Open-Source Software in Voting Systems
HB1143 would require that, beginning January 1, 2027, any voting system used in Colorado elections incorporate open-source software. The bill defines open-source software as software whose source code is publicly accessible for review, with the stated purpose of allowing independent inspection, security auditing, and verification that the system is working as intended. The measure is framed as an election integrity bill and is intended to support end-to-end verifiability in voting systems.
The bill directs the Secretary of State to adopt rules establishing minimum standards for certification and oversight of open-source software used in voting systems, including requirements to log and publicly disclose updates and modifications. It also requires each county to ensure compliance within existing resources, either by negotiating with its current voting system provider or by seeking competitive bids for cost-effective compliance. Beginning in January 2028 and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must report on implementation, including challenges and benefits, as part of the SMART Act hearing process.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Colorado election law requiring open-source software in voting systems used in state elections and would expand the Secretary of State’s rulemaking and oversight responsibilities. It would also place implementation obligations on counties, while expressly limiting those obligations to existing resources, and could affect procurement, certification, and vendor relationships for voting system providers. The bill would likely influence how voting equipment is designed, audited, and maintained in Colorado.
The available voting history suggests the bill did not have broad committee support. In the House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee, a motion to refer the bill to Appropriations failed 2-8, and the committee then postponed the bill indefinitely by an 8-2 vote. That pattern indicates substantial skepticism or opposition in committee, despite the bill’s stated goal of improving election transparency and security.
The main points of contention appear to be feasibility, cost, and implementation burden. Requiring open-source software could raise concerns about whether existing voting systems can be modified to comply, whether counties can meet the mandate within existing resources, and how certification and security oversight would work in practice. Supporters likely view the bill as a way to improve transparency, auditability, and election integrity, while opponents or undecided members may have focused on operational complexity, vendor constraints, and the potential expense of compliance.