Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tina Peters Sues Jena Griswold and Colorado County Clerks Over Recount Procedures
Tina Peters Sues Jena Griswold and Colorado County Clerks Over Recount Procedures
Petitioner,
vs.
2
GEORGE P. STERN, in his official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Jefferson,
DELISA L. WEEKS, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Kiowa,
SUSAN CORLISS, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Kit Carson,
TIFFANY LEE PARKER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of La Plata,
PATRICIA BERGER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Lake,
ANGELA MYERS, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Larimer,
PATRICIA VIGIL, in her official capacity as
Clerk and Recorder of the county of Las Animas,
CORINNE M. LENGEL, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Lincoln,
PAM BACON, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Logan,
BRANDI BANTZ, in her official capacity as
Designated Election Official of the county of Mesa,
ERYN WINTZ, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Mineral,
TAMMY RASCHKE, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Moffat,
KIM PERCELL, in her official capacity as
Clerk and Recorder of the county of Montezuma,
TRESSA GUYNES, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Montrose,
SUSAN L. BAILEY, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Morgan,
LYNDA SCOTT, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Otero,
MICHELLE NAUER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Ouray,
DEBRA GREEN, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Park,
3
MADENE ZILLA, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Phillips,
INGRID GRUETER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Pitkin,
JANA COEN, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Prowers,
GILBERT ORTIZ, in his official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Pueblo,
BOOTS CAMPBELL, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Rio Blanco,
CINDY HILL, in her official capacity as
Clerk and Recorder of the county of Rio Grande,
KIM BONNER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Routt,
TRISH GILBERT, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Saguache,
LADONNA JARAMILLO, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of San Juan,
STEPHANNIE VAN DAMME, in her official
capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of
San Miguel,
CHRISTY M. BECKMAN, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Sedgwick,
KATHLEEN NEEL, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Summit,
KRYSTAL BROWN, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Teller,
ANNIE KUNTZ, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Washington,
CARLY KOPPES, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Weld, and
BEVERLY WENGER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Yuma,
Respondents.
4
Counsel for Petitioner: Case No.
Nicholas A. Armer, Esq., #55856
Armer Law, P.C.
539 W. Commerce St., Suite 7260 Division
Dallas, TX 75208
(214) 937-0037
[email protected]
This case is about restoring trust in the electoral process for the many
Coloradans who have lost faith. And not without good reason. Indeed, we are
here because Respondents have brazenly shirked their legal duties to uphold
Colorado election laws. First, Respondents have missed a crucial step before the
recount: the tabulated results of the voting devices used in the election must be
compared to the actual paper ballots to ensure the integrity of the original counting
Thus, the recount has been conducted without a proper inquiry into the reliability
that the system has several vulnerabilities. Indeed, these vulnerabilities render
such voting systems noncompliant with Colorado law. Simply, this action seeks a
Court order that the Secretary conduct the recount in accordance with Colorado
5
election laws.
I. INTRODUCTION
C.R.C.P. 65, hereby submits the following complaint for an order requiring the
Respondents to stop the recount currently under way across the state of Colorado
regarding Ms. Peters’ recount of the GOP nomination for the office of secretary of
state for the state of Colorado. The respective clerk and recorders are sued in their
II. PARTIES
6
4. Respondent, Josh Zygielbaum, is sued for prospective relief in his
Zygielbaum).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Alamosa (Clerk Jaramillo).
Archuleta).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Baca (Clerk Dubois).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Bent (Clerk Moss).
Fitzpatrick).
7
11. Respondent, Crystal Clemens, is sued for prospective relief in her
12. Respondent, Lori Mitchell, is sued for prospective relief in her official
Daugherty).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Clear Creek (Clerk
Corbett).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Conejos (Clerk Ruybal).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Costilla (Clerk Esquibel).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Crowley (Clerk Carter).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Custer (Clerk Camper).
8
19. Respondent, Teri A. Stephenson, is sued for prospective relief in her
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Delta (Clerk Stephenson).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Denver (Clerk Lopez).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Delores (Clerk Hancock).
