Secretary of State Jena Griswold is trying to manipulate the elections debacle in Mesa County into an extraordinary power grab.  Last week I wrote about a glaring aspect of Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ unethical and illicit conduct over the past several months.  Yet, regardless of political party or views on Peters’ actions, every Coloradan should beware Griswold’s lawsuit to wrest authority over local elections into her hands. 

In a case currently before Mesa County District Court, Griswold requests Peters officially be removed as the county’s designated elections officer (DEO) for this year’s elections stemming from an alleged election security breach that happened in May with Peters’ participation.  That led to the decertification of 41 pieces of Mesa County voting equipment.

In August, images of an election server’s hard drive were publicly leaked and traced back to Mesa.  Peters subsequently spoke at an election conspiracy theory conference held by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and then remained in hiding out of state for weeks.  She was MIA in parts unknown.

With election deadlines looming and Peters absent, Griswold decreed on Aug. 17 that Sheila Reiner, the former Mesa clerk and current county treasurer, would serve as “elections supervisor” and effectively control the process.  Griswold forbade Peters’ deputy, Belinda Knisley, and another employee, Sandra Brown, from “supervising, accessing, or participating in any aspect of all elections” until Griswold said otherwise. (Knisley has since been arrested and charged with felony burglary for violating an order from the county involving an HR matter.)

The county commissioners resisted Griswold’s appointment of Reiner.  They agreed that Peters was “disqualified” and acknowledged she was entirely absent from decision making.  Thus, the commissioners determined there was effectively a vacancy for the DEO — but one that the commissioners should fill.  They unanimously named former SOS Wayne Williams to fill it.  Since then, Williams has operated as Mesa’s DEO with Reiner as Griswold’s appointed elections supervisor.  Both are Republicans.

On the one hand, Peters clearly abandoned her post.  Her whereabouts were unknown; her court filings say she was “working remotely” but offer no evidence.  Mesa elections needed a DEO who could make decisions, and the county seems right to conclude Peters wasn’t doing the job and would have missed critical deadlines.  This all followed a security breach she personally orchestrated.

Moreover, Peters tacitly accepted there was effectively a vacancy.  She didn’t resist Williams’ original appointment.  Williams made the key elections decisions for the county; Peters didn’t protest.  She declined to personally participate in the county commissioner meeting appointing Williams.  It wasn’t until Griswold’s lawsuit that Peters officially presented any counterarguments.  Now, Peters wants to come back to her position and run an election under decisions made by another in her absence.

In her lawsuit, however, Griswold contends the SOS’s “[p]owers of supervision necessarily include the power to provide ‘lawful direction.’”  She claims this includes the ability to “manage and direct” county clerks. 

Griswold’s argument is not exclusive to the circumstances of Peters’ case.  Taken to its logical conclusion, it would empower any SOS to effectively control all aspects of how local election officials operate.  Such a precedent would render them little more than agents of the SOS, who gets to dictate who they hire, who they fire and what they do.

Griswold’s court filings provide woefully insufficient evidence that the power to supervise necessarily means she can replace an elections official on a whim or through a simple court proceeding.  Decades of history clearly show the SOS’s “supervisory powers” are not unlimited.  The power to supervise does not equal the power to appoint whomever she wants. 

The principle behind “supervisory powers” is unquestionably to ensure all counties are uniform in how they conduct elections.  One cannot argue with a straight face that this means the SOS can micromanage day-to-day affairs in a county elections office.  That’s why nothing like this has ever been done before. 

Take 2011.  Then-SOS Scott Gessler — now Peters’ attorney — ordered a recount in Saguache County following serious questions about how their 2010 election was conducted.  When Saguache’s clerk refused, Gessler filed suit for the court to direct a recount and won.  In this instance, Gessler was far more circumspect than Griswold.

In truth, Griswold belittles the role of local elected officials in our system of checks and balances under the Colorado Constitution.  She insists that counties and county clerks are mere subordinates to the state.  A clerk, for example, is but an “ex officio recorder of deeds and clerk of the board of county commissioners” and, well, that’s it.

Let’s be clear: County-level officials are just as legitimately elected by the people as state-level electeds.  State officials should not get to remove and replace local elected officials.  If someone IS going to be replaced, the county needs to do it as provided for vacancies.

Griswold may claim she’s being “bipartisan” in favoring a Williams-Reiner team for Mesa elections.   However, the appearance of bipartisanship — a uniquely foreign concept to Griswold — must not be used to justify such an unprecedented power-grab.

As Gessler writes in Peters’ answer brief, “If successful, (Griswold) will restructure election administration throughout Colorado; if she thinks a clerk is getting out of line, the secretary — and not county voters — will now be able to appoint a designated election official who reports directly to her, rather than the voters of Mesa County.”  And, I would add, the Mesa county commissioners, who are properly permitted to fill county vacancies.