DATE FILED: August 3, 2022 10:33 PM

DISTRICT COURT, DENVER COUNTY FILING ID: A50C2B628039A

STATE OF COLORADO CASE NUMBER: 2022CV32225
520 W. Colfax Ave.
Denver, CO 80204
TINA PETERS,

Petitioner,

vs.

JENA GRISWOLD, in her official capacity

as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado,
JOSH ZYGIELBAUM, in his, official capacity ▲ COURT USE ONLY▲
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Adams,
NICOLE JARAMILLO in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Alamosa,
JOAN LOPEZ, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Arapahoe,
KRISTY ARCHULETA, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Archuleta,
SHARON DUBOIS, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Baca,
LYNDA G. MOSS in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Bent,
MOLLY FITZPATRICK in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Boulder,
CRYSTAL CLEMENS, in her official capacity
as Interim Clerk and Recorder of the county of
Broomfield,
LORI MITCHELL, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Chaffee,
PATRICIA DAUGHERTY, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Cheyenne,
BRENDA CORBETT, in her official capacity as
Clerk and Recorder of the county of Clear Creek,
NATHAN RUYBAL, in his official capacity as
Clerk and Recorder of the county of Conejos,
MIRANDA ESQUIBEL, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Costilla,
MELINDA CARTER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Crowley,
KELLEY CAMPER, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Custer,
TERI A. STEPHENSON, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Delta,
PAUL D. LÓPEZ, in his official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Denver,
LANA HANCOCK, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Delores,
MERLIN KLOTZ, in his official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Douglas,
REGINA O'BRIEN, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Eagle,
CHUCK BROERMAN, in his official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of El Paso,
DALLAS SCHROEDER, in his official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Elbert,
JUSTIN D. GRANTHAM, in his official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Fremont,
JEAN ALBERICO, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Garfield,
SAHARI MCCORMICK, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Gilpin,
SARA ROSENE, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Grand,
KATHY SIMILLION, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Gunnison,
JOAN ROBERTS, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Hinsdale,
NANCY CRUZ, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Huerfano,
HAYLE JOHNSON, in her official capacity
as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Jackson,

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]

PETITION UNDER C.R.S. §§ 1-1-113 and 1-10.5-109 and for

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P 65

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

method. But all Respondents failed to do so before commencing the recount.

Thus, the recount has been conducted without a proper inquiry into the reliability

of the counting method. Second, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold

(Secretary) improperly certified voting systems despite a federal agency’s finding

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

Petitioner, Tina Peters (Petitioner or Ms. Peters), by and through counsel,

Nicholas A. Armer, Esq., pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-113 and 1-10.5-109, and

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

official capacities, along with, JENA GRISWOLD, in her official capacity as

Secretary of State of Colorado.

II. PARTIES

1. Petitioner, Tina Peters, is a natural person, and citizen of the state of

Colorado and the United States of America.

2. Ms. Peters is an elector from the county of Mesa, and is a certified

2022 GOP candidate for secretary of state.

3. Respondent, Jena Griswold, is sued because she is about to commit a

breach of duty in her official capacity as the Colorado Secretary of State.

6
 4. Respondent, Josh Zygielbaum, is sued for prospective relief in his

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Adams (Clerk

Zygielbaum).

5. Respondent, Nicole Jaramillo, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Alamosa (Clerk Jaramillo).

6. Respondent, Joan Lopez, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Arapahoe (Clerk Lopez).

7. Respondent, Kristy Archuleta, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Archuleta (Clerk

Archuleta).

8. Respondent, Sharon Dubois, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Baca (Clerk Dubois).

9. Respondent, Lynda F. Moss, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Bent (Clerk Moss).

10. Respondent, Molly Fitzpatrick, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Boulder (Clerk

Fitzpatrick).

7
 11. Respondent, Crystal Clemens, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Interim Clerk and Recorder of the county of Broomfield

(Interim Clerk Clemens).

12. Respondent, Lori Mitchell, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Chaffee (Clerk Mitchell).

13. Respondent, Patricia Daugherty, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Cheyenne (Clerk

Daugherty).

14. Respondent, Brenda Corbett, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Clear Creek (Clerk

Corbett).

15. Respondent, Nathan Ruybal, is sued for prospective relief in his

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Conejos (Clerk Ruybal).

16. Respondent, Miranda Esquibel, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Costilla (Clerk Esquibel).

17. Respondent, Melinda Carter, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Crowley (Clerk Carter).

18. Respondent, Kelley Camper, is sued for prospective relief in her

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).

20. Respondent, Paul D. López, is sued for prospective relief in his

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Denver (Clerk Lopez).