22. Respondent, Merlin Klotz, is sued for prospective relief in his official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Eagle (Clerk O’Brien).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of El Paso (Clerk Broerman).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Elbert (Clerk Schroeder).
Grantham).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Garfield (Clerk Alberico).
9
28. Respondent, Sahari McCormick, is sued for prospective relief in her
McCormick).
29. Respondent, Sara Rosene, is sued for prospective relief in her official
Simillion).
31. Respondent, Joan Roberts, is sued for prospective relief in her official
32. Respondent, Nancy Cruz, is sued for prospective relief in her official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Jackson (Clerk Johnson).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Jefferson (Clerk Stern).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Kiowa (Clerk Weeks).
10
36. Respondent, Susan Corliss, is sued for prospective relief in her official
capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Kit Carson (Clerk Corliss).
37. Respondent, Tiffany Lee Parker, is sued for prospective relief in her
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of La Plata (Clerk Parker).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Lake (Clerk Berger).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Larimer (Clerk Myers).
40. Respondent, Patricia Vigil, is sued for prospective relief in her official
capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Las Animas (Clerk Vigil).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Lincoln (Clerk Lengel).
42. Respondent, Pam Bacon, is sued for prospective relief in her official
43. Respondent, Brandi Bantz, is sued for prospective relief in her official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Mineral (Clerk Wintz).
11
45. Respondent, Tammy Raschke, is sued for prospective relief in her
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Moffat (Clerk Raschke).
46. Respondent, Kim Percell, is sued for prospective relief in her official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Montrose (Clerk Guynes).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Morgan (Clerk Bailey).
49. Respondent, Lynda Scott, is sued for prospective relief in her official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Ouray (Clerk Nauer).
51. Respondent, Debra Green, is sued for prospective relief in her official
52. Respondent, Madene Zilla, is sued for prospective relief in her official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Pitkin (Clerk Grueter).
12
54. Respondent, Jana Coen, is sued for prospective relief in her official
55. Respondent, Gilbert Ortiz, is sued for prospective relief in his official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Rio Blanco (Clerk
Campbell).
57. Respondent, Cindy Hill, is sued for prospective relief in her official
capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Rio Grande (Clerk Hill).
58. Respondent, Kim Bonner, is sued for prospective relief in her official
59. Respondent, Trish Gilbert, is sued for prospective relief in her official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of San Juan (Clerk
Jaramillo).
her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of San Miguel (Clerk Van
Damme).
13
62. Respondent, Christy Beckman, is sued for prospective relief in her
Beckman).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Summit (Clerk Neel).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Teller (Clerk Brown).
65. Respondent, Annie Kuntz, is sued for prospective relief in her official
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Weld (Clerk Koppes).
official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Yuma (Clerk Wenger).
69. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and
14
70. Venue is proper in the county of Denver, pursuant to C.R.C.P.
98(b)(2).
71. On June 28, 2022, the GOP primary election was held to determine
the party’s respective nominations for offices across the state of Colorado.
72. Ms. Peters allegedly lost her primary election for the office of
74. Ms. Peters is an interested party and, pursuant to said statute, formally
her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado (Secretary),
within the statutory time period of 28 days after said primary election.
76. On July 28, 2022, Ms. Peters delivered certified funds to the Secretary
for the full amount of the cost determination of two-hundred, fifty-five thousand,
15
77. The following day, Friday, July 29, 2022, recounts were started by
arrange to have their recounts made by the respective canvass boards that
officiated in certifying the official abstract of the votes casts in Ms. Peters’ race.
Prior to any recount, the canvass board shall choose at random and test
voting devices used in the candidate race, ballot issue, or ballot question
that is the subject of the recount. The board shall use the voting devices
it has selected to conduct a comparison of the machine count of the
ballots counted on each such voting device for the candidate race, ballot
issue, or ballot question to the corresponding manual count of the voter-
verified paper records.
The canvass board must review the post-election audit before selecting
the equipment for testing under section 1-10.5-102(3), C.R.S.
