The "Test Kitchen" Strategy: Why Coastal Cities Used Colorado Elections as Their Guinea Pig
April 2026 Election Analysis
Introduction
Colorado’s election system has increasingly been described as the new national Soros prototype, small population, easy to control public, built around high accessibility, universal mail ballots, and groomed voter registration. Supporters often frame this as a model of modern democratic participation, while critics question whether ease of access introduces new risks. This article breaks down the differences between an “access-first” model and a traditional “security-first” model, and examines why leaders like Jena Griswold (Colorado's Secretary of State who Leaaked Bios Voting Machine Codes and now running for Colorado Attorney General) have supported the approach. Seven additional states have gone fully Universal Access Model (Soros) since Colorado did in 2013. Though most states have not fully embraced it yet, the Access model has led most states into lax policies over chain-of-custody and verificatioin timing leading to expanded vulnerabilities everywhere. This is why Jena Griswold want to keep Tina Peters (Access Fraud Whistleblower) in prison. "A republic’s legitimacy rests on one simple principle, the people’s will, accurately counted. Any system that trades verifiable security for convenience risks turning self-government into something else." - Grok 2026
1. Two Competing Frameworks: Access vs. Security
The “Access-First” (Open Society-Oriented (George Soros)) Model
The access-focused model emphasizes maximizing participation by reducing barriers to voting. Key features include:
- Universal mail ballots sent to all registered voters
- Ballot drop boxes and extended voting periods
- Simplified or automatic voter registration systems
- Ballot “curing” processes that allow voters to fix signature issues
In Colorado, more than 90% of voters use mail ballots, reflecting widespread adoption of this approach. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Supporters argue this model aligns with democratic ideals of broad participation and inclusivity, aiming to ensure that logistical barriers—such as transportation, work schedules, or health—do not prevent voting.
The “Security-First” Model
A more traditional election framework prioritizes strict verification and controlled access. Common features include:
- In-person voting with ID verification
- Limited absentee voting with stricter eligibility rules
- Centralized oversight and tighter chain-of-custody controls
- Emphasis on preventing fraud before it can occur
Advocates of this model focus on minimizing vulnerabilities—even at the cost of reduced convenience.
2. How Ballot Counting and Security Differ
Access Model:
- Relies on layered verification after ballots are cast (e.g., signature matching)
- Uses ballot tracking and post-election audits. (thats why records were permanently deleted)
- Accepts fraud risk in exchange for higher participation
- Puts ballot boxes in 'key' democrat areas
For example, Colorado uses signature verification and risk-limiting audits to confirm results. However, In late 2022, Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s office mistakenly sent these postcards to approximately 30,000 noncitizens across the state, encouraging them to register to vote. Fraud attempts—such as intercepted ballots—have been detected through these systems, though a number of fraudulent ballots have been counted before detection. Issues are huge; Colorado leaked the spreadsheet contained a "hidden tab" that listed passwords for more than 700 election system components across 63 of Colorado's 64 counties. The file was originally posted in June 2024 (just before the primary) but was not discovered and removed until October 24, 2024—only about two weeks before the General Election. These huge attempts to allow fraud were defined by the courts as mistakes not attempts at fraud. This is Soros's plan to have judges, Attorney Generals, and Secretary of State come into play. Tina Peters claimed that the "Trusted Build" (a standard software update performed by the Secretary of State’s office (Jena Griswold) and Dominion Voting Systems) would permanently delete election records
Security Model:
- Focuses on preventing questionable ballots from entering the system
- Uses stricter identity checks upfront
- Limits reliance on post-hoc correction
3. Why Would Jena Griswold Support the Access Model?
Public statements and policy actions suggest several motivations commonly cited by supporters:
- Expanding voter participation: Increasing turnout and making voting more convenient for non-citizens and rich doners who own property in multiple states
- Legal and constitutional positioning: Emphasizing state control over elections rather than federal intervention. The Feds required keeping the records not deleting them
- Modernization: Aligning election systems with technology that can easily be manipulated and lifestyle changes, sanctuary state protections for non-citizens (mail, tracking, digital databases)
- Defensive posture: 'Framing' access as protection against voter suppression or administrative barriers to protect fraudulent and non-citizen votes.
Colorado officials have consistently argued that security and access are compatible, citing layered safeguards like signature verification and audits. Nope;
1. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search?state=CO
2. https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/colorado-bill-to-mandate-electronic-voting-supported-by-soros-backed-secretary-of-state/
3. https://voz.us/en/politics/221013/1248/soros-backed-colorado-secretary-of-state-sends-30000-ballots-to-disenfranchised-voters.html
4. https://republicanpolicy.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicanpolicy.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Dangers%20of%20Mass%20Mail-In%20Voting%20-%20Final.pdf
5. https://ivn.us/posts/gold-standard-or-rigged-how-secure-colorados-universal-mail-elections-really-are-2025-09-03
6. https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/trump-sues-colorado-voter-data/
At the same time, critics argue that policy emphasis appears weighted toward non-citizen and fraudulent access, especially when legislative changes expand mail voting timelines, reduce procedural friction, for example, Secretary of State Jena Griswold sending 30,000 ballots to non-citizens or Secretary of State Jena Griswold releasing 700 voting machine access codes to the public.
