Are Boulder’s Drop Boxes really the Gold Standard?

bill4hd10

Are Boulder’s Drop Boxes really the Gold Standard?

Typical Boulder Drop Box

We are always told that the way that Boulder, Colorado runs its mail-in elections is the “Gold Standard” for the practice. In this blog we examine one critical component of the mail-in ballots…the security of the drop boxes. If the drop boxes are not secure and protected from unauthorized ballot deposits then the entire process comes into question.

According to the election laws and rules every drop box must be:

  • monitored whenever it is open to receive ballots, which in our case is 24 hours per day from 15 days prior to the election to 7:00 PM on election day. Note the definition of the word “monitor” explicitly requires that a monitor system must be able to “detect” problems and “warn” of of these problems. Any voting system that is incapable of detecting and warning of voter fraud fails as a monitor.
  • lighted and equipped with a video security system that continuously records activity at the box. The lights and cameras are the only means by which the clerk’s office can detect voter fraud, so these two system must be capable of providing adequate resolution of the activity at the box.
  • Have signage that it is illegal for anyone to collect and deposit more than 10 ballots during any election.

Video records are to be maintained by the county clerk for at least 60 days after the deadline for certification of the election, or until the conclusion of any election contest. Shouldn’t these video files be retained for 22 months as is the case for all other election data?

On June 22nd and 23rd I visited the 8 drop boxes in Boulder and Gunbarrel to observe them and determine how well they meet the criteria for location, lighting, camera coverage and notice placement. Each site was rated on a score of 0 to 3 for the four criteria, so the max score for a site would be 12.

The criteria for the location were:

  • 0= isolated from normal traffic areas, no visibility from the street, private
  • 1= visible from the street, but by itself with no nearby foot traffic
  • 2= near a door or building with someone watching at least during the day
  • 3= in a public space with high visibility and supervision

The criteria for lighting were:

  • 0= no lighting on the box
  • 1= light from a distant source that probably does not illuminate the box adequately
  • 2= at least one light over the box lighting up the user
  • 3= good lighting on top and front of box

The criteria for cameras were:

  • 0= no cameras could be seen from the box location
  • 1= a camera is present but is probably too far away to ID a face, or observe the ballot slot
  • 2= a camera is close enough to ID the user face, but can not see the ballot slot
  • 3= a camera is close enough to ID the user face, and can see the ballot slot

The criteria for the notice was:

  • 0= no notice was present
  • 1= present by poorly attached; a child could remove it
  • 2= present with at least duct tape, an adult could remove it by hand
  • 3= notice securely attached and would require a tool to remove it.

The results of the inspection were not encouraging. There was not a single site that received a 12. One site was rated at 8, one at 5, one at 4, one at 3, 3 at 2 and 1 received a rating of only 1. There was no site for which the video monitors could see and record both the face of the user and the drop slot of the box simultaneously. This means that a user could stand at the box and deposit more than the allowed 10 ballots without anyone noticing. Without the ability to recognize faces any user could make multiple visits to boxes, depositing 10 ballots per visit.

Here is a summary, from best to worst:

  • EFAA (1575 Yarmouth). Rated at 8. Next to a door where people were watching, good camera and light location above the box that could probably ID the face of the user, but could not see what or how many ballots were being inserted into the slot. Notice attached with duct tape.
  • Avery Brewery (4910 Nautilus Court), Rated at 5. Isolated location, very private, good light over box, camera located 60 feet away on building. Probably too far to ID the face of the user or what was being placed into the slot. Notice scotch taped to box not child proof.
  • County Courthouse (2025 14th Street), Rated at 4. On street but not in a supervised location, only lights come from distant streetlights, camera far away and probably could not ID a face or see the action at the drop slot. Notice scotch taped to box.
  • South Boulder Rec Center (1360 Gillaspie Drive), Rated at 3. Far from building, no lights anywhere near, camera over 100 feet from box, notice just scotch taped to box.
  • County Clerk and Recorder (1750 33rd Street), Rated at 2. very private, no lights nearby, camera over 100 feet from box and could not ID either the user’s face, or see the box slot since this is a drive up box and the user’s car would be between the box and the camera.
  • Mental Health facility (3400 Broadway), Rated at 2. In parking lot, no lights, camera far away and poorly aimed, probably could not ID the user’s face or observe the drop slot. No notice present.
  • UMC (1669 Euclid), Rated at 2. near street but unsupervised, no lights, camera far away, notice missing. The camera probably could not ID the face of the user, nor could it see the action at the drop slot.
  • Williams Village (500 30th St). Rated at 1. in parking area, no supervision, poor lighting, no camera was visible and there was no notice on the box.

If Boulder County was serious about drop box security every drop box would be well lighted from the top and front, they would be in high traffic areas, there would be camera coverage of both the user’s face and the drop slot so that no one could insert unauthorized ballots undetected and the required notices would be firmly attached to the boxes in a way that made them impossible to remove without a tool.

It is also disturbing that the two worst rated boxes were on the CU campus.

Please note that these evaluations are all subject to modification pending review of the video recordings from the County. It may be that the cameras perform far better than I am giving them credit for, and even at long distances can recognize faces with little or no light. We will make CORA requests for videos from all 8 boxes.