Colorado November 3, 2020 General | Omniballot User by Workflow Report | SBR usage | |||||||||
-Values- | -rcvd- | -from- | -CO- | -SOS- | -Staff- | Calculated | Values | ||||
County | Accessible | Emergency | UOCAVA | Total Dem Live | SBR | Expected max SBR ? | paper return? | ||||
Adams | 14 | 22 | 802 | 838 | 890 | 824 | -52 | ||||
Alamosa | 0 | 2 | 29 | 31 | 21 | 31 | 10 | ||||
Arapahoe | 42 | 43 | 2263 | 2348 | 2250 | 2306 | 98 | ||||
Archuleta | 1 | 2 | 70 | 73 | 55 | 72 | 18 | ||||
Baca | 3 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 1 | ||||
Bent | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 15 | 8 | -7 | ||||
Boulder | 10 | 36 | 3050 | 3096 | 3083 | 3086 | 13 | ||||
Broomfield | 282 | ||||||||||
Chaffee | 1 | 1 | 85 | 87 | 77 | 86 | 10 | ||||
Cheyenne | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 2 | ||||
Clear Creek | 0 | 1 | 58 | 59 | 72 | 59 | -13 | ||||
Conejos | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 10 | -3 | ||||
Costilla | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 7 | -1 | ||||
Crowley | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | ||||
Custer | 0 | 3 | 41 | 44 | 38 | 44 | 6 | ||||
Delta | 1 | 1 | 62 | 64 | 76 | 63 | -12 | ||||
Denver | 40 | 93 | 3301 | 3434 | 3218 | 3394 | 216 | ||||
Dolores | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | -3 | ||||
Douglas | 10 | 15 | 1484 | 1509 | 1502 | 1499 | 7 | ||||
Eagle | 0 | 2 | 402 | 404 | 426 | 404 | -22 | ||||
Elbert | 0 | 2 | 94 | 96 | 114 | 96 | -18 | ||||
El Paso | 29 | 61 | 3317 | 3407 | 3160 | 3378 | 247 | ||||
Fremont | 1 | 0 | 89 | 90 | 96 | 89 | -6 | ||||
Garfield | 1 | 1 | 216 | 218 | 251 | 217 | -33 | ||||
Gilpin | 1 | 0 | 28 | 29 | 25 | 28 | 4 | ||||
Grand | 0 | 30 | 98 | 128 | 114 | 128 | 14 | ||||
Gunnison | 0 | 0 | 135 | 135 | 133 | 135 | 2 | ||||
Hinsdale | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | -2 | ||||
Huerfano | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 0 | ||||
Jackson | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 0 | ||||
Jefferson | 12 | 33 | 2452 | 2497 | 2404 | 2485 | 93 | ||||
Kiowa | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
Kit Carson | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 7 | -4 | ||||
Lake | 0 | 1 | 12 | 13 | 42 | 13 | -29 | ||||
La Plata | 0 | 3 | 312 | 315 | 287 | 315 | 28 | ||||
Larimer | 8 | 28 | 1556 | 1592 | 1468 | 1584 | 124 | ||||
Las Animas | 0 | 1 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 21 | -1 | ||||
Lincoln | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 1 | ||||
Logan | 3 | 3 | 30 | 36 | 42 | 33 | -6 | ||||
Mesa | 2 | 6 | 335 | 343 | 337 | 341 | 6 | ||||
Mineral | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 2 | ||||
Moffat | 1 | 0 | 22 | 23 | 26 | 22 | -3 | ||||
Montezuma | 0 | 1 | 78 | 79 | 69 | 79 | 10 | ||||
Montrose | 1 | 4 | 92 | 97 | 98 | 96 | -1 | ||||
Morgan | 0 | 1 | 43 | 44 | 50 | 44 | -6 | ||||
Otero | 0 | 1 | 38 | 39 | 44 | 39 | -5 | ||||
Ouray | 0 | 0 | 52 | 52 | 60 | 52 | -8 | ||||
Park | 0 | 1 | 80 | 81 | 102 | 81 | -21 | ||||
Phillips | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | -2 | ||||
Pitkin | 2 | 4 | 231 | 237 | 240 | 235 | -3 | ||||
Prowers | 1 | 1 | 14 | 16 | 12 | 15 | 4 | ||||
Pueblo | 2 | 4 | 251 | 257 | 245 | 255 | 12 | ||||
Rio Blanco | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 17 | 13 | -4 | ||||
Rio Grande | 2 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 4 | -1 | ||||
Routt | 0 | 4 | 206 | 210 | 185 | 210 | 25 | ||||
Saguache | 0 | 0 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 0 | ||||
San Juan | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 10 | -1 | ||||
San Miguel | 0 | 1 | 82 | 83 | 93 | 83 | -10 | ||||
Sedgwick | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | -1 | ||||
Summit | 1 | 1 | 283 | 285 | 268 | 284 | 17 | ||||
Teller | 0 | 0 | 111 | 111 | 100 | 111 | 11 | ||||
Washington | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 5 | -20 | ||||
Weld | 8 | 55 | 571 | 634 | 628 | 626 | 6 | ||||
Yuma | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 | 22 | 17 | -5 | ||||
Totals | 197 | 473 | 22663 | 23333 | 22931 | 23136 | 684 |
Note 1: “Expected max. SBR” return is a total of Emergency plus UOCAVA delivered by Democracy Live. (Accessible is not eligible for electronic return.)
Note 2: “Paper return ?” Is the possible number of ballots delivered by Democracy Live that might have been returned via other than SBR calculated as the difference between use of SBR and total ballots fulfilled by Democracy Live. Only Denver and El Paso counties show an appreciable number of electronically delivered ballots that might have been returned on paper or fax or email.
Note 3: Since in some counties the use of SBR exceeds all use of Omniballot, apparently it was used for other purposes and yet included here.
Note 4: I am consequently hoping for inclusion of Broomfield DL data and a clarification of the uncertainty expressed above.