Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate committee hears competing security and accessibility arguments on mobile voting bill, lays it over for more work
Loading...
Summary
Supporters said SB119 would give statutory towns and special districts the option to offer electronic ballot return to improve turnout and accessibility for veterans, people with disabilities and others; opponents from election‑security groups, clerks and watchdogs warned federal agencies consider Internet ballot return high risk. The sponsor asked to lay the bill over; the committee postponed it until May 17 for further study.
Senate Bill 119 drew extensive, split testimony at the State Veterans and Military Affairs Committee as supporters emphasized access and opponents warned of security and administrative risks.
Sponsor Senator Malika framed SB119 as an opt‑in authority for statutory towns and special districts to offer electronic ballot return (EBR) or mobile voting, not a mandate. He told the committee the measure is intended to help small jurisdictions that face unique challenges reaching voters and that he would ask the committee to lay the bill over to continue work.
Supporters included disability‑rights advocates, local clerks, a mayor/CIO, veterans and technology developers. Jocelyn Vaccaro of the Mobile Voting Foundation, who supervised Denver’s 2019 mobile voting pilot, said independent auditors confirmed 100% accuracy for that pilot and argued the bill only allows jurisdictions to use EBR if they meet rigorous security and audit standards. Forrest Senti, a cybersecurity adviser to mobile voting projects, listed six properties he said the bill enables — including end‑to‑end verifiability, multifactor authentication, end‑to‑end encryption, public audit logs, open‑source code and printed ballots that are counted alongside paper ballots — and told senators that properly designed systems “fail loudly” and produce verifiable evidence when attacks occur.
Other proponents included Adams County Clerk Josh Ziegelbaum, who said the state already uses Democracy Live for military and overseas voters and that expanding secure electronic options could reduce local ballot printing and postage costs (he said his office allocates over $1,000,000 a year to paper printing and postage). Curtis Chong of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado and Elena Dye of Disability Law Colorado argued EBR can be the only practical way for many voters with disabilities to cast a truly secret and independent ballot. Mayor Andrew Moore (Erie) and other local officials also supported giving jurisdictions an option to adopt mobile voting.
Opponents included experts and advocacy groups focused on election security. CJ Coles of Verified Voting and witnesses from the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, the Brennan Center and other organizations pointed to federal agency guidance (DHS, FBI, NIST, and the Election Assistance Commission) and expert statements that Internet ballot return remains high risk for confidentiality, integrity and availability. Testimony warned of forged voter credentials, malware, redirecting voters to fraudulent portals, the difficulty of preserving secret ballots while verifying voters, and documented incidents internationally where Internet voting failures forced re‑runs.
Administrators and special district representatives raised procedural and operational concerns: how ballot delivery to electors would be authorized, how electronically returned ballots would be verified and then transcribed anonymously onto paper, whether designated election officials (DEOs) could be involved in counting rooms, and whether special districts have the personal identifier data needed for secure authentication.
Committee members heard repeated requests from opponents for more study and standards; sponsor Senator Malika and other supporters said they likewise expect continued work in the interim. At the sponsor’s request the committee laid SB119 over for further work; the panel postponed the bill until May 17 to allow additional study and drafting.
The committee did not take final action to adopt the bill at this hearing.