventions experience and the Executive Committee discussion. They
were also aware that the convention bodies in CDs 2,3,4, and 5 were
not informed of the teller reports, and the Chairs of those CDs had
unilaterally certified the results without the authority to do so. Despite
this knowledge that would prevent a good faith delegation certification,
the 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. Some eligible delegates
were effectively denied their credentials because of this unconventional
and improper credentialing method that could not be overseen and
verified by observers.
O.

Porter, Fore, Alexader, and Gamache claim rights to


sit as delegates to represent the class of hundreds of

23

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 and the laws and rules
for the conduct of the election, and tabulation errors. Porter, Fore,
Alexander, and Gamache 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

CRC posted many iterations of the list of candidates filing Intent


to Run forms on its website. 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 containted many errors and omissions
of eligible candidates through April 9, including Alexander, whose name
was deleted from the list. 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 and remain posted.
It has been alleged by some candidates that CRC permitted the
late and untimely filing of some Intent to Run forms. Names of five

24

winning Cruz slate members with sequential numbers 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
Committee will be required to determine an equitable remedy under
such circumstances.
Porter, Fore, Alexander, and Gamache should be declared as
delegates to the convention, taking the place of three delegates chosen
to be decertified at the discretion of this Committee.
We request that one additional delegate be decertified and
replaced by another candidate as another representative 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

25

Contestants respectfully request the Committee on Contests


request that the CRC 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.
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 members a copy of the 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.
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 contest the election 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

26

could not be averted, agents for Contestants requested public records


from EPCO as documents prepared under contract with the CRC 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
guideance to the contrary from this committee, CRC may provide
favored access to records to the Respondents.
Three follow up requests have been made to CRC since June 13 to
obtain such records and Contestants have received no reply or
acknowledgement from CRC.
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

27

Susan Carr

Kelsey M. Alexander

Celeste R. Gamache

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)
7035 Marching Duck Dr, E504, Charlotte, NC 28210
704 552 1618, Marilyn@AspenOffice.com

Respectfully submitted,
Lana Fore
Kathryn Porter
Susan Carr
Kelsey Alexander
Celeste Gamache

28

Exhibit 1

29

Exhibit 3

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_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.

31

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" <cmurray@bhfs.com>
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
32Page 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

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:

Molly Sullivan
J.D. Candidate, 2016

33Page 2 of 3

34Page 3 of 3