Proponents present broad election‑procedure overhaul in Legislative Council review; proposal would end automatic registration, restrict mail ballots and ban e‑v

Michael Scott Freeman II, the proponent of a proposed measure described as the Colorado Election Integrity Protection Act, presented the initiative to Legislative Council staff during a Jan. 29 review‑and‑comment hearing. The measure, as discussed, would eliminate automatic voter registration, restrict mail voting to certain temporary out‑of‑state voters, require a voter‑ID verification affidavit and in‑person verification for existing registrants, and direct the Secretary of State to decommission electronic voting and vote‑counting machines across Colorado.

Legislative Council staff said their role was to test whether the proposal complied with single‑subject rules, to identify conflicts with existing law and to suggest precise statutory language for publication and Title Board review. Staff flagged possible conflicts with the Uniform Election Code of 1992, noted sentencing limits in current criminal statutes and asked proponents to provide an amending clause and an exact placement in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Proponents confirmed the measure is intended to amend the Colorado Revised Statutes and accepted the default effective date unless they specify another date.

Proponents described several concrete changes. Michael Scott Freeman II said the initiative would "create the Colorado Election Integrity Protection Act" and require a voter‑ID verification affidavit and a scan of the ID before a ballot is mailed. Under the current draft, all currently registered Colorado voters would be required to appear in person within a specified period to present a valid ID and complete the affidavit; failure to do so, the proponent said, would lead to revocation of registration unless alternative verification arrangements were documented. Freeman told staff that exceptions and practical arrangements for incapacitated or housebound voters (appointments, home visits or drive‑through verification) would be added in amended language.

The measure would also prohibit the use of electronic voting machines. In response to staff questions about how votes would be counted after decommissioning, the proponent said the state would revert to paper ballots hand‑tallied by election officials and that early votes could be tallied during early voting days. Staff raised fiscal‑impact questions about whether county or state budgets would bear implementation costs; Freeman suggested offsetting savings from reduced postage and the cost of maintaining voting machines but acknowledged the need for more concrete accounting.

The initiative proposes new criminal offenses and civil causes of action. Freeman repeatedly described large‑scale, multithousand‑vote manipulations as "treasonous election engineering" and discussed penalties tied to thresholds he identified in the measure (the proponent repeatedly referenced a 10,000‑vote threshold for the most serious offenses). Staff pointed out inconsistencies between the proposed punishments and current statutory sentencing ranges and asked proponents to revise language to match existing penalty structures where needed.

Staff also questioned provisions that would restrict news organizations from publishing unverified Colorado election tallies and require retention of reporting records for a year, noting potential First Amendment implications; Freeman said the restriction is intended to apply to press "operating in the state," including national outlets when they report Colorado results, and defended the measure as an effort to ensure "fair elections."

Several sections require further drafting. Staff asked proponents to provide an amending clause showing where the text would be inserted, to clarify interactions with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act for military and overseas voters, and to specify procedures for drop‑boxes and verification logs. Staff reiterated the Title Board filing timeline in April and suggested proponents submit an amended draft before that deadline.

The hearing closed after proponents said they would amend the text to address the drafting and implementation details identified by staff and aim to meet the Title Board filing window. Legislative Council staff recorded the review‑and‑comment memo for the initiative and informed proponents about the schedule for final review prior to Title Board consideration.