NOTICE OF CONTEST (Amended and Refiled)

June 18, 2016 Attn: The Honorable Susie Hudson Republican National Committee Attn.: Counsel’s Office—CONTESTS 310 First Street, S.E. Washington, D.C 20003 Also via counsel@gop.com Contest of Colorado’s 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

1

 

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 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

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 close-

margin results H. Unfair advantage to Cruz’s official slate due to display of

slate’s candidate names I. Ineligible candidates listed on ballot supplements and

improperly credited with votes J. Prejudicial publication of candidates’ names on COGOP

website

2

 

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 Committee—Necessity of additional

documentation V. Contact information for Contestants VI. Non-attorney representative

3

 

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 person’s 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

4

 

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 CRC’s 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 House’s (“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

5

 

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 Colorado’s 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 person’s 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 at-large 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

6

 

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 Clerk’s 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 Committee’s 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

7

 

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 EPCO’s unlawful withholding of key documents prejudices the position of the Contestants in this contest. In Section IV below, Contestants request that the Committee

8

 

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’

9

 

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 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 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. CRC’s 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, House’s 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. CRC’s 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’ agent’s 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 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 Chairman’s 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 CRC’s failure to run an orderly meeting under the CO Rules and RNC-stated requirements as well as by CRC’s 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/wp-

content/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 Cruz’s official slate due to display of slate’s 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 highest-ranking 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 Cruz’s 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 fees—but 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, Alexander’s 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 Dominion’s 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 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.

20

 

L. Willful CRC negligence in repeating known April 8 errors on April 9

CRC officials and EPCO managed the balloting process for CD’s 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 county’s 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 CD’s 2,3,4, and 5 were not informed of the teller reports, and the Chairs of those CD’s 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 CRC’s 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 Colorado’s delegation.

IV. Urgent request of this Committee—Necessity 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 Contestant’s 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 Counsel’s office provide a copy of the CRC’s 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 Clerk’s 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 Clerk’s 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

1

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 countsshowing ballot numbers with no names on the published Election Summary for National Delegates. http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport- National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

2) Provide high quality electronic scans of all ballots, which are automaticallygenerated by the Dominion voting equipment used.

3) Provide Intent to Run forms of all Respondents. Provide documentation of thedate 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/conventionrelating to national delegate balloting.

6) Provide copies of all ballot supplements whether paper or electronically projectedat the convention.

7) Provide the written scope of services excerpted from the agreements withDominion (voting system vendor), and the El Paso County Clerk’s office.

8) Provide each iteration of national delegate candidate list posted to the CRCwebsite from inception through April 9, 2016.

9) Provide Intent to Run forms from all candidates who were allowed to file Intentto 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

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

Page  1  of  3

Subject: FW:  Request  for  2016  State  Conven7on  RecordsDate: Sunday,  June  5,  2016  at  11:09:20  PM  Eastern  Daylight  TimeFrom: Marilyn  Marks

From: Chairman House <steve@cologop.org>Date: June 3, 2016 at 4:15:43 PM MDTTo: 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 HouseChairmanColorado Republican Committee

A.1.4.

A.

From: Molly Sullivan <Date: June 1, 2016 at 3:52:58 PM MDTTo: steve@cologop.orgCc: dw@cologop.org, brandirmeek shana@cologop.orgSubject: 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

Exhibit 5

32

Page  2  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 SullivanJ.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 countsshowing ballot numbers with no names on the published Election Summary for National Delegates.

http://cologop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016_ElectionSummaryReport-National-Delegate-by-Vote-totals.pdf

2) Numerous votes were cast for ballot number positions higher than 620. Explainballot 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 delegateat-large election.

4) Provide Intent to Run forms for the at-large delegates and at-large alternateselected (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 theassembly/convention.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. My contact information is provided below.

Regards, Molly A. Sullivan

E-mail:

Molly SullivanJ.D. Candidate, 2016

33

Page  3  of  334