Mail-in ballot security measures

I am writing in response to Sam Taylor’s recent letter regarding election integrity and mail ballots. These are important topics, and they deserve careful, fact-based discussion.

It is true that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission (2005) identified absentee ballots as a potentially vulnerable area. However, election systems have evolved significantly since that time. States like Colorado have implemented multiple layers of security around mail ballots, including signature verification, ballot tracking, bipartisan teams, and post-election audits.

Here in El Paso County, we have taken additional steps to enhance both security and transparency. These include 24/7 monitored ballot drop boxes with publicly accessible livestream cameras, allowing residents to observe ballot activity in real time. We have also implemented tools such as the Mail Ballot Activity Reporting System (MARS), which provides detailed tracking and accountability throughout the ballot process. Through this system, our office tracks ballots from the moment they are printed, inserted into ballot packets, prepared for postage, transported, delivered to the USPS facility here in Colorado Springs, and ultimately to the voter’s mailbox. These efforts are designed not only to secure elections but to allow the public to see and understand how the system works. To view all of our election upgrades, please visit: https://clerkandrecorder.elpasoco.com/elections/election-upgrades/

Every ballot is paper-based and subject to audit, including risk-limiting audits that verify election outcomes. Voters can track their ballot from mailing to counting, and any discrepancies are reviewed.

Regarding voter turnout, the increase over time can be attributed to factors such as population growth, expanded access to voting, and heightened engagement in national elections. Higher turnout alone is not evidence of fraud; it is often a sign of increased participation.

Election integrity is not a partisan issue. It is something election officials work on continuously at the local, state, and federal levels. In El Paso County, we are committed to ensuring our elections are secure, transparent, and worthy of public trust.

Constructive dialogue is essential, and I encourage anyone with questions to engage directly with their local Clerk and Recorder’s Office to learn more about how these safeguards work in practice. If interested in a tour of our El Paso County facility, and to talk about the life cycle of a mail-in ballot, please contact me directly at 719-520-7306, or email steveschleiker@elpasoco.com.

Steve Schleiker, Clerk and Recorder

Colorado Springs

Corporations should go where they are wanted

Buc-ee’s Corporation continues to try to develop, through administrative workarounds and legal sleight-of-hand, a massive gas station and travel center atop Monument Hill, despite increasing opposition from informed northern El Paso County communities and residents.

This pushy, conscience-free corporation’s intent smacks of the arrogance shown by earlier Texas citizens and companies, recalling the Texas native in the mid-1970s who purchased a parcel along West Colorado Avenue between Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs, installed a large “Texas in Colorado” sign, then petitioned the Texas Legislature to annex it!

Buc-ee’s owners should go where they are wanted, south of Pueblo, perhaps, but not in the beautiful Front Range foothill country between Monument Hill and Larkspur, where its garish yellow neon and traffic bottlenecks would destroy one of the last, commercial and development-free spaces whose views help drivers enjoy the God-given beauty of our Colorado landscapes.

We value our views here in Colorado, something clearly incomprehensible (with reason) to a Texas-based corporation like Buc-ee’s.

Want to do business in Colorado, Buc-ee’s? Go where you are wanted and where you don’t damage the views!

Christopher Brooks

Monument

This is not liberal or conservative

There’s one issue in Colorado that truly crosses party lines: public lands. Hunters, anglers, ranchers, hikers, and the state’s $17 billion outdoor recreation economy all depend on the same promise—that the land we share stays in public hands. It’s not liberal or conservative. It’s Colorado.

That’s why the nomination of Steve Pearce to lead the Bureau of Land Management should concern every Coloradan. Pearce, a former New Mexico congressman and oilfield executive, would oversee 245 million acres of federal land, including millions in Colorado where families camp, ranchers graze, and local economies depend on outdoor access.

His record is clear. In Congress, Pearce supported selling federal land to reduce the deficit, arguing the government holds land “most of which we do not even need.” He also backed efforts to weaken the Antiquities Act and has longstanding ties to the oil and gas industry. At his confirmation hearing, he said he wasn’t sure his views on selling public lands had changed.

U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper, who sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, pressed Pearce directly and quickly announced his opposition. Hickenlooper helped lead a bipartisan effort last year to block a proposal to sell millions of acres of federal land—an effort driven in part by tens of thousands of Coloradans speaking out. He has made it clear that this nomination raises the same alarm.

The concern now is a quieter path: smaller land sales approved by a BLM director. Current law allows sales of up to 2,500 acres at a time without congressional approval, with no cap.

Colorado’s public lands are not abstract. They are our trails, water sources, ranchlands, and local economies. Once sold, they don’t come back.

Douglas Smith

Colorado Springs

How to participate

Please send letters to the editor by email to opinion@gazettedev.gazette.com. All letters must include the authorís full name, address, and daytime phone number for verification. No letters from anonymous authors or those using pen names will be considered. Priority will be given to letters 300 words or less. We do not accept candidate endorsements, advertisements, or chain letters. The Gazette reserves the right to edit submissions for length, taste and clarity.