Harry Haury details Unite4Freedom’s federal push to force clean Colorado voter rolls

At the second Kim Monson Community Townhall on June 16, Harry Haury argued that Colorado certified its 2024 election on voter rolls that federal law does not allow, and he laid out the legal campaign his organization is mounting to force the state to prove otherwise.

Haury is a co-founder and chairman of Unite4Freedom, the election-integrity group formerly known as United Sovereign Americans. He spent twenty-five years building workflow-automation and information-assurance software, served as a technical design consultant on voting-system standards and security for the Help America Vote Act, and has held contracts with federal agencies and with sixteen of the twenty-five largest United States banks. He has worked with Kim Monson and her listeners since 2024, when they raised money for the group’s first Colorado election lawsuit.

Haury drew a sharp line between the two tools his group uses. One is the administrative HAVA complaint, filed under Title III of the Help America Vote Act, asking a state to hear evidence that its rolls and counts break federal law. The other is the federal lawsuit that follows when a state refuses to hear the complaint honestly. Colorado, he said, has now produced both.

The Colorado complaint and the suits that follow

Unite4Freedom’s Colorado chapter lead, Mike Cahoon, worked with Peter Bernegger to file a Colorado HAVA complaint on February 20, 2026. The state held a hearing and then dismissed the complaint, Haury said, without doing what HAVA obligates it to do. Two suits will come out of that, he told the community. Bernegger is suing Colorado officials in their individual capacities under federal civil-rights law, on the theory that an official who violates federal law loses the immunity that office would otherwise carry. Unite4Freedom is preparing a separate Colorado suit to force a real administrative hearing.

That fight sits on top of the federal lawsuit Monson’s audience helped fund, filed in Colorado on September 10, 2024 against the state, Secretary of State Jena Griswold, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and the United States Department of Justice. That case, Haury noted, still has no resolution. The newer strategy is meant to move faster. Haury said the group has filed HAVA complaints in states including Missouri, New York, and Colorado, and hopes to file ten to fifteen more before the end of June using a model it can run in thirty-five states. In Missouri, he said, a federal court already ruled that citizens have a right to be heard on a HAVA complaint. On a separate track, the group is filing federal lawsuits that challenge whether a state can certify an election it cannot prove was conducted legally; the first, he said, was filed in Pennsylvania, with Illinois and Texas next.

What the data shows

Haury’s method, he said, does not rely on statistical guesswork. His analysts take a state’s own voter-registration files and voter histories and measure violations of federal registration law directly, then check whether voters with defective registrations were allowed to cast ballots without the provisional or curing process the law requires.

A community member, Candace, asked what the prevailing errors were among the hundreds of thousands of anomalies the group has flagged in Colorado. The answer is in Unite4Freedom’s 2024 Colorado Election Validity Scorecard, compiled from the Colorado Secretary of State’s own data files. The scorecard reports 696,953 total registration violations prohibited by law, 689,520 of them unique, for a 15.2 percent registration error rate in the 2024 general-election rolls. The single largest category is 628,239 records showing a vote cast before the registration date. The scorecard also flags 33,421 registrations backdated for the 2024 primary, 15,216 inactive registrants who had not voted in at least two federal elections, and 14,846 illegal duplicates.

Haury pointed to a separate prevalence study in Jefferson County, where investigators took a random sample of people recorded as having voted and used credit-tracing tools to check whether a person by that name lived at the listed address. Nine percent could not be verified, he said. That does not mean nine percent of voters do not exist; it means the state allowed nine percent of Jefferson County’s electorate to vote without knowing who they were. “The most important thing we do in our lives in this country is to vote, and no one cares who we are,” he said, contrasting the absence of any identity check at the ballot box with the verification a bank requires to open a checking account.

“The evil intent consists in disobedience to the law”

Haury repeatedly returned to a single legal idea: that election officials carry an affirmative duty to follow the law, and that breaking it is misconduct whether or not anyone can prove intent. He traced it to In re Coy, an 1888 Supreme Court decision that holds, in the line Unite4Freedom prints atop every scorecard, that “the evil intent consists in disobedience to the law.” His group does not use the phrase election fraud, he said, because it has collected the wrong associations. It uses election misconduct, and it measures that against the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the records-retention and auditability requirements in federal code.

Auditability was where he placed the most weight. Federal law requires states to keep the records needed to detect and correct election problems for twenty-two months, Haury said, a window he helped negotiate during HAVA’s drafting. Colorado, he argued, has narrowed real auditing into what the state calls a risk-limiting audit, which he described as the examination of a single precinct chosen by the same official whose work is under review. “Auditability infers the ability to audit,” he said, and a state cannot redefine a federal term to mean less than it says.

Questions from the room

Members pressed Haury on the systems and figures behind the headlines. On ERIC, the multistate registration database, he said his group has not audited it directly and has focused instead on the rolls that come out of it; those rolls, he said, carry the same error rates as everywhere else, from six or seven percent to nearly fifty percent in some states. When a member raised Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, he called her a friend and argued she should have been protected as a federal whistleblower for preserving election data rather than prosecuted as aggressively as she was. The system he most admires is the one used in India and Iraq: in-person voting with hand-counted paper ballots and an indelible ink mark on each voter.

Haury closed with his outlook for the 2026 midterms. He expects the fight to grow loud before the election and said his group is positioned to keep litigating after it if it must, pushing states to retain data, reconcile their counts, and submit to real audits before they certify. “Just prove that that person won,” he said. “Show me the data.”

About Unite4Freedom and how to support its work

Unite4Freedom is a non-partisan, volunteer civic organization that says it is the first to forensically audit official election records to measure election misconduct as it is defined in criminal law, work it has now carried out across thirty-five states. The group publishes a state-by-state Election Validity Scorecard and tracks its filings on its litigation page. It funds its forensic investigations, advocacy, and lawsuits through donations and volunteer labor, and says it takes no salaries. Readers can donate or volunteer at unite4freedom.com.