Griswold blocks DOJ voter roll review while data flows elsewhere

By Linda Good | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold wants the public to believe that a lawful voter-roll records request from the U.S. Department of Justice is an unprecedented threat to voter privacy. That framing is not principled. It’s strategic.

When the DOJ asked Colorado to provide unredacted voter data, including full names, dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers, Griswold didn’t offer a sober legal analysis—she offered a slogan. 

In her office’s statement she said, “The DOJ can take a hike; it does not have a legal right to the information. Colorado will not help Donald Trump undermine our elections and hurt the American people.” 

That’s the official justification: fear-based rhetoric disguised as privacy concern.

But the argument falls apart immediately when you look at how identity data is already handled.

The federal government issues Social Security numbers. Dates of birth are required to pay taxes, receive benefits, and comply with federal law. Driver’s license numbers are already used for identity verification across federal systems, including IRS e-filing.

Colorado has also adopted REAL ID, administered under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which requires submission and federal verification of the very same categories of data. That ID is now mandatory for TSA airport screening and access to federal facilities.

In short, Colorado already collects, verifies, and shares identity data with the federal government by design. The claim that DOJ access to voter-roll data suddenly introduces a novel privacy risk is not credible.

The argument collapses entirely when you examine who actually shapes election “standards” in Colorado.

It wasn’t elected officials or voters who invited the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) in to influence county clerks—the Colorado County Clerks Association (CCCA) and its executive director Matt Crane did. CEIR is an NGO backed by foundations and progressive money. It wasn’t hired by voters. 

Yet its messaging and “best practices” have been normalized across Colorado election offices.

CEIR’s founder, David Becker, also helped create the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a private nonprofit that now handles and redistributes sensitive voter data among member states. 

So here’s the real question: why should anyone trust a private NGO over the federal government with this information?

Colorado freely shares voter data with a private nonprofit that has no direct accountability to voters. But when a constitutionally authorized federal agency seeks to review records for compliance, suddenly it’s a “privacy risk.” That’s not principle. That’s avoidance.

Griswold isn’t safeguarding democracy. She’s gaslighting the public to make sure no one outside her circle—vendors and NGOs—ever examines the system she runs.

If anyone should “take a hike,” it’s the officials who refuse transparency while demanding blind trust in an opaque system controlled by outside influence.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.