21. Respondent, Lana Hancock, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Douglas (Clerk Klotz).

23. Respondent, Regina O'Brien, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Eagle (Clerk O’Brien).

24. Respondent, Chuck Broerman, is sued for prospective relief in his

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of El Paso (Clerk Broerman).

25. Respondent, Dallas Schroeder, is sued for prospective relief in his

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Elbert (Clerk Schroeder).

26. Respondent, Justin D. Grantham, is sued for prospective relief in his

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Fremont (Clerk

Grantham).

27. Respondent, Jean Alberico, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Gilpin (Clerk

McCormick).

29. Respondent, Sara Rosene, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Grand (Clerk Rosene).

30. Respondent, Kathy Simillion, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Gunnison (Clerk

Simillion).

31. Respondent, Joan Roberts, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Hinsdale (Clerk Roberts).

32. Respondent, Nancy Cruz, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Huerfano (Clerk Cruz).

33. Respondent, Hayle Johnson, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Jackson (Clerk Johnson).

34. Respondent, George P. Stern, is sued for prospective relief in his

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Jefferson (Clerk Stern).

35. Respondent, Delisa L. Weeks, is sued for prospective relief in her

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).

38. Respondent, Patricia Berger, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Lake (Clerk Berger).

39. Respondent, Angela Myers, is sued for prospective relief in her

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).

41. Respondent, Corinne M. Lengel, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Logan (Clerk Bacon).

43. Respondent, Brandi Bantz, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Designated Election Official of the county of Mesa (Designated

Election Official Bantz).

44. Respondent, Eryn K Wintz, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Montezuma (Clerk Percell).

47. Respondent, Tressa Guynes, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Montrose (Clerk Guynes).

48. Respondent, Susan L. Bailey, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Otero (Clerk Scott).

50. Respondent, Michelle Nauer, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Park (Clerk Green).

52. Respondent, Madene Zilla, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Phillips (Clerk Zilla).

53. Respondent, Ingrid Grueter, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Prowers (Clerk Coen).

55. Respondent, Gilbert Ortiz, is sued for prospective relief in his official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Pueblo (Clerk Ortiz).

56. Respondent, Boots M Campbell, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Routt (Clerk Bonner).

59. Respondent, Trish Gilbert, is sued for prospective relief in her official

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Saguache (Clerk Gilbert).

60. Respondent, Ladonna Jaramillo, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of San Juan (Clerk

Jaramillo).

61. Respondent, Stephannie Van Damme, is sued for prospective relief in

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

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Sedgewick (Clerk

Beckman).

63. Respondent, Kathleen Neel, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Summit (Clerk Neel).

64. Respondent, Krystal Brown, is sued for prospective relief in her

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

capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Washington (Clerk Kuntz).

66. Respondent, Carly Koppes, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Weld (Clerk Koppes).

67. Respondent, Beverly Wenger, is sued for prospective relief in her

official capacity as Clerk and Recorder of the county of Yuma (Clerk Wenger).

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

68. Jurisdiction of the Denver County District Court is properly invoked

pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-113 and 1-10.5-109.

69. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and

this action, pursuant to Art. VI, § 9 of the Colorado Constitution.

14
 70. Venue is proper in the county of Denver, pursuant to C.R.C.P.

98(b)(2).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

secretary of state for the state of Colorado.

73. C.R.S. § 1-10.5-106 allows an “interested party” to request a recount

of an election conducted within the state of Colorado.

74. Ms. Peters is an interested party and, pursuant to said statute, formally

requested a recount by submitting a notarized request to JENA GRISWOLD, in

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.

75. Pursuant to statute, on July 27, 2022, the Secretary prepared a

determination of costs for Ms. Peters.

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,

nine-hundred and twelve dollars and thirty-three cents ($255,912.33).

15
 77. The following day, Friday, July 29, 2022, recounts were started by

clerk and recorders in counties across the state of Colorado.

The Recount Is Not Being Conducted In Accordance With the

Requirements of C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(A).

78. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-107, clerk and recorders are required to

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.

79. C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(a) states:

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.

80. Similarly, 8 Colo. Code Regs. § 1505-1, Rule 10.12.1 states:

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.

81. C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(b) states:

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.

82. Similarly, in 8 Colo. Code Regs. § 1505-1, Rule 10.13.1

Colorado states:

In accordance with section 1-10.5-102(3)(b), C.R.S., if there are no

discrepancies in the test under Rule 10.12, the recount must be
conducted in the same manner as the ballots were counted in the election
except as outlined in this Rule. If there are unresolvable discrepancies in
the test, the recount must be conducted as a hand count under Rule
10.13.5.

