I can't believe it. 

I just talked to the City Attorney. He says they're afraid of a lawsuit to stop online petitions because of language in the ballot issue that he himself approved, along with the eight lawyers who were in or assisting our working group! So he wants to put another  Charter Amendment on the ballot to fix what would amount to his own mistake, if indeed all of us were also wrong. Which would mean nothing possible until 2021 at the earliest. 

Below is the staff email, preceded by my response to it, and the text of the city memo. 

They have cleverly put this on the council agenda for Tuesday, a meeting with no open comment and no public hearings. 

So please email or otherwise contact City Council: Council@bouldercolorado.gov. 

All that's necessary is to say something like:

"Please stop the City attorney from obstructing online petitions, which were overwhelmingly approved by Boulder voters in November. He cannot say that the ballot issue that he vetted is now insufficient and must be redone." 

There are a number of young people who come to Council meetings who want to use online petitions in 2020. 

Thanks for hanging in there after over a year of obstructionism. 

Evan 

All, 

The attached City memo I was sent basically claims that 2018 ballot issue 2F (which the memo quotes) makes ballot issue 2G's option of true online petitioning impossible without yet another Charter Amendment. 

This is false and a poor interpretation of 2G, which states:

 "Shall Sections 38, 45, and 56 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8274 to allow the Boulder City Council to adopt ordinances that permit use of electronic petitions and to permit on-line electronic signing or endorsement of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions?" (Emphasis added.)

Voters passed 2G by 71-29% in November and it is now in the City Charter. 

"Endorsement" describes what Arizona's and Switzerland’s systems facilitate and the system that the people of Boulder want. NO SIGNATURE NECCESSARY, and no signatures to compare! 

Our campaign finance and elections working group did NOTintend our 2F to prevent the preferred option of our 2G! The city attorneys who assisted us NEVER mentioned that possibility. 

I am going to start billing the city for all the hundreds of hours I've had to devote to fixing obvious "errors" like this, for the last year plus. 

Sincerely, 
Evan 

Evan Ravitz, guide, photographer, writer, editor. 
(720)403-5594

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 9:10 AM Ward, Rewa <WardR@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:

Evan,

Please see attached Agenda Memo, for your records.  It has been submitted for review by council at the April 23, 2019 special council meeting.

Sincerely,

Rewa

Rewa Ward

Legal Secretary II

O: (303) 441-3020

D: (303) 441-1831

WardR@bouldercolorado.gov

The city memo:

CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2019
AGENDA TITLE
Update on Work Plan for Implementing Electronic Signatures for Petitions.
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager
Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney
Lynnette Beck, City Clerk
Julia Richman, Director of Innovation and Technology
Pamela Davis, Senior Management Analyst
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide council and the community with an update on the staff work plan for implementing online petition signatures as approved by the voters at the November 6, 2018 election. At the March 5, 2019 council meeting, the council rejected a proposed ordinance that would have allowed for implementation of an
electronic signature system modeled on the one in use for candidate petitions in the City and County of Denver. That system requires circulators and the use of tablets in place of
paper. Council asked staff to explore systems that would not have such restrictions. Petition committees generally begin submitting petitions in late April or early May. Thus, any system to allow for electronic signatures, for petitions to place matters on the November 2020 ballot, would have to be fully functional by April 2020.

STAFF WORKPLAN
Staff members responsible for this work are proposing to investigate the system
established by the state of Arizona and any others our research uncovers to determine if the City of Boulder’s requirements can be met. We will also be reviewing the internal
processes used to receive and verify petitions to determine if this can be streamlined for an online review. Staff plans to develop specifications for a system and issue a request
for proposals in the third or fourth quarter of this year with the goal of having a system in place and operational by April 2020 in time for petitions that target a November 2020 election. We do not know if this is possible and believe that it will be a difficult goal to achieve.
POSSIBLE CHARTER CHALLENGES
One of the challenges to our work may be the recently adopted charter provisions
concerning electronic petitions.
The charter provides that “Electronic petitions and on-line electronic signing or
endorsement of petitions may be allowed as permitted by the Boulder Revised Code.” At the same election, however, the voters added the following provision:
When examining the signatures on petitions, the clerk shall verify
signatures to the extent reasonably possible by comparison with the
election records of the Boulder County Clerk or the Secretary of State and
shall compare the signatures on a petition for duplication. The clerk may
use facilities of other cities to assist in this process. Protests of petitions
may be made as provided by Colorado law and the Boulder Revised Code
but must be submitted by 40 calendar days after submittal of the petition
to the clerk.This new language contemplates the use of an actual signature. Staff does not believe
that there is an existing system that could be adapted “off the shelf” for implementation
in Boulder. There are existing systems in the state of Arizona and in several Swiss
Cantons. None of these systems require a signature. Staff would like council to consider a charter amendment to allow for verification without a signature. In Arizona, the state
verifies voter identity using drivers’ licenses, state-issued identifications or voter registration numbers. A system using such a verification system would likely be much more user-friendly than one requiring an actual signature.
Given the complex nature of this process and the need to assure reliability and security before going live, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to complete procurement,
development and testing for implementation by April 2020. While this is still staff’s goal, council should be aware that no system may be in place until April 2021. Staff would appreciate council input on whether this work plan is appropriate, the level of identity verification that council views as appropriate for an electronic signature systemand whether staff should consider drafting a charter amendment to clarify what constitutes an appropriate level of voter identity verification. 

Item 3E - Electronic Signature Update