If the results of the comparison of the machine count and the manual
count in accordance with the requirements of subsection (3)(a) of this
section are identical, or if any discrepancy is able to be accounted for by
voter error, then the recount may be conducted in the same manner as
the original ballot count. If the results of the comparison of the machine
count and the manual count in accordance with the requirements of
subsection (3)(a) of this section are not identical, or if any discrepancy is
16
not able to be accounted for by voter error, a presumption is created that
the voter-verified paper records will be used for a final determination
unless evidence exists that the integrity of the voter-verified paper
records has been irrevocably compromised. The secretary of state shall
decide which method of recount is used in each case, based on the
secretary’s determination of which method will ensure the most accurate
count, subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion. Nothing in this
subsection (3) limits any person from pursuing any applicable legal
remedy otherwise provided by law.
Colorado states:
83. Instead, the Secretary directed the clerk and recorders to perform a
Logic and Accuracy Test (LAT) through the use of test decks (See Exhibits A and
B).
84. The procedures surrounding a LAT test are outlined in 8 Colo. Code
If the county re-scans ballots during the recount, the county clerk must
test all ballot scanners that will be used. The purpose of the test is to
ensure that the voting system accurately tabulates votes in the recounted
contest.
(a) The county must prepare and tabulate the following test decks:
17
(1) The county recount test deck must include every ballot style
and, where applicable, precinct style containing the recounted
contest. It must consist of enough ballots to mark every vote
position and every possible combination of vote positions, and
include overvotes, undervotes, and blank votes in the recounted
contest.
(b) A bipartisan team, of election judges and/or staff, must hand tally
the recounted contest on the test ballots and verify that the hand tally
matches the voting system's tabulation.
85. The Secretary conducted a rescan, though Ms. Peters did not request
one.
10.12.1, clearly states that such a test is for counties that “re-scans ballots during
the recount,” to “test all ballot scanners that will be used.” [Emphasis added].
L&A, is to be conducted ‘[p]rior to any recount” to “test [the] voting devices used
18
88. In that regard, Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(a), a canvass board
tested.
89. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(a), the canvass board would then
be required to manually count the ballots that were counted by the chosen devices
90. After the manual count of the ballots that were previously counted by
the chosen devices in the primary election, the canvass board must then compare
the manual count of those ballots with the results of machine count that were
tabulated on June 28, 2022, by the randomly chosen voting devices used during
10.5-102 (3)(a), the Secretary has breached her duty to ensure fair, impartial, and
uniform recounts.
19
94. C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(b) allows the recount to be conducted in the
same manner as the original ballot count, i.e., with voting machines, only if “the
results of the comparison of the machine count and the manual count in
[Emphasis added].
comparison of the machine count and the manual count in accordance with the
that the voter-verified paper records will be used for a final determination unless
evidence exists that the integrity of the voter-verified paper records has been
96. Since the canvass boards across the state have failed to comply with
97. Upon information and belief, the recount of Ms. Peters’ race will be
counted, across the state, in the same manner as the ballots were counted in the
primary election, i.e., with the respective counties electronic voting machines.
20
98. Petitioner requests that the Court enter an order requiring the
99. C.R.S. § 1-5-601.5 requires all voting systems and voting equipment
to meet federal voting systems standards (VSS) that were promulgated in 2002 by
opined that the vulnerabilities and failures include the ability to defeat detection
all state safety procedures including logic and accuracy tests and risk limiting
audits.
(CISA) entered an appearance in Curling and urged the federal district court to not
21
103. On June 3, 2022, CISA released a security advisory, detailing nine
(EMS).1
104. CISA did not test all versions of the Dominion ImageCast X
Prof. Halderman that gave rise to CISA’s June 3, 2022, advisory applies to all
ICX which were undetected by Voting System Testing Lab (“VSTL”) certification
testing.
CISA’s advisory warning regarding the Dominion ICX machines prevents ICX/D-
Suite 5.13 compliance with various VSS standards, including but not limited to:
a. VSS § 2.2.1 requires that any voting system ensures system security;
1
ICS Advisory ICSA-22-154-01, found at
https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-154-01.
22
b. VSS § 2.2.11, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1974, requires that all data and
d. VSS § 6.2.1.2 requires that voting systems identify and control the
software.