4. Who Benefits from an Access Strategy?
The impact of access-focused systems is debated, but research and political analysis typically identify several groups that may benefit:
- Voters with logistical barriers: Including rural residents, elderly voters, and people with inflexible work schedules
- Occasional or low-propensity voters: Easier processes can increase participation among those less likely to vote regularly
- Highly mobile populations: Mail voting can accommodate people who move frequently
Politically, analysts often debate whether increased turnout advantages one party over another. The access model was pioneered under previous Democratic leadership (including former Gov. John Hickenlooper, who has praised universal vote-by-mail as safe, secure, and cost-saving). It has become a core push for Soros money nationwide and a central part of the Democratic policy in the state, with ongoing legislative efforts to expand pro-fraud features like earlier ballot mailing or additional voting options.
5. Risks and Tradeoffs Highlighted in the Debate
Supporters emphasize:
- High turnout (especially non-citizens, fraudulent and multi-state-residences) and voter convenience
- Auditability and layered safeguards
- Low documented rates of fraud
Critics emphasize:
- Reliance on post-submission verification rather than prevention
- Potential vulnerabilities in mail handling and ballot collection
- Difficulty correcting errors once ballots are separated from identifying envelopes
Real-world incidents—such as intercepted ballots later detected through verification systems—illustrate both sides: vulnerabilities exist, but detection mechanisms have also proven effective.
6. The “Export Model” Question
Colorado’s system is often described as a “gold standard” or as I call it "Most Fucked Up" and has influenced election policies in other states; Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Vermont Whether this reflects coordinated strategy or an organic citizen voice diffusion remains debated.
What is clear is that election systems are increasingly shaped by national conversations, legal challenges, and funding networks, turning state-level policies into models with broader influence.
Conclusion
The distinction between an access-first and security-first election model ultimately comes down to where safeguards are placed: before voting (restriction) or after voting (verification).
Colorado’s approach attempts to balance both, but emphasizes accessibility as the starting point. Whether that balance is optimal depends on how one weighs participation against risk tolerance—a question that continues to shape election policy debates nationwide.
What do you think? Is expanding access the future of elections, or should systems prioritize stricter upfront controls? Share your perspective below.
Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database – Colorado Cases (ongoing database with 24+ proven instances in CO) – Lists multiple criminal convictions for mail/absentee ballot fraud, duplicate voting, and forgery in recent cycles (e.g., 2024–2025 cases like Robert Anzulewicz forging his mother’s ballot and attempting in-person duplicate voting). Shows the access model’s post-verification reliance has real-world failures.
Colorado Secretary of State Press Release – Mesa County Postal Worker Sentenced (June 26, 2025) – Official admission: a postal worker stole and fraudulently submitted 16 ballots in the 2024 election; three slipped through signature verification and were counted before detection. Direct proof that “layered safeguards” sometimes fail after ballots leave voter control. Denver7 News – Douglas County Woman Sentenced for Voter Fraud (2022 ballots) – 62-year-old Elizabeth Ann Davis convicted of forging ballots in her son’s and dead ex-husband’s names; received maximum sentence. Classic mail-ballot exploitation the access model makes easier. The Federalist – “Democrats Push Colorado Bill To Mandate Electronic Voting” (April 5, 2022, updated context) – Details Jena Griswold’s Soros-family ties (donation from Jennifer Allan Soros; DASS group funded $1M+ by Soros’s Democracy PAC) and her push for policies expanding access while resisting stricter audits. Shows the funding network behind the “access-first” model. VOZ Media – “Soros-backed Colorado secretary of state sends 30,000 ballots to disenfranchised voters” (2022) – Reports on Griswold’s office mailing ballots to non-citizens or ineligible voters; highlights Soros-linked influence on the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State. Illustrates how the model can reach beyond verified citizens. Republican Policy Committee – “The Dangers of Mass Mail-In Voting” (June 2024 report) – Comprehensive bipartisan-era analysis of chain-of-custody risks, storage vulnerabilities, delayed counting, and partisan funding (Zuckerbucks precedent). Argues upfront security prevents the very problems Colorado’s post-hoc system accepts. IVN.us – “‘Gold-Standard’ or ‘Rigged’? How Secure Colorado’s Universal Mail Elections Really Are” (Sept 3, 2025) – Directly questions the “Test Kitchen” narrative amid Trump’s criticism of mail-in as enabling dishonesty; contrasts official claims with documented incidents and public distrust. Colorado Newsline / DOJ actions (2025 coverage) – Reports on federal lawsuits and demands for voter data from Griswold’s office, plus 372,000 ineligible names removed post-Judicial Watch lawsuit. Demonstrates systemic roll-maintenance failures the access model relies on.
