Opinion ID: 2744274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Partial Mootness

Text: Citizen Center challenges three types of county balloting practices: (1) use of a unique number or barcode; (2) use of a unique ballot among the ballots cast on a voting machine; and (3) use of a unique ballot within a 4 We analyze the current regulations, which took effect on December 30, 2013. 10 batch. R. vol. 1, at 25, 27-31, 33-34. Generally, an action becomes moot when someone challenges a regulation and it is repealed. Citizens for Responsible Gov’t State Political Action Comm. v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 1182 (10th Cir. 2000). But, a repeal does not moot the case when the remaining regulations allow continuation of the conduct being challenged. See id. Some of Citizen Center’s challenges became moot with the new regulations. The new regulations address some of the disputed practices by: (1) barring counties from printing ballots with unique numbers or barcodes, and (2) requiring counties to dissociate batch numbers from ballots before final certification of the vote. 8 Colo. Code Regs. §§ 1505-1:4.8.4(a), 1505-1:7.5.8. These regulations moot Citizen Center’s challenges to:
(2) the use of a unique ballot within a batch after final certification of the vote. But the new regulations do not moot the remaining challenges. The clerks point out that the new regulations require counties to print at least ten ballots of each ballot style for each number. Id. § 1505- 1:4.8.4; see Clerks’ Br. at 11. But this requirement does not moot the claims. Though the counties will use ten copies of every ballot style, some ballots may remain traceable because they will be unique among the ballots 11 cast on a single voting machine or within a batch before certification. Therefore, Citizen Center’s challenges are not moot with respect to the use of a unique ballot among the ballots cast on a voting machine and use of a unique ballot within a batch before final certification of the vote.