108. None of the security failures CISA identified were detected through
any prior certification or testing process, or, if known, were not reported publicly
109. Upon information and belief, since June 3, 2022, the Secretary has not
taken the necessary remedial action to adequately test the reliability and security
23
110. CISA’s advisory also identified thirteen defensive measures, none of
which appear to have been undertaken in Colorado prior to the June 28, 2022
112. C.R.S. § 1-5-615(1)(l) states that “[t]he secretary of state shall not
113. C.R.S. § 1-5-615(1)(p) states that “[t]he secretary of state shall not
[s]aves and produces the records necessary to audit the operation of the electronic
24
114. Dominion’s ICX do not meet the statutory requirements under C.R.S.
115. The Secretary breached her duty to ensure compliance with C.R.S. §§
116. Upon information and belief, sixty-two counties in Colorado use these
voting systems.
voting systems for purposes of the recount is unfair, partial and lacks uniformity,
violating the duty “to conduct the recount in a fair, impartial, and uniform
shall…[n]otify the secretary of state and the designated election official of any
political subdivision using its voting system of any defect in the same system
119. Upon information and belief, Dominion also failed to disclose these
learned of them.
120. Petitioner seeks to recount the legal ballots by a fair, impartial, and
25
121. Petitioner requests that the Court order that the Secretary address the
certify these systems in accordance with her duties under C.R.S. § 1-5-615.
running within the Mesa County, Colorado EMS system during the November
2020 general election, and April 2021 Grand Junction municipal election.2
123. Similar evidence associated with the June 28, 2022, Colorado GOP
primary election for secretary of state candidate, Tina Peters, shows an unnatural
124. There, election results taken from the New York Times’ feed between
June 28, 2022, and July 2, 2022, which continuously updated and reported,
2
See Mesa County Report #3, Jeff O’Donnell and Dr. Walter C. Daugherty, March
19, 2022. https://useipdotus.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/mesa-3-report.pdf
26
125. Indeed, the candidates’ tabulation results in each race have a
correlation).
126. This near perfect correlation remains after the first three updates
127. Such a near identical correlation strongly suggests vote tallies are
being artificially controlled as shown in the chart below tracking the cumulative
votes at each update for candidate Anderson (blue), candidate Peters (orange) and
27
V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1
(C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109)
(Demand to Conduct Proper Recount)
130. Petitioner has “reasonable grounds to believe” that her recount is not
the failure of the Respondents to follow Colorado law requiring that a comparison
issue an order requiring the Respondents to stop their recounts, and to give the
28
Secretary access to all pertinent election records used in conducting the recount
133. Pursuant to the C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109, the clerk and recorders shall then
this Court’s order requiring the Secretary to conduct the recount shall be paid by
COUNT II
(C.R.C.P. 65)
(Injunctive Relief)
components violate VSS and therefore are not certifiable for use in elections and
this recount in accordance with, inter alia, C.R.S. §§ 1-5-601.5, 1-5-615(1)(l), and
1-5-615(1)(p).
29
138. The Secretary was put on notice of the aforementioned issues by a
letters sent by Tina Peters dated July 12, 2022 and July 15, 2022 (attached as
Exhibits C and D) but nonetheless directed the recount to be performed using the
102(3).
141. The Court should order proper certification of the Dominion ICX
systems by the Secretary or, alternatively, enjoin the use of the Dominion ICX
142. The Court should also order a forensic examination of the Dominion
30
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Petitioner, Tina Peters, hereby requests that this Honorable
Respondents, to: (1) stop their recounts; (2) give the Secretary access to all
pertinent election records used in conducting the recounts; (3) require the Secretary
10.5-102, 1-5-601.5, and 1-5-615; (4) require the clerk and recorders to become
official observers to any recount conducted by the Secretary; (5) require that all
expenses incurred by the Secretary in conducting the recount be paid from the state
general fund; (6) to require the expenses incurred prior to this Court’s order
requiring the Secretary to conduct the recount to be paid by the respective counties;
(7) return all monies paid by the Petitioner to the Secretary; and, (5) for such other
31