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

Regs. § 1501-10.12.1, which states:

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.

(2) In a requested recount, the person requesting the recount may

mark up to 10 ballots. Any other candidate in the contest, or
person or organization who could have requested the recount, may
also mark up to 10 ballots.

(3) In a mandatory recount, at least two canvass board members of

different party affiliations must each mark an additional 10 ballots
containing 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.

(c) The test is limited to the race or measure that is recounted.

85. The Secretary conducted a rescan, though Ms. Peters did not request

one.

86. Additionally, said test, pursuant to 8 Colo. Code Regs. § 1501-

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].

87. The test required by C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102(3)(a), as opposed to the

L&A, is to be conducted ‘[p]rior to any recount” to “test [the] voting devices used

in the candidate race.” [Emphasis added].

18
 88. In that regard, Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(a), a canvass board

is required, prior to a recount, to choose at random which voting devices will be

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

in the primary election on June 28, 2022.

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

the primary election.

91. On information and belief, Respondents have not complied with

C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(a) at the direction and guidance of the Secretary.

92. By failing to conduct the required comparison, every canvassing

board in Colorado has failed to comply with C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(a).

93. By directing the canvassing boards not to comply with C.R.S. § 1-

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

accordance with the requirements of subsection (3)(a) of [section 102] are

identical, or if any discrepancy is able to be accounted for by voter error.”

[Emphasis added].

95. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(b), if “the results of the

comparison of the machine count and the manual count in accordance with the

requirements of subsection (3)(a) of [section 102] are not identical, or if any

discrepancy is 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.” [Emphasis added].

96. Since the canvass boards across the state have failed to comply with

C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(a), the requirements of C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102 (3)(b) have

also not been meet.

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

Secretary to conduct the recount in accordance with C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102.

The Dominion Voting Systems ImageCast X Devices and Attached

Components Used In The Recount Violate Voting System Standards
and Therefore Are Not Certifiable In Accordance With C.R.S. § 1-5-
601.5

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

the Federal Election Commission.

100. Recently, a computer science expert in Curling v. Raffensperger, Case

No. 1:17-cv-02989-AT (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ga.), identified catastrophic

vulnerabilities and failures in the Dominion electronic voting systems used in

sixteen states, including Colorado.

101. The expert, Professor J. Alex Halderman (Prof. Halderman), further

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.

102. In response, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

(CISA) entered an appearance in Curling and urged the federal district court to not

allow the public disclosure of said expert’s entire report.

21
 103. On June 3, 2022, CISA released a security advisory, detailing nine

vulnerabilities in Dominion’s Democracy Suite ImageCast X devices—and any

components connected to those devices, such as the Election Management System

(EMS).1

104. CISA did not test all versions of the Dominion ImageCast X

(Dominion ICX) systems.

105. Upon information and belief, the critical vulnerabilities identified by

Prof. Halderman that gave rise to CISA’s June 3, 2022, advisory applies to all

Dominion electronic voting systems employing ImageCast X devices—including

those systems used in Colorado.

106. CISA’s advisory identified nine security vulnerabilities in Dominion

ICX which were undetected by Voting System Testing Lab (“VSTL”) certification

testing.

107. The presence of these security vulnerabilities and failures identified in

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

records created by the system are maintained for purposes of an audit;

c. VSS § 4.2.2 prohibits the use of self-modifying, dynamically loaded,

or interpreted code in voting systems so that the software that was

approved and certified retains its integrity;

d. VSS § 6.2.1.2 requires that voting systems identify and control the

individuals with access;

e. VSS § 6.4.1 requires that voting systems with resident software be

retested prior to the start of election operations; and

f. VSS § 6.4.2 requires that voting systems protect against malicious

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

by Dominion nor the Secretary.

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

of Dominion’s Democracy Suite 5.13, despite CISA’s warnings and the

requirement to do so under VSS.

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

primary, nor before the Petitioner’s requested recount.

111. Notably, CISA recommended, among other things, that officials:

• Conduct rigorous post-election tabulation audits of the human-

readable portions of physical ballots and paper records, to include
reviewing ballot chain of custody and conducting voter/ballot
reconciliation procedures.

• Ensure all affected devices are physically protected before,

during, and after voting.

• Ensure compliance with chain of custody procedures throughout

the election cycle.

Ensure that ImageCast X and the Election Management System

(EMS) are not connected to any external (i.e., Internet accessible) networks.

112. C.R.S. § 1-5-615(1)(l) states that “[t]he secretary of state shall not

certify any electronic or electromechanical voting system unless such system . . .

[c]ounts votes correctly.”

