During two public-comment periods Oct. 21, Washington County residents raised concerns about elections processes, including observer access to ballot-handling, movement of ballot containers in secure areas, flash-drive handling in tabulation computers, and the presence of QR/bar codes that residents said can link ballots or ballot styles to individual voters.

Jill Latray, a Washington County resident of 30 years, said she reviewed the county's vote-by-mail procedures and several video clips and reported observing non-election personnel move large containers through a secure back warehouse area on an election night, batches of ballots removed from tabulated pallets and set aside, and an election manager inserting a flash drive into a tabulation computer then carrying it unescorted to a location not visible to observers. Latray told the board she and others witnessed multiple large mail trays of ballots delivered by a postal carrier over several days after election day; she said reported turnout numbers did not match the volume she observed. Latray asked the county to follow its stated procedures and allow observers to watch all ballot processes in person where not explicitly excluded by law.

Later, Mary Helciopoulos summarized concerns about ballot-identifying marks. She cited the Oregon Voter Bill of Rights and said Washington County's ballots and return envelopes include unique bar codes and QR codes used by print-and-mail vendors to match ballot styles to addresses. Helciopoulos said the county's elections manager had told her there is a point in the process when the link between ballot and envelope is intentionally broken; she asked what happens to the master list that links ballots to envelopes, how it is secured and who has access. Helciopoulos said she had examined QR codes in household ballots and contends each ballot contains a unique identifier; she concluded, "It's clear that electronic voting systems compromise our rights to a secret vote." That sentence was her direct remark to the board.

County elections staff and the elections manager, Dan Forrester, were referenced in both comments; Latray said some questions remained unanswered after conversations with elections staff and that public-records requests had been suggested as a follow-up. The board did not take action in response to the comments during the meeting; public commenters requested that the county allow in-person observation where allowed by law and clarify handling and security of item-level identifiers.