Last week I joined tens of thousands to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, to celebrate the progress made since officials bloodied brave activists for protesting lack of access to their voting rights. But, 50 years later, citizen volunteers including myself are still working long hours for expanded voting rights. We want reasonable access to an anonymous and verifiable paper ballot. And we want an election process that allows citizens to verify accuracy and fairness.

In each election, we citizens want to see the evidence that every eligible vote — and only each eligible vote — is counted as intended. Election integrity came naturally with our former precinct polling places. Poll watchers, now just called watchers, could witness and verify, challenge eligibility when necessary, and assist in correction of discrepancies.

Election integrity requires a recognition that elections belong to all citizens, not just to the few officials and their employees who increasingly fill the role of election judges. Such integrity requires more than good intentions and best practices by election officials. Meaningful election integrity requires access by citizens both to the process and to all the anonymous documentary evidence (with rare unavoidable exceptions to protect voter privacy).

During the 50 years since the difficult but eventually successful march to Montgomery, access to register and the opportunity to vote have improved for many previously disadvantaged populations. Meanwhile, other measurements of election quality have been overlooked by officials, who insist that turnout and lack of complaint constitute evidence of integrity. Systematic opportunities for citizens to personally “witness and verify” and evaluate their elections disappeared as unnecessary “modernization” brought mechanization and centralization. What was once a human process in precincts ambling along at human speed now requires operation at breakneck “election speed.”

New throughput expectations were put on steroids when officials purchased centralized factory automation such as electronic signature verification. These techniques have at least temporarily put oversight far out of reach of humans. Colorado must make space and time available to watchers so that oversight is more than just possible — it must be meaningful.

Under current interpretations of law, watchers can’t expect much better treatment than people forced to use the “colored” entrance at the 1960 Montgomery Greyhound station. Watchers are often segregated into distant viewing areas, monitored by paid staff, prevented from asking questions, charged high costs to obtain records, and worse. Watchers are accused of interfering with processes, blamed for fears that they will take control, imagined to show up by the busload. It’s easy to recognize Jim Crow–like attitudes in those who exercise government authority.

The day I returned from Selma, our Colorado legislators beat down this year’s opportunity to relax defenses against legal watching and encourage verification. HB15-1193 sponsored by Representative JoAnne Windholz was postponed indefinitely on March 9 after 7 hours of waiting for other bills.

The House State Affairs (kill) committee leadership had earlier declined the sponsor’s reasonable request to lay over the bill to a more productive hour. Supporters’ testimony was cut off at 5 minutes. Committee Democrats unanimously defeated the bill while most Republicans supported it.

Amber McReynolds, speaking for the Colorado County Clerks Association, said HB 1193 “fundamentally shift[s] the control over the election processes away from trained election officials and judges to watchers that have specific interests in certain outcomes of the election…. This expansion of watcher decision-making in the election process takes the local control away from the citizens.”

Aurora City Clerk Karen Goldman stated, “The watchers in this bill pretty much have the ability to do everything from ‘a’ to ‘z’— from soup to nuts…. Watchers have the ability to act almost as election judges, and that’s the comments that I have received from a lot of my colleagues — that they are acting like election judges.”

Martha Tierney, representing herself only as an expert election lawyer, said, “this bill essentially supplants the role of election judges with watchers. There really is no role for an election judge now. The watcher is doing all of that work.“

Coordinated testimony against watcher access is like unleashed scare tactics and straw-man rhetoric, invoking Selma memories. Where in HB 1193 is anything that gives watchers a decision-making role? Watchers only collect information on which election judges or the DA can act.Tierney warned, “Any watcher can audio, video, and do whatever they want with that material, which seems to me is really a ploy to get evidence for further litigation.”

Representative Patrick Neville appropriately responded, “Well, good — If something happened wrong, then they should be held accountable.”Colorado’s Republican legislators facilitated our recent attempts to follow the footsteps of Diane Nash, John Lewis, and other brave foot soldiers of the voting rights movement. Sadly this time, watchers were not able to reach the foot of the bridge. Perhaps prejudice held us back.

Harvie Branscomb is an election quality advocate who presented credentials in 13 counties to watch the 2014 General Election for both the state Libertarian and Green parties. He is former chair of Eagle County Democrats and canvass board member. Secretary Gessler appointed him to the Uniform Voting System Public Participation Panel. Last week on the way to Selma he organized a panel on anonymity and transparency at the Election Verification Network conference in New Orleans. The panel included experienced watchers and three Colorado election officials. He can be reached at harvie@electionquality.com.