113. C.R.S. § 1-5-615(1)(p) states that “[t]he secretary of state shall not

certify any electronic or electromechanical voting system unless such system . . .

[s]aves and produces the records necessary to audit the operation of the electronic

or electromechanical voting system, including a permanent paper record with a

manual audit capacity.”

24
 114. Dominion’s ICX do not meet the statutory requirements under C.R.S.

§§ 1-5-601.5, 1-5-615(1)(l), and 1-5-615(1)(p).

115. The Secretary breached her duty to ensure compliance with C.R.S. §§

1-5-601.5, 1-5-615(1)(l), and 1-5-615(1)(p) by certifying Dominion’s ICX.

116. Upon information and belief, sixty-two counties in Colorado use these

voting systems.

117. The Respondents’ use of improperly tested and unreliable electronic

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

manner.” C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102(2).

118. C.R.S. § 1-7-512(1)(e) states that “[a] voting system provider…

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

known to occur anywhere.”

119. Upon information and belief, Dominion also failed to disclose these

known vulnerabilities to Colorado officials and other states’ officials when it

learned of them.

120. Petitioner seeks to recount the legal ballots by a fair, impartial, and

uniform process in accordance with CRS § 1-10.5-109.

25
 121. Petitioner requests that the Court order that the Secretary address the

above-mentioned vulnerabilities of the Dominion ICX systems and appropriately

certify these systems in accordance with her duties under C.R.S. § 1-5-615.

Alternatively, Petitioner requests a manual (hand) recount.

122. Recently, experts, Dr. Walter C. Daugherty and Jeff O’Donnell,

exposed evidence of unauthorized ballot manipulation by a rogue software process

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

pattern of vote processing.

124. There, election results taken from the New York Times’ feed between

June 28, 2022, and July 2, 2022, which continuously updated and reported,

demonstrates an unnatural, near perfect correlation between the respective

candidates after the first three updates.

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 value (termed R-squared) exceeding .99 (1.0 being a perfect

correlation).

126. This near perfect correlation remains after the first three updates

regardless of where or when votes were tabulated and uploaded.

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

candidate O’Donnell (gray).

27
 V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1
(C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109)
(Demand to Conduct Proper Recount)

128. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs, as though fully contained herein.

129. C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109(1)(a), states:

Any interested party that requested a recount of a county, state, national,

or district office of state concern or any party to such recount that has
reasonable grounds to believe that the recount is not being conducted in
a fair, impartial, and uniform manner may apply to the district court of
the city and county of Denver for an order requiring the county clerk and
recorder to stop the recount and to give the secretary of state access to
all pertinent election records used in conducting the recount, and
requiring the secretary of state to conduct the recount. The county clerk
and recorder shall be an official observer during any recount conducted
by the secretary of state. [Emphasis added].

130. Petitioner has “reasonable grounds to believe” that her recount is not

being conducted in a fair, impartial and uniform manner—particularly in light of

the failure of the Respondents to follow Colorado law requiring that a comparison

be made, pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102(3)(a), “prior to any recount.”

131. Petitioner is an “interested part[y],” pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-106.

132. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109, Petitioner requests that the Court

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

and require the Secretary to conduct the recount.

133. Pursuant to the C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109, the clerk and recorders shall then

become official observers to any recount conducted by the Secretary.

134. Pursuant to the C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109(2), all expenses incurred by the

Secretary in conducting the recount, pursuant to subsection C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109

(1), shall be paid from the state general fund.

135. Pursuant to the C.R.S. § 1-10.5-109(2), the expenses incurred prior to

this Court’s order requiring the Secretary to conduct the recount shall be paid by

the respective counties.

COUNT II
(C.R.C.P. 65)
(Injunctive Relief)

136. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs, as though fully contained herein.

137. As described above, the Dominion ICX devices and attached

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

aforementioned Dominion voting machines.

139. Further, Respondents have failed to comply with C.R.S. § 1-10.5-

102(3).

140. The Court should order compliance with C.R.S. § 1-10.5-102(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

systems and require a manual (hand) recount.

142. The Court should also order a forensic examination of the Dominion

ICX systems by a qualified cyber expert of Petitioner’s choosing to determine if

the Dominion ICX are certifiable in accordance with C.R.S. § 1-5-615.

30
 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Petitioner, Tina Peters, hereby requests that this Honorable

Court issue an order, pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-113 and 1-10.5-109, to the

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

to conduct the recounts in accordance with Colorado law, including C.R.S. §§ 1-

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

relief as is just and proper, as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of August, 2022,

By: /s/ Nicholas A. Armer, Esq.

Nicholas A. Armer, #55856

31